• The trade ladder: Where did your club rank?
• WATCH: The Trade wrap part one
• WATCH: The Trade wrap part two
WHEN Damien Hardwick wrote that clubs should be able to trade players yet to qualify for free agency without their consent, it seemed he had spent one too many mind-warping days in the Richmond coach's box.
It was a radical idea that Hardwick put forward in February on AFL.com.au, one that went totally against how things had been done in the modern era of player trading.
But after this year's trade period we think Hardwick might be on to something.
The practice of first- to seventh-year players nominating their preferred new homes has skewed the balance of power in trade negotiations too far in the players' favour.
Generally, players can get to where they want to go well before they've fulfilled free agency's minimum eight years' service.
And they know it.
Over the past two weeks, Essendon would have happily traded Jake Carlisle to Hawthorn for picks No.15 and 18 but for the key defender's insistence on a move to St Kilda.
The Brisbane Lions would have preferred to trade James Aish to North Melbourne rather than Collingwood because dealing directly with North offered a relatively straightforward deal centred around out-of-favour Roo midfielder Ryan Bastinac.
Similarly, Melbourne was itching to trade Jeremy Howe to Gold Coast to take up a proposed deal that would have, among other things, seen it acquire the Suns' No.3 pick in exchange for its No.6 pick.
But Howe's insistence on getting to Collingwood scuttled those plans – even if the Demons were about to snag pick No.3 in a separate trade.
Players nominating their preferred new club is no new phenomena.
Ahead of the trade period, Giant Adam Treloar nominated Collingwood, Blue Lachie Henderson Geelong and Sun Charlie Dixon Port Adelaide.
While the Henderson trade went through smoothly – what trade doesn't when Geelong is involved? – the Treloar and Dixon deals were protracted affairs as the Giants and Suns scrambled to salvage satisfactory deals.
No one questions a player's right to pursue a move to the club offering him the most lucrative deal. And rightly so.
But does that right need to be balanced against the right of the player's club to extract the best possible trade deal it can? Even if that deal comes from a club that is not the player's nominated new home?
Is it fair that a club's only real recourse in the existing pick-your-club landscape is the cut-off-your-nose option of forcing the player into the draft for no return?
We're not saying Hardwick's no-consent proposal is necessarily the way forward.
The notion of clubs being able to send players to the other side of the country without any say in it doesn't sit well.
But neither does the situation the Lions faced at the end of 2013, when five second- and third-year players – Jared Polec (Port Adelaide), Elliot Yeo (West Coast), Sam Docherty (Carlton), Billy Longer (St Kilda) and Patrick Karnezis (Collingwood) – all arrived at their nominated new homes at bargain-basement rates.
What if those wantaway Lions had been required to nominate at least another club – perhaps two for those seeking to move to Victoria – that they were happy to play at?
It would have given the Lions more leverage and surely would have produced fairer deals.
Free agency has changed the player movement landscape over the past four years, so perhaps it's time to consider tweaking the rules relating to trading.
Any changes to non-free agent movement rights could be balanced by reducing the free agency qualification period to, say, six years.
But whatever happens we need to ensure there is a genuine distinction between the rights of uncontracted players and those who qualify as free agents.
