If the rules were different, it’s likely Collingwood would have bent their decisions around the rules at the time. If we needed a super early pick for Nick Daicos in 2021, we once again likely wouldn’t have traded out of that draft when we were due to get him.You are wildly missing the point.
The benefit of the current rules mean you can make a dud trade that would have crippled my club but you get a second chance because you can accumulate and trade BS picks to draft Daicos.
Had the rules been fair, let’s say you hand to accumulate a pick within 5 of Nicks draft number. What would you have had to give up?
In all likelihood someone integral to your flag side.
That’s the Crux of this argument. It isn’t that your club has access. It’s the cost of said access and in the example of Naicos. You blew a future trade that turned out to be p2 and it didn’t hurt you one bit.
But everyone goes on about McCartin at P1 or Billings over Bont at 3 etc for my side.
I believe I get what you’re saying about the trade we did in 2020. It had potential to be a hit without actually affecting our chances of getting Daicos in 2021. But Nick Daicos still ends up at Collingwood in every version of events. If you want to speculate about how we would have paid for him if rules were different, such as having to trade out an integral premiership player, I too can speculate that the Magpies would have kept the early pick if it was required to draft him, as opposed to trading it for mid-range picks in 2020.