The introduction of free agency has disportionately favoured clubs that players think will play finals, such as Geelong. It has also loosened up player movement via trades and, again, those players aren't joining teams in the position of Carlton and Gold Coast. Most worrisome, free agency and the freed-up player market has diluted and undermined the impact of the draft system, which is designed to equalise. The weakening of the draft has arguably been exacerbated, too, by northern academies (even though they serve the greater good) and potentially by the next generation academies for multicultural and Indigenous players. Carlton have little choice but to continue down the path of total rebuild, while deploying their old friend, the chequebook, to persuade a couple of uncontracted players - preferably free agents - to come on board. But, assuming the club doesn't have a dramatic turnaround and it doesn't win more than four games this year, the Blues should also apply to the AFL for special assistance in the form of a priority draft pick. The AFL, based on the slightly vague criteria established for priority picks, should give Carlton an extra selection inside the top 20 in the national draft, with one important caveat. Rival clubs will rail against the notion that the Blues deserve a hand-out. They will, not unreasonably, point out - as a couple of long-time (other) club officials already have to this columnist - that Carlton's wounds were self-inflicted, that they've scored spectacular own goals in list management for years, sacked various coaches and, most pertinently, that the Blues have the potential to rise up like Richmond, given their underlying latent support.

Last weekend's loss to Melbourne was a low point for the Blues. Credit:AAP That's all fine. But the AFL should not and cannot make decisions on the basis of a club's virtue, or whether one is more morally "deserving'' than another. Loading Carlton cannot be treated completely differently from, say, the Brisbane Lions or Melbourne, both of which have felt the helping hand of head office. The Lions rightly received a priority pick (No. 19) in 2016, while the Dees more or less became an AFL receivership when Peter Jackson was sent in five years ago. They were blessed, too, to receive pick three in compensation for free agent James Frawley. Clubs in Carlton's position, by definition, have stuffed it up. The salient question should be why Carlton's rebuild is taking so long and how long the supporter base - which, to borrow from John Howard, has seen five minutes of on-field sunshine since 2002 - can take the punishment?

Carlton's record, in a draft system, is something to behold. Since 2001, the Blues have finished bottom four times, in the bottom six nine times and counting - the "sunshine'' evident only from 2009-2011, when Chris Judd was supreme. The argument for a priority pick, however, rests on the 2014-18 period of five years of sustained failure. To date, they've won seven games (2014), four games (2015), seven games (2016), six games (2017) and, as I said, it would be surprising if they sang the song more than four times this year. Two other factors have made it harder for teams to rise up swiftly once they're entrenched in the cellar. One is the sheer number of teams. The second is the compensation picks for free agency. Thus, a team that finishes last or 17th might only get one pick inside the top 20 and two inside 40.

In reality, the priority pick should be in the middle of the first round. The old picks one and two were excessively generous and did encourage tanking - a truth the AFL acknowledged in 2012 (post Melbourne's tanking investigation) by changing the system from a threshold of wins and losses to a system of AFL Commission discretion (they decide if you genuinely need it). But pick 19 arguably doesn't make enough difference, albeit it helps with trading if you can swap picks around. Logically, the priority pick could be given to a prolonged poor team at pick 11, thereby giving every team that doesn't make finals a top 10 pick.