The idea of a mid-season trade period isn’t new in the AFL, but the novelty might be gaining some momentum as a real item of reform.

Let’s spend today throwing science at the wall and seeing what sticks. Why? Because we’re in the dog days, and this stuff is fun.

Last Thursday, The Australian reported that an AFL-convened think tank had discussed the idea of introducing a mid-season trading for players and draft picks in the AFL in the years ahead.

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Reddit Email Share

This is not a new discussion, but it is the first time I can remember that it’s been on the lips of executives at HQ and in clubland.

Indeed, AFL chief Gillon McLachlan confirmed it was being discussed at very high levels, and could come in as early as next season, on Fox Footy’s AFL Tonight. That seems premature, but it shows the extent to which this is being considered by those that matter.

A mid-season trade period could open up a whole new world of possibilities; it could also lead to an implosion of the league’s economy if implemented with any degree of haste. Let’s put that aside for now, because it interests me far too much to be of interest to anyone else.

It is complicated, and to be effective would require not just legal changes within the AFL ecosystem, but a significant shift in the culture of the game from both those in the game and those who watch it. It’s also not clear that it is needed, but that’s no fun.

For it to work, it would also likely necessitate a change to the AFL CBA’s automatic adoption of ‘no trade clauses’ in AFL player contracts. These clauses mean that no trade can proceed unless the players subject to the trade agree – most other sports don’t have this as a collectively bargained feature of all contracts, and it affords the players an immense amount of power.

A mid-season trade period is ostensibly about the clubs and allowing them to fill holes or build for the future early; trade vetos make that really hard. Good luck with that one, Gil.



Let’s kick the tyres, though. The promise of March has given way to grim, June reality for many teams. Our top eight is set; from here we’re fighting for positions on the September starting grid. There are always surprises – don’t sleep on the Saints, remember – but all told, we’re at the ebb of the home-and-away year.

In a season like this, where so much was decided so soon, the opportunities of an in-season trade period are almost too mind boggling to parse. The locked-in finalists are looking for that one per cent to put them over their rivals, while the sellers are positioning for 2017 and beyond. In the biz we’d call this a liquid market; there are transactions to execute.

Here are four mid-season trades that make too much sense to keep bottled in my twisted football mind.

In the spirit of this place, please bring your own to the table in the comments below, as well as commenting – constructively – on my hand.

Billy Longer (St Kilda) for Caleb Marchbank (Greater Western Sydney)

The GWS Giants’ midfield depth is verging on hilarious – it’s already scary, but within a year or two, if they all stick around, we might be unable to hold back an belly laugh.

The Giants are set at this position for some time, and given the self-fulfilling cycle that GWS have created for themselves (surplus A-grade talent = high draft picks in trades = surplus A-grade talent… you get the idea), it is not an area of pressing need.

They’re a budding juggernaut, and could be 11 games away from hoisting a premiership flag in western Sydney like Neil Armstrong and co. planted a flag on the moon. But they have holes, or weak spots, and need some extra depth in places.

In Round 11 last year, the Giants lost ruckman Shane Mumford and key defender Phil Davis in the same game, which was a significant contributing factor to their slow finish to the 2015 season. Mumford remains their most important player, while Davis plays at the most illiquid position in the league, and allows the medium intercepting-rebounding defenders that the Giants populate their defensive 50 with go to work. Davis has been injured a couple of times this year – including over the weekend just passed – while Mumford hasn’t played a full season in his career to date.



A mid-season trade period would afford the Giants the opportunity to buttress their list at its weakest points. In this case, in the ruck, which is their most pressing concern. To do so, though, they would have to give up something valuable; like Caleb Marchbank, who has been linked to a number of Victorian clubs in recent times.

St Kilda, who are building nicely towards contention in the coming years, have a ruckman that could be considered surplus: Billy Longer. The Saints are an almighty long shot at making the finals this year, are flush with ruckmen all of a sudden, and with Marchbank added to the already-scary-sounding Jake Carlisle-Hugh Goddard key position defender duo from next year onwards, they will be set for a decade.

Longer lost the top dog spot to Tom Hickey this year, despite carrying the load in 2015. St Kilda have been linked with Marchbank, but so have other clubs; dealing for him now could avoid any competition in October.

The Giants might be concerned about losing Marchbank – who plays as a tall defender, their other weak point – and so could ask for someone extra; Dylan Roberton is a handy player, but could be surplus from 2017 onwards.

There are some technical kinks to iron out – it’s a two-for-one, so the Giants would have to have an extra spot open, and GWS also have to reduce their list by two at the end of this season – but otherwise, this one makes sense.

This trade would deliver the Saints their man, and give the Giants some extra depth in the place or places it matters most for them. Longer is currently injured, but should be available after the Giants’ bye this weekend.

Bryce Gibbs (Carlton) for Charlie Cameron and a 2016 first round pick (Adelaide)

The Blues are slightly ahead of schedule on their rebuild, but there’s still some way to go.

Their most glaring area of weakness is in the forward line; a barren wasteland of Levi Casboult and Liam Jones. This is where we bring up the obligatory mention of the players that Carlton has traded away in recent years, and chortle quietly to ourselves.



Adelaide, on the other hand, are an elite midfielder away from making a genuine push at the 2016 premiership – some would say they’re there now. They lost one of them in last year’s trade period, and while those that remained have helped keep the Crows humming along at a high level, I can’t shake the feeling that an injury to one of Rory Sloane or Scott Thompson would be a death blow.

The Crows are stacked forward of the ball – would they consider giving up the 22-year-old Charlie Cameron to inject an elite midfielder that can play both inside and outside, and help them push for the promised land this year? He’d help cover the inevitable loss of Thompson after this year or next, and grow as the veteran cog in a rising midfield.

Cameron’s move to the Blues would help inject some talent into the forward 50 arc, and at 22 he fits the age profile that Carlton is most lacking right now. An extra first round pick, which would be towards the end of the first round if Gibbs were to give the Crows a boost, would help soften the blow of losing your best-performed player in 2016.

Lachie Neale (Fremantle) for Jack Darling (West Coast)

West Coast and Fremantle have never traded. Ever. Why would you ever do business with your direct competitor? I can think of plenty of reasons, but for one reason or another, a trade has never happened. There’s a Berlin wall, a trade embargo, between north and south.

It’s silly, but this season, there’s a trade that makes sense for both parties: elite inside midfielder for very good key position player.

Fremantle’s season was over early, and we’ve checked in with them recently to see what their rebuild plans might look like. The most glaring spot on the roster, both in the short and medium-term, is key position forward.

Cam McCarthy will be a nice addition, Matt Taberner is okay enough, Jesse Hogan is a long shot. It is still going to be a problem position for the Dockers, particularly if they’re building towards a flag in 2020 under Ross Lyon.

West Coast, on the other hand, leave far too much of the inside dirty work to Matt Priddis. He does his job better than most – as an aside, he’s set to hit career highs for contested possession wins and tackles in his 32-year-old season – but Priddis is one man. Jack Redden has been a near total failure as his running mate, and it’s been up to Luke Shuey, who would be much better served playing as a Patrick Dangerfield-style burst player, to pick up the slack.



The Eagles are in danger of being a finalist by name only this year, and given the moves that were made in the haze of a grand final defeat last season, that would be a failure. Fremantle’s Lachie Neale would change that.

The ink is still wet on Neale’s three-year deal to stay at the Dockers, but in this world, players don’t get a full say in where their destiny lies. He’s putting together an incredible season, keeping a young and green Dockers side from being blown completely off the park with his gutsy old school rover stylings. Neale is emerging as a more workmanlike Sam Mitchell, setting up the play from under packs, rather than a step behind packs.

In short, he’s precisely the kind of player West Coast are lacking as a running mate, and eventual successor, to Priddis. Neale is the future of Fremantle, but as we discussed Fremantle’s problems are far more pressing at the pointy end of the ground.

West Coast would have to give up something equally as valuable as Neale is to Fremantle – Jack Darling fits that bill. Darling has, very quietly, put together his best season to date, with 2.2 goals per game, 2.4 marks inside 50 and 6.5 score involvements. His tackling work has fallen away, but that is not a uniqueness in this season’s Eagles.

He wouldn’t solve Fremantle’s problems on his own, but a line up with Taberner, McCarthy and Darling looks a lot like St Kilda’s line up of athletic tall forwards, perhaps with a bit less marking power. That could be provided by a resting, or even 50-50 timeshare of, Nat Fyfe. It could be a deal worth breaking a trade embargo for.

Alex Rance (Richmond) for 2016 first round pick, 2016 second round pick, 2017 first round pick, Tom Papley (Sydney)

This trade is terrifying, but it’s fun to think about the consequences.

If we accept the prevailing wisdom that Richmond are in need of a retool – which I’m not certain of, but that is where the consensus sits – then what better way to do it than trade away one of the best players in the league for a bounty?

Alex Rance is without a shadow of a doubt the best defensive player in the competition. If we had the right tools (#freethestats), I’d be confident that the gap between he and the second best defender in the league – probably Daniel Talia, but that’s open to debate – is larger than the gap between the best and second-best players in every other position.



What’s the use of having that guy, as a defender no less, in a team that’s rebuilding?

He would snugly fit in any team; Sydney is an interesting proposition though, given the impending retirement of Ted Richards and is-he-good play of Heath Grundy. Sydney’s key defensive post is a glaring hole in an otherwise pristine roster. The Swans have a penchant for marquee guys, and would undoubtedly make it work from a salary perspective, because that’s just what they do.

Adding Rance would make this team near-unstoppable at home, and give them the flexibility to play more medium-sized rebounding defenders without giving up too much stopping power.

For the Tigers, an extra three high picks – okay, they’d probably end up being close to the end of the first round in both years, but they’re still valuable – would help build the depth of young talent required to restock the cupboard. 19-year-old Tom Papley gives Richmond a raw small forward to mould, alongside Daniel Rioli who must be good because he’s a Rioli.

North Melbourne might also be heavily into Rance, given their weakness in one-on-one play in their defensive 50, but the real politick of a North-Tigers swap just doesn’t mesh. Plus, Rance doesn’t fit the broader demographics of this current Kangaroo outfit as well as at Sydney.

Give me your fake mid-season trades!

If you haven’t worked it out by now, three of these four trades are far-fetched craziness, designed for fun. But they do illustrate the possibilities that a mid-season trade period could bring; buyers wanting a bit of extra juice in the run home can leverage some assets – young players, fringe dwellers, draft picks – that are tantalising for teams playing the longer game.

This is how it’s supposed to work in the off-season, but it rarely comes to pass. Instead, the pre-ordained deals are those that get done. A mid-season trade period ups the ante by being more immediate; it creates an environment amenable to deal-making.

Will it happen? I tweeted when I saw Patrick Smith’s article late last week that “league mulls over” is almost always code for “league has decided to introduce”. Mid-season trades will become a reality in the not-too-distant future – perhaps as soon as next year, but I’d consider that premature given the culture shock involved. The League might push ahead anyway.



The bye period is almost over, with regular, nine-game programming to resume next Thursday. We’ll talk football then. For now, give me your fake mid-season trades, because it’s fun, and football is all about having fun.

And who knows, they might just become reality in 2017.