Would the potential signing of Clayton Oliver make Collingwood premiership favourite? Do players have too much power during the trade period?
Let's get to this week's AFL overreactions, where we judge a few major takeaways as legitimate or irrational.
Signing Clayton Oliver would make Collingwood the 2026 flag favourite
Melbourne midfielder Clayton Oliver was told to explore his options this trade period, despite being contracted at the club until 2030. Collingwood has since emerged as one of several teams circling for the signature of the four-time best and fairest winner, in a bid to bolster their ageing midfield brigade.
So, if Oliver was to land at the Magpies, would Craig McRae's team rocket to premiership favouritism?
Verdict: Overreaction
There's no doubt the addition of Oliver would markedly improve Collingwood's list and matchday best 23, but enough to make them the undisputed team to beat next season? Not quite.
Even at Oliver's absolute best it's hard to make the argument the Magpies would be favoured over the likes of Brisbane -- who will be searching for a rare three-peat in 2026 -- and perennial contender Geelong, as well as the Hawks, Giants, and Suns, the latter of which may have a starting midfield group of Matt Rowell, Noah Anderson, and Christian Petracca next year!
But, of course, Oliver hasn't been close to his absolute best for at least 30 months, the 28-year-old dealing with a host of off-field issues in recent seasons. From the beginning of 2020 until the end of 2022, Oliver was the No. 1 ball winner in the league, averaging 17 contested possessions, 7.5 clearances, and five inside 50s per game. Since then, his numbers have dipped across the board, coinciding with Melbourne's plummet down the ladder.
Is Oliver still a top 25, top 30, or top 50 player in the game? It's almost impossible to make the case based on recent evidence. Can he get back to his best with a fresh start at a new club? Maybe.
The Magpies are a bone fide flag chance next year, whether or not they secure Oliver's services. They're more likely to do it with him than without, but I'm not so sure he's as big of a needle-mover in 2025 as he would have been two or three years ago.
-- Jake Michaels
Players have too much power in trade negotiations
Ah yes, the yearly debate that comes around like clockwork. A contracted player nominates a single club they want to move to, and suddenly the balance of power argument fires up. One example this year, among many, is Judd McVee. The young Demon reportedly wants to head back home to Western Australia, but not to West Coast, the team that won just one game in 2025 and might be able to offer a better deal. No. It must be Fremantle, you know, the flag contender. Fair enough that he wants to go home -- I'm not gonna pretend to know every player's personal circumstances -- but should he really get to pick the exact club?
Verdict: Overreaction
-- AFL 2025 player movement tracker: every completed trade, free agency signing, and more
Yes, players have power in trade negotiations, but it's highly circumstantial. There are plenty of examples where clubs hold the cards, too, like moving players on despite being contracted to chase salary cap relief. Likewise, there are cases where the player has all of the leverage, like interstate homesickness or when they hit free agency. The balance does swing back and forth.
It's the targeted club requests that frustrates many people. You want to go home for personal reasons? Absolutely, work together to make it happen. But nominating a contender just because you want a better shot at a premiership? That's when the balance tips too far towards the player.
Still, overall, both parties have power in different situations. Clubs aren't powerless, in the end they can hold players to contracts and play hardball at the trade table if they want (admittedly then the issue of hurting player manager relationships comes into question, which is a whole other topic). And players have leverage through personal circumstances and free agency rules.
It's not so much a constant imbalance, the power does shift back and forth.
But that doesn't mean it's a good look when a player signs a long-term contract, secures the pay check, and with several years remaining on the deal elects to walk because the going's getting tough.
-- Jarryd Barca