Traded Tom Mitchell [traded to Hawthorn with pick 57 for pick 14 & 52]

[Two Planks]

Cats will end up with a top 10 pick for Mitchell which is probably overs. However if the cats let go a lot of there older players there might be up to 7 spots on the list. They may be willing to offer pick 8ish for Mitchell and a fringe player like Naismith, Nankervis, Towers, Marsh or Robinson.

 

[Turbocat]

Not here to banter price.

More so musing as to why he isn't getting a game in the first place. It was viewed as work rate. IMO should get a call up for an injured Heeney or McGlynn.

As an aside if looking for price, look at the JOR trade and then add a bit more due to afl exposure.

None of us can banter price... we have no real idea of what a club will have to pay or be wiling to. One may always find a club more than able to trade more than another for a player. JOR was p2 traded for p19 and a bit of icing. Mitchell was p21 so , same as JOR down almost a round .... maybe add a bit but 9 games v 20 is hardly a huge difference in experience.

If he came into the Swans side played 5 or 10 more games with good attributes he may well get what was originally used on him.

 

[Turbocat]

Cats will end up with a top 10 pick for Mitchell which is probably overs. However if the cats let go a lot of there older players there might be up to 7 spots on the list. They may be willing to offer pick 8ish for Mitchell and a fringe player like Naismith, Nankervis, Towers, Marsh or Robinson.

sort of what I was saying above TP. Not sure of who though.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

None of us can banter price... we have no real idea of what a club will have to pay or be wiling to. One may always find a club more than able to trade more than another for a player. JOR was p2 traded for p19 and a bit of icing. Mitchell was p21 so , same as JOR down almost a round .... maybe add a bit but 9 games v 20 is hardly a huge difference in experience.

If he came into the Swans side played 5 or 10 more games with good attributes he may well get what was originally used on him.

Mitchell would have gone top 5 or top 10 at worst if he hadn't been a F/S selection.

 

[dlanod]

Mitchell would have gone top 5 or top 10 at worst if he hadn't been a F/S selection.

GWS were in a bidding war with Sydney for him - they wanted to take him at pick 1, Sydney wanted him to nominate as a father/son. It's part of way Mitchell's on a relatively crazy wage for a 20 game player.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

GWS were in a bidding war with Sydney for him - they wanted to take him at pick 1, Sydney wanted him to nominate as a father/son. It's part of way Mitchell's on a relatively crazy wage for a 20 game player.

Makes sense.

 

[Turbocat]

Mitchell would have gone top 5 or top 10 at worst if he hadn't been a F/S selection.

One advantage of the current system , is to benchmark a worth I guess. Melb was willing to use P2 on Heeny for instance.
But TM was drafted using P21 , and in relevance to JOR who was drafted P2 he is a player worth less. Not securing a regular spot diminishes nearly all players

 

[Membling]

None of us can banter price... we have no real idea of what a club will have to pay or be wiling to. One may always find a club more than able to trade more than another for a player. JOR was p2 traded for p19 and a bit of icing. Mitchell was p21 so , same as JOR down almost a round .... maybe add a bit but 9 games v 20 is hardly a huge difference in experience.

If he came into the Swans side played 5 or 10 more games with good attributes he may well get what was originally used on him.

Yeah, think we would hold if this was on offer. An upgrade of our first rounder would probably be around what would get it done at the minute depending on the picks as they stand at the end of the year. Doubt we would take a second rounder for him if we are even considering moving him along. Yes, even considering Mills and Dunks situation.

 

[Turbocat]

Yeah, think we would hold if this was on offer. An upgrade of our first rounder would probably be around what would get it done at the minute depending on the picks as they stand at the end of the year. Doubt we would take a second rounder for him if we are even considering moving him along. Yes, even considering Mills and Dunks situation.

As with most of these thing , the players inputs is key. So far all I have heard from TM is ..stay and get in the SS side. So when does his contract finish?
I wonder if he will feel like that with Mills and Dunkley on the horizon.

If he changes to a "I want out" then there will be several clubs interested Im sure. Once that happens we will see what the deal is. Carlton finishes with P5 for instance or Geelong with P10.... I doubt that either will give that for TM alone. R2 , no doubt.

 

[Membling]

As with most of these thing , the players inputs is key. So far all I have heard from TM is ..stay and get in the SS side. So when does his contract finish?
I wonder if he will feel like that with Mills and Dunkley on the horizon.

If he changes to a "I want out" then there will be several clubs interested Im sure. Once that happens we will see what the deal is. Carlton finishes with P5 for instance or Geelong with P10.... I doubt that either will give that for TM alone. R2 , no doubt.

Contract is up next year. End 2016 IIRC

He may want out this year, but with contract, we still hold some weight in negotiations. R 2 seems unders for swans and 10 or 5 well over. If he was to go, the main thing would be to get the most points out of him eg pick downgrades such as swapping first and seconds, first rounder somewhere or multiple seconds. It would have to advantage us in getting Mills and Dunkley. A round 2 alone wouldn't be worth many points overall for the Mills and Dunkley situation.

 

[The Redemption]

There has to be issues there as to why he has not cracked the Swans 22. Yes I know that the Swans are damn good however if he is rated as highly as Bigfooty suggests, he should be getting games

 

[Turbocat]

Contract is up next year. End 2016 IIRC

He may want out this year, but with contract, we still hold some weight in negotiations. R 2 seems unders for swans and 10 or 5 well over. If he was to go, the main thing would be to get the most points out of him eg pick downgrades such as swapping first and seconds, first rounder somewhere or multiple seconds. It would have to advantage us in getting Mills and Dunkley. A round 2 alone wouldn't be worth many points overall for the Mills and Dunkley situation.

In contract you have some "Hand" no doubt. I have no heard anything from TM, has anyone? It may get down to just how much you need early picks to get Mills and Dunkley. Geelong's need will probably be players if the do have a clear out. Balance that with its been years since we really had early picks in the draft... so id be willing to trade for players if they are good enough. ..ie we could get 2 players under 25 that become real chances to best 22.
On the other hand Swans may have no trouble getting the picks. Zac Jones to Melb?

 

[Membling]

There has to be issues there as to why he has not cracked the Swans 22. Yes I know that the Swans are damn good however if he is rated as highly as Bigfooty suggests, he should be getting games

Behind our on-ball brigade but from what I have heard, coaches cracking down on his defensive running. Has subsequently raised his r50 count in past few. Will see him this round hopefully.

In contract you have some "Hand" no doubt. I have no heard anything from TM, has anyone? It may get down to just how much you need early picks to get Mills and Dunkley. Geelong's need will probably be players if the do have a clear out. Balance that with its been years since we really had early picks in the draft... so id be willing to trade for players if they are good enough. ..ie we could get 2 players under 25 that become real chances to best 22.
On the other hand Swans may have no trouble getting the picks. Zac Jones to Melb?

Depends if we wish to scuttle our 2016 draft. If I was our recruitment team, would be trying to get 1000-1500 points if mitchell does want to go. That could be anything from pick 10 outright to fourth round pick to second and a third to second rounder. Just the way it is at the moment.

Jones Jr to Melbourne would make sense but like to think of him as Shaw's heir apparent

 

[manny100]

In contract you have some "Hand" no doubt. I have no heard anything from TM, has anyone? It may get down to just how much you need early picks to get Mills and Dunkley. Geelong's need will probably be players if the do have a clear out. Balance that with its been years since we really had early picks in the draft... so id be willing to trade for players if they are good enough. ..ie we could get 2 players under 25 that become real chances to best 22.
On the other hand Swans may have no trouble getting the picks. Zac Jones to Melb?

The Swans will have enough ammunition to land Mills with their end of year draft picks - no problems as they get a 25% discount for academy players. They will likely need to trade for a mid - late first rounder and 3rd rounder if they want Dunkley assuming a bid by another club around pick 8ish. The Swans will be hoping for a bid 10plus. The Swans problem will be that other clubs will know what they need in terms of picks and try to screw them big time. I can see the Cats bidding but a pick 10 would be way to high on its own. Pick 14+ would be more like it. Towers as steak knives might be interesting - big and quick.

 

[dlanod]

The Swans will have enough ammunition to land Mills with their end of year draft picks - no problems as they get a 25% discount for academy players. They will likely need to trade for a mid - late first rounder and 3rd rounder if they want Dunkley assuming a bid by another club around pick 8ish. The Swans will be hoping for a bid 10plus. The Swans problem will be that other clubs will know what they need in terms of picks and try to screw them big time. I can see the Cats bidding but a pick 10 would be way to high on its own. Pick 14+ would be more like it. Towers as steak knives might be interesting - big and quick.

The other option, in the currently mooted system, would be to take Dunkley anyway in the knowledge that it will effectively downgrade their first round pick next year to oblivion. If they know they have no corresponding top tier academy or father/son talent in 2016, they could consider that a fair exchange (Mills for this year, Dunkley for next).

 

[Turbocat]

The other option, in the currently mooted system, would be to take Dunkley anyway in the knowledge that it will effectively downgrade their first round pick next year to oblivion. If they know they have no corresponding top tier academy or father/son talent in 2016, they could consider that a fair exchange (Mills for this year, Dunkley for next).

You may have better feel for this new system than I... If Mills is early bid( seems he basically equal to Heeney) and Dunkley a mid R1 , what will they need?
Imo , Mills will not get past GWS in bidding who is below them who knows.

 

[dlanod]

You may have better feel for this new system than I... If Mills is early bid( seems he basically equal to Heeney) and Dunkley a mid R1 , what will they need?
Imo , Mills will not get past GWS in bidding who is below them who knows.

It's a real pain in the arse to calculate, but an early first round bid is probably equivalent to most of Sydney's draft, and a mid first round bid would then be roughly equivalent to Sydney's first round pick the following year (assuming Sydney has another good year, as they always do). Under the new system Sydney could have traded players out to get additional picks to help fulfill some of these requirements because the bidding is done on draft night instead of pre-trade period.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

If Sydney can turn their first and second rounders from 2015 and 2016 (likely to be picks between 16-18 and 34-36) into Mills and Dunkley (apparently effectively top 5 picks), that's a big win for them. Not sure if this is how it works though.

 

[Damon_3388]

There has to be issues there as to why he has not cracked the Swans 22. Yes I know that the Swans are damn good however if he is rated as highly as Bigfooty suggests, he should be getting games

Maybe people on BigFooty have just overrated him?

I don't really think there's anyone in that Swans midfield who he's categorically better than, or that he would offer a ton more than ATM, that's really "robbing" him of a place:

B: Dane Rampe - Ted Richards - Nick Smith
HB: Rhyce Shaw - Heath Grundy - Jarrad McVeigh
C: Craig Bird - Daniel Hannebery - Jake Lloyd
HF: Lewis Jetta - Lance Franklin - Luke Parker
F: Isaac Heeney - Kurt Tippett - Sam Reid
R: Mike Pyke - Josh Kennedy - Kieren Jack
I: Gary Rohan - Jeremy Laidler - Harry Cunningham - Adam Goodes
E: Dean Towers - Ben McGlynn - Tom Derickx

Who "should" Mitchell be getting a game ahead of at the moment?

 

[Two Planks]

Maybe people on BigFooty have just overrated him?

I don't really think there's anyone in that Swans midfield who he's categorically better than, or that he would offer a ton more than ATM, that's really "robbing" him of a place:

B: Dane Rampe - Ted Richards - Nick Smith
HB: Rhyce Shaw - Heath Grundy - Jarrad McVeigh
C: Craig Bird - Daniel Hannebery - Jake Lloyd
HF: Lewis Jetta - Lance Franklin - Luke Parker
F: Isaac Heeney - Kurt Tippett - Sam Reid
R: Mike Pyke - Josh Kennedy - Kieren Jack
I: Gary Rohan - Jeremy Laidler - Harry Cunningham - Adam Goodes
E: Dean Towers - Ben McGlynn - Tom Derickx

Who "should" Mitchell be getting a game ahead of at the moment?

Adam Goodes
Harry Cunningham
Gary Rohan
Jeremy Laidler

 

[Butler]

Adam Goodes
Harry Cunningham
Gary Rohan
Jeremy Laidler

Cunningham and Rohan provide run that Mitchell doesn't. Laidler offers versatility in defence and Goodes isn't playing anyway. Mitchell is fighting Heeney and McGlynn for their spots. McGlynn had a great year last year and Heeney has started off very well.

 

[Damon_3388]

Mitchell is fighting Heeney and McGlynn for their spots. McGlynn had a great year last year and Heeney has started off very well.

It's arguable where Mitchell really fit the half forward/forward pocket role like those two do, too.

I could understand the fuss if they were a dud team with clear spuds getting a game ahead of him (eg. Carlton and Dylan Buckley), but they're a strong side where he doesn't have an obvious role. Nobody "deserves" a game at AFL level. He needs his reserves form to coincide with a space opening up in the seniors.

 

[Two Planks]

Cunningham and Rohan provide run that Mitchell doesn't. Laidler offers versatility in defence and Goodes isn't playing anyway. Mitchell is fighting Heeney and McGlynn for their spots. McGlynn had a great year last year and Heeney has started off very well.

They got flogged in the gf because they couldn't win the footy. Lloyd, Rohan and Cunningham were soft and it didnt matter how much run they offered.

 

[Butler]

They got flogged in the gf because they couldn't win the footy. Lloyd, Rohan and Cunningham were soft and it didnt matter how much run they offered.

You still need people to play on the wing/flanks and provide run. No point having an inside midfielder on the wing. It's up to Parker, Kennedy, Jack, Hannebery etc to win the footy inside, if they aren't then Mitchell would come into consideration to replace them. Or he will play at half forward and rotate into the middle like McGlynn does.

He is simply playing in a side that is well stocked in his position. It's arguable that Sydney and Fremantle would be the only teams that he wouldn't be getting a gig atm (Hawthorn have enough flexibility to fit him in, Port without Wines and Gray).

 

[Swansujelly]

on current form, MeGlynn, but on form McGlynn offers a little more. However, I would prefer to see McGlynn forward more than through the mid than he played last year. I think Parker has taken the spot penciled in for Mitchell when he was drafted, then injuries and Parkers rise has lost it for him.