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

[cdcanman]

390k v 550k is a big difference, whilst not being overs from hawks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The figure has been reported to be as high as 700k from Hawthorn.
I think this makes more sense. Can't imagine Sydney are offering as little as 390k. That's just disrespectful. He's on more than that now. Signed a reasonable deal at his last extension to ensure he stayed with interest from elsewhere.
Difference said to be 150k between the 2 offers. I think 700k vs 550k is much more realistic.

I don't have any real knowledge of the situation, just trying to read the tea leaves.

 

[Rion]

Can't see how the Hawks could get both this and the O'Meara trade done. Need 2 early-mid first rounders (pick 10ish) and they don't even have one currently. Not sure other clubs value the Hawk's fringe players as much as Hawthorn do.

 

[Furn2]

Anything more than a late first for a player you value at $390k a year is dreaming. Thats half what Tippett is on.

 

[cdcanman]

How is Sydney only offering Mitchell $380k per season- an actual reduction on his current deal when he has become a full blown regular in their side?
To be honest, Mitchell should be a little insulted at the offer and you can't begrudge him if he decides to move to Hawthorn.

Those figures are BS. They make no sense

 

[Procrastinator35]

Sorry dude, that's more delusional than some of the Crows fans who thought Danger was gonna stay !!

The Buddy & Tippett deals are starting to bite.

The figure has been reported to be as high as 700k from Hawthorn.
I think this makes more sense. Can't imagine Sydney are offering as little as 390k. That's just disrespectful. He's on more than that now. Signed a reasonable deal at his last extension to ensure he stayed with interest from elsewhere.
Difference said to be 150k between the 2 offers. I think 700k vs 550k is much more realistic.

I don't have any real knowledge of the situation, just trying to read the tea leaves.

$7OOk I'd doubt...More likely to be 600k as compared with 450k max.

 

[halfback dasher]

Can't see how the Hawks could get both this and the O'Meara trade done. Need 2 early-mid first rounders (pick 10ish) and they don't even have one currently. Not sure other clubs value the Hawk's fringe players as much as Hawthorn do.

Please define our "fringe" players ....

 

[Procrastinator35]

Can't see how the Hawks could get both this and the O'Meara trade done. Need 2 early-mid first rounders (pick 10ish) and they don't even have one currently. Not sure other clubs value the Hawk's fringe players as much as Hawthorn do.

LOL....Loving the hyperbole.

O'Meara hasn't played for 2 years....Our 2017 first pick & the Hill trade will get it done....This years first will suffice for Mitchell with some pick swaps & steak knives thrown in.

 

[thePhoenix]

Its so funny how everyone likes to jump all over Hawthorn. Shouldn't Sydney supporters be thanking us for Josh Kennedy and Lance Franklin. Two of the best players in the afl that we gave you. We could have matched Lance Franklins offer and forced you to trade. Unlike most of the people on this board football clubs are generally run by reasonable people who can see the bigger picture with most things. Hawthorn have always proved to be reasonable in regards to trades. Brad Hill wants to go home a triple premiership player who is under 23. Does the club start grandstanding saying that they are going to force the best possible deal for themselves NO. They say they will help facilitate a move for him to get him where he wants to go. Players want to play for well run professional clubs instead of whinging about it clubs should try and make themselves a destination club.

 

[Tedeski]

The figure has been reported to be as high as 700k from Hawthorn.
I think this makes more sense. Can't imagine Sydney are offering as little as 390k. That's just disrespectful. He's on more than that now. Signed a reasonable deal at his last extension to ensure he stayed with interest from elsewhere.
Difference said to be 150k between the 2 offers. I think 700k vs 550k is much more realistic.

I don't have any real knowledge of the situation, just trying to read the tea leaves.

Speaking of disrespectful, that would be an insult to the triple p'ship players at Hawks. No way Hawks will pay that. Very contradicting comments on here from Hawk supporters.
One might be excused for thinking that perhaps none of you have a clue!

 

[cdcanman]

The Buddy & Tippett deals are starting to bite.


$7OOk I'd doubt...More likely to be 600k as compared with 450k max.

450k still less than Mitchell is on now.
If that is the case, I can't imagine Sydney will have the nerve to drive too hard a bargain at the trade table. Can't expect a player of his ability to playing for 450k.

I don't think the numbers are correct though. Just doesn't make sense to me

 

[cdcanman]

Speaking of disrespectful, that would be an insult to the triple p'ship players at Hawks. No way Hawks will pay that. Very contradicting comments on here from Hawk supporters.
One might be excused for thinking that perhaps none of you have a clue!

I'm not having a go at your footy club Tedeski. I seriously doubt they would be offering as little as is being suggested on BF. They have a history and indeed culture of treating their guys well. I say it would be disrespectful because seriously doubt it is happening, not because I believe Sydney are doing so.
As for what HFC are willing to offer, I think you have to offer these types of dollars to get quality players to move clubs. In Mitchell's case, he's got a pretty good thing going on in Sydney. For him to leave, he'd have to have quite an incentive to do so?
Hawthorn's veterans will know exactly what they are signing up for. They are taking less for the expressed purpose of being able to sign quality high-end talent in order to keep their window open for one last roll of the dice. They know in approx. terms what it will take. If they weren't willing to accept talent coming in on big dollars, why accept signing on for less in the first place? That's the sole reason for them doing so, isn't it?

 

[bungwahl]

Anything more than a late first for a player you value at $390k a year is dreaming. Thats half what Tippett is on.

Still no evidence that this figure is remotely true. BigFooty economics at it's finest.

 

[bungwahl]

450k still less than Mitchell is on now.
If that is the case, I can't imagine Sydney will have the nerve to drive too hard a bargain at the trade table. Can't expect a player of his ability to playing for 450k.

I don't think the numbers are correct though. Just doesn't make sense to me

If the option is to take a low ball offer that strengthens a key competitor, then the Swans would be better off letting him walk to Essendon.

 

[bradburygold]

The figure has been reported to be as high as 700k from Hawthorn.
I think this makes more sense. Can't imagine Sydney are offering as little as 390k. That's just disrespectful. He's on more than that now. Signed a reasonable deal at his last extension to ensure he stayed with interest from elsewhere.
Difference said to be 150k between the 2 offers. I think 700k vs 550k is much more realistic.

I don't have any real knowledge of the situation, just trying to read the tea leaves.

There is no world where we pay him over 600 let alone 700, especially when he approached us


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bungwahl]

Its so funny how everyone likes to jump all over Hawthorn. Shouldn't Sydney supporters be thanking us for Josh Kennedy and Lance Franklin. Two of the best players in the afl that we gave you. We could have matched Lance Franklins offer and forced you to trade. Unlike most of the people on this board football clubs are generally run by reasonable people who can see the bigger picture with most things. Hawthorn have always proved to be reasonable in regards to trades. Brad Hill wants to go home a triple premiership player who is under 23. Does the club start grandstanding saying that they are going to force the best possible deal for themselves NO. They say they will help facilitate a move for him to get him where he wants to go. Players want to play for well run professional clubs instead of whinging about it clubs should try and make themselves a destination club.

Solid first post... ...

You didn't "give" us JPK, we traded for him. You also couldn't match Buddy's offer to force us to trade, hence you didn't.

Agree with you that the Hawks are typically a good club to trade with, so if Mitchell does indeed go to Hawthorn I'd expect a fair trade will be agreed.

 

[bungwahl]

There is no world where we pay him over 600 let alone 700, especially when he approached us

Reference?

 

[cdcanman]

If the option is to take a low ball offer that strengthens a key competitor, then the Swans would be better off letting him walk to Essendon.

I don't suspect either of our clubs will be attempting to low ball or hold the other over a barrel.
I'm confident a suitable deal will get done with a minimum of fuss.

 

[Roughies Boys]

There is no world where we pay him over 600 let alone 700, especially when he approached us


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not a Ryan O'Keefe situation..

 

[bungwahl]

I don't suspect either of our clubs will be attempting to low ball or hold the other over a barrel.
I'm confident a suitable deal will get done with a minimum of fuss.

I agree, both clubs are fair traders.

For the purpose of the debate it's just difficult to see how Hawthorn will find enough value to get the trade done. If you win the flag and offer pick 18, the Swans would be better off shopping Mitchell to GC, Carlton, Melb, Bris, Richmond, etc.

 

[MC_9]

Its so funny how everyone likes to jump all over Hawthorn. Shouldn't Sydney supporters be thanking us for Josh Kennedy and Lance Franklin. Two of the best players in the afl that we gave you. We could have matched Lance Franklins offer and forced you to trade. Unlike most of the people on this board football clubs are generally run by reasonable people who can see the bigger picture with most things. Hawthorn have always proved to be reasonable in regards to trades. Brad Hill wants to go home a triple premiership player who is under 23. Does the club start grandstanding saying that they are going to force the best possible deal for themselves NO. They say they will help facilitate a move for him to get him where he wants to go. Players want to play for well run professional clubs instead of whinging about it clubs should try and make themselves a destination club.

They honestly have a very unhealthy hatred toward Hawthorn. Despite the fact their 2 best players came from Hawthorn, for a bag of chips.

But apparently we have the audacity to talk to their 4th best midfielder.

 

[Roughies Boys]

I agree, both clubs are fair traders.

For the purpose of the debate it's just difficult to see how Hawthorn will find enough value to get the trade done. If you win the flag and offer pick 18, the Swans would be better off shopping Mitchell to GC, Carlton, Melb, Bris, Richmond, etc.

Already worked it out, first rounder if it is 18 & second rounder for Mitchell & third rounder.

 

[Rion]

Please define our "fringe" players ....

Hartung, Whitecross, Sicily, Langford, Howe and a couple others. None of those scream future gun to me...

 

[Roughies Boys]

Hartung, Whitecross, Sicily, Langford, Howe and a couple others. None of those scream future gun to me...

Ah Sicily yes the others are role players.

 

[Rion]

LOL....Loving the hyperbole.

O'Meara hasn't played for 2 years....Our 2017 first pick & the Hill trade will get it done....This years first will suffice for Mitchell with some pick swaps & steak knives thrown in.

You'll offer that for O'Meara and GC won't be interested in the slightest. They've got more than enough middling to average picks in the draft, they either need quality picks (think top 10) or experienced talent like a Hartlett type.

If Mitchell was in this years draft where do you think he would go? I'd easily take him in the top 10....

 

[bungwahl]

Already worked it out, first rounder if it is 18 & second rounder for Mitchell & third rounder.

We're going to be limited on the number of picks we take to the draft too, so I think deal is more appealing if we've found a way to turn 18 + 36 in to pick 9 or 10.

On the Gold Coast board they said pick 6, on-traded from Richmond, was fair. If Mitchell decides he wants to leave the Swans will shop him around for sure.