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

[Tedeski]

lol umm nope. Mitchell was list strategy but not just for this year

Ah that's right!

It's all positive when the Hawks do something that looks desperate but all doom & gloom when the Swans move a player on.

What a club Hawthorn is!

 

[TheFourPillars]

Ah that's right!

It's all positive when the Hawks do something that looks desperate but all doom & gloom when the Swans move a player on.

What a club Hawthorn is!

Who said anything about the swans?

 

[CaptainChardonnay]

Yes, but based on reports at the time it wasn't really providing income, and was costing more than it was bringing in. The implications were that running an AFL themed pokie venue in an NRL heartland made it difficult to turn a profit. This was a few years ago now, and I'd hope the AFL profile has grown since then, so perhaps it might work now, but it didn't sound like it was viable at that time.

It was once a very popular venue. A change in on site management and a few tweaks and it could of been once again.

 

[Better]

I know this deal has been confirmed, but why has the paperwork not been lodged 24 hours later?

 

[grimlock]

I know this deal has been confirmed, but why has the paperwork not been lodged 24 hours later?

Because it won't officially happen until the later picks are finalised, which are probably dependent on the JOM trade.

 

[Artax]

The later swap confirmed as 57 for 52. Bit of a letdown.

 

[hk89]

The later swap confirmed as 57 for 52. Bit of a letdown.

Agreed, but not as much of a letdown as finding we've moved his namesake for pick 88 (or effectively 70 when the slight upgrades are considered) :-(

 

[bungwahl]

The later swap confirmed as 57 for 52. Bit of a letdown.

Crazy considering how quickly we agreed the deal.

 

[Procrastinator35]

The later swap confirmed as 57 for 52. Bit of a letdown.

Yeah true....But when you consider we gave up our Mitchell for zilch....It's better than nothing.

Reckon we've also sent a shot over Cochrane's bow by it too.

 

[hk89]

Yeah true....But when you consider we gave up our Mitchell for zilch....It's better than nothing.

Reckon we've also sent a shot over Cochrane's bow by it too.

Certainly attempts to take the moral high ground in terms of not being seen to impede the movement of our players when they are offered opportunities elsewhere. However, I suspect it shoots ourselves in the foot. Cochrane now knows Wright will be risking a lynching if he doesn't land JOM after giving away Sam for effectively nothing, and will bargain accordingly.

 

[burningdwarf]

Sydney have got to be the best club there is to deal with? Can't really remember them causing great difficulty in a deal.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Certainly attempts to take the moral high ground in terms of not being seen to impede the movement of our players when they are offered opportunities elsewhere. However, I suspect it shoots ourselves in the foot. Cochrane now knows Wright will be risking a lynching if he doesn't land JOM after giving away Sam for effectively nothing, and will bargain accordingly.

Nope....The more he delays, the more he risks losing Jaeger to us for zilch, in the PSD....We can front-end the contract for 1.2 million now, with the departure of Sammy & the other 3 vets next year.

Cochrane has zero leverage left now.

 

[hk89]

Nope....The more he delays, the more he risks losing Jaeger to us for zilch, in the PSD....We can front-end the contract for 1.2 million now

I thought so too, but apparently the contracts need to be at least 2 years, and you only need to match the average per year. I can see us having enough cap space to offer 1.2 million for 1 year, but not 2. I reckon "the fans will kill you if you don't get JOM now" is more than zero leverage.

 

[apiro]

Yeah true....But when you consider we gave up our Mitchell for zilch....It's better than nothing.

Reckon we've also sent a shot over Cochrane's bow by it too.

Not really zilch....one of the picks (52)we got for Sammy has been used in the Titch deal.

 

[Vindicater]

I thought #14 for Mitchell was fair.

So a minscule win by the Swans in my book to upgrade a pick.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I thought so too, but apparently the contracts need to be at least 2 years, and you only need to match the average per year. I can see us having enough cap space to offer 1.2 million for 1 year, but not 2. I reckon "the fans will kill you if you don't get JOM now" is more than zero leverage.

In that case....We make the initial contract for 2 years @ $2.5 mill....Eazy-peasy.

 

[asanque]

Hopefully #14 and #53 for Mitchell and #56

Closest to the pin?

 

[The_Steadier]

I thought so too, but apparently the contracts need to be at least 2 years, and you only need to match the average per year. I can see us having enough cap space to offer 1.2 million for 1 year, but not 2. I reckon "the fans will kill you if you don't get JOM now" is more than zero leverage.

Plus it is a severe underestimation to assume the suns wont be prepared to lose jaeger for nothing.

They can and will lose him for nothing before they accept what they consider a crap deal from hawthorn.

That's a lot of leverage right there.

Hawthorn have a lot more to lose than the suns if a deal doesn't get done.

 

[hk89]

Plus it is a severe underestimation to assume the suns wont be prepared to lose jaeger for nothing.

They can and will lose him for nothing before they accept what they consider a crap deal from hawthorn.

I would not use the word underestimation if that was the case, at least not the way you have used it. I'd say we'd severely overestimated their sanity if they think getting nothing for him is any kind of win. it is in fact lose-lose-lose.
- O'Meara loses because he doesn't get where he wants to go.
- Hawthorn loses because they don't get a player they want.
- Gold Coast lose because
a) They get nothing when they could get something for JOM.
b) They increase the impression that are run by amateurs and care more about their egos than their player's welfare, thus making it harder to bring in
good players in the future.
c) They give the impression of being hard to deal with at the trade table, which might make their egos feel good, but will not help in the future when
they want and need co-operation from another club.

 

[The_Steadier]

Crazy considering how quickly we agreed the deal.

Pick 14 straight up is slight unders for tmitch, but not massive unders.

Everyone's been saying it's way unders because prestia is pick 6.

But that hasn't and very well may not happen.

Even if prestia does go for 6, that's because richmond are paying overs.

Just because one person overpays, doesn't instantly mean everyone else is getting ripped off.

 

[bungwahl]

Pick 14 straight up is slight unders for tmitch, but not massive unders.

Everyone's been saying it's way unders because prestia is pick 6.

But that hasn't and very well may not happen.

Even if prestia does go for 6, that's because richmond are paying overs.

Just because one person overpays, doesn't instantly mean everyone else is getting ripped off.

We were always going to get smacked a bit because he's out of contract so it's difficult to play hard ball.

If the pick swap had been something like their 2nd for our 3rd it'd put Mitchell's market value around pick 9 or 10, which I think would be a very fair result.

 

[The_Steadier]

I would not use the word underestimation if that was the case, at least not the way you have used it. I'd say we'd severely overestimated their sanity if they think getting nothing for him is any kind of win. it is in fact lose-lose-lose.
- O'Meara loses because he doesn't get where he wants to go.
- Hawthorn loses because they don't get a player they want.
- Gold Coast lose because
a) They get nothing when they could get something for JOM.
b) They increase the impression that are run by amateurs and care more about their egos than their player's welfare, thus making it harder to bring in
good players in the future.
c) They give the impression of being hard to deal with at the trade table, which might make their egos feel good, but will not help in the future when
they want and need co-operation from another club.

a) unlike every other club (bar gws), GC can afford to miss out on say hawthorns 2017 1st rounder as compo for jaeger and it will be water off a ducks back.
They wont miss it at all.
This is not tom scully walking out on a demons desperate for draft picks. They literally have too many top draft picks to use already.

b) they already have that impression because in situations like this they have always rolled over and accepted scraps.
Maybe it's time for a different approach?

c) Lots of clubs make the choice to be 'hard to deal with'. Surely GC are allowed to do this if they want.

 

[hk89]

a) unlike every other club (bar gws), GC can afford to miss out on say hawthorns 2017 1st rounder as compo for jaeger and it will be water off a ducks back.
They wont miss it at all.
This is not tom scully walking out on a demons desperate for draft picks. They literally have too many top draft picks to use already.

True, and their lack of interest in picks is partly what makes it hard to deal with them. A mid-pack player in a club that finished the H&A season 3rd and won the 3 previous premierships is still worth more than nothing, at the very least they bring in experience that a club built like GC has been is sorely lacking.

The other part that makes it hard to deal with them is that it is very hard to find players who will go there voluntarily. Gold Coast need to think about ways of turning that around, not just for this deal, but for their future. Playing hard ball and essentially telling potential incoming players "come to us and get screwed if you want to leave later" is not helping them. They can choose to play this as a lose-lose-lose if they like, but it really isn't rational, not just in the context of this trade, but all their future trading. As I said, perhaps the Hawthorn list management crew have overestimated their rationality. If they force O'Meara to the draft, that is not rational.

 

[JackOutback]

I would not use the word underestimation if that was the case, at least not the way you have used it. I'd say we'd severely overestimated their sanity if they think getting nothing for him is any kind of win. it is in fact lose-lose-lose.
- O'Meara loses because he doesn't get where he wants to go.
- Hawthorn loses because they don't get a player they want.
- Gold Coast lose because
a) They get nothing when they could get something for JOM.
b) They increase the impression that are run by amateurs and care more about their egos than their player's welfare, thus making it harder to bring in
good players in the future.
c) They give the impression of being hard to deal with at the trade table, which might make their egos feel good, but will not help in the future when
they want and need co-operation from another club.

Not only do GC have enough draft picks that they can afford to lose JOM for nothing, they need to send a message to the players and other clubs. They are losing too many players and it has to stop. Forcing someone into the draft where they could end up in a completely different state may be just what they need to do to shore up their own internal circumstances.

 

[hk89]

Not only do GC have enough draft picks that they can afford to lose JOM for nothing, they need to send a message to the players and other clubs. They are losing too many players and it has to stop. Forcing someone into the draft where they could end up in a completely different state may be just what they need to do to shore up their own internal circumstances.

I've mentioned this in this thread before, but that kind of thinking is insane. The message that sends to players outside the club is "never come here, because we are the kind of club that will be spiteful and vindictive if you ever want to leave". As you've probably noticed, GC have trouble convincing players to come to the club (despite the beautiful beaches, sunny climate, and cheap real estate). They need to fix that, and treating their players like pawns in a chess game doesn't help, it only hurts.