Mitchell watch

[KTigers]

I've never heard this one re Mitchell jnr only signing on originally when his father got a job before, but if it's true you'd have to
think there may be a bit of baggage that comes along with Tom. Excess baggage and a jumbo pay packet. Maybe the pilots
don't want you on the plane anymore. This happens in lots of organisations.

Like Doctor said, he's kinda dead to me now (Mitchell). Alarm bells should have gone off when he elected our club under father-son ONLY when we offered him more money and needed to give his dad a job as a sweetener.

[bloodspirit]

I'm not buying the hate for Mitchell because he has selected the Hawks. I think there is a real chance that we just haven't been able to afford to offer him anywhere near his worth. It's one thing to accept a little unders but you can't expect a player to take big unders, especially if his teammates aren't having to do the same. I don't know what Hanners, JPK, Parker etc are on, but I get the impression the difference in $$$ is more than the difference in the level of performance between them and Tom. I imagine something similar happened with Treloar and GWS last year. Treloar would have stayed but he got the message he just wasn't valued as much as Shiel, Coniglio etc. GWS would have loved him to stay too but couldn't offer top dollar to everyone and they made their choices. I reckon that if the Swans came close to what Hawthorn are offering, Tom would love to stay; but we're not willing or able to because he's not worth as much to us as he is to them. Market forces in action.

Because none of the players the Hawks seem willing to part with would be of much interest to the Suns, not for such a high draft pick/O'Meara, anyway.

You also have to factor in that the player has to be willing to go and many Hawks' players will not be willing to go to the Suns.

****

In terms of trading with Hawthorn, I agree we need to insist on a fair deal (i.e. better than pick 14) and hopefully, with Hawthorn not being in a position to let Mitchell slide through to the Pre Season Draft, we'll get one. I'll leave it to our list managers to decide whether its players or picks but if we could get Breust I reckon he's a pretty fair trade (assuming we can afford to pay him) perhaps with some sweetener for us. Mitchell has to be worth at least as much as Breust, especially given he is 3 years younger and already just about in his prime.

[mcs]

I'm not buying the hate for Mitchell because he has selected the Hawks. I think there is a real chance that we just haven't been able to afford to offer him anywhere near his worth. It's one thing to accept a little unders but you can't expect a player to take big unders, especially if his teammates aren't having to do the same. I don't know what Hanners, JPK, Parker etc are on, but I get the impression the difference in $$$ is more than the difference in the level of performance between them and Tom. I imagine something similar happened with Treloar and GWS last year. Treloar would have stayed but he got the message he just wasn't valued as much as Shiel, Coniglio etc. GWS would have loved him to stay too but couldn't offer top dollar to everyone and they made their choices. I reckon that if the Swans came close to what Hawthorn are offering, Tom would love to stay; but we're not willing or able to because he's not worth as much to us as he is to them. Market forces in action.



You also have to factor in that the player has to be willing to go and many Hawks' players will not be willing to go to the Suns.

****

In terms of trading with Hawthorn, I agree we need to insist on a fair deal (i.e. better than pick 14) and hopefully, with Hawthorn not being in a position to let Mitchell slide through to the Pre Season Draft, we'll get one. I'll leave it to our list managers to decide whether its players or picks but if we could get Breust I reckon he's a pretty fair trade (assuming we can afford to pay him) perhaps with some sweetener for us. Mitchell has to be worth at least as much as Breust, especially given he is 3 years younger and already just about in his prime.

Unless they play for Hawthorn, then they are all playing for crumbs

There is no way we would be getting breust if we can't afford to keep Mitchell - he is staying at Hawthorn anyway by the sounds of it and not on the trade table.

[aardvark]

Breust has just announced he will be at Hawthorn in 2017.

[chalbilto]

I am extremely disappointed that Mitchell has elected to go to the Hawks but at the end of the day I don't begrudge him seeking a better financial reward. Let's be objective about the situation, football at the moment is his livelihood and all being well having a 10+ years career. If we honest withe each other wouldn't we all be trying to get the best outcomes for our jobs. All things being relative equal would we sacrifice a significant pay increase if the opportunity arose? So in this regards I say to him good luck. If we talk of loyalty, that has gone out the window. We scream and rant about how disloyal a player is to leave our club, but where is the loyalty when clubs discard or try to offload players when they are deemed to be superfluous of which the best example is Brett Harvey with North Melbourne. Unfortunately as the game has become a business, loyalty has gone out the window. Loyalty is shown by the passionate fans who stick by their club through adversity and triumph. Loyalty is the fan who signs up with their membership each year or barracks and follows the club when they are at their lowest ebb. Players show loyalty by fulfilling their obligations and giving their wholehearted best on the training track and playing fields as well as visiting schools, corporate functions etc. At the end of the day that is what they are getting paid for so give Tom Mitchell some slack. I do re-iterate I would have preferred that he stay with the Swans but as one door shuts another one opens. Let's have faith in the club and the recruitment team.

[Plugger46]

Spot on Chalbilto.

Players are just passing through really.

[Hotpotato]

Yep, it's a serious business, the fans want more Premierships, the players want $$$, they all train as hard as Buddy and Tippett, and if they are getting heaps less, so it's completely understandable, they look elsewhere.

[veramex]

I was curious - who is worth more between Mitchell and o'meara? Given o'meara injury vs you know what your getting with Mitchell I'm a little confused as to their trade value.

I think in the telegraph article saying swans are wanting draft pick vs players, it also mentioned they may wait to see how the o'meara trade goes to get a gauge on the value hawthorn has for these two players

[Cosmic Wizard]

I was curious - who is worth more between Mitchell and o'meara? Given o'meara injury vs you know what your getting with Mitchell I'm a little confused as to their trade value.

I think in the telegraph article saying swans are wanting draft pick vs players, it also mentioned they may wait to see how the o'meara trade goes to get a gauge on the value hawthorn has for these two players

Actually does anyone know if o'meara gets put into the draft by Gold Coast, does he get the rookie wage???

Gold Coast could then redraft him just to spite hawthorn and o'meara.

Surely he can't then ask for $700,000 when the other recruits are on peanuts ???

[liz]

Actually does anyone know if o'meara gets put into the draft by Gold Coast, does he get the rookie wage???

Gold Coast could then redraft him just to spite hawthorn and o'meara.

Surely he can't then ask for $700,000 when the other recruits are on peanuts ???

No, a player who has already been on another club's list is allowed to put a price tag on their head in the draft. I do think there are restrictions on how long a contract they can offer themselves up for - at least two years, I believe - to prevent them putting a massive one year price on their head with an unwritten agreement with their preferred club to then sign for a much lower amount for later years.

[bloodspirit]

No, a player who has already been on another club's list is allowed to put a price tag on their head in the draft. I do think there are restrictions on how long a contract they can offer themselves up for - at least two years, I believe - to prevent them putting a massive one year price on their head with an unwritten agreement with their preferred club to then sign for a much lower amount for later years.

Is this the ND or the PSD? I would have guessed JOM could choose but suspect he can only put a price tag on his own head in the PSD (which is undoubtedly what he would do). But I am not sure of that and happy to defer to you, Liz, who seem superbly knowledgeable about most things Swans related.

[liz]

Either

[AnnieH]

"Hawthorn currently holds picks 14, 34, 52, 70 and 88"

They're not "high" draft picks.
Looks like we're going to get shafted by whorethorn, again.

- - - Updated - - -

"Hawthorn currently holds picks 14, 34, 52, 70 and 88"

They're not "high" draft picks.
Looks like we're going to get shafted by whorethorn, again.

[Captain]

Reckon we will get picks 14 and 34. Bad result in my opinion.

[RogueSwan]

Has it ever been confirmed that Mitchell is leaving due to $$$'s or is it just a guess/excuse? I just can't see the Swans not paying a footballer they want (is this where it all falls down?) an appropriate wage? My gut feel, now, is that he was never going to re-sign and both parties are using money as the reason but I don't feel it is the truth. But hey, what would I know???