List changes and trade bait

[mcs]

If Tom Mitchell is traded, I won't be shouting anyone a case of beer - I'll be furious.

+1 to this - I will be filthy if we trade Mitchell, unless we get something particularly good in return (which would, at least in my book, be someone far better than Ryder).

[Doctor]

Thanks Doc - I remember it well. I was quoting Russell Barwick who, it must be said, is also spruiking that Mitchell will go to Carlton.

Oh well, let's hope he only gets the first part right.

Matt - you overlook that we are dealing with the emotions of fans here. I agree with you in terms of the need to trade and be on top of our game with list management, but that has to be tempered with meeting the emotional expectations of fans and the team. I put Mitchell in that category. We want him to stay and I suspect the team does too.

[mcs]

If this comes off, that slap down will become a big slap on the back. If Tom Mitchell has any part of this a think the Red and White community will be shouting me a case of beer.

Losing Mitchell to get Ryder would not be a good deal in my book (of course I would trust the club to have made the right call), and you wouldn't be getting no case of beer from me

[southsideswan]

It is a lottery to get a great player. Mitchell is a good player and heading in the right direction. It would appear foolish to trade him hoping for something better. It would not surprise me if he is at the top of the pile in a few years time. I do understand that we are forced to shed players to take more in but lets start a lot further down the quality ladder.

[Conor_Dillon]

I love Mitchell and rate him as highly as anyone but I think people saying they wouldn't trade him for Ryder are thinking with their heart and not their head.
Ryder had a break out season and he would offer us plenty as the number one ruck...and going on our recent record at players improving once they're playing for the Swans I think we could get even more out of him.

Whether or not we can afford him is a different matter, and if we really wanted him we probably wouldn't have to trade Mitchell anyway...but if that was the only option I think we would be silly not to.

[aardvark]

So when was Barwick ever right about anything?

[Matt80]

I love Mitchell and rate him as highly as anyone but I think people saying they wouldn't trade him for Ryder are thinking with their heart and not their head.
Ryder had a break out season and he would offer us plenty as the number one ruck...and going on our recent record at players improving once they're playing for the Swans I think we could get even more out of him.

Whether or not we can afford him is a different matter, and if we really wanted him we probably wouldn't have to trade Mitchell anyway...but if that was the only option I think we would be silly not to.

Mitchell would not be the trade to the Dons, it would be our 2nd round pick. The Dons would not want to test Ryder in the grievance tribunal in case they lose and all their players can then break their contracts. They will begrudgingly take our 2nd round pick.

Mitchell will need to be traded in the Ryder deal to free up $400,000 a season in salary cap. We will net a pick of between 8-15 for Mitchell from another club

If we get a pick between 8-15, Heeney and Ryder in the off season it will be incredible.

[YvonneH]

Essendon says it won't trade Ryder and they doubt if 'that' clause is legal anyway so he won't have a leg to stand on (not a good position for an AFL player, one leg) and he has 2 years to go on his contract

[dimelb]

Pyke finished well in front of Ryder in rucking terms when we played Essendon. I think our present arrangement is more than serviceable: Pykey takes the centre square and around the ground, relieved from time to time by Tippett in the forward 50 and by Reid around the ground, plus cameos from, say, the likes of Towers and whoever is handy - most amusingly by Parker, which confused the ump and opposition players!

Nankervis seems to be the sort of player who isn't definitively classified as either full forward or ruckman, and although he is probably a season away from firsts debut who knows what he may yet produce? He's certainly looking a likely lad at this stage. Naismith looks as if his outing in the firsts has sent him back to the ressies with a much clearer idea of what is required to make it at firsts level - see Coach Crouch's approving comments in the Ressies Wrap on the official website.

For me the long and the short of it is that there is no pressing need for Ryder, despite the fact that he is a good, perhaps very good player. And while it is true that we have an abundance of good mids at present, I think that Mitchell will soon rate at the top level and letting him go would come back to bite us.

[Flying South]

Mitchell would not be the trade to the Dons, it would be our 2nd round pick. The Dons would not want to test Ryder in the grievance tribunal in case they lose and all their players can then break their contracts. They will begrudgingly take our 2nd round pick.

Mitchell will need to be traded in the Ryder deal to free up $400,000 a season in salary cap. We will net a pick of between 8-15 for Mitchell from another club

If we get a pick between 8-15, Heeney and Ryder in the off season it will be incredible.

Purely from a hypothetical trade point of view if we got Heeney, Ryder and Carlton's pick 8 for our pick 20, 40 and Mitchell. Then that would be a winner. Though I can't see Essendon letting Ryder go for our 2nd round.

[mcs]

Mitchell would not be the trade to the Dons, it would be our 2nd round pick. The Dons would not want to test Ryder in the grievance tribunal in case they lose and all their players can then break their contracts. They will begrudgingly take our 2nd round pick.

Mitchell will need to be traded in the Ryder deal to free up $400,000 a season in salary cap. We will net a pick of between 8-15 for Mitchell from another club

If we get a pick between 8-15, Heeney and Ryder in the off season it will be incredible.

Surely that's a bit contradictory - if they let Ryder go, then that sets a precedent that other players can surely follow - so they'd be better off testing it in the grievance tribunal if possible.

I thought I heard somewhere else if he wants to leave in the manner suggested, he has to take it to the grievance tribunal anyway.

[Ludwig]

Ryder is under contract. If he goes anywhere it will under the auspices of breach of contract due to the drugs program, so he would go as a free agent. So there's no need to mix Mitchell into this thing. Totally separate matters. Furthermore, if we got Ryder, then we wouldn't need another first round draft pick because or KPP stocks will be just fine. The only reason we would offer up Mitchell or anyone would be due to salary cap and player opportunity issues.

[Matt80]

Surely that's a bit contradictory - if they let Ryder go, then that sets a precedent that other players can surely follow - so they'd be better off testing it in the grievance tribunal if possible.

I thought I heard somewhere else if he wants to leave in the manner suggested, he has to take it to the grievance tribunal anyway.

It's a huge risk for the Bombers to fight a grievance exit. If they lose then James Hird and Paul Little have little authority over the playing group. If they win then they maintain the authority over the playing group. It would be a real make or break for the Bombers. Would you take the gamble or let Ryder leave on a reduced trade arrangement.

[CureTheSane]

You'd think if a player is desperate to leave, even if he is under contract, accommodations are usually made. No point in keeping a player who is full of spite and resentment in staying where he doesn't want to be (ROK is different in the club shopped him around and there was no interest so he 'happily' stayed at the Swans)
In Essendon's case, if a played threatens a duty of care breach, it's simply another can of worms that the club won't want to deal with and would likely be more inclined to make a deal.

[Matt80]

Mark Robinson has posted an article stating that Jake Carlisle is looking into the Pat Ryder clause. Apparently five clubs have made Carlisle huge offers. Essendon will apparently fight any player looking to break a contract via the welfare clause. I just wonder how a player could return to a club having fought them in a grievance process.

I wonder if the Swans are in the mix for Carlisle?

I think that Mitchell (trade), Malceski (free agency), Grundy (trade) and Goodes (retired) would have to leave to create the Carlisle salary space.

I'm not sure if the Red and White community is ready emotionally part with the four above players but Carlisle could hold down a key defensive post with Sam Reid for the next 8-10 years. They are also both competent swingman and would leave Longmire with great flexibility.