First Semi Final: Swans v Crows

[RogueSwan]

If I recall, Matt wanted Mitchell traded because in Matt's eyes, there wasn't enough room in the side for so many extractors without electric pace, or something like that. Parker, Jack, Joey, Hanners & Tom couldn't all play in the same midfield, so some would languish in the twos & would be better moved on to utilise their trade value. Carlton were sniffing around Tom, he was being paid overs at the time for someone who hadn't played a lot of seniors, and he wasn't consistently racking up the numbers he does now.
Mitchell's predicted impending departure has far more to do with money. ....

Yeah, what he said^
.
.
(apologies if you're female 09183305)

[Zlatorog]

If to believe rumours from Melbourne, we could have a direct swap Mitchell with Breust.

[AnnieH]

Well, wasn't that exciting.
Hope McFantastic and Little Ranga are ok. I'm devo'd for them.

[liz]

If to believe rumours from Melbourne, we could have a direct swap Mitchell with Breust.

Not entirely sure what that does for salary cap relief. I imagine Breust would command a salary higher than the one the Swans are reported to have offered Mitchell (though I am not entirely buying into that - it does seem like a lowball offer).

[mcs]

Not entirely sure what that does for salary cap relief. I imagine Breust would command a salary higher than the one the Swans are reported to have offered Mitchell (though I am not entirely buying into that - it does seem like a lowball offer).

I can't see it happening - much more likely Breust may be shipped off to gold coast as part of the O'Meara trade - if he is on the trade table at all.

[Melbournehammer]

If I recall, Matt wanted Mitchell traded because in Matt's eyes, there wasn't enough room in the side for so many extractors without electric pace, or something like that. Parker, Jack, Joey, Hanners & Tom couldn't all play in the same midfield, so some would languish in the twos & would be better moved on to utilise their trade value. Carlton were sniffing around Tom, he was being paid overs at the time for someone who hadn't played a lot of seniors, and he wasn't consistently racking up the numbers he does now.
Mitchell's predicted impending departure has far more to do with money. If rumour is true & he's been tabled $380k/year for 5 years, and he accepted it, I doubt many here would want to trade him. His form this year, averaging just under 28 disposals & the midfield cohesion has demonstrated that he can fit in the side despite the fleet footededhess (or lack thereof) of who plays around him. The problem lies in that Tom believes he's worth more than $380k/year (probably is) and other clubs will offer more than & $380k/year, so it's not Mitchell fitting in the side (as Matt suggested), Tom's fit in rather well to a frighteningly cohesive and elite midfield unit all season, rather it's fitting Tom in the salary cap.

Actually Matt was right. Its just that it was bird that got moved on. The basic premise actually hasnt changed. you couldnt have bird, parker, kennedy and mitchell all play in the same side. He was looking at moving mitchell on because he had the best trade currency. I think he was right and I do think we'd be better off by having a daniel wells instead of a tom mitchell. But you cant have em all and so tom, who is clearly best 22 at every club in the league, is more valuable in than out.

[barry]

I can't see it happening - much more likely Breust may be shipped off to gold coast as part of the O'Meara trade - if he is on the trade table at all.

I think we should seriously consider Breust for Mitchel. Looks like a win-win for both teams. Breust easily slots into McGlynn's place, since we already have papley.

Whatever we do, please dont let Sicily end up here.

[Mug Punter]

If to believe rumours from Melbourne, we could have a direct swap Mitchell with Breust.

I'm luke warm (see what I did there) about this trade as (a) I rate Mitchell as more valuable and (b) I imagine they are on similar money.

I would think the most likely scenario is that Bruest goes to the Suns as the make weight on the JOM trade - him plus a future pick 1 absolute minimum. He goes up there a multiple premiership player from a team on the decline to a multi year big money deal. And the Suns need at least a couple of players of his ilk, 5-6 years left in the tank and will combine well with Lynch.

If Mitchell goes, and I reckon he will, I'd much prefer we develop a first rounder and use the saved cash to lock in Mills and Heeney.

Agree that under no circumstance should we take Sicily. A loose loose cannon apparently and a flat track bully

[mcs]

I think we should seriously consider Breust for Mitchel. Looks like a win-win for both teams. Breust easily slots into McGlynn's place, since we already have papley.

Whatever we do, please dont let Sicily end up here.

I'd be happy to get him, but like Liz's comment, I don't think that would help the salary cap pressure we are under - and surely that is the only thing driving not giving Mitchell a higher offer than what we have.

Also agree on Sicily - he is vastly over-rated.

[rojo]

If I recall, Matt wanted Mitchell traded because in Matt's eyes, there wasn't enough room in the side for so many extractors without electric pace, or something like that. Parker, Jack, Joey, Hanners & Tom couldn't all play in the same midfield, so some would languish in the twos & would be better moved on to utilise their trade value. Carlton were sniffing around Tom, he was being paid overs at the time for someone who hadn't played a lot of seniors, and he wasn't consistently racking up the numbers he does now.
Mitchell's predicted impending departure has far more to do with money. If rumour is true & he's been tabled $380k/year for 5 years, and he accepted it, I doubt many here would want to trade him. His form this year, averaging just under 28 disposals & the midfield cohesion has demonstrated that he can fit in the side despite the fleet footededhess (or lack thereof) of who plays around him. The problem lies in that Tom believes he's worth more than $380k/year (probably is) and other clubs will offer more than & $380k/year, so it's not Mitchell fitting in the side (as Matt suggested), Tom's fit in rather well to a frighteningly cohesive and elite midfield unit all season, rather it's fitting Tom in the salary cap.

I agree that despite misgivings about Tom's speed etc he gives our midfield great depth and the group of 5 worked superbly as a unit on Saturday. We also saw how Heeney on a wing worked a treat. How would Mills go off the other wing? Problem solved? For Tom himself the money is one factor but it may depend also on how ambitious he is. Is he happy to stay at the Swans at number 5 in the midfield pecking order for the next few years? Probably not - sigh!

[barry]

I'd be happy to get him, but like Liz's comment, I don't think that would help the salary cap pressure we are under - and surely that is the only thing driving not giving Mitchell a higher offer than what we have.

Also agree on Sicily - he is vastly over-rated.

Bear with me here...
We get rid of Mitchel and McGlynn. Freeing up around 500-600 cap space.
Mitchel we swap for Breust. Give him most of the 500K.
McGlynn we give to GWS to replace Stevie J (assuming he retires) as the mature-age goal sneak. We get a good 2nd round pick in exchange.

[Beerman]

McGlynn we give to GWS to replace Stevie J (assuming he retires) as the mature-age goal sneak. We get a good 2nd round pick in exchange.

No way we get a second round pick for McGlynn. A mid-late third rounder is more like it.

[caj23]

No way we get a second round pick for McGlynn. A mid-late third rounder is more like it.

Benny has no trade value, he'll finish his career as a Swan. The timing is the only question

[barry]

GWS would love a stevie j again. There choices are ballentine, boomer harvey, ... and mcglynn.

Mcglynn doesn't have to move city and might think it's one last chance for a flag.

2nd rounder.

[Beerman]

Benny has no trade value, he'll finish his career as a Swan. The timing is the only question

I was being hopeful [emoji846]