2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Meg]

2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

My main gripe is that we gave him (Tom Mitchell) away for pick 14 (less than he was worth when he was originally drafted from memory) and that felt like big time unders, even at the time.

We got Mitchell for pick 21 in the 2011 draft.

It was under the then father/ son rules after Fremantle bid their opening round pick for him. Under the rules at that time the Swans had to match the round of pick bid by Fremantle or else Freo would have got Mitchell. If no club had bid, the Swans could have taken Mitchell with their last pick of the draft.

I think the comparison is meaningless - but in those crude terms we did ?win? in getting pick 14 when Mitchell left.

Ps: I think the Fremantle bid for Mitchell in the 2011 draft was pick 16.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Not a current situation but a blast from the recent past. Interesting article on the Tom Mitchell to Hawthorn trade.

How Tom Mitchell became a trade bargain - AFL.com.au

It sounds like a pretty accurate summation of how it all unfolded. The last bit is quite well put.....

"As a footnote, it's worth noting Sydney received pick No.14 in the Mitchell trade, a selection they used as part of a subsequent trade that helped them secure Oliver Florent (No.11 overall) and Will Hayward (No.21) in that year's draft.

Anyone sense a win-win trade?" ........ at this point, the Hawks are ahead but we did well.

Plus there's an interesting bit on the Suns making a late play for him.......

If you want to know where we screwed up it is in the following excerpt;

"However, in framing their offer, the Swans had to work within a salary cap that was carrying the lucrative long-term deals of Kurt Tippett and Lance Franklin. They had also prioritised other ? more important ? re-signings over the previous 12 months. Star midfielders Dan Hannebery and Luke Parker were locked away on lucrative five-year extensions, and then-co-captain Kieren Jack was secured for a further three years. All three were clearly more valuable members of the Swans' midfield than Mitchell, as was reigning best and fairest winner Josh Kennedy".

It comes back to that Tippett contract yet again doesn't it.

More importantly; and I've said this prior to signing Parker and Hannebery; we would have been better to let Parker or Hannebery go than to lose Mitchell. Not only are the three of them similar players (can win the ball but aren't great kicks) but most of our midfield group will be retiring in the 3-5 years time. A Mitchell & Parker/Hannebery duo would have been much better for us than a Parker & Hannebery duo. I'm not saying this would have been easy to achieve as we needed to re-contract Parker and Hannebery before Mitchell's contract was due but surely Mitchell's contract could have been re-negotiated sooner.

[707]

Mitchell is only a year younger than Parker so not sure why the doom about retiring midfielders.

In 3-5 years time Heeney, Mills etc will be the mainstay of our midfield. Angst about the departure of Mitchell is over done IMO, he's a very good inside mid but he's no game breaker like Martin or Dangerfield, if he was we would have kept him.

Midfielders are a prolific species, every draft has a heap of very good ones. KP players are the gems, particularly KPFs.

[caj23]

If you want to know where we screwed up it is in the following excerpt;

"However, in framing their offer, the Swans had to work within a salary cap that was carrying the lucrative long-term deals of Kurt Tippett and Lance Franklin. They had also prioritised other ? more important ? re-signings over the previous 12 months. Star midfielders Dan Hannebery and Luke Parker were locked away on lucrative five-year extensions, and then-co-captain Kieren Jack was secured for a further three years. All three were clearly more valuable members of the Swans' midfield than Mitchell, as was reigning best and fairest winner Josh Kennedy".

It comes back to that Tippett contract yet again doesn't it.

More importantly; and I've said this prior to signing Parker and Hannebery; we would have been better to let Parker or Hannebery go than to lose Mitchell. Not only are the three of them similar players (can win the ball but aren't great kicks) but most of our midfield group will be retiring in the 3-5 years time. A Mitchell & Parker/Hannebery duo would have been much better for us than a Parker & Hannebery duo. I'm not saying this would have been easy to achieve as we needed to re-contract Parker and Hannebery before Mitchell's contract was due but surely Mitchell's contract could have been re-negotiated sooner.

Actually the real stuff up was resigning Jack for 3 years on anything more than a minimum contract when he was 29 and has fallen off a cliff

[barry]

Actually the real stuff up was resigning Jack for 3 years on anything more than a minimum contract when he was 29 and has fallen off a cliff

That's what I was thinking too. You can also find 2 or 3 hundred thousand more by offloading a few fringe players as well.

[Jimitron5000]

I don't know if I mentioned it here or elsewhere but I thought at the time a better bet would be to offload Kennedy than Mitchell.
In any case, I can see why the club did what it did. Now if only they would play Mills in the midfield...(and Papley as a permanent small forward).

[jono2707]

Actually the real stuff up was resigning Jack for 3 years on anything more than a minimum contract when he was 29 and has fallen off a cliff

That's a good point, but signing Tippett to the contracts he was on was the biggest stuff up in the club's recent history.

[chalbilto]

That's a good point, but signing Tippett to the contracts he was on was the biggest stuff up in the club's recent history.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Did the club envisige that Tippett would get injured and retire prematurely. No so let's put things into perspective and it was bad luck how things panned out with Tippett.

[YvonneH]

No good crying over spilt milk (re:Kurt and Tom Mitchell). What's done is done. Let us move on. We have some very good players who are down in form at the moment, but no need to panic just yet.

[jono2707]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Did the club envisige that Tippett would get injured and retire prematurely. No so let's put things into perspective and it was bad luck how things panned out with Tippett.

Trades, contracts and draft picks can only be assessed with hindsight. We normally do pretty well on all of those things, but the decision to give Tippett the dollars we did was a stinker, pure and simple.

[Velour&Ruffles]

If you want to know where we screwed up it is in the following excerpt;

"However, in framing their offer, the Swans had to work within a salary cap that was carrying the lucrative long-term deals of Kurt Tippett and Lance Franklin. They had also prioritised other ? more important ? re-signings over the previous 12 months. Star midfielders Dan Hannebery and Luke Parker were locked away on lucrative five-year extensions, and then-co-captain Kieren Jack was secured for a further three years. All three were clearly more valuable members of the Swans' midfield than Mitchell, as was reigning best and fairest winner Josh Kennedy".

It comes back to that Tippett contract yet again doesn't it.

Um, no it doesn't. As you've actually just pointed out yourself, it comes down to the lucrative long-term deals of Kurt Tippett and Lance Franklin, the decision to prioritise the resigning of Dan Hannebery and Luke Parker on lucrative five-year extensions, Kieren Jack for a further three years, and the assessment that Josh Kennedy was more valuable.

Saying it's all the Tippo contract is a ridiculous oversimplification. In retrospect it seems worse but as has been pointed out, the depth of his injury issues surprised everyone and it's easy to be wise in hindsight.

[SeanM]

I don't think the tippet contract was the issue. We already had star midfielders parker and hannebery on long term contracts. Kennedy, mills and jones were coming off contract the following season and they wanted to give heeney a long term contract. These were all players who could play in midfield.

In hindsight maybe we should have traded out several of those midfielders to keep mitchell. But i don't think it would have been received well at the time if we had traded out kennedy or hannebery to keep mitchell.

[Aprilbr]

The loss of Mitchell has been disastrous with the benefit of hindsight but at the time we had little choice given our salary cap issues. Moreover he has improved further since going to the Hawks. Could that have been predicted? I recall during the trade talk when he was swapped to the Hawks for No. 14 pick most ?experts? seemed to think that it was a fair deal for both sides.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[0918330512]

The loss of Mitchell has been disastrous with the benefit of hindsight but at the time we had little choice given our salary cap issues. Moreover he has improved further since going to the Hawks. Could that have been predicted? I recall during the trade talk when he was swapped to the Hawks for No. 14 pick most ?experts? seemed to think that it was a fair deal for both sides.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hopefully clubs are learning to tag him out of the game ... though 19 touches is still ok for a really crap game

[Nico]

Losing Nankervis was about the biggest one.