Tom Mitchell

[Markwebbos]

I wonder if #TomMitchellGate has had an effect on the Swans internally?

From a list management perspective, the trading of Hanners and Rohan implies that there will be no longer sacred cows.

But from a team selection POV it's still extremely hard for young, talented players (e.g. Jones, Mills etc) to get a gig in the midfield and for younger players to break into the side.

One wonders if Hanners is being traded to deny Horse the opportunity to select him?

[KSAS]

Are you saying some clubs knew of the big increase and others didn't?

No. It caught all the clubs by surprise that the increase was much more than they had expected. The point being (by Scott Lucas) was the late timing of this announcement by the AFL. Had it been done so earlier before the trade period, we would've been in position to offer Tom a bigger contract $$$$. Hence some might have suspicions that the AFL deliberately delayed this announcement to help ensure Tom gets to their pet team Hawthorn. We were still in the trade ban at the time which the AFL had never justified why, other than the "we can't have everyone" line by Gill.

[0918330512]

No. It caught all the clubs by surprise that the increase was much more than they had expected. The point being (by Scott Lucas) was the late timing of this announcement by the AFL. Had it been done so earlier before the trade period, we would've been in position to offer Tom a bigger contract $$$$. Hence some might have suspicions that the AFL deliberately delayed this announcement to help ensure Tom gets to their pet team Hawthorn. We were still in the trade ban at the time which the AFL had never justified why, other than the "we can't have everyone" line by Gill.

But wouldn’t Hawthorn also have had more $ to match what we could have offered?

[KSAS]

But wouldn’t Hawthorn also have had more $ to match what we could have offered?

Absolutely. We'll never know if Tom would've decided to stay for that bit extra $$$$, but it would've improved our chances doing so. According to Healy, Hawthorn's offer was only $100k more than the Swans (around $600k - $700k).

This AFL article from earlier this year suggested the Swans had a 5 year deal on the table for Tom:

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


Interestingly this article indicates Tom only signed a 3 year deal with Hawthorn, listing his current Hawthorn contract expiring at end of next year (2019):

Tom Mitchell | Hawthorn Hawks | Player profile, AFL contract, stats and news | Zero Hanger

That being the case, you'd think Tom will be demanding a multi million dollar contract extension next year. If Hawthorn land the big fish they've been linked to this trade period (Sheil & Wingard for starters), you'll to start wonder if they'll have enough cap space to meet Tom's increased market's worth?

Is it conceivable that we could be planning to lure him back next year?

[AnnieH]

Is it conceivable that we could be planning to lure him back next year?

No. He would fail the no dickheads policy now.

[caj23]

Absolutely. We'll never know if Tom would've decided to stay for that bit extra $$$$, but it would've improved our chances doing so. According to Healy, Hawthorn's offer was only $100k more than the Swans (around $600k - $700k).

This AFL article from earlier this year suggested the Swans had a 5 year deal on the table for Tom:

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


Interestingly this article indicates Tom only signed a 3 year deal with Hawthorn, listing his current Hawthorn contract expiring at end of next year (2019):

Tom Mitchell | Hawthorn Hawks | Player profile, AFL contract, stats and news | Zero Hanger

That being the case, you'd think Tom will be demanding a multi million dollar contract extension next year. If Hawthorn land the big fish they've been linked to this trade period (Sheil & Wingard for starters), you'll to start wonder if they'll have enough cap space to meet Tom's increased market's worth?

Is it conceivable that we could be planning to lure him back next year?

You're dreaming

Although given his penchant for chasing $'s its not inconceivable that he wont finish his career at the Hawks

[barry]

I wonder if #TomMitchellGate has had an effect on the Swans internally?

From a list management perspective, the trading of Hanners and Rohan implies that there will be no longer sacred cows.

But from a team selection POV it's still extremely hard for young, talented players (e.g. Jones, Mills etc) to get a gig in the midfield and for younger players to break into the side.

Good call Mark.
Trading out a brownlow medalist should cause a good hard look at list management.

[CureTheSane]

If Ollie Florent goes on to have a stella 200+ game career at the Swans, maybe a few bnf's, at least 1 AA, then we can look back and say...Not a bad result..

But the way things stand now , the Swans erred badly. They mistakenly had him No.4 or lower, on their midfield pecking order.

Congrats to Tom...He's a fine player, and he had a fabulous season. Good luck to him.

Yep

- - - Updated - - -

No. He would fail the no dickheads policy now.

Speaking of the 'NDH policy', and those who believe in that rubbish, why are so many Swans fans ok with Gaff coming on board?

I am but I think the NDH policy thing is a joke.

Surely those who want only pristine players at the Swans don't want Gaff because of
1. The punch.
2. WC player.

[caj23]

It's a myth, we've had plenty of dh's over the journey and will continue to do so. The line was overplayed, of course you are going to prefer selecting a clean skin versus someone who is a bit of an idiot, that's just common sense

I won't disparage anyone by naming them but there's a couple of obvious candidates in our recent history

[CureTheSane]

It's a myth, we've had plenty of dh's over the journey and will continue to do so. The line was overplayed, of course you are going to prefer selecting a clean skin versus someone who is a bit of an idiot, that's just common sense

I won't disparage anyone by naming them but there's a couple of obvious candidates in our recent history

fully agree.

But there are those here who believe in this NDH policy. Wondering why they aren't all up in arms with the potential for Gaff to come to the Swans?

[caj23]

fully agree.

But there are those here who believe in this NDH policy. Wondering why they aren't all up in arms with the potential for Gaff to come to the Swans?

TBF Gaff has shown no signs of being a DH prior to the recent incident.

There's a line of thought that he was trying to punch his chest and accidentally got him in the jaw. Whilst that might sound like a convenient excuse he's shown nothing throughout his junior or AFL career to suggest he is a dirty player

[CureTheSane]

ll it takes is one brain fade.
Somebody who drinks and drives and kills someone with no prior record of anything is still a DH.
If I was Gaff I'd be saying that I was aiming for his chest as well.

Don't get me wrong, people make mistakes and I am a proponent of giving them a fair go.
I have no issues at all with Gaff. I thought Hall was treated poorly by the club as well.

Just weird that some here live by the NDH policy and don't seem fussed if the DH is a great player.

[Steve]

He went for the Laurie Nash.

He probably did, but even if he went to Hawthorn on the same money as we were offering, it would have been a good decision long-term as the prominent role he took up has allowed him to go up another level as a player.

Which he’ll be rewarded for financially into the future now as well.

In hindsight it was a no-brainer for him - leave for more money and play a bigger role elsewhere, or stay for less and be used as just another ball winner who would be expected to play accountable roles and still be considered behind a number of other midfielders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Markwebbos]

He probably did, but even if he went to Hawthorn on the same money as we were offering, it would have been a good decision long-term as the prominent role he took up has allowed him to go up another level as a player.

Which he’ll be rewarded for financially into the future now as well.

In hindsight it was a no-brainer for him - leave for more money and play a bigger role elsewhere, or stay for less and be used as just another ball winner who would be expected to play accountable roles and still be considered behind a number of other midfielders.

Good point.

[liz]

In hindsight it was a no-brainer for him - leave for more money and play a bigger role elsewhere, or stay for less and be used as just another ball winner who would be expected to play accountable roles and still be considered behind a number of other midfielders.

I don't think he needed hindsight to see this. He may not have imagined he'd be winning a Brownlow within two years, but I always thought Mitchell's decision had far more to do with opportunity than money. Some of his comments this week (and after he won the APMVP) are distorted - clearly he wasn't stuck in the reserves - but Hawthorn certainly offered him a chance to play his preferred role, something he couldn't be sure of getting at the Swans.

It's a very similar situation to Kennedy, except that Kennedy was far less established in the senior team. And Kennedy has blossomed in his time at the Swans as Mitchell has started to so at the Hawks. Indeed, although Kennedy doesn't have a Brownlow to his name, Mitchell still has a long way to go to achieve the same level of performance, consistency and achievement that Kennedy has at the Swans.