List changes and trade bait

[Jewels]

That is true Reggi, but every political leader before they have seized the party?s leadership has said they are happy in their current position.

Barry Mitchell is not going to start a media storm by revealing Tom's true feelings. Tom may be happy in Sydney or he may not be happy in Sydney. Whatever Tom's feelings, Barry will feed the company line.

Good point except that perhaps Barry has a bit more inside knowledge on his sons thoughts then you do as the person whom, if my memory serves me correctly, was the first person to bring up the trading Tom rumours, that people on here and now the media are running with, so for now at least, I'll believe Barry.

[0918330512]

I will be very direct. You speak utter @@@@

Reggi, I don't always agree with M80, but what is Barry supposed to say?

[Flying South]

I think there should be more tribalism in AFL. Indeed, I believe all clubs should have the opportunity to grow and harvest their own whether they be Father/Sons, local juniors or even just passionate supporters. I don't have the answers to what framework needs to be constructed around the management of such a system for fairness to all, I just think tribes should have some opportunity to stick together.

Yeah I agree. The VFL/AFLwas built on tribalism and is why fans are so passionate. Eddie has his knockers but he his very tribal and passionate about his pies. If the game is to survive the corporatisation and constant rule changes, then the tribalism and passion needs to be built upon again.

[Doctor]

My view, and Horses' from what he has said only a month or so ago, is that a fit Mitchell is definitely in our best 22.

His first ten odd games last year were fantastic...In his first game alone, he had something like 10 score involvements.

I think a few of you on here are forgetting just how good he was last year.

Lloyd has been really good in his first dozen odd games, but he's had nowhere near the impact Mitchell had last year.

So for mine the only question over Mitchell is injuries...

If our medicos and conditioning staff think his body's going to be fine in the long run, then I would hope, and expect, that we will keep him long term.

This is the key bit for me, and I know I've also mentioned this previously. Longmire, and others in the club, have stated more than once that Mitchell, when fit, is in our best XXII. I can't see that we'd be looking to trade him. My general feeling is that we will have a pretty quiet trade and draft period this off-season. We already have LRT's place on the list available and almost certainly ROK's. Shaw may or may not play on depending on his body, and the same goes for Goodesy. I'd imagine Biggs and Naismith are close to certain upgrades but the rest may just be a bit of tinkering around the edges.

[Matt80]

Good point except that perhaps Barry has a bit more inside knowledge on his sons thoughts then you do as the person whom, if my memory serves me correctly, was the first person to bring up the trading Tom rumours, that people on here and now the media are running with, so for now at least, I'll believe Barry.

I don't know Tom or his family. I made the determination a while back based on the Swans current midfield strength and what I believe is Tom's desire to be a league player of 20 games a year.

I'm not sure if he would get ahead of Josh Kennedy, Luke Parker or Craig Bird even if fully fit.

For a young player of under 20 games he is on outstanding money ($400,000 a year). He was able to negotiate that deal with the Swans because he knew that GWS would swoop on him with an early pick if he did not nominate for the father/son rule. This behaviour is different to many juniors who are just happy to get an opportunity in AFL land and would play initially for a bus ticket. This shows to me that Mitchell is very assured of himself and is not going to play second fiddle. He may be on $ 400,000 now, but he needs to be playing 20 consistent AFL games a year to improve his next contract. Spending large stints of time in the NEAFL is not going to improve his long term marketability.

You then have a Rookie like Lloyd who will do anything to further himself and give to the club.

[Ludwig]

There's too much focus on Tom Mitchell. He is just the personification of the issue at hand. Some systems don't have limits. AFL does. There are only 22 players that can be chosen for a game. There is a salary cap which limits how much can be paid in total to the players. These and other factors put constraints on the evolution of a club's list.

Good list management seeks to identify potential problems dictated by these constraints and to be proactive by evolving the list on one's own terms. Poor list management ignores impending potential problems and hope things take care of themselves. These clubs find good players leaving their clubs on their own terms for better opportunities elsewhere. The thing that you don't want happening is good players exiting the club at the end of their contracts where the Swans will get nothing or little in return.

Just for example, if not for the fact that clubs knew that they had us over a barrel after the Buddy signing, we probably could have landed a couple of first round picks for all of Mummy, Lamb, White and Everett. That was just a circumstance beyond our control. But if we knew that Buddy was coming to the Swans a year earlier, we probably could have planned for it and off loaded players closer to market value.

We know that we are in line to get 3 top rated midfielders in the next couple of years to add to the most talented midfield list in the comp. So should we sit by and see how things unfold, or should we do some strategic list management by coming up with trades that get us the maximum compensation for losing a good player. Our cup runneth over. We can build a dam or close our eyes and let the flood gates open.

[troyjones2525]

There's too much focus on Tom Mitchell. He is just the personification of the issue at hand. Some systems don't have limits. AFL does. There are only 22 players that can be chosen for a game. There is a salary cap which limits how much can be paid in total to the players. These and other factors put constraints on the evolution of a club's list.

Good list management seeks to identify potential problems dictated by these constraints and to be proactive by evolving the list on one's own terms. Poor list management ignores impending potential problems and hope things take care of themselves. These clubs find good players leaving their clubs on their own terms for better opportunities elsewhere. The thing that you don't want happening is good players exiting the club at the end of their contracts where the Swans will get nothing or little in return.

Just for example, if not for the fact that clubs knew that they had us over a barrel after the Buddy signing, we probably could have landed a couple of first round picks for all of Mummy, Lamb, White and Everett. That was just a circumstance beyond our control. But if we knew that Buddy was coming to the Swans a year earlier, we probably could have planned for it and off loaded players closer to market value.

We know that we are in line to get 3 top rated midfielders in the next couple of years to add to the most talented midfield list in the comp. So should we sit by and see how things unfold, or should we do some strategic list management by coming up with trades that get us the maximum compensation for losing a good player. Our cup runneth over. We can build a dam or close our eyes and let the flood gates open.

Yes well said. Our list will be as such that we will have a surplus amount of quality mids not being in our senior team and if you think that our rivals are just going to sit by and not dangle big money contracts in front of them and promise playing time in an attempt to poach them from us then you are naive.

[liz]

we probably could have landed a couple of first round picks for all of Mummy, Lamb, White and Everett. That was just a circumstance beyond our control.

No we couldn't. They were out of contract. The two with most potential trade value (regardless of contract status) agreed to join the club with the first pick in the PSD. Neither White nor Everitt was best 22 and what we received for them wasn't unreasonable in the circumstances (especially when you consider what we traded for the likes of JPK and McGlynn).

Given how the cards have fallen, I don't think we can really complain about net cost / benefit of gaining / losing recruits in recent seasons. We picked up both Buddy and Tippett for nothing, in trade terms.

[Ludwig]

No we couldn't. They were out of contract. The two with most potential trade value (regardless of contract status) agreed to join the club with the first pick in the PSD. Neither White nor Everitt was best 22 and what we received for them wasn't unreasonable in the circumstances (especially when you consider what we traded for the likes of JPK and McGlynn).

Given how the cards have fallen, I don't think we can really complain about net cost / benefit of gaining / losing recruits in recent seasons. We picked up both Buddy and Tippett for nothing, in trade terms.

I wasn't clear. I meant that if we knew in 2012 that we were getting Buddy after the 2013 season we might have been able to trade these players after the 2012 season when they were still in contract and we weren't under salary cap pressure. It was just a hypothetical about foresight and planning. Not meant to be a realistic revision of what actually occurred.

[Matt80]

I wasn't clear. I meant that if we knew in 2012 that we were getting Buddy after the 2013 season we might have been able to trade these players after the 2012 season when they were still in contract and we weren't under salary cap pressure. It was just a hypothetical about foresight and planning. Not meant to be a realistic revision of what actually occurred.

Based on the theory of trading players before their contracts run out Nick Smith, Tom Mitchell and Lewis Jetta will need to be traded out at the end of 2014.

This will net the Swans three picks between 10 - 20. We would also get a 2nd round for Malceski as part of free agency compensation.

This will give us:

- Heeney
- 3 First Rounders
- 1 Second Rounder
- Abe Davis

Mitchell, Malceski, Smith and Jetta will be hard to replace in 2015. There will be increased opportunities for guys like Jones, Towers, Brandon Jack and Hewitt. It may take us back to a 4-6th placed side in 2015.

In 2016 and beyond we will be real contenders again as new players settle positions and all the first rounders start trying to break through.

This will also help manage our salary cap as well.

Don't be alarmed, this is only a theory of trading players out who are not out of contract.

[Ludwig]

Based on the theory of trading players before their contracts run out Nick Smith, Tom Mitchell and Lewis Jetta will need to be traded out at the end of 2014.

This is not a theory. Just a hypothetical. An illustration to show that with foresight things can be more favourable. It's not a call to trade anyone. We have a good list management crew. I'm sure they're on top of it.

But I think you've got the general idea.

[Bloods05]

The NAB draft. Jesus wept.