Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 53

Thread: Paul Roos looking for class midfielders

  1. #37
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by stellation View Post
    Come now, Tom isn't the SCG!
    Dom Tyson had an injury plagued couple of years and only managed 13 games for GWS in total (with just 3 in 2013), yet was able to nab GWS No.2, No.20 and No.72 for Tyson and picks No.9 and No.53 from Melbourne. Dom's been good for Melbourne. I'd suggest Tom has close to similar currency, even toiling away in the magoos because his senior team is going gangbusters and it's hard to get a spot.
    I agree stella. I also thought about the comparison with Tyson and would rate Tom even higher. If the ankle is not an issue, I think Tom is worth a top 10 pick.

  2. #38
    Suspended by the MRP
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,802
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    I agree stella. I also thought about the comparison with Tyson and would rate Tom even higher. If the ankle is not an issue, I think Tom is worth a top 10 pick.
    With Heeney in the mix we can't do a swap of draft picks like the Tyson deal. I think a deal to send Mitchell and pick 17 to Melbourne for pick 5 would have been a likely outcome.

    Liz pointed out that Academy and Father/Son bidding occurs before the draft and the Swans would likely pledge pick 17 for Heeney.

    Maybe then Melbourne can provide a player to the Swans in a straight swap. That's why I suggested young key defender Tom McDonald.

    Maybe another club wants Mitchell more and will provide a better deal.

    Time will tell. This will be a Tom Mitchell led discussion as much as anything.

  3. #39
    How did Tom Mitchell's name get raised? He elected to come to the Swans when he could have gone into the draft. Is this the way to repay him? Even if he, for example, was traded, what would be the chance of the player you pick up being better? Highly unlikely I would have thought. This completely goes against the Swans ethos.

    Another thing some of you are forgetting is that players are no longer categorized as backs, mids and forwards and that speed is very important. Players need to be versatile and mid-fielders are now playing in all three areas. Therefore, the more mid-fielders we have the better (within reason of course). I'm sure, for example, that you will find Rohan playing off the half-back line next year where, after a good pre-season, he can use his run. You will always need your key-position players but that is a separate issue.
    Last edited by Melb Blood Bro; 20th June 2014 at 06:00 PM.

  4. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt80 View Post
    With Heeney in the mix we can't do a swap of draft picks like the Tyson deal. I think a deal to send Mitchell and pick 17 to Melbourne for pick 5 would have been a likely outcome.

    Liz pointed out that Academy and Father/Son bidding occurs before the draft and the Swans would likely pledge pick 17 for Heeney.

    Maybe then Melbourne can provide a player to the Swans in a straight swap. That's why I suggested young key defender Tom McDonald.

    Maybe another club wants Mitchell more and will provide a better deal.

    Time will tell. This will be a Tom Mitchell led discussion as much as anything.
    Good point. There is no use trading players for draft picks only to lose them in the draft picks provided for Heeney, Davis, Mills and Dunkley. The only way to proceed would be to trade a mid-fielder for a backman.

  5. #41
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Melb Blood Bro View Post
    Good point. There is no use trading players for draft picks only to lose them in the draft picks provided for Heeney, Davis, Mills and Dunkley. The only way to proceed would be to trade a mid-fielder for a backman.
    It doesn't work that way.

  6. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt80 View Post
    If that is true and Tom wants to go, then we have to deal with Melbourne in good faith.

    There is one player on the Melbourne list that I'm sure the Swans would love to get their hands on:

    Tom McDonald - 22 year old, athletic key defender who had developed into a very strong player. He came 3rd in the B and F in 2012.

    Melbourne would not give him away easily, and it would cost more than Tom Mitchell to get that deal done. Not sure if Tom would be open to it.

    If the Swans could get McDonald our key defensive worries would end.

    This is just a proposed deal:

    Tom Mitchell and Zak Jones to Melbourne in exchange for Tom McDonald.

    That would give Roos one midfielder (Mitchell) and another who would come on well being reunited with his big brother.

    The Swans would get their long term key defender.

    People will scream that I've given away young midfielders, but we have Heeney, Dunkley and Mills emerging.
    You must be a Melbourne plant Matt. No Swans supporter would ever think that was anywhere near fair.

  7. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt80 View Post
    At the current trade projection the Swans will get pick 17 in the NAB AFL Draft in November. The Swans may well use that pick to get Isacc Heeney, who will attract a bid before pick 17.

    If the Swans trade out some fringe players in the trade period and get another first round pick before 17 (ie pick 11) does that pick 11 now need to be used for Heeney if there is a bid before pick 11?

    If that is the case, suddenly Heeney becomes more expensive than what he was before we improved our draft position!

    With this in mind it may be affect how we deal in the trade period.

    If players do want to be traded we may try and get one ore two picks between 18 - 25, so we don't overpay for Heeney?
    Short answer is yes, we would be wasting our time in improving our draft position. Lets say we trade someone for say pick 11 and we end up with picks 11 and say 17 we will need to trade our highest available pick to better the best offer. For example, if we had picks 11 and 17 and GWS bids pick 14 for Heeney then we would only need to use our pick 17. However, if they used pick 10 to bid for Heeney then we would have to use our pick 11. We would be stupid to trade anyone for draft picks over the next two years with Heeney, Davis, Mills and Dunkley coming through. Infact, the higher up the ladder we get, the less we are required to give away. The father-son pick is treated in the same way as the academy selection. On curren t form, there would be a good chance that Heeney, Mills and Dunkley would all be top 10 selections if they were on the open market. I hope this answers your question?

  8. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Melb Blood Bro View Post
    Short answer is yes, we would be wasting our time in improving our draft position. Lets say we trade someone for say pick 11 and we end up with picks 11 and say 17 we will need to trade our highest available pick to better the best offer. For example, if we had picks 11 and 17 and GWS bids pick 14 for Heeney then we would only need to use our pick 17. However, if they used pick 10 to bid for Heeney then we would have to use our pick 11. We would be stupid to trade anyone for draft picks over the next two years with Heeney, Davis, Mills and Dunkley coming through. Infact, the higher up the ladder we get, the less we are required to give away. The father-son pick is treated in the same way as the academy selection. On curren t form, there would be a good chance that Heeney, Mills and Dunkley would all be top 10 selections if they were on the open market. I hope this answers your question?
    Bro as Liz pointed out earlier in the thread, " Whatever we do at the trade table won't affect the pick we will have to commit to if we want Heeney. The bidding process happens before trade week starts."

  9. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Flying South View Post
    Bro as Liz pointed out earlier in the thread, " Whatever we do at the trade table won't affect the pick we will have to commit to if we want Heeney. The bidding process happens before trade week starts."
    Thanks. I thought it was trade, bid then draft.

  10. #46
    Suspended by the MRP
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,802
    Quote Originally Posted by Melb Blood Bro View Post
    You must be a Melbourne plant Matt. No Swans supporter would ever think that was anywhere near fair.
    Probably giving too much away.

    Tom Mitchell for Tom McDonald would be a fair trade. It all depends on whether Melbourne can re sign Danny Frawley and get Jesse Hogan back to lead their forward line. If Frawley is back in key defence then Tom McDonald would be more likely to be considered for trade.

  11. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt80 View Post
    If that is true and Tom wants to go, then we have to deal with Melbourne in good faith.

    There is one player on the Melbourne list that I'm sure the Swans would love to get their hands on:

    Tom McDonald - 22 year old, athletic key defender who had developed into a very strong player. He came 3rd in the B and F in 2012.

    Melbourne would not give him away easily, and it would cost more than Tom Mitchell to get that deal done. Not sure if Tom would be open to it.

    If the Swans could get McDonald our key defensive worries would end.

    This is just a proposed deal:

    Tom Mitchell and Zak Jones to Melbourne in exchange for Tom McDonald.

    That would give Roos one midfielder (Mitchell) and another who would come on well being reunited with his big brother.

    The Swans would get their long term key defender.

    People will scream that I've given away young midfielders, but we have Heeney, Dunkley and Mills emerging.
    Sheesh, trade away all our young recruits before they have any time to develop. Keep flogging the Tom Mitchell trade, the horse will die soon enough

  12. #48
    Suspended by the MRP
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,802
    Quote Originally Posted by 09183305 View Post
    Sheesh, trade away all our young recruits before they have any time to develop. Keep flogging the Tom Mitchell trade, the horse will die soon enough
    It's a strategic trade and Mitchell may decide he wants to leave. Tom McDonald is a good young key defender and is certainly better than any of our young key defenders. Don't you want a young good key defender?

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO