Carlton looking to sign Tom Mitchell

[CureTheSane]

Gillon Mclachlan is not a good leader. If he had made a definitive statement he would have taken the sting out of the conversation. Now he is in a position where he is going to make everyone unhappy. Will either learn quickly to be a leader or be encouraged out soon

On Mitchell. Silly article, no notice in Melbourne of the fact that he has been injured most of the year. the $1.2 m contract was widely reported to stave off GWS. would be playing if not injured

I dare say much of what Eddie said was testing the limits of what he can get away with the new boss.
Seems his question would not have been answered though, he'll have to go harder next time to see if Gill steps in...

[mcs]

Depends. The AFL can grant a pick immediately after that club's normal round 1 pick, or a pick at the end of round 1 (or 2,3 4 etc). Depends on the age of the player, the amount of salary and the length of contract.

Thanks Liz - i wasn't quite sure how it works. Surely Frawley would be more likely to be an end of Rd 1 pick, than a potential pick 4 or 5.

[Doctor J.]

That's a little unfair Doc. What are your credentials in regards to trading? Imagine the outcry if Matt suggested we trade, Kennedy or Jack for a young KPP. Which is the sort of thing Luke Darcy is suggesting for the bulldogs. "Western Bulldogs ruckman Luke Darcy suggested the Bulldogs should use skipper Ryan Griffen as currency to lure one of GWS's three tall forwards to Witten Oval. The 2002 all-Australian said the bulldogs must be bold and brave to give them the best possible chance at poaching one of the Giants big men." Now he is somebody who has a better understanding of top level football and trading than any of us here, and he points out that bold and brave decisions are required to prise top 5 picks out of clubs. Just as Matt80 is suggesting. Whether we need to do the trade or agree with his evaluation of trade value is an interesting debate. But don't just dismiss his opinion just because you don't agree with it. Poorly played.

Really? Poorly played?

OK lets just indulge Matt for a bit here and look at how ridiculous his supposed Dream trade is.

If Sydney are trading Mitchell, we would expect a 1st Rounder. On his own he is worth Pick 5. Clubs would take a proven classy midfielder that gets his own ball ahead of an untried raw boned 18 yo from the U18s competition. (look how many first rounders we have wasted on such players).
If Malceski is on his way out the door. Why throw him in as steak knives. We could get a 2nd round compensation pick for him, based on the free agency compensation rules in relation to the worth of a player.
Heeney will be elevated from the Rookie list in the next trade period. Why would we give him up. We are giving away part of our future.

But no Matt says bundle all 3 up together to give to Melbourne because Roosy is shrewd. If we were offering up such a deal in exchange for Pick 5, we'd have a multitude of clubs lining up to do the deal.

Unlike the Bulldogs, we don't need to take risks to get our list in good order so why throw out part of our future to get pick 5, when who's to say that pick 5 will be any better than the whatever our first pick in the first round of the draft will be. Oh, and "The Darcy deal" is hardly risk taking and will never get done. Why. Griffin may be the Dogs Skipper, but is currently in his 10th season, is under an injury cloud at the moment, and has probably got another 2, at best 3 seasons left in him. Any one of GWS's tall forwards have got probably 10 more seasons in them, and the Giants are attempting to do what we are doing, and that is have a multi pronged forward line. Why would they give up one of their tall forwards for Griffen and jeopardise the chance to have such a forward line. Makes no sense, and not really a risk for the Dogs. Typical of a so called media expert thinking that GWS is full of idiots who have no idea about trading, and would agree to such a deal.

Yeah probably poorly played as you say, but I find that stupidity is related to bigotry. If you don't call it out early it runs rampant over the internet.

[jono2707]

I think the Swans have shown to be cleverer than any other club in the comp, and probably cleverer than most of us here on RWO. I have no doubt that the attempts to undermine us emanating from down south will be seen as just that, and that this silly talk of Tom M trades will be shown to be more rubbish spouted from so called 'journos' backed by jeoulous and insecure clubs down there...

[Matimbo]

Recent swans trading history suggests that we don't trade for high draft picks. We usually identify what our positional deficiencies are and then trade in a player to address that eg Shaw, Tippett, Laidler, etc. If we require a KPD, we may try to identify a young KPD from another club or try to turn a forward into a back.
I believe we will be quite this trade period. I think we will gladly take Heeney with our 1st pick, probably Davis with our 2nd and then some talls with what left. We will also try to consolidate the development of our talented reserves and bring them through.

Spot on:

1. Tom Mitchell was keenly sought by the Swans under F/S and exceeded expectations in his first season in the seniors. In his second season, he is not out of favour, just battling injuries. It would take a very attractive deal for Swans to let him out of his contract. The article citing this rumour also states Carlton were surprised to find he is on $400Kp.a. implying this is more than Carlton thinks he is worth. Hence, why would they be likely to offer the required very attractive deal?
2 Our salary cap is maxed out and most likely already factors in near future retirements such as Goodes, ROK, LRT
3. We will not have an immediate (i.e. next season) need for a Frawley-type backman ... the departure rumours are about Mal and Shaw, Frawley would not be a logical replacement for them. We have Rohan and (hopefully) AJ available plus Biggs and X progressing well
4. Lloyd Perris was the subject of a heated public argument between the Swans and Roos with the Swans winning out. He has not met expectations yet due to injury so would have low trade currency. No chance Swans mgt will consider trading him at this stage.

Conclusion: I expect Swans will use the next trade period to draft juniors only (Heeney 1st priority) and maybe one recycle player with a view to promoting the best of our current reserves to replace retirements and requested trades such as Mal (if this rumour is even true).

[Ludwig]

Thanks Liz - i wasn't quite sure how it works. Surely Frawley would be more likely to be an end of Rd 1 pick, than a potential pick 4 or 5.

Collingwood got a pick after their normal pick for Daisy Thomas. So it depends how you would rank Frawley against Thomas. Personally, I would prefer Frawley.

[Plugger46]

Luke Darcy really hasn't got a clue. The biggest suck in the game.

[Flying South]

Really? Poorly played?

OK lets just indulge Matt for a bit here and look at how ridiculous his supposed Dream trade is.

If Sydney are trading Mitchell, we would expect a 1st Rounder. On his own he is worth Pick 5. Clubs would take a proven classy midfielder that gets his own ball ahead of an untried raw boned 18 yo from the U18s competition. (look how many first rounders we have wasted on such players).
If Malceski is on his way out the door. Why throw him in as steak knives. We could get a 2nd round compensation pick for him, based on the free agency compensation rules in relation to the worth of a player.
Heeney will be elevated from the Rookie list in the next trade period. Why would we give him up. We are giving away part of our future.

But no Matt says bundle all 3 up together to give to Melbourne because Roosy is shrewd. If we were offering up such a deal in exchange for Pick 5, we'd have a multitude of clubs lining up to do the deal.

Unlike the Bulldogs, we don't need to take risks to get our list in good order so why throw out part of our future to get pick 5, when who's to say that pick 5 will be any better than the whatever our first pick in the first round of the draft will be. Oh, and "The Darcy deal" is hardly risk taking and will never get done. Why. Griffin may be the Dogs Skipper, but is currently in his 10th season, is under an injury cloud at the moment, and has probably got another 2, at best 3 seasons left in him. Any one of GWS's tall forwards have got probably 10 more seasons in them, and the Giants are attempting to do what we are doing, and that is have a multi pronged forward line. Why would they give up one of their tall forwards for Griffen and jeopardise the chance to have such a forward line. Makes no sense, and not really a risk for the Dogs. Typical of a so called media expert thinking that GWS is full of idiots who have no idea about trading, and would agree to such a deal.

Yeah probably poorly played as you say, but I find that stupidity is related to bigotry. If you don't call it out early it runs rampant over the internet.

LMHO. You are kidding me. Since you brought it up, the definition of a bigot is, ?a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief or opinion?. Seems you have an intolerance to someone else?s opinion. Make of that what you want. Labelling someone stupid is bordering on bullying and should not be tolerated in an RWO forum. So yes poorly played and getting worse.

[Ludwig]

Luke Darcy really hasn't got a clue. The biggest suck in the game.

Eddie McGuire likes to be surrounded by people dumber than he is, which is not easy to do, but Luke would qualify.

[Melbournehammer]

Really? Poorly played?

OK lets just indulge Matt for a bit here and look at how ridiculous his supposed Dream trade is.

If Sydney are trading Mitchell, we would expect a 1st Rounder. On his own he is worth Pick 5. Clubs would take a proven classy midfielder that gets his own ball ahead of an untried raw boned 18 yo from the U18s competition. (look how many first rounders we have wasted on such players).
If Malceski is on his way out the door. Why throw him in as steak knives. We could get a 2nd round compensation pick for him, based on the free agency compensation rules in relation to the worth of a player.
Heeney will be elevated from the Rookie list in the next trade period. Why would we give him up. We are giving away part of our future.

But no Matt says bundle all 3 up together to give to Melbourne because Roosy is shrewd. If we were offering up such a deal in exchange for Pick 5, we'd have a multitude of clubs lining up to do the deal.

Unlike the Bulldogs, we don't need to take risks to get our list in good order so why throw out part of our future to get pick 5, when who's to say that pick 5 will be any better than the whatever our first pick in the first round of the draft will be. Oh, and "The Darcy deal" is hardly risk taking and will never get done. Why. Griffin may be the Dogs Skipper, but is currently in his 10th season, is under an injury cloud at the moment, and has probably got another 2, at best 3 seasons left in him. Any one of GWS's tall forwards have got probably 10 more seasons in them, and the Giants are attempting to do what we are doing, and that is have a multi pronged forward line. Why would they give up one of their tall forwards for Griffen and jeopardise the chance to have such a forward line. Makes no sense, and not really a risk for the Dogs. Typical of a so called media expert thinking that GWS is full of idiots who have no idea about trading, and would agree to such a deal.

Yeah probably poorly played as you say, but I find that stupidity is related to bigotry. If you don't call it out early it runs rampant over the internet.

actually we did a deal pretty similar to this - wayne schwass for shannon grant. i think the roos got the better deal but schwass was pretty good for us for the 3-4 seasons he played. i can see griffin also being very good.

in any case there is NO way Mitchell is worth 5 on his own. he could be a great player. but there is too many risks with him to make him that - I sincerely doubt he would have been pick 5 in his own draft. he may be rated 5 by us but i doubt any other club would see him as such.

I wouldn't go for matt's deal because perris and mitchell have a great deal of value for us and probably more for us than for others. but its far from a terrible decision. if mal was going anyway and mitchell likely to pick 5 for mal and mitchell is a lot better than 10-15 and 30

[Dosser]

Come on guys. Sydney has always been the bogey team for the south. Don't you remember each time someone had a contract negotiation coming up their management released info that Sydney is interested (looking at you, Aker)? It is the same old same old. There are always rumours and rumours of rumours but 9 times out of 10 the player re-signs with his original club. Mitchell will be the same.

In addition, I think if we are forced to do any trading at all, it will be for players, not picks, as I think picks would impact our position with Heeney.

[Reggi]

actually we did a deal pretty similar to this - wayne schwass for shannon grant. i think the roos got the better deal but schwass was pretty good for us for the 3-4 seasons he played. i can see griffin also being very good.

in any case there is NO way Mitchell is worth 5 on his own. he could be a great player. but there is too many risks with him to make him that - I sincerely doubt he would have been pick 5 in his own draft. he may be rated 5 by us but i doubt any other club would see him as such.

I wouldn't go for matt's deal because perris and mitchell have a great deal of value for us and probably more for us than for others. but its far from a terrible decision. if mal was going anyway and mitchell likely to pick 5 for mal and mitchell is a lot better than 10-15 and 30

GWS said he would have been the best player in 2012 draft. He would be in best 5 in any draft. Some people have a perception his is slow.

Either way no chance he would get traded