Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast
Results 109 to 120 of 126

Thread: Tom Mitchell

  1. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by 09183305 View Post
    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?
    Last edited by KSAS; 26th September 2018 at 01:45 AM.

  2. #110
    RWOs Black Sheep AnnieH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    At Goodesy's Place
    Posts
    11,332
    Quote Originally Posted by KSAS View Post
    Is it conceivable that we could be planning to lure him back next year?
    No. He would fail the no dickheads policy now.
    Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
    Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.

  3. #111
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,440
    Quote Originally Posted by KSAS View Post
    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

  4. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    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.

  5. #113
    Carpe Noctem CureTheSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Knoxfield, Victoria
    Posts
    5,032
    Quote Originally Posted by ernie koala View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by AnnieH View Post
    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.
    The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

  6. #114
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,440
    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
    Last edited by caj23; 26th September 2018 at 11:50 AM.

  7. #115
    Carpe Noctem CureTheSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Knoxfield, Victoria
    Posts
    5,032
    Quote Originally Posted by caj23 View Post
    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?
    The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

  8. #116
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,440
    Quote Originally Posted by CureTheSane View Post
    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

  9. #117
    Carpe Noctem CureTheSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Knoxfield, Victoria
    Posts
    5,032
    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.
    The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

  10. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by Nico View Post
    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

  11. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    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.

  12. #120
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post

    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.

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast

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