The Roar
The Roar

AFL
Advertisement

Five reasons why the Mitchell trade is bad for West Coast

Roar Rookie
24th February, 2017
Advertisement
Sam Mitchell's impact on the West Coast Eagles could be the biggest story of 2017 (AAP Image/Tracey Nearmy)
Roar Rookie
24th February, 2017
59
8261 Reads

When the Eagles agreed to trade two drafts picks to the Hawks in return for three lower draft picks and Sam Mitchell, many AFL followers were incredulous. After the initial surprise, the prevailing view seemed to be that West Coast had made a great deal.

It’s not a view I shared at the time. A few months on and my position has not shifted. Sam Mitchell moving to West Coast is a terrible deal for West Coast. I’ve five major concerns.

One. At the end of the season was anyone saying something like the following. “What the Eagles really need to boost them up the ladder is another slow, short kicking midfielder”. Of course not.

Yet that is what the Eagles have recruited. Perhaps the cardinal rule of recruiting an established player is that they should address a deficiency in the team recruiting them. Mitchell does not meet this requirement.

Two. Mitchell occupies a spot on West Coast’s playing list. People fail to realise there is an opportunity cost associated with this. Mitchell we can be confident will not improve. The man is 34. Who else could be on that list, improving? You never know when your next star might be uncovered and Mitchell might cost the Eagles a chance at finding the next ‘unknown’ star of the game.

Shaun Burgoyne Sam Mitchell AFL Hawthorn Hawks 2016

Three. Not only does Mitchell occupy a spot on the list he will also, presumably receive game time. Every game he plays robs a young midfielder or small defender of game time. One wonders what thoughts must be going through Liam Duggan’s mind? He’s a quality kid who will likely play less – because of Mitchell.

Four. This point is an issue related to the salary cap. Mitchell would not be cheap. Who else could be getting that money at the Eagles?

Advertisement

Who might look for greener pastures because the Eagles can’t fit them in their salary cap because they are paying for a coach in waiting?

Five. It helps the Hawks. The Hawks needed to free up their salary cap a lot more than they needed Mitchell. They recognised that he will only deteriorate as he ages. They realise you should not pay a player simply because he might be a good coach when he retires. The Hawks get a tangible benefit from this trade. More cash.

The Eagles simply do not. The Eagles are competing against the Hawks. Why on earth would you want to give them the ability to pay O’Meara? It’s just baffling.

What I find most bizarre about the whole thing is the suggestion that in securing Mitchell as a player, West Coast is also getting a quality coach. There is absolutely no guarantee that a good player translates into a good coach even when they show an aptitude for on-field leadership. Voss, Hird and Buckley are all examples of fine captains with poor coaching records.

Lastly if he is such a quality leader, such an asset, such a coach in waiting then why did the Hawks gift him away? I’d suggest it’s because despite being a great servant of the Hawthorn football club, his best days are behind him.

I’d suggest they value tomorrow’s player over yesterday’s. They value the opportunity that his departure creates as opposed to the opportunity cost of funding his gradual decline and retirement.

close