Player Watch #26 Luke Parker

[Kennedy Parker]

Luke Parker
Luke Parker

26

Luke Parker

Age

31

Ht

183cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

24.2

5star

K

12.6

5star

HB

11.6

5star

M

3.8

4star

T

5.6

5star

CL

5.8

5star

D

22.1

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

9.9

5star

M

3.9

4star

T

5.0

5star

CL

5.5

5star

D

21.2

5star

K

11.4

4star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

8.0

5star

CL

5.2

5star

has plenty of football ahead and has already compiled a resume packed with impressive achievements. Since landing at the Sydney Swans via the 2010 AFL Draft, he has won a 2012 premiership medal, earned All Australian selection and won two Bob Skilton medals. In 2015, he was added to the club’s leadership group at the age of just 22, and has led the team as a co-captain alongside Josh Kennedy and Dane Rampe

24

Dane Rampe

Age

34

Ht

187cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.0

4star

K

10.6

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

2.5

4star

MG

358.8

5star

D

14.1

3star

K

9.0

4star

HB

5.1

3star

M

3.4

3star

T

1.5

2star

MG

284.5

4star

D

10.6

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

2.4

3star

T

1.4

4star

since 2019. While Parker is among the league’s elite midfielders, his strong marking and expert game awareness make him a genuine threat when rotating through the forward line.

Luke Parker

26

Luke Parker

Age

31

Ht

183cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

24.2

5star

K

12.6

5star

HB

11.6

5star

M

3.8

4star

T

5.6

5star

CL

5.8

5star

D

22.1

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

9.9

5star

M

3.9

4star

T

5.0

5star

CL

5.5

5star

D

21.2

5star

K

11.4

4star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

8.0

5star

CL

5.2

5star

DOB: 25 October 1992
DEBUT: 2011
DRAFT: #40, 2010 National Draft
RECRUITED FROM: Langwarrin (Vic)/Dandenong U18

Luke Parker | AFL

Follow Luke Parker's progress through AFL

www.sydneyswans.com.au

 

[Dubai Quacker]

Happy to just walk away from this deal. He just not worth Pick 44.

20 years on Bigfooty, hardly any posts & now you light up over Luke Parker.

Intriguing.

 

[Roadrunner]

20 years on Bigfooty, hardly any posts & now you light up over Luke Parker.

Intriguing.

Before I was busy working. No times for Bigfooty. Now it is time to relax and enjoy my hard earn money.

 

[Day_night_honourer]

Before I was busy working. No times for Bigfooty. Now it is time to relax and enjoy my hard earn money.

BF is free...please go and spend your hard-earned $$ somewhere nice, preferably to a place where there's no internet.

 

[Millky95]

20 years on Bigfooty, hardly any posts & now you light up over Luke Parker.

Intriguing.

Will also likely to be the first one to claim "we never should have gotten him" when he has a bad game

 

[ashep]

North need to be reasonable but the Swans need to swallow their pride on this one.

We stuck Parker in the VFL and on the bench most of the year, and won't give him extension because we gave one to an inferior player from a other club in the same role. He's also been told that he's not locked into side next year.

Asking for 22 now basically is spitting in his face. We don't value you enough to play you or give you a contract, but we're going to take the piss on the way out.

 

[Millky95]

North need to be reasonable but the Swans need to swallow their pride on this one.

We stuck Parker in the VFL and on the bench most of the year, and won't give him extension because we gave one to an inferior player from a other club in the same role. He's also been told that he's not locked into side next year.

Asking for 22 now basically is spitting in his face. We don't value you enough to play you or give you a contract, but we're going to take the piss on the way out.

He still has a year on his contract. We are allowed to hold him to that and work out a new contract with him next year

 

[Cadsky]

He still has a year on his contract. We are allowed to hold him to that and work out a new contract with him next year

Especially since he held out for that extra year when he signed.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

20 years on Bigfooty, hardly any posts & now you light up over Luke Parker.

Intriguing.

Funny to see Norf fans think he’s there saviour

 

[ashep]

He still has a year on his contract. We are allowed to hold him to that and work out a new contract with him next year

Of course we're allowed to, but why insist on keeping a player you've made clear is fringe 22, isn't part of your longer term plans, and is allegedly on a reasonably large contract?

We've "taken care" of much lesser players and helped them get where they want to go.

I'm not saying to take the first lowball offer that lobs in, but countering with 22 is even more ludicrous given our demonstrated valuation of where Luke is at.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Of course we're allowed to, but why insist on keeping a player you've made clear is fringe 22, isn't part of your longer term plans, and is allegedly on a reasonably large contract?

We've "taken care" of much lesser players and helped them get where they want to go.

I'm not saying to take the first lowball offer that lobs in, but countering with 22 is even more ludicrous given our demonstrated valuation of where Luke is at.

Its painful asking for 24 is just as bad as North putting up 62.

 

[Kbroome]

Of course we're allowed to, but why insist on keeping a player you've made clear is fringe 22, isn't part of your longer term plans, and is allegedly on a reasonably large contract?

We've "taken care" of much lesser players and helped them get where they want to go.

I'm not saying to take the first lowball offer that lobs in, but countering with 22 is even more ludicrous given our demonstrated valuation of where Luke is at.

I think its more so because North took the piss with #62. If North had done the slight low-ball of 62 + F4 then the Swans would have just said 44 and shake hands

 

[caesar88]

Of course we're allowed to, but why insist on keeping a player you've made clear is fringe 22, isn't part of your longer term plans, and is allegedly on a reasonably large contract?

We've "taken care" of much lesser players and helped them get where they want to go.

I'm not saying to take the first lowball offer that lobs in, but countering with 22 is even more ludicrous given our demonstrated valuation of where Luke is at.

Yeah I'm with you on this one. It reads like the club wants its cake and eat it too.

Obviously you and I disagree on whether our treatment of Parker throughout the year was fair or not. But the fact is it happened, and it plummeted Parker's value for a trade somewhat, and we now might have to just wear the consequences of that for the sake of getting a deal done, for both player and club.

 

[caesar88]

He still has a year on his contract. We are allowed to hold him to that and work out a new contract with him next year

We are allowed to do that, but it would be a bit shitty IMO.

A long-time servant of our club wants games and to further prolong his career, yet we'd try to keep him even though we can't guarantee him either of those things? That would be a bit of a slap in the face.

 

[Kbroome]

We are allowed to do that, but it would be a bit shitty IMO.

A long-time servant of our club wants games and to further prolong his career, yet we'd try to keep him even though we can't guarantee him either of those things? That would be a bit of a slap in the face.

Imo its shitty and pretty low to hold onto Parker because he wants to leave and he has given us service. I also don't think its low for the Swans to say no to a nothing pick in 62 that would be taken up by the Cochran bid. All Swans really are asking for in a roundabout way is 44

 

[Tedeski]

North need to be reasonable but the Swans need to swallow their pride on this one.

We stuck Parker in the VFL and on the bench most of the year, and won't give him extension because we gave one to an inferior player from a other club in the same role. He's also been told that he's not locked into side next year.

Asking for 22 now basically is spitting in his face. We don't value you enough to play you or give you a contract, but we're going to take the piss on the way out.

He is contracted for season 2025 at the Swans.
That means we want him to be at our club for season 2025.
That means we value him enough that we want a decent pick for him.

When they are out of contract we need to bend over.
When they are contracted you still want us to bend over.
The BEST we have been offered for him is pick 62.
That's North disrespecting Parker saying that they don't think he has more than one year in him & that they don't expect he'll have an on field role after season 2025.
Yes.....................that Luke Parker would be worth pick 62.

 

[caesar88]

Imo its shitty and pretty low to hold onto Parker because he wants to leave and he has given us service. I also don't think its low for the Swans to say no to a nothing pick in 62 that would be taken up by the Cochran bid. All Swans really are asking for in a roundabout way is 44

I hear you, but if North refuse, as would be their right? Someone would have to blink first and IMO it should be us, if only for Parker's sake. Pick 62, pick 44, does it really matter? We're talking about a fringe player, we're not negotiating over Isaac Heeney.

 

[Day_night_honourer]

As a matter of fact I do a lot of traveling with limited access of internet. Really enjoy it. You should try it instead of idling staring at Bigfooty all day.

Haha…The wrong poster to lay that one upon …5 of 6 next weeks I have PNG, Darwin and Solomon’s trips booked.

Anyway, at times when I am ‘idle’ I know I won’t be posting on oppo boards attempting to get bites.

 

[Millky95]

Of course we're allowed to, but why insist on keeping a player you've made clear is fringe 22, isn't part of your longer term plans, and is allegedly on a reasonably large contract?

We've "taken care" of much lesser players and helped them get where they want to go.

I'm not saying to take the first lowball offer that lobs in, but countering with 22 is even more ludicrous given our demonstrated valuation of where Luke is at.

Best 22 in the last game he played. No reason if he works hard he won't be next season. Pick 2 or he stays

We are allowed to do that, but it would be a bit shitty IMO.

A long-time servant of our club wants games and to further prolong his career, yet we'd try to keep him even though we can't guarantee him either of those things? That would be a bit of a slap in the face.

Don't care. Pick 2

 

[SM]

Yeah I'm with you on this one. It reads like the club wants its cake and eat it too.

Obviously you and I disagree on whether our treatment of Parker throughout the year was fair or not. But the fact is it happened, and it plummeted Parker's value for a trade somewhat, and we now might have to just wear the consequences of that for the sake of getting a deal done, for both player and club.

No matter where you stand on this, it's now looking quite clear the club did not think this through at all. As you say, trying to have their cake and eat it.

 

[SM]

He is contracted for season 2025 at the Swans.
That means we want him to be at our club for season 2025.
That means we value him enough that we want a decent pick for him.

When they are out of contract we need to bend over.
When they are contracted you still want us to bend over.
The BEST we have been offered for him is pick 62.
That's North disrespecting Parker saying that they don't think he has more than one year in him & that they don't expect he'll have an on field role after season 2025.
Yes.....................that Luke Parker would be worth pick 62.

Being contracted for next year doesn't automatically mean we still want him.

 

[Day_night_honourer]

Being contracted for next year doesn't automatically mean we still want him.

I sure do. Without him our final score 2 weeks ago may have been 42 points

 

[SM]

I sure do. Without him our final score 2 weeks ago may have been 42 points

I do too but I just thought it a bit simplistic to claim that a contract means a clubs feelings haven't changed.

 

[Tedeski]

Being contracted for next year doesn't automatically mean we still want him.

We don’t want him but if the deal doesn’t get done adequately he’s ours to do what we want. He pushed that extra year & now “here it is”.

So we need to take advantage of it to get better than 62.
I’m sure we will.

 

[TheGong]

Really dealing with a nothing club. They stumble from year to year with no plan to improve other then bailouts from the AFL or hope for a messiah to be drafted.

Last year the Swans identified they needed a ruckman and midfield depth. They identified and sounded out Grundy and Adams. Spoke to their clubs and verified they were available. They were both traded to the Swans on Wednesday the first week of the trading period. Both on reasonable terms - Adams for pick 33 and Grundy for pick 44 and future second pick.

Norths appear to work on the basis of identify need and offer nothing for it. Pick 62 is useless for the Swans. They seem to want to make promises to Parker and then leave him hanging. A cheap club.

A fairer trade would be a future third. About reasonable value and of value next year with the academy players.

 

[Roadrunner]