Traded #26 Luke Parker

[Kennedy Parker]

Luke Parker
Luke Parker

26

Luke Parker

Age

32

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

32

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

 

[caesar88]

We overpaid for Hayward and Florent

Do you know that, or do you "well that's what Twitter said" know that?

 

[SM]

Because we’ve made contractual commitments to other current players next year and beyond that can’t be met within the salary cap if Parker’s salary stays on our books.

If that's true then that's a massive **** up by the club. Good thing it isn't true.

 

[SM]

Tell this to every man who has ever brought an engagement ring!

Every?

 

[bedford]

Do you know that, or do you "well that's what Twitter said" know that?

The Hayward contract was too long and too much for a Gary Rohan clone

 

[tombomb]

Because we’ve made contractual commitments to other current players next year and beyond that can’t be met within the salary cap if Parker’s salary stays on our books.

Where are you getting evidence that we are over the salary cap next year unless we get rid of Parker?

As if the club would be haggling over a trade if breaching the salary cap was at risk?!

 

[Kbroome]

Where are you getting evidence that we are over the salary cap next year unless we get rid of Parker?

As if the club would be haggling over a trade if breaching the salary cap was at risk?!

Would be incredibly poor management to have a 2m increase in the cap from 2024 to 2025 and still be needing Parkers 700k

 

[tombomb]

Would be incredibly poor management to have a 2m increase in the cap from 2024 to 2025 and still be needing Parkers 700k

There is no evidence that we are going to exceed the salary cap like that other guy implied.

Using Parker's money to give us flexibility next year and beyond is a completely different concept.

If we were in any danger of exceeding the salary cap, we would have taken 62 and run last Monday.

 

[SM]

There is no evidence that we are going to exceed the salary cap like that other guy implied.

Using Parker's money to give us flexibility next year and beyond is a completely different concept.

Oh no you're still repeating this.

What flexibility do we need for next year if we aren't bringing anyone in and not signing players to contracts tomorrow??

Is there any evidence that deals signed mid-next year can apply from that same season? I've never heard of this before. New deals always start the following season, i.e. 2026 i.e. when Parker is out of contract anyway.

 

[DavyRed]

Where are you getting evidence that we are over the salary cap next year unless we get rid of Parker?

As if the club would be haggling over a trade if breaching the salary cap was at risk?!

Okay, very happy for you to suggest an alternative answer to Jewelsbon ’s question in response to your comment that we wanted Parker’s salary off our books.

Edit: ah, sorry, I see in another post you put it down for a need for ‘flexibility’ next year.

 

[caesar88]

The Hayward contract was too long and too much for a Gary Rohan clone

Maybe the length was to counter the $$?

I would've let him walk if I'm being totally honest.

 

[bedford]

There is no evidence that we are going to exceed the salary cap like that other guy implied.

Using Parker's money to give us flexibility next year and beyond is a completely different concept.

If we were in any danger of exceeding the salary cap, we would have taken 62 and run last Monday.

Don't make sense mate

 

[tombomb]

Oh no you're still repeating this.

What flexibility do we need for next year if we aren't bringing anyone in and not signing players to contracts tomorrow??

Is there any evidence that deals signed mid-next year can apply from that same season? I've never heard of this before. New deals always start the following season, i.e. 2026 i.e. when Parker is out of contract anyway.

Good grief. Not this again.

I am running out of ways to explain this to you beyond introducing sock puppets, but I will try another way.

Jacob Weitering just re-signed with Carlton for 6 years. He wasn't out of contract until the end of next year, but he re-signed anyway.

Part of that re-signing would most likely involve a bump on his salary next year. It wouldn't have to, but it probably did. Otherwise, why would he bother resigning now as he could just wait until October next year.

Well if we have cap space next year, because we aren't paying Parker, then we can do the same with Warner this summer. As soon as Parker goes to North, his salary for 2025 leaves our salary cap.

Please tell me you understand that. I am going to start worrying about the state of my internet connection if it is still not making sense.

 

[bedford]

Good grief. Not this again.

I am running out of ways to explain this to you beyond introducing sock puppets, but I will try another way.

Jacob Weitering just re-signed with Carlton for 6 years. He wasn't out of contract until the end of next year, but he re-signed anyway.

Part of that re-signing would most likely involve a bump on his salary next year. It wouldn't have to, but it probably did. Otherwise, why would he bother resigning now as he could just wait until October next year.

Well if we have cap space next year, because we aren't paying Parker, then we can do the same with Warner this summer. As soon as Parker goes to North, his salary for 2025 leaves our salary cap.

Please tell me you understand that. I am going to start worrying about the state of my internet connection if it is still not making sense.

Please some just don't know

 

[SM]

Good grief. Not this again.

I am running out of ways to explain this to you beyond introducing sock puppets, but I will try another way.

Jacob Weitering just re-signed with Carlton for 6 years. He wasn't out of contract until the end of next year, but he re-signed anyway.

Part of that re-signing would most likely involve a bump on his salary next year. It wouldn't have to, but it probably did. Otherwise, why would he bother resigning now as he could just wait until October next year.

Well if we have cap space next year, because we aren't paying Parker, then we can do the same with Warner this summer. As soon as Parker goes to North, his salary for 2025 leaves our salary cap.

Please tell me you understand that. I am going to start worrying about the state of my internet connection if it is still not making sense.

Yes, a bump next year, not in 2024. Do we have anyone still to sign to new deals now? Otherwise they'll be signing them in 2025 effective the start of 2026. Weitering is a fantastic example of this, thank you.

Warner signing a new deal this year effective next year will categorically not happen. It is the one scenario where shifting the salary would matter, but it won't happen.

 

[KingV23]

Who is Zane

Just another fan like us.

 

[SM]

Maybe the length was to counter the $$?

I would've let him walk if I'm being totally honest.

If you take out Amarteys 9 goal game Hayward was our top goal kicker. Your bias around him is astounding.

 

[DavyRed]

Good grief. Not this again.

I am running out of ways to explain this to you beyond introducing sock puppets, but I will try another way.

Jacob Weitering just re-signed with Carlton for 6 years. He wasn't out of contract until the end of next year, but he re-signed anyway.

Part of that re-signing would most likely involve a bump on his salary next year. It wouldn't have to, but it probably did. Otherwise, why would he bother resigning now as he could just wait until October next year.

Well if we have cap space next year, because we aren't paying Parker, then we can do the same with Warner this summer. As soon as Parker goes to North, his salary for 2025 leaves our salary cap.

Please tell me you understand that. I am going to start worrying about the state of my internet connection if it is still not making sense.

Hang on, you disputed my suggestion that Parker’s salary might push us over the cap next year but now you state “Well if we have cap space next year, because we aren't paying Parker”. So which is it?

 

[caesar88]

If you take out Amarteys 9 goal game Hayward was our top goal kicker. Your bias around him is astounding.

It's not bias, I just don't rate him. That's allowed.

 

[SM]

It's not bias, I just don't rate him. That's allowed.

And I just pointed out he effectively topped our goal kicking. So "just not rating him" looks pretty silly.

 

[SM]

Hang on, you disputed my suggestion that Parker’s salary might push us over the cap next year but now you state “Well if we have cap space next year, because we aren't paying Parker”. So which is it?

He picks and chooses his logic depending on who he's talking to.

No one has shown me that you can sign a new deal and have it immediately take effect, and until they do I'll maintain new deals take effect the following season. Would leave lists hugely open to manipulation otherwise.

 

[caesar88]

And I just pointed out he effectively topped our goal kicking. So "just not rating him" looks pretty silly.

I'm fine with that.

 

[tombomb]

Hang on, you disputed my suggestion that Parker’s salary might push us over the cap next year but now you state “Well if we have cap space next year, because we aren't paying Parker”. So which is it?

This is so weird. I give up.

You are probably right. If we don't trade Parker, we are going to exceed the salary cap and get fined and lose premiership points and lose draft picks. It's going to be an absolute catastrophe when it all comes out.

Tomorrow is an important day because if we don't trade Parker, we are stuffed.

 

[SM]

This is so weird. I give up.

You are probably right. If we don't trade Parker, we are going to exceed the salary cap and get fined and lose premiership points and lose draft picks. It's going to be an absolute catastrophe when it all comes out.

Tomorrow is an important day because if we don't trade Parker, we are stuffed.

At least if we do Warner's signing a new deal the next day.

 

[ashep]

Hang on, you disputed my suggestion that Parker’s salary might push us over the cap next year but now you state “Well if we have cap space next year, because we aren't paying Parker”. So which is it?

There is a very big difference between Parker's salary coming off the books giving us room to front load an extension for Chad, and Parker's salary staying on the books putting us over the cap based on contracts that have already been written.

 

[SM]

There is a very big difference between Parker's salary coming off the books giving us room to front load an extension for Chad, and Parker's salary staying on the books putting us over the cap based on contracts that have already been written.

There is but everything I've seen suggests said extension for Chad would have to be signed this year.