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

 

[SM]

If their contract is heavily back ended, then absolutely yes.

I think that's rubbish.

Feel free to provide evidence.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

If their contract is heavily back ended, then absolutely yes.

Players have to much power in general clubs literally get handcuffed awaiting "personal decisions" and "going home"

Its so ******edly stupid the whole of 2025 will be is Warner staying or going.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

After reflecting on it, it's probably standard practice for the releasing club to smooth out the contract if it is heavily backhanded. We're probably just fulfilling our end of an unspoken rule.

However, if his contract were heavily front ended, and we were only paying him 200k in his final season, then he'd be laughing all the way to the bank right now. Under circumstances like that it appears the releasing club loses out.

Maybe it's just swings and roundabouts.

 

[caesar88]

Players have to much power in general clubs literally get handcuffed awaiting "personal decisions" and "going home"

Its so ******edly stupid the whole of 2025 will be is Warner staying or going.

It won't be if he does what this year's crop did and puts the team first.

There I go, telling jokes again!

 

[zyzzbruh]

After reflecting on it, it's probably standard practice for the releasing club to smooth out the contract if it is heavily backhanded. We're probably just fulfilling our end of an unspoken rule.

However, if his contract were heavily front ended, and we were only paying him 200k in his final season, then he'd be laughing all the way to the bank right now. Under circumstances like that it appears the releasing club loses out.

Maybe it's just swings and roundabouts.

But see that's when the compensation provided from the destination club would have to be much higher. If he was front ended then we'd probably be asking for a second rounder and made him stay if that value wasn't fulfilled.

 

[zyzzbruh]

I think that's rubbish.

Feel free to provide evidence.

I just think it's common sense. Trade price paid for the player also comes into play in that situation. A team may be willing to take on a full overvalued backend of a contract if the trade costs them a pack of chewies.

 

[SM]

I just think it's common sense. Trade price paid for the player also comes into play in that situation. A team may be willing to take on a full overvalued backend of a contract if the trade costs them a pack of chewies.

A pick in the 40s is essentially that.

 

[zyzzbruh]

A pick in the 40s is essentially that.

We'll agree to disagree. The bloke is 32 yrs old. Would've been absolute robbery from our end if we got them to take on the full contract. I actually think it was quite a fair value trade in the end for both parties.

 

[SM]

We'll agree to disagree. The bloke is 32 yrs old. Would've been absolute robbery from our end if we got them to take on the full contract. I actually think it was quite a fair value trade in the end for both parties.

How is it robbery when not only are they taking him on but adding two years on the deal at substantially more money? After all, I've heard for weeks from everyone how it was in Parker's best interest to go because of the financial security. So North are offering him a stack more money (they have to meet the cap floor after all), but the quibbling over 1-200k for next year means we have to wear it?

Sorry, don't buy it.

 

[zyzzbruh]

How is it robbery when not only are they taking him on but adding two years on the deal at substantially more money? After all, I've heard for weeks from everyone how it was in Parker's best interest to go because of the financial security. So North are offering him a stack more money (they have to meet the cap floor after all), but the quibbling over 1-200k for next year means we have to wear it?

Sorry, don't buy it.

I see it as whatever extra they want to add on to entice him is completely upto them - and that add on is after the current contract so you can't make a connection between the two, you can see it as them essentially back ending their own part of the deal. Likely that is in part what has convinced him to make the move. And that doesn't change the fact that we structured his contract to essentially underpay him for a few years - there is absolutely no obligation for NM to take on the inflated end of the contract. i.e if you're selling me a car that is under finance, I'm paying market value, not market value + what you still owe on finance.

The fact we back ended his initial contract is our problem, and it's a problem we created for ourselves in a potential trade negotiation. And at the end of the day he was still contracted with us so it's not like we had to entertain anything that was not fair value.

 

[SM]

I see it as whatever extra they want to add on to entice him is completely upto them - and that add on is after the current contract so you can't make a connection between the two, you can see it as them essentially back ending their own part of the deal. Likely that is in part what has convinced him to make the move. And that doesn't change the fact that we structured his contract to essentially underpay him for a few years - there is absolutely no obligation for NM to take on the inflated end of the contract. i.e if you're selling me a car that is under finance, I'm paying market value, not market value + what you still owe on finance.

The fact we back ended his initial contract is our problem, and it's a problem we created for ourselves in a potential trade negotiation. And at the end of the day he was still contracted with us so it's not like we had to entertain anything that was not fair value.

Yeah I can't agree at all and again why I asked you to cite other deals (other than Grundy who was pushed out by the Dees) where a club has had to essentially pay out the contracted, traded player. The fact you went with a 'it's the vibe' rather than any examples makes me think you're making this up.

 

[LeapingLeo21]

The other option could have been to keep him, pay all his back ended contract for 2025 to potentially play in the reserves, then let him walk to north via the pre season draft at end of the season and receive nothing.

I'll stick to what they've done thanks.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

The other option could have been to keep him, pay all his back ended contract for 2025 to potentially play in the reserves, then let him walk to north via the pre season draft at end of the season and receive nothing.

I'll stick to what they've done thanks.

Alternatively, we could have played him in the seniors this year as soon as he was available (because, you know, he IS a best 22 player after all). Shown that we still valued him as a player. And Parker doesn't become disgruntled and look for opportunities elsewhere. We get to keep a great player in the final year of his contract and consider a 1 year extension once his contract expires (provided his form warrants it). And we're not paying a portion of his salary in 2025 to play elsewhere.

No matter how many times I play the 2024 season back in my mind. The one thing I can't get over is how monumentally Horse ballsed up the whole Parker situation.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Yeah I can't agree at all and again why I asked you to cite other deals (other than Grundy who was pushed out by the Dees) where a club has had to essentially pay out the contracted, traded player. The fact you went with a 'it's the vibe' rather than any examples makes me think you're making this up.

I don't see why you need examples when the rationale is quite logical. Other than Grundy and Treloar I can't recall any other off top of my head (I'm sure there's been a couple of others - I think Heath Shaw was another), but with back ended contracts being a modern revelation be prepared to start seeing it pop up more and more.

And yeah I get Parker wasn't pushed out like the other two, but clearly the club didn't mind the idea of offloading majority of his salary otherwise they could've just refused any negotiation.

The only problem I see here is you viewing the trade as 'we're paying him to play for another club' whilst everyone else sees it as 'pick 44 received in exchange for Parker and majority of his salary'.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Alternatively, we could have played him in the seniors this year as soon as he was available (because, you know, he IS a best 22 player after all). Shown that we still valued him as a player. And Parker doesn't become disgruntled and look for opportunities elsewhere. We get to keep a great player in the final year of his contract and consider a 1 year extension once his contract expires (provided his form warrants it). And we're not paying a portion of his salary in 2025 to play elsewhere.

No matter how many times I play the 2024 season back in my mind. The one thing I can't get over is how monumentally Horse ballsed up the whole Parker situation.

Yeah I can't believe Parker came into a side that was humming, at which that point onwards we turned to shit. He got a game in the end purely based on reputation.

Look Parker had clear and obvious attributes as a marking forward, but he was done as mid and his mobility has fallen off a cliff. His contribution to games other than a couple goals here and there wasn't anything to ride home about. Tbh I think his negative attributes hurt us more than his positive attributes provided at the end there.

Now we can disagree about the above so I won't be arguing over that, but you can take it to the bank with our list profile Parker would have struggled to get a game next year. Which means the chances of the extension you are optimistically suggesting would have been close to 0. He will be barely any use to NM after next year, but they have enough salary to not care and they needed an experienced head around the club for the next couple of years - it's the offer that made him consider the move. Parker deserved one last pay day, and he was only going to get it with our blessing.

 

[SM]

I don't see why you need examples when the rationale is quite logical. Other than Grundy and Treloar I can't recall any other off top of my head (I'm sure there's been a couple of others - I think Heath Shaw was another), but with back ended contracts being a modern revelation be prepared to start seeing it pop up more and more.

And yeah I get Parker wasn't pushed out like the other two, but clearly the club didn't mind the idea of offloading majority of his salary otherwise they could've just refused any negotiation.

The only problem I see here is you viewing the trade as 'we're paying him to play for another club' whilst everyone else sees it as 'pick 44 received in exchange for Parker and majority of his salary'.

The issue is the fact North are boosting his salary. In all the other examples the club taking on the player can't afford to pay the full salary and therefore need the enticement to take the player on. Like Bowes going to the Cats for instance. In this case it's literally the opposite, North are increasing his salary and are happy to take him on. So the fact we're paying some of his salary on top of that is just silly. North know what wage he would require to entice him across, enter negotiations with him, and offer him a contract he's happy to sign. That should be the end of our involvement.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

Yeah I can't believe Parker came into a side that was humming, at which that point onwards we turned to shit. He got a game in the end purely based on reputation.

Look Parker had clear and obvious attributes as a marking forward, but he was done as mid and his mobility has fallen off a cliff. His contribution to games other than a couple goals here and there wasn't anything to ride home about. Tbh I think his negative attributes hurt us more than his positive attributes provided at the end there.

Now we can disagree about the above so I won't be arguing over that, but you can take it to the bank with our list profile Parker would have struggled to get a game next year. Which means the chances of the extension you are optimistically suggesting would have been close to 0. He will be barely any use to NM after next year, but they have enough salary to not care and they needed an experienced head around the club for the next couple of years - it's the offer that made him consider the move. Parker deserved one last pay day, and he was only going to get it with our blessing.

Tbh, I wasn't at all optimistic about an extension beyond 2025. My point was, he was still best 22 in 2024, but Horse treated him like he was ready for the scrap heap, and then had to do a back flip when the team started capitulating. If Horse had treated Parker with the respect he deserved in 2024, then 2025 would have rolled around and the ball would have been entirely in our court as to whether we chose to extend, whether we played him in the reserves etc.

I just felt that Horse prematurely demoted him when he could have still been a valuable asset in 2025 (as depth at the very least).

And about the team humming, I think the downturn in form had more to do with Mills being marched straight back in while clearly underdone. Parker was held off until the last minute. He came in and performed as well as we could have expected, particularly being asked to play a new role in the team.

 

[LeapingLeo21]

Alternatively, we could have played him in the seniors this year as soon as he was available (because, you know, he IS a best 22 player after all). Shown that we still valued him as a player. And Parker doesn't become disgruntled and look for opportunities elsewhere. We get to keep a great player in the final year of his contract and consider a 1 year extension once his contract expires (provided his form warrants it). And we're not paying a portion of his salary in 2025 to play elsewhere.

No matter how many times I play the 2024 season back in my mind. The one thing I can't get over is how monumentally Horse ballsed up the whole Parker situation.

Do yourself a favour and don't replay the 24 season in your mind, it's like dreaming you've won powerball only to wake up when the alarm goes off and realising you've gotta go to work.

I thought Parker should have been playing as well, however that's the situation we're in and if he's on the outer for 2025 there was no point keeping him for another year on a backended contract