AFL Player # 3: Darcy Parish

[Beerfish]

Contract Status: Unrestricted free agent 2028 or 2029
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 18, doug85

 

[cAsEy_18]

A speculative extra pick in the 12-18 range (after all compo is done and academy) or whatever we end up with is not worth losing Parish for, especially with our track record of first round drafting.

If we were last and could go Harley Reid plus pick 2 (can make a massively beneficial trade with Gold Coast who need to get in early) you would think about it.

Pick 12-18 with our track record is a hell no. Now we sign redman and we can go after McKay since we don’t have to worry about our compo sliding.

Parish, definitely Pick 18, McKay > 2x Pick 12-18.

Fixed it for you.

 

[ant555]

Or Nic Martin. He’d have some trade value.

Apart from the fact he is 4 years younger and has more years left. You do not have to agree but stupid one liners do not make your view any better.

 

[ant555]

A speculative extra pick in the 12-18 range (after all compo is done and academy) or whatever we end up with is not worth losing Parish for, especially with our track record of first round drafting.

If we were last and could go Harley Reid plus pick 2 (can make a massively beneficial trade with Gold Coast who need to get in early) you would think about it.

Pick 12-18 with our track record is a hell no. Now we sign redman and we can go after McKay since we don’t have to worry about our compo sliding.

Parish, Pick 12-18, McKay > 2x Pick 12-18.

Not talking for anyone else but my view on trading him is not to get a pick in the teens. You would be looking for something along the lines of two first round picks. No point trading out good players for limited return. I think most who have suggested trade are looking for a really good deal.

 

[ant555]

Darcy is only 26 next month. An All Australian clearance king who is entering his peak years. Why would we want to trade an A grader like him?

Do you think we will be a top 4 side in the next 2 seasons ?
Yes then trading him makes no sense.
No we are 5 years away then possibly exploring getting two good picks for him is worth looking at.
I would say that just accepting FA compo would not be an option.
I do not think we are in the frame to be winning a flag short term so I am in the camp of you would look at a trade if you could get a good deal.

 

[DapperDon]

Apart from the fact he is 4 years younger and has more years left. You do not have to agree but stupid one liners do not make your view any better.

Wait...Parish is too old now?

 

[ant555]

Wait...Parish is too old now?

Who said that ? It is a simple fact .Martin is 5 years younger. Apples and oranges when talking trading to improve the list longer term .

 

[FlyingV]

Setterfield, Merrett, Parish, Martin, Caldwell, Hobbs, Tsatas, Perkins for at least the next 4 years.

Im wet.

 

[Westlo]

Setterfield, Merrett, Parish, Martin, Caldwell, Hobbs, Tsatas, Perkins for at least the next 4 years.

Im wet.

And than we add Lord Bewick the prince that was promised (Brownlow, normsmith, flag in his first season)

 

[DapperDon]

Who said that ? It is a simple fact .Martin is 5 years younger. Apples and oranges when talking trading to improve the list longer term .

You brought age into the discussion, if one is younger the other must be deemed older yes?

Trading out a known quality for an unknown draft speculation isn't good list management.

 

[faible]

Trading out a known quality for an unknown draft speculation isn't good list management.

This is rather simplistic.

 

[DERO]

Apart from the fact he is 4 years younger and has more years left. You do not have to agree but stupid one liners do not make your view any better.

Carn man

 

[DapperDon]

This is rather simplistic.

Ok I'll amend it,

Trading out one of the best clearance winners in the competition for a draft pick that may end up like Aaron Francis isn't great list management.

 

[ant555]

You brought age into the discussion, if one is younger the other must be deemed older yes?

Trading out a known quality for an unknown draft speculation isn't good list management.

What is hard to comprehend here ? Martin has 10 years plus left. My point was not about Parish being too old. It is about maybe trading a player who has 6 or so good years left if you think the window is further away.
I get it. Some are of the option we will challenge when Parish is in his prime so yes it is not what you would do.
However if we are 5 years away then it is good list management to explore the chances of getting a couple of good draft picks.

 

[supportyourteam]

Isn't it going to depend on the value he puts on himself? Just can't imagine him in other colours.

 

[dank420_]

This is rather simplistic.

Every argument to keep him has been simple.

Every argument to trade him has been complex.

Makes ya think.

 

[faible]

Ok I'll amend it,

Trading out one of the best clearance winners in the competition for a draft pick that may end up like Aaron Francis isn't great list management.

Still simplistic;

Parish is good at winning clearances in certain ways, which relates to contested possessions.

Stats glossary: Every stat explained

Brush up on your statistical knowledge with our glossary

www.afl.com.au

Clearance: Credited to the player who has the first effective disposal in a chain that clears the stoppage area, or an ineffective kick or clanger kick that clears the stoppage area.

Contested Possession: A possession which has been won when the ball is in dispute. Includes looseball-gets, hardball-gets, contested marks, gathers from a hit-out and frees for.

I would say that if you compare a Parish to a Jobe Watson; Parish is elite at winning contested possession from things like looseball-gets and gathers from a hit-out. Jobe was elite at hardball-gets.

Due to Parish's skillset, and role, he's able to win a lot of contested possessions and clearances by doing what he's good at - running offensively from stoppages and reading the ball quickly. He's also not a player who is a strong defensive runner.

The problem is, pretty much every other midfielder we have is also good at the looseball-gets and gathers from a hit-out method of winning clearances and contested possessions, but not hardball-gets.

For the sake of list balance, Parish is the one that would net an extremely high trade return, and opens up a hole for a player like Hobbs who is a hardball-get type winner, that also has a better balance of defensive running.

Undoubtedly Parish is a good midfielder, and you don't let them go lightly, but if you're trying to revamp the midfield to be one that will win the ball in big moments in hotly contested games, Parish is the piece with the most trade value that opens up a hole for other players on the list to potentially fill.

No one is arguing that whoever we draft in 2023 is the Parish replacement, they're arguing that a combination of Hobbs, Caldwell, Perkins & Tsatas can replace Parish's midfield minutes and provide a different balance to our midfield.

 

[ant555]

Ok I'll amend it,

Trading out one of the best clearance winners in the competition for a draft pick that may end up like Aaron Francis isn't great list management.

They got Parish in the same draft. What is bad if we are not actually close to playing in a grand final?

 

[faible]

Every argument to keep him has been simple.

Every argument to trade him has been complex.

Makes ya think.

Makes me think that one side needs to do more research?

 

[DERO]

I remember when people on here wanted to trade Merrett because of his perceived defensive issues too…

 

[TheGrizz]

Makes me think that one side needs to do more research?

Ever heard of Occam's razor?

Alot of 'research' referred to is just 'X is better defensively' or 'Parish gets a lot of contested possessions (which we suck at) but here is why that isn't important' despite their being no evidentiary basis other than the subjective 'eye test'.

Or even better yet 'loOk At OuR reCOrD wITh and WitHouT him' without any context of who the opponents were at the time.
As if Parish wasn't still 18th in score involvements after missing 5 games and the games he did play being the toughest draw in he AFL to that point.
Or as if he wasn't having a career year in contested possessions, clearances and tackles during said difficult draw

Parish adds to the midfield, not take away from it.
The rise of Hobbs, Perkins, Caldwell etc just means that he will need to play a bit more time forward, as opposed to the 80% mid time he was before.

 

[dank420_]

Makes me think that one side needs to do more research?

you sound like a flat earther

 

[ant555]

I remember when people on here wanted to trade Merrett because of his perceived defensive issues too…

I am not in the trade him for the sake of trade but you have to admit that if you are not in a position to win a flag in the next 4 or 5 years then a good list manager looks at what he can get for good players that are more likely not going to feature in a flag side.
Yes he is good . Yes he is an elite clearance player . No you do not trade him if you really think we will be top 4 in a couple of seasons.

 

[faible]

Ever heard of Occam's razor?

Alot of 'research' referred to is just 'X is better defensively' or 'Parish gets a lot of contested possessions (which we suck at) but here is why that isn't important' despite their being no evidentiary basis other than the subjective 'eye test'.

Or even better yet 'loOk At OuR reCOrD wITh and WitHouT him' without any context of who the opponents were at the time.
As if Parish wasn't still 18th in score involvements after missing 5 games and the games he did play being the toughest draw in he AFL to that point.
Or as if he wasn't having a career year in contested possessions, clearances and tackles during said difficult draw

Parish adds to the midfield, not take away from it.
The rise of Hobbs, Perkins, Caldwell etc just means that he will need to play a bit more time forward, as opposed to the 80% mid time he was before.

Occam's Razor isn't simply valid, because, and it doesn't apply in this setting.

As you said yourself, to accommodate Hobbs, Perkins, Caldwell and Tsatas, Parish will need to play more time forward, which means he has less contested possessions, less clearances, and so forth.

Part of issue is that we don't have access to properly in-depth stats that would give us a breakdown of things like looseball-gets vs hardball-gets vs gathers from a hit-out, so we rely on the eye-test to work out whether Parish is winning his clearances and contested possessions in one way or another.

Making a simplistic argument doesn't mean it's a good argument. Parish is an elite midfielder, at what he's good at. If you're moving Parish out of the midfield, or your midfield lacks the things he's not good at, is there value in trading him where the return is sufficiently high to allow the team to rebalance the midfield and/or the forward-line. If Parish wins his clearances and contested possessions in a way that isn't markedly different from how another player (e.g. Shiel) would win them playing the same role, then that makes him more easily replaceable.

It's like Geelong with Tim Kelly; he was a great midfielder for them who wanted out, they got a great trade return for him, which allowed them to bring in Jeremy Cameron to rebalance their forward-line.

I don't recall anyone saying that EFC (except maybe eth-dog) should be pushing him out the door, only that were he wanting to explore his options, it might be a good opportunity to allow us to rebalance the side with a different midfield mix and bring in another one (or two) high-end players.

 

[faible]

you sound like a flat earther

Welcome, friend

Mega Thread - The Flat Earth Mega thread.

so, this is trending lately... a whole stack of videos and new researchers seem to be popping up on my youtube recommendations. and a lot of my existing subscriptions have been talking about it in some way. i've become pretty enamoured with yoga instructor, flat-earther and all-round...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[dank420_]