Trade Requested Luke Parker - Wants to hop over to Arden St

[Kane McGoodwin]

Luke Hodge & 44 were traded for 43 & 75... so would think pick 62 is fair for Parker.

Pick 62 will move into the mid 50's once all the Academy & Father Son picks are used up.

 

[Tedeski]

You guys asked for pick 25, that is just nonsense. If you prefer future picks, just say so. We'll be able to work something out, there is no need for the silly games.

Silly games are when a club takes an opportunity & approaches a player when because he is working his way back via the twos from injury & form & throws a carrot of 3 years at him.
You planted the seed & started the action then offer an offensive pick 62.
If we counter offered with a request for 25 then kudos to the Swans. We still have our player & you have ……….um……..Jack Darling who is 32 & done.

 

[perplexed]

Silly games are when a club takes an opportunity & approaches a player when because he is working his way back via the twos from injury & form & throws a carrot of 3 years at him.
You planted the seed & started the action then offer an offensive pick 62.
If we counter offered with a request for 25 then kudos to the Swans. We still have our player & you have ……….um……..Jack Darling who is 32 & done.

We planted the seed in fertile ground. You guys phased him out of the midfield this year, giving him minor roles before saying goodbye to him at your b & f. He wasn't a significant part of your plans this season, and would have been less so next.

I'm not sure how pick 62 is offensive? It is similar to what players in similar situations have gone for in the past.

The trade will likely get done for some exchange of current and future third and fourth rounders. It could have been resolved in half an hour, instead Sydney made a ridiculous ambit claim then departed without even any sort of sensible discussion on whether they preferred current or future picks. You guys are normally professional, this was childish.

 

[Tedeski]

We planted the seed in fertile ground. You guys phased him out of the midfield this year, giving him minor roles before saying goodbye to him at your b & f. He wasn't a significant part of your plans this season, and would have been less so next.

I'm not sure how pick 62 is offensive? It is similar to what players in similar situations have gone for in the past.

The trade will likely get done for some exchange of current and future third and fourth rounders. It could have been resolved in half an hour, instead Sydney made a ridiculous ambit claim then departed without even any sort of sensible discussion on whether they preferred current or future picks. You guys are normally professional, this was childish.

I guess we'll see.

 

[DocSholl]

Silly games are when a club takes an opportunity & approaches a player when because he is working his way back via the twos from injury & form & throws a carrot of 3 years at him.
You planted the seed & started the action then offer an offensive pick 62.
If we counter offered with a request for 25 then kudos to the Swans. We still have our player & you have ……….um……..Jack Darling who is 32 & done.

But he's not in your future plans. If he was he wouldn't be requesting a trade. Don't pretend we're somehow trying to poach a required player.

 

[Kbroome]

We planted the seed in fertile ground. You guys phased him out of the midfield this year, giving him minor roles before saying goodbye to him at your b & f. He wasn't a significant part of your plans this season, and would have been less so next.

I'm not sure how pick 62 is offensive? It is similar to what players in similar situations have gone for in the past.

The trade will likely get done for some exchange of current and future third and fourth rounders. It could have been resolved in half an hour, instead Sydney made a ridiculous ambit claim then departed without even any sort of sensible discussion on whether they preferred current or future picks. You guys are normally professional, this was childish.

62 is only similar to players that are 2-3 years older that went to a club for 1-2 years not 3. The most recent example is Gunston who went for 48 and a F4 which is much closer to the value Parker has

 

[MightyBloods]

But he's not in your future plans. If he was he wouldn't be requesting a trade. Don't pretend we're somehow trying to poach a required player.

Deal will probably get done for North's pick 40.

 

[Kbroome]

But he's not in your future plans. If he was he wouldn't be requesting a trade. Don't pretend we're somehow trying to poach a required player.

No he's getting a guaranteed 1.6m more by going to North and gets to play slightly more midfield time.

 

[Tedeski]

But he's not in your future plans. If he was he wouldn't be requesting a trade. Don't pretend we're somehow trying to poach a required player.

You’re not.
You want a player for 3 years.
It will find its level.

 

[DocSholl]

You’re not.
You want a player for 3 years.
It will find its level.

Yeah its level probably isn't a valuable pick after 290 games but sure