- Oct 20, 2015
- 2,030
- 1,929
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Yes a pay rise and he knows Eagles are happy for him to leave!
-
LIVE: GWS Giants v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 65% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Speculation Tom Barrass [UFA 2027]
- Thread starter TiAn_
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Mar 19, 2020
- 15,139
- 43,985
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Not without trading out future 2nd ourselves which seems dumb.
- Mar 19, 2020
- 15,139
- 43,985
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Its our decision in the end. If he doesnt go this off season he 100% just gets his contract renegotiated and the saga ends. Its our decision as opposed to Hawks here
HeHateMe
Norm Smith Medallist
- Nov 28, 2009
- 7,942
- 6,603
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Might need to be a multi club trade if both clubs have multiple irons in the fire. Think hawks have a bit more going on than just Barrass and need to also unlock some things.
- Mar 19, 2020
- 15,139
- 43,985
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Id bet every cent I have itd be a multi club trade.
Iceman!
Brownlow Medallist
It’s fine for you not for me and hopefully not the club. I think top 4 is far from a lock next year.
- Thread starter
- #832
By not offering him the promised improved deal the Eagles are essentially telling him to move on. If it hasn’t happened by trade week and he requests a trade then he’s not going back there. As long as they get offered something fair, they’ll take it. I personally think pick 10 is fair. But they’ll push for as much as they can get, whilst the Hawks will know they don’t have to offer ridiculous overs because of the situation. It’ll probably end up a convoluted trade either way though, as is AFL tradition.
Ka Norkers
Senior List
I know nothing about whether Barrass or Battle are going to stay or go, but personally, I would prefer the hawks got Barrass if only one was to come. Battle comes free wrt trades, but paying large overs to a decent player has historically ended up in player payment inflation for the clubs that do it. Paying $900k/5 years for a decent player sets a difficult precedent.
Lol of course he will. If a suitable trade can't be worked out you think he's just going to retire?
- Aug 22, 2009
- 24,476
- 28,790
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I think if it was pick 8 (which would be pick 9 on draft night?) then a straight swap is reasonable.
But if the live pick ends up drifting down lower then more is needed. How much more depends on how much it drifts.
But if the live pick ends up drifting down lower then more is needed. How much more depends on how much it drifts.
- Thread starter
- #836
No, I’m saying a suitable trade will be worked out because the Eagles don’t have the leverage to demand overs in this situation and hold their ground. Because he won’t be going back there.
kaiserchief13
Hall of Famer
- Jul 12, 2011
- 35,108
- 25,965
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Eagles, Lakers, Bayern, Trojans
Players have gone back to their clubs after a failed trade request. Why would Barrass be different?
Snuffaluphagus
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 10, 2015
- 24,137
- 83,500
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
100%, there's nuances to "contracted" these days. Contracted on players a club has basically agreed to let go already (Houston, Barrass, Lukosious?) because they actually want the capital just means you dont get stiffed, not get crazy overs. Out of contract you'd be pretty lucky to get a top 10 for a 29 year old Barrass IMO. In contract, you get the top 10 and a little bit of change probably.
Barrass is getting moved, it will just be who blinks on the value of the change. WC arent turning away the top 10 pick and Hawks arent missing on a player they really want. Both clubs will win from it.
- Thread starter
- #840
It’s not a typical player wanting out situation because of the background. The Eagles won’t be holding him to 3 years of a deal they promised they’d renegotiate. It’d be untenable. Either the Eagles want to keep him and he gets the new deal he was promised, or they don’t and he doesn’t and he requests a trade and he goes. One or the other happens here.
Remember its not meant to be fair, trading for contracted players is never fair
- Thread starter
- #842
In this case it will be. And I explained why.
Iceman!
Brownlow Medallist
I’m sure he would do it, they all would. He may not be happy to have his promised increase held back and then they refuse to trade him because ‘they value him so highly’ though
eaglevision
Premiership Player
- Jul 27, 2023
- 4,159
- 11,905
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Hawks vs Carlton this weekend will give everyone a good idea of Barrass’s worth one way or the other. Worth keeping an eye on inside 50s to scores conversion with two elite KPFs in a finals type game. Only thing we might not see is the impact Weddle and Sicily can have if released to play further up the ground.
Curnow is in doubt so mightn't be as much of a concern as usual.
eaglevision
Premiership Player
- Jul 27, 2023
- 4,159
- 11,905
- AFL Club
- West Coast
That’s a shame, maybe we will see one of those two forward at some point.
We'll trade for him regardless mate. It's as good as done. These 2 clubs don't muck around. I'd assume the deal is already ticked off in principle and gets done quickly.
eaglevision
Premiership Player
- Jul 27, 2023
- 4,159
- 11,905
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I’m confident a trade is going to happen between two good clubs with your 1R the centrepiece, more so for the average punter this game may demonstrate why Barrass is/is not worth more than the single pick.
- Thread starter
- #849
I don’t think you do to be honest. But feel free to bless us with your thoughts.
Iceman!
Brownlow Medallist
I don't agree, i think all Hawk fans acknowledge we need a Key defender. The issue is whether multiple assets for a 29 year old with back injury history is the right time to pull the trigger when we are still just starting to climb up the ladder.
