-
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Speculation Tom Barrass [UFA 2027, reportedly headed to Hawthorn]
- Thread starter TiAn_
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jan 14, 2016
- 2,848
- 7,259
- AFL Club
- West Coast
And you want this to be taken seriously?
No one likes losing players but it's not like Richmond hasnt brought any players in - Hopper and Taranto ring a bell?
You wont have to, we'll be lying prostrate holding our cheeks open for ya's humming "Come F&$k Me" like usual when it comes to trading time.
Does this get done tomorrow? 
- Jan 14, 2016
- 2,848
- 7,259
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Does this get done tomorrow?
You wouldn't be surprised if this one is already worked out...
But you also wouldn't be surprised if this one drags on to the end.
I think you need the pick to do other business.
Iceman!
Brownlow Medallist
I doubt it but i hope so, would be nice to be able to zone out for the next 2 weeks.Does this get done tomorrow?
- Jul 27, 2023
- 4,556
- 13,354
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Hopefully the other business gets an improved offer and is given the keys to Fremantle or him and his best mate have a change of heart and help the tigers rebuild. The Barrass trade will be fair, the business trade will not.
Go get em Obeani1.Ok you dont know about how discounted cashflow works? That isnt a hypothetical scenario BTW......its just plain math.
The basic premise is money now is worth more than the future. And you can use money now to earn more money in the future. And due to inflation money in the future wont buy what it can today. You do understand this bit?
The Dogs deal you put up has TB earning $150k less per year in the first three years then more. So $450k less in the first 3 years than his current deal. Not smart.
You also have totally ignored that TB will be earning a salary for years 4 and 5 even if he wasnt playing AFL at all.
Anyway I will leave it at that as I feel the finance theory and math is going way over your head. And your answer seems to be just ignore it.
Edit. Or Lol at the post because you simply dont have the brains to understand it seems.
But you dont have pick #23!Pick 23 for Baker isnt getting bent over
You will have something close to #31
I really think the eagles fans could be in for a bad shock when this deal gets done
You post really doesnt make sense ?
No one likes losing player - Correct
Hopper & Taranto ?
Yes Richmond paid exactlty what GWS requested for both players contracted and uncontracted
As the eagles will do for Baker and most likely Hawks for barrass
- Jan 14, 2016
- 2,848
- 7,259
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Yeah if that's how that trade went down, that you just simply paid whatever was asked without a negotiation, then yeah I apologize, bad comparison.
But I'm sure you've also benefited in the past from trading in out of contract players for less than the losing team values them out. Tends to be how it works for out of contract players.
Unfortunately I don't most West Coasters will be shocked either way - "the Good Guy traders"
- Sep 15, 2011
- 33,027
- 51,465
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Maybe. But vice versa, possibly.
- Feb 12, 2008
- 11,105
- 21,607
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Weird fetish Bro but whatever floats your boat.
- May 28, 2017
- 8,376
- 11,906
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Pick 31 is overs
Hope barrass trade goes to the wire and we run out of time on Baker.
Because we dont want him.
But you do.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,133
- 43,030
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Because he had his best year ever and if he wasnt injured we would have beaten Port.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,133
- 43,030
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I suspect West Coast want Barrass gone more than the Hawks want him, if the demand is 2 x 1st no matter what comes back with Barrass.
He simply wont be winning a flag or even making a Prelim with West Coast.
Similar threads
