Speculation Tom Barrass [UFA 2027] - Reportedly headed to Hawthorn

Remove this Banner Ad

One giant issue with F1st also is Charlie Banfield is heading to that 10-20 range. We probably shouldn't get a pick for a father/son
You would just trade it next year for points like Brisbane are doing. Or use it to move up in front of a bid.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Filling our gaps isnt really a shakeup. We arent pushing anyone out to make space for someone else.

Sicily is the best defender in the comp if he has freedom to move as he sees fit. Battle will allow this. Barrass helps take pressure off Frost too, but Im pretty sure most Hawk supporters see Battle as the biggest win for us.

As I said above, Barrass is icing. He would be great, but we dont need to go through the drama and mess we went through for O'Meara. We make a fair offer and WCE take it or leave it.
You know Battle is shorter than Patrick Cripps, right?

He's going to struggle against the truly big forwards, which is why Hawks are chasing Barrass so hard
 
Why are WC fans so delusional? You want Baker, plus something as a sweetener. F1 FOR baker is would be fair value (?), you now have a f2 to go with Baker. What's the issue?

If you didn't want Baker then I could see your point but WC want/chased him, so 🤷
Baker only nominated a club after McQualter was appointed.

He didn't nominate WCE weeks ago, unlike Barrass with Hawthorn.
 
It doesn't matter about that my point is you get him and f2? What is the issue? You PERSONALLY don't want him, that's your issue with YOUR club, doesn't make the trade not fair value...
Of course it's the point.

Hawthorn spent months chasing Barrass, with your coach flying to Perth to convince him to move.

Baker simply nominated WA, then only chose WCE after his mate was appointed.

I'm sure the club would love to have Baker but they're not going to turn Barrass, a premier key defender, into Baker, a dime a dozen flanker

I'm sure a deal gets done, it'll just be different to what people originally thought it would look like.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Because you now have a extra 2nd round pick that you didn't have ?

Not hard to figure that out
It’s still worse for us? Instead of having an F1 and a 2nd. We would have two future 2nds… it’s objectively worse for us
 
yes because we can’t form our own opinions, luckily West Australian media is nothing but the gold standard of impartiality 🤣
Well, WA media are self-admittedly not draft watchers, at least.

You won't see suggestions from them along the lines of WCE trading 3 for picks 12 & 14 from Carlton, just to send 12 to Richmond for Baker, like we did with Jay Clark this morning...
 
So you did a trade to get worse and want us to accept that worse offer because that's a trade you did ?
It’s worse if we trade two firsts… which is why I’m saying it won’t happen
 
It’s still worse for us? Instead of having an F1 and a 2nd. We would have two future 2nds… it’s objectively worse for us
And guess what? Next year's first round is full of academy and father son picks, so heaps of clubs will be looking to trade back so their first rounders don't get eaten up.
 
Well, WA media are self-admittedly not draft watchers, at least.

You won't see suggestions from them along the lines of WCE trading 3 for picks 12 & 14 from Carlton, just to send 12 to Richmond for Baker, like we did with Jay Clark this morning...
But you think he does this to favour vic teams, he doesn’t. He is genuinely dumb as bat shit and posts the same rubbish about all teams. He’s not biased, he’s incompetent
 
But you think he does this to favour vic teams, he doesn’t. He is genuinely dumb as bat shit and posts the same rubbish about all teams. He’s not biased, he’s incompetent
I get that with him but the earlier posts from Ralph and Morris are indicative of what I'm talking about.

Was hilarious to see the realisation start to come through later in the day though.
 
We rejected 14... Why would we accept your return for pick 14?

It would have been a 3 way trade in your example...
You rejected 14, I’m not saying we won’t trade more than a future first. I’m just saying it can’t be two firsts.
 
Of course it's the point.

Hawthorn spent months chasing Barrass, with your coach flying to Perth to convince him to move.

Baker simply nominated WA, then only chose WCE after his mate was appointed.

I'm sure the club would love to have Baker but they're not going to turn Barrass, a premier key defender, into Baker, a dime a dozen flanker

I'm sure a deal gets done, it'll just be different to what people originally thought it would look like.
We chased him doesn't automatically make it that we have to pay overs? Do you go into a restaurant you pick and then chef charges you double and you pay up?

Yes, we will trade for him but ain't at the expense of giving you 2 first?

My point I'm making is WC want Baker, we can give you picks to facilitate that move plus a sweetener, that's essentially what Barrass gets for you...anymore and you're being greedy..
 
Why are WC fans so delusional? You want Baker, plus something as a sweetener. F1 FOR baker is would be fair value (?), you now have a f2 to go with Baker. What's the issue?

If you didn't want Baker then I could see your point but WC want/chased him, so 🤷
I'd rather keep barrass which forces us to bypass bog average Baker.

Richmond choking on an endeless supply of a big bag of d1icks is perfectly fine by me
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Speculation Tom Barrass [UFA 2027] - Reportedly headed to Hawthorn

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top