Confirmed Tom Barrass & 2025 F4 (WCE) traded to Hawthorn for 2025 F1, F2 & F3 (all Haw)

[TylerDurden]

#10, #28 and DGB

For

Barrass and a future third (likely #39-44)

Wont be this year's 2nd.

 

[Vindicater]

Wont be this year's 2nd.

Fair enough, make it a future second and remove DGB and it sounds like it could be fair.

This year's first plus next year's second

For Barrass and next year's third.

 

[blaisee]

I think Jacob blight will somehow get worked into this deal

 

[Hawks_Footy]

Fair enough, make it a future second and remove DGB and it sounds like it could be fair.

This year's first plus next year's second

For Barrass and next year's third.

I think most Hawthorn fans would be comfortable with this deal;
Hawks lose 1st rounder + future 2nd
Eagles lose Barrass + future 3rd

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

So a poster said we are offering 900 a year for 5 years and I responded saying how would you know that. You said common sense says he isn’t taking a pay cut!!!! Now you’re saying he’s on 750! Make up your mind.

He is on 750k with us yes. He isnt going to you for the same pay.... Not too sure how you are confusing that

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Nah, they wont be

It will be our first + maybe a late sweetener

Already moved from "it will only be a first" I see

 

[BIGHAWK23]

Already moved from "it will only be a first" I see

Hence maybe

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

I think most Hawthorn fans would be comfortable with this deal;
Hawks lose 1st rounder + future 2nd
Eagles lose Barrass + future 3rd

Can we give you Tyler Spudman back instead of the third?

 

[triple treat]

He is on 750k with us yes. He isnt going to you for the same pay.... Not too sure how you are confusing that

I’m not confusing that, but that is not what you originally replied to when you used the common sense comment! Maybe go back and re read.

 

[Philhawk]

Youre having a laugh no? He’s one of the best backmen in the league in his prime with 3 years to run on his contract. With the Hawks cracking the 8 this week that pick is now outside 10.

It’s both first rounders easily, especially if you climb a couple more spots (likely with your fixture). You cant be going after a contracted top 5 defender and not having to pay up for him.

~12 and F12 is more than fair for both sides.

Both firsts? You’re in for a rude shock.

 

[Coasters7]

I’m not confusing that, but that is not what you originally replied to when you used the common sense comment! Maybe go back and re read.

He literally said it would be ~900k because it’s a pay increase. If he’s on about 750 already then it’s going to need to be at least 850 and more likely 900+ to entice him to move. He’s not leaving for an extra 50k a year

 

[Taylor]

If the Hawks are going to pay him nearly $5,000,000 for half a decade, why shouldn't they cough up two firsts for him when he's under contract for another three years?

 

[Philhawk]

If the Hawks are going to pay him nearly $5,000,000 for half a decade, why shouldn't they cough up two firsts for him when he's under contract for another three years?

Because the most common fallacy on trades is that what you pay a player factors into their trade valuation.

Just like it’s equally crazy to say “well a younger Steven May only got traded for X”.

Both clubs are good operators and I imagine it’ll go through pretty easily. It’ll absolutely include this years first.

If I had to guess, it’ll be next year’s 2nd as well and steak knives also being chucked in from both sides.

 

[Taylor]

Because the most common fallacy on trades is that what you pay a player factors into their trade valuation.

Just like it’s equally crazy to say “well a younger Steven May only got traded for X”.

Both clubs are good operators and I imagine it’ll go through pretty easily. It’ll absolutely include this years first.

If I had to guess, it’ll be next year’s 2nd as well and steak knives also being chucked in from both sides.

The amount a player is paid is the only measure of market value, that's why it's used for free agency.

Millions of dollars and half a decade of service - that's an elite AFL ranking.

Why shouldn't Hawthorn cough up two firsts for that?

 

[Iceman!]

It's not in the Eagles interest to trade out a player in high demand by multiple clubs for 50 cents in the dollar.

No one is saying 50 cents on the dollar

 

[HeHateMe]

This number being floated seems pretty high. Sounds like it would make him a highest paid player and if so I don't believe it for 1 second.

 

[Coasters7]

Both firsts? You’re in for a rude shock.

Mate what you’re forgetting is with Barrass you’d have your sights set on top 4 next year.

12 and F12 is being very generous to their value because that’s todays valuation of them, with this years a good chance of improving to minimum 13/14 and next years anywhere from 14-18.

That’s more than fair for who you’re getting and if it propels you to contender status then list managers are doing that deal every day of the week.

 

[Iceman!]

If the Hawks are going to pay him nearly $5,000,000 for half a decade, why shouldn't they cough up two firsts for him when he's under contract for another three years?

Because assets are worth different things to clubs? Some have an abundance of picks but not cap space, some have an abundance of cap but not picks. Just because a club values a player at 900k for them doesn’t mean they value him at 2 firsts.

 

[Philhawk]

The amount a player is paid is the only measure of market value, that's why it's used for free agency.

Millions of dollars and half a decade of service - that's an elite AFL ranking.

Why shouldn't Hawthorn cough up two firsts for that?

Because if we are going to go down this rabbit hole, should previous trade valuations be factored in then?

If we assume current draft positions, Hawthorn with 2 1st rounders at current position is worth pick 2 in terms of draft points.

Is Tom Barrass worth that, when

Dangerfield went for Pick 9 and 28
Dawson went for pick 18
May for pick 6
Hogan for 6 and 23

 

[Taylor]

Because assets are worth different things to clubs? Some have an abundance of picks but not cap space, some have an abundance of cap but not picks. Just because a club values a player at 900k for them doesn’t mean they value him at 2 firsts.

So? Which club here do you think sets the price? Hawthorn put the bigger contract in front of him, WC have the current contract.

 

[Philhawk]

Mate what you’re forgetting is with Barrass you’d have your sights set on top 4 next year.

12 and F12 is being very generous to their value because that’s todays valuation of them, with this years a good chance of improving to minimum 13/14 and next years anywhere from 14-18.

That’s more than fair for who you’re getting and if it propels you to contender status then list managers are doing that deal every day of the week.

You’re preaching to the converted. He’s a gun. But he’ll also be 29 with back issues and wants out due to false promises. You won’t be getting 2 1sts and I’ll happily take that to the bank.

 

[Taylor]

Because if we are going to go down this rabbit hole, should previous trade valuations be factored in then?

If we assume current draft positions, Hawthorn with 2 1st rounders at current position is worth pick 2 in terms of draft points.

Is Tom Barrass worth that, when

Dangerfield went for Pick 9 and 28
Dawson went for pick 18
May for pick 6
Hogan for 6 and 23

We should do that.

Dangerfield, free agent, traded because it would get slightly better return than compensation.
Dawson, traded for a later first because Adelaide could take him for nothing in the PSD
May - contracted but having cultural issues, moves as part of the Hogan deal (injured and depressed)

Neale, Gibbs, Lever might be better examples.

 

[Obeanie1]

Because if we are going to go down this rabbit hole, should previous trade valuations be factored in then?

If we assume current draft positions, Hawthorn with 2 1st rounders at current position is worth pick 2 in terms of draft points.

Is Tom Barrass worth that, when

Dangerfield went for Pick 9 and 28
Dawson went for pick 18
May for pick 6
Hogan for 6 and 23

Are the Eagles chasing draft points? No.

Those examples don't include unknown future picks. The clubs knew what they were getting at the time of those trades.

And future picks are discounted to a degree as you get zero benefit for the first 12 months.

2024 pick 11 slides to 13.

Next years draft is one of the most compromised to date. Say 2025 Hawks pick is 14. That likely slides to 17 to 20.

Can see the Eagles adding a future 2nd or 3rd.

 

[Philhawk]

We should do that.

Dangerfield, free agent, traded because it would get slightly better return than compensation.
Dawson, traded for a later first because Adelaide could take him for nothing in the PSD
May - contracted but having cultural issues, moves as part of the Hogan deal (injured and depressed)

Neale, Gibbs, Lever might be better examples.

Lever a great one.

Melbourne received a 2nd and 3rd back in exchange for their 2 1sts (10 and 18).

Making the total deal worth, in terms of draft points, the same as … a 1st and 2nd.

 

[Iceman!]

So? Which club here do you think sets the price? Hawthorn put the bigger contract in front of him, WC have the current contract.

West Coast can set whatever price they want, he is contracted. I am just suggesting our use of one asset doesn’t have to mean we value him the same with the other.

West coast only think he is worth 750 over 3 years, should that lessen what they value him at?