Luke Parker

[damienc]

A lot of people on this thread are recycling the kinds of comments towards Luke Parker that were made when we recruited Paddy Ryder.

He's too old. A Superannuant wanting an easy payout. Washed up has-been etc etc etc.

None of those comments about Ryder aged very well.

And that is an understatement.

Just saying.

[damienc]

Luke Parker is certainly a gun and would be a terrific addition to the St Kilda list, but at 29 I feel he is past the age where he can dominate the game in the way he has at the Swans and his price tag is bound to put pressure on the salary cap which I understand is not flash as it is.

If the list manager wants to bring in an experienced mid I would look at Brad Crouch's brother Matt who has a lot less miles on the clock and not break the bank, as I'm sure he'd relish the prospect of reuniting with Brad and helping the Saints climb the ladder in 2022, unlike the Crows.

It's interesting that you mention Matt Crouch.

First of all, I believe we definitely recruited the better of the two Crouch brothers.

I can understand why you might be attracted to Matt as an addition to our midfield.

His numbers are impressive but like Luke Dunstan, appearances can be deceiving.

Matt Crouch is a ball magnet but he is not a great kick of the footy and his possessions are not effective. They don't hurt an opposition team.

There is no point in gathering possessions if you have a high percentage of them ultimately ending up to the advantage of the opposition.

That is my reservation about Matt Crouch.

I know what I am saying runs counter to his CV. 2017 All Australian. Adelaide best and fairest winner.

In a very good side, which Adelaide was back in 2017, those weaknesses that I mentioned, are less readily apparent.

I am sure there will be those who vehemently disagree, but that is what I think.

[Impatient Sainter]

A lot of people on this thread are recycling the kinds of comments towards Luke Parker that were made when we recruited Paddy Ryder.

He's too old. A Superannuant wanting an easy payout. Washed up has-been etc etc etc.

None of those comments about Ryder aged very well.

And that is an understatement.

Just saying.

Ryder is not on 700k per season and didnt ask for a 4 year contract! Parker is being greedy thats why Sydney would be prepared to let him go! There is no doubt he would be a solid player, but our list is not that far advanced. If we are going to pay that money target younger OOC players like Hopper.

Havent we learnt anything from the Hannebrey & Hill examples? Their own clubs dont want to pay them their asking salary so they squeeze them out. Just like what will happen with Seb Ross & most likely Josh Battle if Parker moves.

[damienc]

A lot of people on this thread are recycling the kinds of comments towards Luke Parker that were made when we recruited Paddy Ryder.

He's too old. A Superannuant wanting an easy payout. Washed up has-been etc etc etc.

None of those comments about Ryder aged very well.

And that is an understatement.

Just saying.

Ryder is not on 700k per season and didnt ask for a 4 year contract! Parker is being greedy thats why Sydney would be prepared to let him go! There is no doubt he would be a solid player, but our list is not that far advanced. If we are going to pay that money target younger OOC players like Hopper.

Havent we learnt anything from the Hannebrey & Hill examples? Their own clubs dont want to pay them their asking salary so they squeeze them out. Just like what will happen with Seb Ross & most likely Josh Battle if Parker moves.

I think if Seb and Josh leave it won't have anything to do with Luke Parker coming to the Saints.

The issues relating to them have more to do with our current list.

Being realistic, it is more likely than not that Sydney will find a way to keep him.

But I think I am on pretty strong grounds in saying if Luke Parker were to come to the Saints he would instantly make us a much better team in the same way Paddy Ryder has.

He is an A grade midfielder. One of the very best in the AFL. Elite in just about every category you can name.

[st.byron]

A lot of people on this thread are recycling the kinds of comments towards Luke Parker that were made when we recruited Paddy Ryder.

He's too old. A Superannuant wanting an easy payout. Washed up has-been etc etc etc.

None of those comments about Ryder aged very well.

And that is an understatement.

Just saying.

That's true. But how much longer does Paddy have? And who do we have to replace him? No-one except from Heath who may or not turn out to be okay.
How much money will Parker want?
Maybe 3 - 4 years left as a quality, influential mid. Maybe.
Do we pay him heaps and give him a spot in the team, keeping a potentially developing player out, then to be left with a hole in 3 years?
No guarantee any of this will happen, just speculating. I'd just be careful about offering 28 - 29 year olds big deals. If his bill is not expensive, then okay.
If we're going to stretch the salary cap with another high priced recruit, then I'd prefer someone who's got another 6 years plus in them. Someone coming into or in their prime, not in the last 30% of their career.

[damienc]

A lot of people on this thread are recycling the kinds of comments towards Luke Parker that were made when we recruited Paddy Ryder.

He's too old. A Superannuant wanting an easy payout. Washed up has-been etc etc etc.

None of those comments about Ryder aged very well.

And that is an understatement.

Just saying.

That's true. But how much longer does Paddy have? And who do we have to replace him? No-one except from Heath who may or not turn out to be okay.
How much money will Parker want?
Maybe 3 - 4 years left as a quality, influential mid. Maybe.
Do we pay him heaps and give him a spot in the team, keeping a potentially developing player out, then to be left with a hole in 3 years?
No guarantee any of this will happen, just speculating. I'd just be careful about offering 28 - 29 year olds big deals. If his bill is not expensive, then okay.
If we're going to stretch the salary cap with another high priced recruit, then I'd prefer someone who's got another 6 years plus in them. Someone coming into or in their prime, not in the last 30% of their career.

Luke Parker is the type of player who would help us win a premiership.

Not in six years but in two years or less.

I don't think I am the only one who thinks that.

I might be the only one on this thread who thinks it but I can live with that consequence.

[Impatient Sainter]

A lot of people on this thread are recycling the kinds of comments towards Luke Parker that were made when we recruited Paddy Ryder.

He's too old. A Superannuant wanting an easy payout. Washed up has-been etc etc etc.

None of those comments about Ryder aged very well.

And that is an understatement.

Just saying.

Ryder is not on 700k per season and didnt ask for a 4 year contract! Parker is being greedy thats why Sydney would be prepared to let him go! There is no doubt he would be a solid player, but our list is not that far advanced. If we are going to pay that money target younger OOC players like Hopper.

Havent we learnt anything from the Hannebrey & Hill examples? Their own clubs dont want to pay them their asking salary so they squeeze them out. Just like what will happen with Seb Ross & most likely Josh Battle if Parker moves.

I think if Seb and Josh leave it won't have anything to do with Luke Parker coming to the Saints.

The issues relating to them have more to do with our current list.

Being realistic, it is more likely than not that Sydney will find a way to keep him.

But I think I am on pretty strong grounds in saying that if Luke Parker were to come to the Saints he would instantly make us a much better team in the same way Paddy Ryder has.

He is an A grade midfielder. One of the very best in the AFL. Elite in just about every category you can name.

How much salary cap space do you think we have? If we are to pay Parker 700k per year something has to give!

There is no doubt he would make us a better side, but the question is for how long? Its been proven time and again that bash and crash players hit the wall and drop off a lot quicker than others. If our list was as advanced as any of the top 4 sides it would be a no brainer, but we aren't. We are a long way off, hence kids and players who can give the club 10 years are a much smarter strategic list build than the short term thinking behind Parker.

You and others are dreaming if you think we are going to win a flag in a couple of years. The quick fix is like a drug to people at St Kilda and how often has it worked - never!!

[Wayne42]

Ratts has said he wants to draft a few kids as they are the future, maybe he meant that's all we'll be able to afford after we trade for another superannuant.

[nostalgicsaint]

Can those of you complaining about his potential salary point me in the direction of a player we've lost due to salary cap pressure?

From what I can gather we have room to make exactly this sort of play, our alternative is to overpay someone or multiple people as we have in the past (billings, dunstan)

The only knock which makes sense to me is he will be taking a younger developing players spot, which would make sense if we weren't about to let Ross and Dunstan go...

Parker will be a pretty bloody good player to learn from too i would have thought.

[B.M]

Paddy Ryder was old

Imagine if we got him younger and had more than a few years from a declining ruckman.

Ryder has played 26 out of a possible 40 games

[nostalgicsaint]

Paddy Ryder was old

Imagine if we got him younger and had more than a few years from a declining ruckman.

Ryder has played 26 out of a possible 40 games

In fairness a decent chunk of those missed games weren't related to his age at all.

[B.M]

4 weeks

[st.byron]

A lot of people on this thread are recycling the kinds of comments towards Luke Parker that were made when we recruited Paddy Ryder.

He's too old. A Superannuant wanting an easy payout. Washed up has-been etc etc etc.

None of those comments about Ryder aged very well.

And that is an understatement.

Just saying.

That's true. But how much longer does Paddy have? And who do we have to replace him? No-one except from Heath who may or not turn out to be okay.
How much money will Parker want?
Maybe 3 - 4 years left as a quality, influential mid. Maybe.
Do we pay him heaps and give him a spot in the team, keeping a potentially developing player out, then to be left with a hole in 3 years?
No guarantee any of this will happen, just speculating. I'd just be careful about offering 28 - 29 year olds big deals. If his bill is not expensive, then okay.
If we're going to stretch the salary cap with another high priced recruit, then I'd prefer someone who's got another 6 years plus in them. Someone coming into or in their prime, not in the last 30% of their career.

Luke Parker is the type of player who would help us win a premiership.

Not in six years but in two years or less.

I don't think I am the only one who thinks that.

I might be the only one on this thread who thinks it but I can live with that consequence.

I have some jousting sticks for sale

[st.byron]

Can those of you complaining about his potential salary point me in the direction of a player we've lost due to salary cap pressure?

From what I can gather we have room to make exactly this sort of play, our alternative is to overpay someone or multiple people as we have in the past (billings, dunstan)

The only knock which makes sense to me is he will be taking a younger developing players spot, which would make sense if we weren't about to let Ross and Dunstan go...

Parker will be a pretty bloody good player to learn from too i would have thought.

How about being in no position to make a play for Treloar coz we already had Hannebery and Hill.

[Wayne42]

Can those of you complaining about his potential salary point me in the direction of a player we've lost due to salary cap pressure?

From what I can gather we have room to make exactly this sort of play, our alternative is to overpay someone or multiple people as we have in the past (billings, dunstan)

The only knock which makes sense to me is he will be taking a younger developing players spot, which would make sense if we weren't about to let Ross and Dunstan go...

Parker will be a pretty bloody good player to learn from too i would have thought.

How about being in no position to make a play for Treloar coz we already had Hannebery and Hill.

Ouch.

[Shaggy]

A lot of people on this thread are recycling the kinds of comments towards Luke Parker that were made when we recruited Paddy Ryder.

He's too old. A Superannuant wanting an easy payout. Washed up has-been etc etc etc.

None of those comments about Ryder aged very well.

And that is an understatement.

Just saying.

That's true. But how much longer does Paddy have? And who do we have to replace him? No-one except from Heath who may or not turn out to be okay.
How much money will Parker want?
Maybe 3 - 4 years left as a quality, influential mid. Maybe.
Do we pay him heaps and give him a spot in the team, keeping a potentially developing player out, then to be left with a hole in 3 years?
No guarantee any of this will happen, just speculating. I'd just be careful about offering 28 - 29 year olds big deals. If his bill is not expensive, then okay.
If we're going to stretch the salary cap with another high priced recruit, then I'd prefer someone who's got another 6 years plus in them. Someone coming into or in their prime, not in the last 30% of their career.

Luke Parker is the type of player who would help us win a premiership.

Not in six years but in two years or less.

I don't think I am the only one who thinks that.

I might be the only one on this thread who thinks it but I can live with that consequence.

I am with you. Parker is a gun. Wins games. We lack a player who wins tight games for us. I think the chance of getting Parker is close to zero unless he is great mates with Dan and Zac. He is a genuine star like our captain.

In terms of cost we had Gresh, Dan & Robbo collectively play 4 games this year for $500,000+ each. We should be able to afford $700,00 for Parker with Robbo retiring and Dan's compromise. Treloar is 5 months younger than Parker but a class below and more injury prone. Parker is a match winner.

[nostalgicsaint]

4 weeks

So close to 30% of the games missed.

[nostalgicsaint]

Can those of you complaining about his potential salary point me in the direction of a player we've lost due to salary cap pressure?

From what I can gather we have room to make exactly this sort of play, our alternative is to overpay someone or multiple people as we have in the past (billings, dunstan)

The only knock which makes sense to me is he will be taking a younger developing players spot, which would make sense if we weren't about to let Ross and Dunstan go...

Parker will be a pretty bloody good player to learn from too i would have thought.

How about being in no position to make a play for Treloar coz we already had Hannebery and Hill.

Good call, although were we even keen?

Give me parker on 700k over trelour on 900k a year any day of the week.

We couldn't make a play for trelour last year but now if we're in a position to make a play for a player every bit as good you don't want us to?

[Impatient Sainter]

These are the players that win you games and its no coincidence that all of them apart from (Steele) were drafted by the club they have excelled at. Steele was a 20 year old when he was traded to St Kilda.

AFLCA Champion Player of the Year Award - Top 10
114 Clayton Oliver MELB
101 Marcus Bontempelli WB
101 Ollie Wines PORT
100 Jack Steele STK
97 Touk Miller GCFC
92 Sam Walsh CARL
91 Zach Merrett ESS
86 Christian Petracca MELB
81 Darcy Parish ESS
74 Rory Laird ADEL

Look at the players Richmond targetted Lynch, Prestia and Houli all with years and games ahead of them. Parker last made the All Australian side or top 10 in Coaches Award in 2016.

[nostalgicsaint]

These are the players that win you games and its no coincidence that all of them apart from (Steele) were drafted by the club they have excelled at. Steele was a 20 year old when he was traded to St Kilda.

AFLCA Champion Player of the Year Award - Top 10
114 Clayton Oliver MELB
101 Marcus Bontempelli WB
101 Ollie Wines PORT
100 Jack Steele STK
97 Touk Miller GCFC
92 Sam Walsh CARL
91 Zach Merrett ESS
86 Christian Petracca MELB
81 Darcy Parish ESS
74 Rory Laird ADEL

Look at the players Richmond targetted Lynch, Prestia and Houli all with years and games ahead of them. Parker last made the All Australian side or top 10 in Coaches Award.

They're identified as the best players by that measure yes.

But plenty of those players who win you games aren't playing finals this year and I note no brisbane or Geelong players.

My point?

It takes more than your best player to win a flag. No one is saying dont go to the draft with our picks, just that a player like Parker for nothing but salary cap space would be a good addition.

[Teflon]

It comes down to what we need by when
Many suggest with guys like Steele, Crouch, Jones, Wilkie, Howard , Gresham and now Clarke’s etc that there’s a core now in that 25-27 age bracket with kids like King, Byrnes, Bytel, Connolly etc coming through ....point is we can’t wait 3-4 years to challenge we need to be seriously starting to make our move next year or we miss this groups prime.
Parker will be 29 and I agree it’s risk and the Hannebery debacle makes me nervous....but looking at his output this current season...he is still elite. He also has the bonus of being able to go forward (like Steele) and kick goals ...maybe that’s a role we use him more in past 30...for the next 2 years he would easily be our second best mid IMO.
Downside is he doesn’t give us more run and carry from the guts which we desperately lack (who knows how Gresham comes back abs let’s hope Byrnes can become that player to support Jones). I guess the upside here is we still get to take a top mid this draft in thst moukd and still get a Parker as he won’t cost picks.
Do we think this list can win a flag in 2 years???? if so
Does losing Dunstan/Ross but adding Parker improve our overall list???
Maybe we offer him guaranteed 3 and triggers for a 4th...
I think I’d look at that
BTW - deadset NO to M Crouch ....terrible by foot, does not hurt oppo sides at all...yes an upgrade on Dunstan but if that’s the thinking I’d rather add Parker and let Bytel play alongside him and Steele.

[Impatient Sainter]

The issue with Parker is he doesnt address our lack of midfield leg speed. Its ok if we have the ball, but 50% of the the time the opposition are in possession and he is not a huge pressure player. In fact Dunstan has averaged more tackles per game than him.

Then knowing St Kilda as we do, if they get Parker as a UFA. They will get smart at the draft and reach to pick up some KPP donkey in a midfielders draft with our first round pick.

[damienc]

The issue with Parker is he doesnt address our lack of midfield leg speed. Its ok if we have the ball, but 50% of the the time the opposition are in possession and he is not a huge pressure player. In fact Dunstan has averaged more tackles per game than him.

Then knowing St Kilda as we do, if they get Parker as a UFA. They will get smart at the draft and reach to pick up some KPP donkey in a midfielders draft with our first round pick.

Oh ye of little faith. Especially in our recruiters. I thought they were pretty smart in picking Sharman who literally came from nowhere.

[damienc]

Can those of you complaining about his potential salary point me in the direction of a player we've lost due to salary cap pressure?

From what I can gather we have room to make exactly this sort of play, our alternative is to overpay someone or multiple people as we have in the past (billings, dunstan)

The only knock which makes sense to me is he will be taking a younger developing players spot, which would make sense if we weren't about to let Ross and Dunstan go...

Parker will be a pretty bloody good player to learn from too i would have thought.

How about being in no position to make a play for Treloar coz we already had Hannebery and Hill.

Ouch.

Ouch what? Sorry Treloar is not worth 900K. Even if we had no Hannebery or Hill and we had the money, he is still not worth 900K. Those were his terms whichever club took him. That is the point I would have thought.

[damienc]

A lot of people on this thread are recycling the kinds of comments towards Luke Parker that were made when we recruited Paddy Ryder.

He's too old. A Superannuant wanting an easy payout. Washed up has-been etc etc etc.

None of those comments about Ryder aged very well.

And that is an understatement.

Just saying.

That's true. But how much longer does Paddy have? And who do we have to replace him? No-one except from Heath who may or not turn out to be okay.
How much money will Parker want?
Maybe 3 - 4 years left as a quality, influential mid. Maybe.
Do we pay him heaps and give him a spot in the team, keeping a potentially developing player out, then to be left with a hole in 3 years?
No guarantee any of this will happen, just speculating. I'd just be careful about offering 28 - 29 year olds big deals. If his bill is not expensive, then okay.
If we're going to stretch the salary cap with another high priced recruit, then I'd prefer someone who's got another 6 years plus in them. Someone coming into or in their prime, not in the last 30% of their career.

Luke Parker is the type of player who would help us win a premiership.

Not in six years but in two years or less.

I don't think I am the only one who thinks that.

I might be the only one on this thread who thinks it but I can live with that consequence.

I have some jousting sticks for sale

What you are selling I ain't buying.