38 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

it makes sense

grundy ain't a chump

Yet they want to move him on and will pay a third of his wage to do so…

This is a dump, Melbourne (or Geelong) should not be providing anything of value to allow Collingwood to get off $700k of what they see as ‘dead money.’

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Talked to someone I believe today, and they said a few interesting things, coming from a Pies perspective. Firstly, they didn’t think Dogga was that good. Said he was ok. Secondly, they thought Grundy would be worth at least a 1st rounder, mostly because of the salary he is on. Also said if Dogga was worth 2 1sts and I was saying I didn’t think Grundy was worth one 1st, that wasn’t realistic. I talked about it being a salary dump & he agreed the Pies would be paying $ for him to move (& he grumbled about Treloar). But he still remained firm about the 1st rounder. Hopefully he is wrong, wouldn’t want to give up a first for Grundy!

When you say Collingwood perspective, are you talking about a general Collingwood nuffy supporter or an actual Collingwood recruiter/coach?

Wonder if we could get Luke Bruest? would be handy to have a crafty experienced forward down there like that 

13 minutes ago, Dwight Schrute said:

Wonder if we could get Luke Bruest? would be handy to have a crafty experienced forward down there like that 

IMV we need another natural crumber to compliment Kozzy. Is Bruest that player though? He's certainly crafty.

19 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

When you say Collingwood perspective, are you talking about a general Collingwood nuffy supporter or an actual Collingwood recruiter/coach?

If we get Grundy, it will be part of a "deal".

If we get Grundy to stand firm on Dees, or stay a Pie, then the deal swings our way.

I would be happy to have Grundy, at around 2/3 of his reported salary, say $600-$650k, but no way would I give up a round one pick.

So IMO, it's "deal or no deal" as they say on TV.

They will deal, as they are after other players and now look like keeping De Goey.

It's time we got on the right side of a Pies deal.

The cap is rumoured to go up $600k next year. 

31 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

When you say Collingwood perspective, are you talking about a general Collingwood nuffy supporter or an actual Collingwood recruiter/coach?

Neither really, maybe someone in between the examples you gave. I didn’t want to press him too hard for info either, as he might think I could be putting it up on something like DL

Edited August 16, 20222 yr by Matt

On 8/15/2022 at 12:56 PM, JimmyGadson said:

Gunston would make sense if we didn't have Fritsch. 

But we do. 

And if people think Gunston would replace Brown or T Mac, they're kidding themselves. Because the bulk of his goals come from marks on leads. And we simply don't have the midfield to provide that. I know that's Ben Brown's wheelhouse as well, but his advantage is his height at 200cm and arm reach to bring ball to ground. Gunston can't do that. Imagine having Fritsch, Gunston and Ben Brown all playing. The ball would be run out of our 50 before you could blink. 

The only way I see it happening is of Goodwin made a complete overhaul of the way we enter our forward 50 and adds players with skill through the midfield as well as on the half forwardline. 

But I also don't see that happening. 

 

I’d see it as a triple swap from the current set up:

1. Gunston replaces Melksham, mixes between a deep forward and lead up role 
2. Gawn/Grundy or other ruck replaces Jackson and becomes the primary long down the line target, giving us a more consistent contest than Jacko does
3. With a stronger but less mobile ruck presence we no longer have the need or mobility for Brown, so his CHF role reverts to T Mc until JVR is ready. 

Fritsch stays mostly as is, a 4th tall full forward, but takes time up the ground to allow Gunston some goals. 

At the same time Bowey, Laurie and Howes push for spots as skilled runners in a more spread out game plan. Plan A stays the same, but we get the complimentary ball use that worked so well last year.

If we’re all in for the next 2 years then Gunston and Grundy make sense. The coaches will patch together combinations with T Mc, Gawn, Brown and JVR. The downside is their salaries will restrict the ability to find longer term solutions.

40 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

When you say Collingwood perspective, are you talking about a general Collingwood nuffy supporter or an actual Collingwood recruiter/coach?

To be clear, I am not talking about your average Pies supporter. Not going to elaborate any further though

Edited August 16, 20222 yr by Matt

5 minutes ago, Matt said:

To be clear, I am not talking about your average Pies supporter. Not going to elaborate any further though

at least tell us you were wearing a mask

2 hours ago, Matt said:

Talked to someone I believe today, and they said a few interesting things, coming from a Pies perspective. Firstly, they didn’t think Dogga was that good. Said he was ok. Secondly, they thought Grundy would be worth at least a 1st rounder, mostly because of the salary he is on. Also said if Dogga was worth 2 1sts and I was saying I didn’t think Grundy was worth one 1st, that wasn’t realistic. I talked about it being a salary dump & he agreed the Pies would be paying $ for him to move (& he grumbled about Treloar). But he still remained firm about the 1st rounder. Hopefully he is wrong, wouldn’t want to give up a first for Grundy!

He’s an All Australian ruckman on a million dollar salary. He’s worth a first rounder. We’d likely trade Jackson for two first rounders and then on trade one of those first for Grundy. Anyone thinking we’d get him for less than a first rounder whilst he’s contracted, salary dump or not, has rocks in their head.

It’s part of why I don’t believe it’s the best move for the club. We should instead use first round picks to help bring in a proven key forward or draft more young talent to balance our list.

3 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

He’s an All Australian ruckman on a million dollar salary. He’s worth a first rounder. We’d likely trade Jackson for two first rounders and then on trade one of those first for Grundy. Anyone thinking we’d get him for less than a first rounder whilst he’s contracted, salary dump or not, has rocks in their head.

It’s part of why I don’t believe it’s the best move for the club. We should instead use first round picks to help bring in a proven key forward or draft more young talent to balance our list.

Nah, sorry, you can't put it out there (like Collingwood allegedly have) that they'd be willing to pay a significant chunk of Grundy's salary moving forward, up to $300k pa, and then expect to have a leverage position at all.

That's out the window. It's a salary cap dump. 

16 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

He’s an All Australian ruckman on a million dollar salary. He’s worth a first rounder. We’d likely trade Jackson for two first rounders and then on trade one of those first for Grundy. Anyone thinking we’d get him for less than a first rounder whilst he’s contracted, salary dump or not, has rocks in their head.

It’s part of why I don’t believe it’s the best move for the club. We should instead use first round picks to help bring in a proven key forward or draft more young talent to balance our list.

“Was” an All-Australian

”is” a 29y.o (next year) who is not wanted by his club, after coming off a year of serious injuries.

Definitely not worth a first rounder. 

 

 

Edited August 16, 20222 yr by 1964_2

Brodie Grundy is 'worthless' in the context of his contract, Pies are trading his salary (or the bulk of)

Edited August 16, 20222 yr by adonski

13 minutes ago, A F said:

Nah, sorry, you can't put it out there (like Collingwood allegedly have) that they'd be willing to pay a significant chunk of Grundy's salary moving forward, up to $300k pa, and then expect to have a leverage position at all.

That's out the window. It's a salary cap dump. 

Agree 100%.  Grundy is contracted so doesn't have to go.  If he does go, he would most likely want to go to a contender.  He was apparently impressed with our presentation.  Which other contenders have the cap to bring in a ruckman on $700k?  The only reason we could do it is due to Jackson leaving.

Pies don't have leverage unless there's a bidding war.  They want the salary space to go after the GWS players.

17 minutes ago, A F said:

Nah, sorry, you can't put it out there (like Collingwood allegedly have) that they'd be willing to pay a significant chunk of Grundy's salary moving forward, up to $300k pa, and then expect to have a leverage position at all.

That's out the window. It's a salary cap dump. 

If we really want him, we'd be competing with a Geelong that would probably do it for pick 15-17, so you have to take that into account if we really want him. I'd only do a 1st round pick if it came with something coming back our way - Could we get Mihocek too? Or A mid 20's pick?

Edited August 16, 20222 yr by John Demonic

34 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I’d see it as a triple swap from the current set up:

1. Gunston replaces Melksham, mixes between a deep forward and lead up role 
2. Gawn/Grundy or other ruck replaces Jackson and becomes the primary long down the line target, giving us a more consistent contest than Jacko does
3. With a stronger but less mobile ruck presence we no longer have the need or mobility for Brown, so his CHF role reverts to T Mc until JVR is ready. 

Fritsch stays mostly as is, a 4th tall full forward, but takes time up the ground to allow Gunston some goals. 

At the same time Bowey, Laurie and Howes push for spots as skilled runners in a more spread out game plan. Plan A stays the same, but we get the complimentary ball use that worked so well last year.

If we’re all in for the next 2 years then Gunston and Grundy make sense. The coaches will patch together combinations with T Mc, Gawn, Brown and JVR. The downside is their salaries will restrict the ability to find longer term solutions.

I don't see Grundy as being a more consistent target down the line than Jackson. That's Grundy's weakness.

Gunston for 2 years has less downside than Grundy for 5. Grundy's contract could become a problem if he can't perform a role the club hopes he can.

23 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

He’s an All Australian ruckman on a million dollar salary. He’s worth a first rounder. We’d likely trade Jackson for two first rounders and then on trade one of those first for Grundy. Anyone thinking we’d get him for less than a first rounder whilst he’s contracted, salary dump or not, has rocks in their head.

It’s part of why I don’t believe it’s the best move for the club. We should instead use first round picks to help bring in a proven key forward or draft more young talent to balance our list.

He hasn't been an AA ruckman for 2 seasons and currently has a long term injury. And the salary dump is totally relevant to his worth. Pies are trying to offload him for multiple reasons. I wouldn't give up a 2nd rd pick for him.

Imo we get him for a cheap pick and not much salary discount or huge salary discount and a 1st rounder 

38 minutes ago, A F said:

Nah, sorry, you can't put it out there (like Collingwood allegedly have) that they'd be willing to pay a significant chunk of Grundy's salary moving forward, up to $300k pa, and then expect to have a leverage position at all.

That's out the window. It's a salary cap dump. 

Yeah the salary argument doesn't make sense to me? If anything wouldn't you have less bargaining power if you're trying to move someone with a fat contract? 

Player value is determined by what the market is willing to pay. 

17 minutes ago, layzie said:

Yeah the salary argument doesn't make sense to me? If anything wouldn't you have less bargaining power if you're trying to move someone with a fat contract? 

Player value is determined by what the market is willing to pay. 

I think the person I talked to was meaning that someone on a mil a year, should be worth a first rounder, in theory. Even if 300 of that is being paid by another club. It's not my view, but I think that's what he meant.

He did say they were trying to move Grundy, to trade in a GWS mid, so I guess that's where the bargaining power comes in, meaning they need Grundy gone to bring in the GWS mid

1 minute ago, Matt said:

I think the person I talked to was meaning that someone on a mil a year, should be worth a first rounder, in theory. Even if 300 of that is being paid by another club. It's not my view, but I think that's what he meant.

He did say they were trying to move Grundy, to trade in a GWS mid, so I guess that's where the bargaining power comes in, meaning they need Grundy gone to bring in the GWS mid

I can definitely see it playing a part for the start of negotiations and perceived value. If there's enough clubs interested then it can boost it. All comes down to how they negotiate I guess.

1 hour ago, A F said:

Nah, sorry, you can't put it out there (like Collingwood allegedly have) that they'd be willing to pay a significant chunk of Grundy's salary moving forward, up to $300k pa, and then expect to have a leverage position at all.

That's out the window. It's a salary cap dump. 

Treloar was traded for a first round pick and late picks shuffled. 900k salary continuing to pay 300k. Grundy is a million with 300k likely continuing to be paid.

The AFL would not sign off on a trade where a million dollar player is traded for anything less than a first round pick. Even then it would be borderline and likely require latter picks added in Pies favor.

I’m saying I agree with it, in fact I’m being vocal in here saying I don’t support it and believe both picks and salary should be used elsewhere. But while we may not like it, that’s the reality of the situation. Those in here suggesting a million dollar player would not net a first round pick are taking the absolute [censored] and need to take the red and blue blinkers off. The AFL won’t sign off on the trade. 

What we will be discussing here later this year is which of our two incoming first round picks we give up for him. 

1 minute ago, Lord Travis said:

Treloar was traded for a first round pick and late picks shuffled. 900k salary continuing to pay 300k. Grundy is a million with 300k likely continuing to be paid.

The AFL would not sign off on a trade where a million dollar player is traded for anything less than a first round pick. Even then it would be borderline and likely require latter picks added in Pies favor.

I’m saying I agree with it, in fact I’m being vocal in here saying I don’t support it and believe both picks and salary should be used elsewhere. But while we may not like it, that’s the reality of the situation. Those in here suggesting a million dollar player would not net a first round pick are taking the absolute [censored] and need to take the red and blue blinkers off. The AFL won’t sign off on the trade. 

What we will be discussing here later this year is which of our two incoming first round picks we give up for him. 

Treloar is an excellent mid. Grundy has been usurped as no 1 ruck and is arguably behind Cox as 2nd ruck. 

Don’t care what the AFL say; don’t get him then. Let Coll pay him $1m to play VFL. 

The AFL would probably want to avoid that tbh…

4 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Treloar was traded for a first round pick and late picks shuffled. 900k salary continuing to pay 300k. Grundy is a million with 300k likely continuing to be paid.

The AFL would not sign off on a trade where a million dollar player is traded for anything less than a first round pick. Even then it would be borderline and likely require latter picks added in Pies favor.

I’m saying I agree with it, in fact I’m being vocal in here saying I don’t support it and believe both picks and salary should be used elsewhere. But while we may not like it, that’s the reality of the situation. Those in here suggesting a million dollar player would not net a first round pick are taking the absolute [censored] and need to take the red and blue blinkers off. The AFL won’t sign off on the trade. 

What we will be discussing here later this year is which of our two incoming first round picks we give up for him. 

AFL wouldn't give a [censored]