8 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

The stress fracture is in his ankle, not his foot.  I don't know if that makes any difference.

Webber?

8 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

The stress fracture is in his ankle, not his foot.  I don't know if that makes any difference.

It’s all loading through ankle and foot 

If it’s chronic I wouldn’t entertain any contract at all.

I'd rather go for a forward who can play ruck but that's me. I don't dig Max playing more forward, I get a bit sick of hearing that actually.

The whole we need to spend the money on a key forward is fine. But if there was a key forward available now or next year we’d be working on that. We’ve been savvy at the draft/trade table. Mackay and Curnow are OOC next year and I’m sure we’ve asked around. But let’s have it there’s no chance they’ll leave. Mackay has already mentioned taking unders to stay. 
IMO we should go for Grundy if there’s not better key forward option. Play Gawn up forward more. We have some elite players and we need to strike while the irons hot. Oliver Trac Viney Gus Lever May etc they won’t be at this level forever. 

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I'd rather years of sustained success, not 3 years and then a significant drop off the cliff.

You need s good balance of bringing in key players that can certainly help straight away but a breed of new talent as well.

So if/when we lose Jackson we are left with a single ruckman who’s 30 years old.

While I agree there needs to be a balance…..Let’s say Gawn goes down for a period of time…where is this breed of new talent to step in and replace him in the Ruck?

Good teams have made a habit of bringing in experienced, older Ruckmen.

Just now, Beetle said:

So if/when we lose Jackson we are left with a single ruckman who’s 30 years old.

While I agree there needs to be a balance…..Let’s say Gawn goes down for a period of time…where is this breed of new talent to step in and replace him in the Ruck?

Good teams have made a habit of bringing in experienced, older Ruckmen.

There is other alternatives in bringing in a ruckman without breaking the bank and coughing up a 1st rounder.. you do realise that right?

Cheaper options like Lloyd Meek, Matt Flynn, Sam Hayes have all shown they are capable of holding down the main rucking role when given the opportunity.

All 3 are now mature enough with several years under their belt at AFL level.

5 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

There is other alternatives in bringing in a ruckman without breaking the bank and coughing up a 1st rounder.. you do realise that right?

Cheaper options like Lloyd Meek, Matt Flynn, Sam Hayes have all shown they are capable of holding down the main rucking role when given the opportunity.

All 3 are now mature enough with several years under their belt at AFL level.

I really would prefer this route, I just can't get my head around Grundy and if he's a good fit or not. It would be nice if whoever comes in could have a little forward craft and flexibility but then people tell me Grundy would do the majority of the ruckwork anyway to allow Max to go forward. While it's a good idea to prolong Max's career it doesn't will me with confidence that we suddenly want to send the best Ruckman of the last 5 years to become predominantly a forward.

Someone who can learn from Max and offer a bit up forward if needed fits the bill more for me.

4 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

There is other alternatives in bringing in a ruckman without breaking the bank and coughing up a 1st rounder.. you do realise that right?

Cheaper options like Lloyd Meek, Matt Flynn, Sam Hayes have all shown they are capable of holding down the main rucking role when given the opportunity.

All 3 are now mature enough with several years under their belt at AFL level.

You get what you pay for. But yes I “realise that”…thanks for checking.

The club recognise we are in a 2-3 premiership window. IMHO why take the risk on blokes who have had limited exposure and may simply hold down the main rucking role, for the sake of draft position?

I acknowledge there is also an associated risk with Grundy given his injury history however. 

8 minutes ago, Beetle said:

You get what you pay for. But yes I “realise that”…thanks for checking.

The club recognise we are in a 2-3 premiership window. IMHO why take the risk on blokes who have had limited exposure and may simply hold down the main rucking role, for the sake of draft position?

I acknowledge there is also an associated risk with Grundy given his injury history however. 

Why so that in 2-3 years time we completely fall off the cliff because both our ruckman are banged up and probably retired with no up and coming ruckman coming through and no talent as well because we spent that first round pick on a 29 old ruckman with injury problems.

Read a few posts above. To have sustain success you need to have a good balance of senior experience and breed of new wave of talent coming through. As it currently stands, we haven't bred any new talent this year.

At least by the time Gawn is ready to retire we'll have a Meek/Flynn ready to take on the number role full time as they should then be at the peak of their career.

Not only this, we also saving potentially 700k in the bank. This money could be partially used towards guys like a Kozzie Pickett who come out of contract next year or a genuine key forward that is a much greater need.

 

Edited August 10, 20223 yr by dazzledavey36

1 hour ago, Hunt29 said:

The whole we need to spend the money on a key forward is fine. But if there was a key forward available now or next year we’d be working on that. We’ve been savvy at the draft/trade table. Mackay and Curnow are OOC next year and I’m sure we’ve asked around. But let’s have it there’s no chance they’ll leave. Mackay has already mentioned taking unders to stay. 
IMO we should go for Grundy if there’s not better key forward option. Play Gawn up forward more. We have some elite players and we need to strike while the irons hot. Oliver Trac Viney Gus Lever May etc they won’t be at this level forever. 

I love our captain, but the less I have to watch him line up for set shots on goal, the longer my marriage will last. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

It’s all loading through ankle and foot 

If it’s chronic I wouldn’t entertain any contract at all.

If loading is the issue, then we need to refer it to @binman. He'll be able to give us a diagnosis.

3 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

That means we're still paying him $700k a year for 5 years? And he's already 29? Nah

Save that money and throw a huge contract at Harry McKay next year.

23 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Why so that in 2-3 years time we completely fall off the cliff because both our ruckman are banged up and probably retired with no up and coming ruckman coming through and no talent as well because we spent that first round pick on a 29 old ruckman with injury problems.

Read a few posts above. To have sustain success you need to have a good balance of senior experience and breed of new wave of talent coming through. As it currently stands, we haven't bred any new talent this year.

At least by the time Gawn is ready to retire we'll have a Meek/Flynn ready to take on the number role full time as they should then be at the peak of their career.

Not only this, we also saving potentially 700k in the bank. This money could be partially used towards guys like a Kozzie Pickett who come out of contract next year or a genuine key forward that is a much greater need.

 

You’re assuming we have the ability to land one of the three ruckmen you mentioned, or someone of that ilk. What if we’ve made enquiries and none are willing to come?

We can’t just sit on our hands and hope for the best while Jackson makes his mind up. Of course I agree longevity is paramount for the clubs sustained success but the smart thing for the club to do while the window is open, is make the moves they need to, to ensure we bank flags while we can. 

Early start tomorrow, off to bed. Appreciate the conversation dazzle.

Edited August 10, 20223 yr by Beetle

2 hours ago, layzie said:

That's the biggest hurdle to all of it. Can't justify paying this much for a part time Ruckman.

With Max on around $800k and Grundy on $700k we would have $1.5m of a $13m salary cap tied up in ruckmen! No way that is proper list management.

Not only that but ruckman are not all that important - not compared to midfielders and key forwards/defenders. Grundy was great at racking up possessions but what influence does he actually have on games? He's not that strong of a contested mark or goalkicker so he doesn't offer us a point of difference to Max.

Would much rather find a cheap option in the rookie draft/VFL or get a guy like Meek back from Freo in the Jackson trade.

1 hour ago, layzie said:

I'd rather go for a forward who can play ruck but that's me. I don't dig Max playing more forward, I get a bit sick of hearing that actually.

No point if he can't kick goals. It's no good taking marks if you can't convert.

A no from me. Too much risk on an injury prone and out of form 29 year old. 

Go after Tom De Koning instead. OOC at the same time as Mckay and Curnow at the end of 2023.

Go after him now with the draft capital we will get for Jackson. 

5 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

With Max on around $800k and Grundy on $700k we would have $1.5m of a $13m salary cap tied up in ruckmen! No way that is proper list management.

Not only that but ruckman are not all that important - not compared to midfielders and key forwards/defenders. Grundy was great at racking up possessions but what influence does he actually have on games? He's not that strong of a contested mark or goalkicker so he doesn't offer us a point of difference to Max.

Would much rather find a cheap option in the rookie draft/VFL or get a guy like Meek back from Freo in the Jackson trade.

Not to mention Grundy is not that much younger. All of a sudden we end up with two high profile ruckmen on the list who with a bit of luck both fall off the cliff at the same time leaving us in a chasm. Need to be smart.

Edited August 10, 20223 yr by layzie

2 hours ago, layzie said:

It's not a good fit. I've tried to rationalise it but it isn't 

You said you were open to him as a forward though earlier today?

2 minutes ago, BenF said:

You said you were open to him as a forward though earlier today?

That's complete crap. I asked people what their thoughts were on Grundy's forward craft due to the small sample size. Read what I said.

Grundy has chronic back trouble.

Leave Collingwood with the problem.

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

With Max on around $800k and Grundy on $700k we would have $1.5m of a $13m salary cap tied up in ruckmen! No way that is proper list management.

Not only that but ruckman are not all that important - not compared to midfielders and key forwards/defenders. Grundy was great at racking up possessions but what influence does he actually have on games? He's not that strong of a contested mark or goalkicker so he doesn't offer us a point of difference to Max.

Would much rather find a cheap option in the rookie draft/VFL or get a guy like Meek back from Freo in the Jackson trade.

Good to see someone questioning the ruck myth

When they can play well in another position ..great

Otherwise.................

Last time we took a former Collingwood ruckman in Peter Moore he won a (2nd) Brownlow for the Melbourne Football Club back in 1984.

However, unless Brodie Grundy has recuperated from his injuries and learns to kick goals I don't think he is worth the risk.

Let Port Adelaide have him.

Good chance their is a 'sting in the tail' of Grundy's contract figuratively and practically. 

He signed in early 2020, before the sal cap was cut and the year before they did a salary dump and off-loaded Treloar, Phillips and Stephenson (for less traded picks than they were worth) and they had back-ended contracts so had to be traded.  There is a very good chance that Grundy's contract was also back-ended so the next 5 years may well be more than the mooted $1.0m per year.

The Treloar trade looked ok in terms of picks for $ trade off, until Coll tried to reneg on part paying his contract for the remaining years.  The AFL forced them to honour the verbal agreement.

Question is how much of his contract will Coll pay?  The more they pay the better trade they will want.

Edited August 10, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

 

3 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Good chance their is a 'sting in the tail' of Grundy's contract figuratively and practically. 

He signed in early 2020, before the sal cap was cut and the year before they did a salary dump and off-loaded Treloar, Phillips and Stephenson (for less traded picks than they were worth) and they had back-ended contracts so had to be traded.  There is a very good chance that Grundy's contract was also back-ended so the next 5 years may well be more than the mooted $1.0m per year.

The Treloar trade looked ok in terms of picks for $ trade off, until Coll tried to reneg on part paying his contract for the remaining years.  The AFL forced them to honour the verbal agreement.

Question is how much of his contract will Coll pay?  The more they pay the better trade they will want.

While you make a good point about the money side Luci, but it’s taking on a 5 year contract thats the real turn off for me. Having him for 2 or 3 years would not be so bad, but 5? when he is already 29 and under an injury cloud? 
I think we’d be better off with a young up and coming ruck, who we can develop, rather than having 2 ageing ruckmen who may not compliment each other as well as we might currently think. 

Can’t see how this works because of the contract. Which is Collingwood’s problem, not ours. 

As a concept, I don’t know if a Gawn-Grundy pairing on field would work but I see how it could in theory. But I’m not close to interested if we’re paying stacks of that contract.