Jump to content

Featured Replies

Collingwood would be mad to let him go.  Cameron had a nice 5 week patch mid season but he's been exposed the last few games - Gawn took him apart, and Hickey completely dominated him on Sunday.  

 
On 8/14/2022 at 12:55 AM, mo64 said:

Our last bad trades were in the Roos era, and quite a few involved Collingwood. Traded Howe for Ben Kennedy. Basically gave them Lynden Dunn for nothing. And we traded for Heritier Lumumba. I don't want us to add to that list.

The Howe trade isn't so bad in that we got pick 29 back which became part of the pick trade package with GCS that enabled us to get Oliver. 

There were other aspects of the Coll and the GCS trades which I've left out to not overly complicate the end result of the Howe trade.  I can come back and list them if anyone wants to know all the permutations.  But the bottom line is we got Oliver.

26 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

The Howe trade isn't so bad in that we got pick 29 back which became part of the pick trade package with GCS that enabled us to get Oliver. 

There were other aspects of the Coll and the GCS trades which I've left out to not overly complicate the end result of the Howe trade.  I can come back and list them if anyone wants to know all the permutations.  But the bottom line is we got Oliver.

It sure was complicated

https://www.draftguru.com.au/trades/2015-jeremy-howe-ben-kennedy-paul-seedsman-jimmy-toumpas

 
10 hours ago, Swooper1987 said:

Collingwood would be mad to let him go.  Cameron had a nice 5 week patch mid season but he's been exposed the last few games - Gawn took him apart, and Hickey completely dominated him on Sunday.  

Gawn took Cameron apart and we lost. Finlayson got completely dominated by Draper. Hit out numbers were something like 60-10, and the Bombers lost by a trillion.

A dominant ruckman is only as good as his midfield, and can be easily neutralised. 

 


17 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Gawn took Cameron apart and we lost. Finlayson got completely dominated by Draper. Hit out numbers were something like 60-10, and the Bombers lost by a trillion.

A dominant ruckman is only as good as his midfield, and can be easily neutralised. 

 

So moral of the story, do we need to spend big for Grundy?

27 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Gawn took Cameron apart and we lost. Finlayson got completely dominated by Draper. Hit out numbers were something like 60-10, and the Bombers lost by a trillion.

A dominant ruckman is only as good as his midfield, and can be easily neutralised. 

 

I don't think a dominant ruckman is easily neutralized at all, and Collingwood are a much better side with a much greater chance of winning big games with Grundy in the ruck and Cameron the back up.  There was a game when Ablett kicked 14 for Geelong and they still lost.  There are often many reasons why a team loses.  A dominant ruckman helps not hinders.

The race for him is gearing up.

Reported that Hawks becoming keen to replace McEvoy.  GWS interested.  Geelong reportedly very keen.  Then there is us.

Grundy may prefer Geelong or the Hawks where he is THE man now rather than sharing with Max.

With this competition Pies should come out of it fairly well.

 

If I were Grundy I'd rather come to Melbourne, but maybe I'm biased. 🤣

22 minutes ago, A F said:

If I were Grundy I'd rather come to Melbourne, but maybe I'm biased. 🤣

Yes, Adam your bias is showing🙂

Grundy may feel he is playing second fiddle/understundy if he joins us. And he may not want to spend a chunk of his time playing fwd.

If I had to guess one of the three, all other things being equal:  Hawks.

Edited by Lucifers Hero


16 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

The race for him is gearing up.

Reported that Hawks becoming keen to replace McEvoy.  GWS interested.  Geelong reportedly very keen.  Then there is us.

Grundy may prefer Geelong or the Hawks where he is THE man now rather than sharing with Max.

With this competition Pies should come out of it fairly well.

The others would be able to offer/pay a lot more than us. Let him go and save the little cap space we have for a forward or young gun

8 minutes ago, DubDee said:

The others would be able to offer/pay a lot more than us. Let him go and save the little cap space we have for a forward or young gun

Not so sure about other clubs being willing to pay a lot more.

Like us they can all smell blood in the water after the Treloar fiasco.

Pies have said they'll pay $300k but it's the contract length that will drive the price. 

Add to that no increased TV revenue means no increase of any meaningful amount in the salary cap.

Could we see a variable deal based on games played and other KPI's. Probably not but the risk sharing formula will be interesting

17 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Yes, Adam your bias is showing🙂

Grundy may feel he is playing second fiddle/understundy if he joins us. And he may not want to spend a chunk of his time playing fwd.

If I had to guess one of the three, all other things being equal:  Hawks.

Haha, I'm sure it is, mate, however, Grundy would be playing first banana and Max playing second banana. That's the pitch to him I reckon, with Max providing relief.

If we can win another flag this year and Geelong falter, I think we'll be the far more appealing destination between Geelong and Hawthorn. 

On 8/17/2022 at 9:08 AM, Swooper1987 said:

I don't think a dominant ruckman is easily neutralized at all, and Collingwood are a much better side with a much greater chance of winning big games with Grundy in the ruck and Cameron the back up.  There was a game when Ablett kicked 14 for Geelong and they still lost.  There are often many reasons why a team loses.  A dominant ruckman helps not hinders.

Based on that, Grundy could be the difference between the Pies winning a flag or not. So why are they so keen to get rid rid of him? If they're paying $300k of his salary going forward, they believe that a player on $700k offers more to the club than Grundy.

And Goody said after the Crows game, when we were missing Gawn and Jackson, that it's easy to play around getting beaten in the hit-outs. 

 


4 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Based on that, Grundy could be the difference between the Pies winning a flag or not. So why are they so keen to get rid rid of him? If they're paying $300k of his salary going forward, they believe that a player on $700k offers more to the club than Grundy.

And Goody said after the Crows game, when we were missing Gawn and Jackson, that it's easy to play around getting beaten in the hit-outs. 

 

Did he though?

And there's a difference between working around it and not being able to exploit the midfield talent we have because we don't have a genuine ruckman...

2 minutes ago, A F said:

Did he though?

And there's a difference between working around it and not being able to exploit the midfield talent we have because we don't have a genuine ruckman...

For a long period of time we've had AA ruckmen, starting with Stynes, White, Jamar and Gawn. The only time we've dominated clearances was once Max had Oliver, Petracca and Viney.

We still have the best ruckman, so paying Grundy $700k for 5 years is a waste of cap space. Jackson on that money is a different kettle of fish, because Jackson over the next 5 years has a greater ceiling than Grundy.

Discussion of the 5 contenders for Grundy:  a-trade-shootout-is-set-to-erupt-over-7m-star

It talks about how deals might get done in draft picks and raises the idea of a player being part of the deal and the players the contending clubs might attract Collingwood. 

Regarding mfc interest: 

"Although Melbourne reportedly doesn’t necessarily view Grundy as a priority and could target a younger, cheaper option..."

Perhaps we are cooling on Grundy...

 

ps, it mentions Weideman as a possible player to include in a trade but please don't turn this into a Weideman thread; there are others for that....

Edited by Lucifers Hero

35 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Discussion of the 5 contenders for Grundy:  a-trade-shootout-is-set-to-erupt-over-7m-star

It talks about how deals might get done in draft picks and raises the idea of a player being part of the deal and the players the contending clubs might attract Collingwood. 

Regarding mfc interest: 

"Although Melbourne reportedly doesn’t necessarily view Grundy as a priority and could target a younger, cheaper option..."

Perhaps we are cooling on Grundy...

 

ps, it mentions Weideman as a possible player to include in a trade but please don't turn this into a Weideman thread; there are others for that....

His injury worries me….

Please let Grundy go the Giants. We can pickup a cheaper and healthier option from others who will be likely available.  It’s just not making sense to me. 
(And I still want LJ to sign on … albeit it’s a low chance !  )


If Collingwood can do this deal for $300k and get back a late first rounder .......... speechless

300k is the price of a player bordering on the lower end of a clubs bottom 6 of best 22

I assume the Magpie forums are full of how Brodie will do the right thing for the club and go where the Pies can get the best deal

2 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Discussion of the 5 contenders for Grundy:  a-trade-shootout-is-set-to-erupt-over-7m-star

It talks about how deals might get done in draft picks and raises the idea of a player being part of the deal and the players the contending clubs might attract Collingwood. 

Regarding mfc interest: 

"Although Melbourne reportedly doesn’t necessarily view Grundy as a priority and could target a younger, cheaper option..."

Perhaps we are cooling on Grundy...

 

ps, it mentions Weideman as a possible player to include in a trade but please don't turn this into a Weideman thread; there are others for that....

Could be just lowering the price talk, we are mildly interested, if it works good, if not we move on. Meanwhile Grundy will tell Pies it’s either Club X or I stay a Pie.

 

I can see the contract being done in a way that doesn't 'break the bank' in terms of TPP $ or trade.

Contract $

Lets say it averages at $700k per year which is about what we would pay Jackson if he signed for the another 2/3 years.  But then Jackson's $ would probably be closer to the $1.m mark.  We save that with Grundy.

He has six years ie end of 2027 left when he will be 34.

Grundy's Vic options seem to be Hawthorn, Geelong and Melbourne.  Hawks can fit him in to their TPP structure.  Geelong are said to back end his contract when Danger, Selwood, Hawkins etc are gone. 

We can do a bit of both:

  • Pay him the $700k for the next few years that we would save on Jackson.
  • If necessary back end the rest:
    • In three years ie end of 2025 some more expensive players will be gone:  May, Gawn, McDonald, Brown. 
    • In the next 2-4 years if Lever, Viney, Salem, Fritsch sign on again it will be for less $.
    • We don't have a lot of 'stars' coming through to compete with Grundy for $ after 2025.
    • As it is a new contract so we can have KPI's eg play X games in the latter years.

My concern is more around his age and seeing out his contract and having two #1 ruckman of similar age/capability in the side.

Trade:

If Coll want a first round pick we can give them the equivalent of 17/18 with our picks 35 and 41.

Anyway, I read a report recently that Grundy isn't our top priority.

Edited by Lucifers Hero

Grundy is contracted so he gets to choose where he goes. GWS (say) might make the best offer but Grundy can just say “Melbourne or I stay”. If Collingwood want to move him on it’s Grundy’s choice if and where he goes. 


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Thanks
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • Thanks
    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thanks
    • 528 replies