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

5 minutes ago, deanox said:

It sure was complicated

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

Wonder how Ben Kennedy would go in this forward line. 

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 August 24, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

He hasn’t played a game since Anzac Day. 
that concerns me….

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 August 26, 20223 yr 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

If LJ ends up at Fremantle as anticipated would Sean Darcy not be a better target for us? 

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 August 28, 20223 yr 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.