12 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

But if we continue with the game plan of kicking it long to the pocket and trying to force a stoppage then having an All-Australian ruckman down there 100% of the time would be an attractive proposition to Goodwin.

I don't particularly like that part of our game plan, but that possibly could be the logic behind it.

How many goals come from a ruck-tap inside 50? It's a rare luxury to get a handful a season. 

I'd argue Gawn's strengths don't even lie in that area anyway. Whether that's oppo roving to him or our mids being our of sync it doesn't matter. I don't think that's the logic behind taking on a large salary for the second best ruck in the comp. 

Most of it would be around prolonging Gawn's career, squeezing the best years out of him while we're in the window and upgrading on Jackson for the short-term.

Within that, there'll simply have to be some change to the way we play to get the most bang for buck. 

Edited September 21, 20222 yr by JimmyGadson

8 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

That’s for taking the full whack of Bowes salary.

The first round pick in the Grundy deal is is because of the dollars they will be paying. We would be the club getting better picks if we were taking the full Grundy salary. 

But if the Pies pay $300pa and receive a 1st round pick as many are suggesting, it's still totally disproportionate to paying Bowes full salary and receiving pick 7.

As Redleg said, Grundy is a salary dump by the Pies, and that's how we should perceive the trade. Giving up a 1st round pick of any kind is ludicrous.

13 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

That’s for taking the full whack of Bowes salary.

The first round pick in the Grundy deal is is because of the dollars they will be paying. We would be the club getting better picks if we were taking the full Grundy salary. 

I understand that, but it’s an illustration of the reward to a club that helps another salary dump. We are helping with about $3.5m in salary dumping and should be being rewarded, as there is no other club that Grundy will go to. Therefore we get a pick, or give a low pick, or there is no salary dump. Giving a first rounder in these circumstances, where it’s coming from the Pies to move him on, would be ridiculous IMO.

1 minute ago, mo64 said:

But if the Pies pay $300pa and receive a 1st round pick as many are suggesting, it's still totally disproportionate to paying Bowes full salary and receiving pick 7.

As Redleg said, Grundy is a salary dump by the Pies, and that's how we should perceive the trade. Giving up a 1st round pick of any kind is ludicrous.

Grundy on $700k is a reasonable deal for the club. He was a top 10 player in the game. So I don't think a late first round pick is the issue. (Cap space is a much more important asset than picks in the age of free agency. We just don't get to see this because salaries are not public.)

But I agree that he is not the best way for Melbourne to spend the $700k in our cap. We should be targeting a forward.

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

I understand that, but it’s an illustration of the reward to a club that helps another salary dump. We are helping with about $3.5m in salary dumping and should be being rewarded, as there is no other club that Grundy will go to. Therefore we get a pick, or give a low pick, or there is no salary dump. Giving a first rounder in these circumstances, where it’s coming from the Pies to move him on, would be ridiculous IMO.

The Grundy deal is not a salary dump from our perspective, because we will not be overpaying him.

The Pies options are to take McStay and a first round pick or just hold Grundy. Both are $1m hit to the cap. From their perspective, they are saying Grundy is better than McStay by pick x.

 

To get pick 7, I would look at taking Bowes for 2 years and clearing some some room to accomodate him. Baker, Melk and Hibbo would probably be more than enough and there is uncertainty over Hunt and Tomlinson. Hunt as a free agent would give us a compo pick if he left and Tomlinson would free up another $500k for 2 years.

Added to the Jacko trade, we could get some really good young talent that our ladder position wouldn’t give us access to ordinarily.

This could be monumental for the next few years, as we bring in un gettable talent, while still being a flag contender.

We could be very busy.  I assume there is many in the club from Pert to Richo to Goodie to Gawn needing to tick-off the possible Grundy deal and it doesn’t become our salary cap noose rather than the pies !!! 

18 minutes ago, Redleg said:

To get pick 7, I would look at taking Bowes for 2 years and clearing some some room to accomodate him. Baker, Melk and Hibbo would probably be more than enough and there is uncertainty over Hunt and Tomlinson. Hunt as a free agent would give us a compo pick if he left and Tomlinson would free up another $500k for 2 years.

Added to the Jacko trade, we could get some really good young talent that our ladder position wouldn’t give us access to ordinarily.

This could be monumental for the next few years, as we bring in un gettable talent, while still being a flag contender.

Agreed.

If we could have a recruiting period like Port did a couple of years ago (or even our 2019 year) and bring in 2 or 3 young guns that can impact straight away *and* Grundy, we're extending our rucking bang for buck and replenishing the list. This could also make us very unpredictable in 2023, which would be nice.

35 minutes ago, A F said:

Agreed.

If we could have a recruiting period like Port did a couple of years ago (or even our 2019 year) and bring in 2 or 3 young guns that can impact straight away *and* Grundy, we're extending our rucking bang for buck and replenishing the list. This could also make us very unpredictable in 2023, which would be nice.

Just to add to this, if we can add to our ball use and x factor in the forward half with these new guys and fit Bowey on the opposite back flank to Salem, all of a sudden ball use is less of an issue.

Most stoppage players are bang it on the boot types or go at very low DE, think Dusty (kicking DE of 63.2%) or Dangerfield (kicking DE of 51.9%). No real difference to Oliver (kicking DE of 52.6%) and Petracca (kicking DE of 56%), particularly when Oliver is so good with his hands.

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

To get pick 7, I would look at taking Bowes for 2 years and clearing some some room to accomodate him. Baker, Melk and Hibbo would probably be more than enough and there is uncertainty over Hunt and Tomlinson. Hunt as a free agent would give us a compo pick if he left and Tomlinson would free up another $500k for 2 years.

Added to the Jacko trade, we could get some really good young talent that our ladder position wouldn’t give us access to ordinarily.

This could be monumental for the next few years, as we bring in un gettable talent, while still being a flag contender.

Tomlinson has only one year left I think. And I would guess GCS will be looking to get a future first as part of a deal unless Bowes is on absolutely ridiculous money. 

3 hours ago, JimmyGadson said:

How many goals come from a ruck-tap inside 50? It's a rare luxury to get a handful a season. 

I'd argue Gawn's strengths don't even lie in that area anyway. Whether that's oppo roving to him or our mids being our of sync it doesn't matter. I don't think that's the logic behind taking on a large salary for the second best ruck in the comp. 

Most of it would be around prolonging Gawn's career, squeezing the best years out of him while we're in the window and upgrading on Jackson for the short-term.

Within that, there'll simply have to be some change to the way we play to get the most bang for buck. 

Yes, prolonging Gawn's career and replacing Jackson are obvious factors, but I was responding to your comment about how Grundy fits in to how "our problems are ball movement going inside 50, inside 50 pressure and around the ground pressure."

I agree they're problems, but looking at what we already do with the kicks to the pocket and trying to force a stoppage then to me the answer is obvious as to why the 2 rucks setup seems so important to Goody. It's been a part of his plan for a long time - We went for Preuss and people questioned why, then Jackson and people questioned why, now Grundy.

I don't love it as a plan, I would much rather have more targeted inside 50s and better forwards, but this seems the way Goodwin (a premiership winning coach) wants to go.

 

3 hours ago, Redleg said:

I understand that, but it’s an illustration of the reward to a club that helps another salary dump. We are helping with about $3.5m in salary dumping and should be being rewarded, as there is no other club that Grundy will go to. Therefore we get a pick, or give a low pick, or there is no salary dump. Giving a first rounder in these circumstances, where it’s coming from the Pies to move him on, would be ridiculous IMO.

100% agree.

It would surprise me if Gold Coast say trade pick 7 and Jack Bowes for pick 30 or something, which would be an extreme salary dump.   But it would look poorly for the Dees to take on a 'bad contract' and pay a full draft price.  $700k of Bowes contract is still as valuable to get off the books as $700k of Grundy, even if Collingwood are still paying some.

7 minutes ago, IvanBartul13 said:

100% agree.

It would surprise me if Gold Coast say trade pick 7 and Jack Bowes for pick 30 or something, which would be an extreme salary dump.   But it would look poorly for the Dees to take on a 'bad contract' and pay a full draft price.  $700k of Bowes contract is still as valuable to get off the books as $700k of Grundy, even if Collingwood are still paying some.

It's only considered a bad contract at 1mill though.

6 minutes ago, IvanBartul13 said:

 

It would surprise me if Gold Coast say trade pick 7 and Jack Bowes for pick 30 or something, which would be an extreme salary dump.   But it would look poorly for the Dees to take on a 'bad contract' and pay a full draft price.  $700k of Bowes contract is still as valuable to get off the books as $700k of Grundy, even if Collingwood are still paying some.

That is what has been reported though, that the Suns will look at 7 and Bowes, for his full contract to be taken over.

What if we did that, got in Bowes and said we will give you a 3 year contract at say $500k a year, so he gets a bit less in the first two years but more over 3 years and has a 3 year deal which gives him some security and spreads his tax load.. 

We then have pick 7, along with the Jacko picks.

What if Hunt leaves, who is probably on about $400k and we get a compo pick and have Bowes to replace him. We could move on Baker, Melk and Hibbo and be a fair bit ahead on our salary cap. Tomlinson may also go saving us another $500k.

Can you see any other way we could get 7, which when added to the Jacko picks would give us the ability to add to our list with high end talent.

3 hours ago, Redleg said:

I understand that, but it’s an illustration of the reward to a club that helps another salary dump. We are helping with about $3.5m in salary dumping and should be being rewarded, as there is no other club that Grundy will go to. Therefore we get a pick, or give a low pick, or there is no salary dump. Giving a first rounder in these circumstances, where it’s coming from the Pies to move him on, would be ridiculous IMO.

Hopefully Pert and Lamb realise we hold all the cards in this deal and strike an outcome accordingly.  No favours to be done under any circumstances.

1 minute ago, A F said:

It's only considered a bad contract at 1mill though.

Collingwood consider it so bad they are willing some of it to get rid of it.

1 hour ago, Fat Tony said:

Tomlinson has only one year left I think. And I would guess GCS will be looking to get a future first as part of a deal unless Bowes is on absolutely ridiculous money. 

That was not what was reported and tbh most clubs would not be interested in that at all. What is the benefit then?

1 minute ago, IvanBartul13 said:

Collingwood consider it so bad they are willing some of it to get rid of it.

I agree it's a bad contract, but that wouldn't be the contract we're paying, so it becomes irrelevant. 

5 minutes ago, IvanBartul13 said:

Collingwood consider it so bad they are willing some of it to get rid of it.

Correct. We are the ones helping with their problem not ours.

We are in pole position here, I don't want to go back to near the end of the starting grid.

2 minutes ago, Redleg said:

That is what has been reported though, that the Suns will look at 7 and Bowes, for his full contract to be taken over.

What if we did that, got in Bowes and said we will give you a 3 year contract at say $500k a year, so he gets a bit less in the first two years but more over 3 years and has a 3 year deal which gives him some security and spreads his tax load.. 

We then have pick 7, along with the Jacko picks.

What if Hunt leaves, who is probably on about $400k and we get a compo pick and have Bowes to replace him. We could move on Baker, Melk and Hibbo and be a fair bit ahead on our salary cap. Tomlinson may also go saving us another $500k.

Can you see any other way we could get 7, which when added to the Jacko picks would give us the ability to add to our list with high end talent.

It's possible but Gold Coast have to get something back in the trade for it to be AFL sanctioned.  I would be very surprised if they get nothing back of any value.  If they want a pick in the teens back it's not quite so inviting.  if they are happy to take a future third or something back, well that changes everything.  FWIW, I and many others believe there is a clear tier of top players in the draft which ends at pick 5 or 6. 

5 minutes ago, A F said:

I agree it's a bad contract, but that wouldn't be the contract we're paying, so it becomes irrelevant. 

No, we are discussing what we pay for Grundy and IMO he has to come at a bargain price or forget it.

They will sell, as we are the only buyer.

10 minutes ago, Redleg said:

No, we are discussing what we pay for Grundy and IMO he has to come at a bargain price or forget it.

They will sell, as we are the only buyer.

And 700k is a bargain for the second best ruckman in the game. I'd prefer we didn't give up a first rounder, but if that's what it takes, that's what it takes.

What comes goes around comes around. Let's keep our powder dry in the trading stakes I say.

Edited September 22, 20222 yr by A F

5 minutes ago, A F said:

It's only considered a bad contract at 1mill though.

The bad part is the 5 years remaining on his contract for a player who has pretty much missed a whole year with consecutive long term injuries.

I could swallow getting Grundy if he had 2 years running on his contract, and demonstrated he had recovered from injury.

5 minutes ago, IvanBartul13 said:

It's possible but Gold Coast have to get something back in the trade for it to be AFL sanctioned.  I would be very surprised if they get nothing back of any value.  If they want a pick in the teens back it's not quite so inviting.  if they are happy to take a future third or something back, well that changes everything.  FWIW, I and many others believe there is a clear tier of top players in the draft which ends at pick 5 or 6. 

Agree, but are you sure that tier doesn't end at 7?

4 minutes ago, Redleg said:

That is what has been reported though, that the Suns will look at 7 and Bowes, for his full contract to be taken over.

What if we did that, got in Bowes and said we will give you a 3 year contract at say $500k a year, so he gets a bit less in the first two years but more over 3 years and has a 3 year deal which gives him some security and spreads his tax load.. 

We then have pick 7, along with the Jacko picks.

What if Hunt leaves, who is probably on about $400k and we get a compo pick and have Bowes to replace him. We could move on Baker, Melk and Hibbo and be a fair bit ahead on our salary cap. Tomlinson may also go saving us another $500k.

Can you see any other way we could get 7, which when added to the Jacko picks would give us the ability to add to our list with high end talent.

Doesn't spread hi stax once your in the big numbers.  Once over max threshold of $180K  its 45 cents in the dollar above 180K.  So 500 or 700, if the toal 3 year amount is $2.0M or so  , same tax will be paid over the 3 years.