Farewell Brodie Grundy

[Matt 424]

No way we involve 13

[Dr. Gonzo 24,274]

On 10/7/2022 at 2:44 PM, DeeSpencer said:

Pretty sure the pay cut is a furphy. The pies will try to pay as much of the 1.5M or whatever it is they are contributing as fast as they can, the bulk of it in the first 2 years. And if our cap management has been good we’ll do the same so he’s not on 650 aged 32.
 

The net result is Grundy gets front loaded by a significant amount. He might get as much as an extra million (pre tax) over the first 2 years of the deal than in the last 3. Enough to buy another investment property ahead of time and easily collect the amount he’s given up. 

How will the Pies be able to front load? Their cap is a mess, part of the reason they have had to offload Treloar and Grundy in the first place.

I see GC held firm and got 5 for Rankine, let's see if the Demons have the balls of the Suns. Collingwood are dumping Grundy and his salary, if anything 27 is overs let alone a pick slide. 🤮

[Red and Blue realist 2,058]

7 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Well that goes against the clubs strategy of  moving up the draft.

I'd say there's a chance the club had a target in mind to move up the draft for, and now that chance might be gone - for instance if we thought Cadman was around pick 5, but now the talk is he'll be in the first 3 and we know we can't get there. So maybe they think the slide back from 13 to 16 won't really hurt as we might have half a dozen names around there so we'll get 1 of them.

Seems like we don't really rate this draft - already saying we're just taking 2 picks, so our focus might be more on moving next year.

[deelusions from afar 1,861]

10 minutes ago, Red and Blue realist said:

I'd say there's a chance the club had a target in mind to move up the draft for, and now that chance might be gone - for instance if we thought Cadman was around pick 5, but now the talk is he'll be in the first 3 and we know we can't get there. So maybe they think the slide back from 13 to 16 won't really hurt as we might have half a dozen names around there so we'll get 1 of them.

Seems like we don't really rate this draft - already saying we're just taking 2 picks, so our focus might be more on moving next year.

Maybe but I think we're targeting someone other than Cadman and I reckon we will use a first from next year with another pick to move into the top 10

[Demons11 7,051]

40 minutes ago, Nascent said:

With 27 going their way as well. I don't like it and severely hinders any chance of getting into the top 10 this year if that's our intention. 

They won’t get 27 as well 

[Redleg 41,420]

6 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

They won’t get 27 as well 

What 27 for Grundy? Isn't that our offer?

[Travy14 1,948]

Could we package up our 3 x 2nd rounders for Grundy and a Future 1st?

[DeeSpencer 26,080]

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

What 27 for Grundy? Isn't that our offer?

I think the point is they can have 13 for 16, or 27. Not both.

At a minimum we’d get 41 back with 27, but given our value on 41 I don’t think that’s likely. Maybe a pies future 2nd if we include 27?

[layzie 33,991]

Wish the talks would steer away from the 13 and 16 stuff

[Redleg 41,420]

16 minutes ago, Travy14 said:

Could we package up our 3 x 2nd rounders for Grundy and a Future 1st?

That would give us three F1st in a strong draft and at a time when we will have salary cap room, to make a big play for someone.

[spirit of norm smith 16,587]

I actually agree with Matt Rendell. That’s a worry in itself. He says now the Pies are trying to lock in their “ins”, they must deal out Grundy 

Rendell says that Dees hold the cards….“they’ve (Dees) got that pick 27, apparently they’re not relenting on that it’s 27 or nothing”. 

Tim Lamb. Do not blink in this negotiation.
It’s pick 27 or nothing.   

[Guest]

Love that 'balls' isn't censored, because we use them in our game. Do we have any balls? Yes, of course we do. . 

[adonski 12,425]

 

[layzie 33,991]

Keep this one simple, Collingwood need to take what they can get. 

[Travy14 1,948]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

That would give us three F1st in a strong draft and at a time when we will have salary cap room, to make a big play for someone.

Only be 2 wouldn't it?  Or have we got a 3rd 2023 first rounder from someone else?

[Lord Travis 10,763]

If we give up 13 for 16 I’ll spew

[Garbo 1,542]

Pies were always in a tough spot when they already committed to other players they have no choice but to trade Grundy, plus they only have dees as an option now. If dees walked away from this I dunno what happen as they would probably be in breach of the cap

[Redleg 41,420]

19 minutes ago, Travy14 said:

Only be 2 wouldn't it?  Or have we got a 3rd 2023 first rounder from someone else?

Our F1,  Freo F1 and new one you suggest by trading 3 seconds for Grundy and their F1.

[Nasher 33,617]

Going to show my ignorance here but why is a 3 spot pick downgrade worthy of a pitchfork and torch rally? Obviously I’d prefer not to do that if I had a choice, but it seems like change to me. There’d be about a 70% chance you’d get the player you wanted anyway.

[mo64 5,881]

Where are all the posters that proclaimed that Grundy is worth a 1st round pick, so that's what we should give up? All of sudden the dual AA and BnF winner is now absent in the conversation.

Even if we got a top 10 pick for Jackson, Grundy worth is pick 27 at the most as a salary dump by the Pies. What we got for Jackson should always have been immaterial for what we pay for Grundy.

 

Edited October 10, 2022 by mo64

[The end is nigh 391]

Wasn’t sure where to post this but here’s as good as any place.

Collingwood said a top 25 pick. Geelong have pick 25. 
so I propose we offer:

13, 27 to geelong and freos future second (or ours) to Gold Coast to get back 7 and 25. Gives them the extra pick currency to be able to appease the draft regulations and gives us the top 7 pick we had a target in mind for (clearly not cadman now as speculation is that gws want him with pick 1). Geelong might want it sweetened with something extra like later round pick swaps but it seems reasonable enough to me. 

[Purple77 1,001]

I hate how Geelong gave up less for pick 25 than what we gave up for 27.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Purple77

[The Stigga 1,094]

15 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Going to show my ignorance here but why is a 3 spot pick downgrade worthy of a pitchfork and torch rally? Obviously I’d prefer not to do that if I had a choice, but it seems like change to me. There’d be about a 70% chance you’d get the player you wanted anyway.

Becasue I still think we want to somehow get into the top 7/8 picks this year

[Bay Riffin 1,479]

3 minutes ago, The end is nigh said:

Wasn’t sure where to post this but here’s as good as any place.

Collingwood said a top 25 pick. Geelong have pick 25. 
so I propose we offer:

13, 27 to geelong and freos future second (or ours) to Gold Coast to get back 7 and 25. Gives them the extra pick currency to be able to appease the draft regulations and gives us the top 7 pick we had a target in mind for (clearly not cadman now as speculation is that gws want him with pick 1). Geelong might want it sweetened with something extra like later round pick swaps but it seems reasonable enough to me. 

offer then the Freo Second F2 we just got. Could be pick 19 !!! well under pick 25

[mo64 5,881]

4 minutes ago, The end is nigh said:

Wasn’t sure where to post this but here’s as good as any place.

Collingwood said a top 25 pick. Geelong have pick 25. 
so I propose we offer:

13, 27 to geelong and freos future second (or ours) to Gold Coast to get back 7 and 25. Gives them the extra pick currency to be able to appease the draft regulations and gives us the top 7 pick we had a target in mind for (clearly not cadman now as speculation is that gws want him with pick 1). Geelong might want it sweetened with something extra like later round pick swaps but it seems reasonable enough to me. 

You're dreaming.