3 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

When we took Grundy, we took him coming off a 12 month injury and there was speculation that he may never get right and Pies needed to get him off their books. Not suggesting we take a future 1st but it’s going to be more than what we paid for him given he is now fit, proved capable and is in good form and at 650K is a bargain. 

Just want to set the record straight they we paid the equivalent of pick 14 in draft pick points to trade up to pick 27 from Port Adelaide, to give this to the Pies. If Grundy does go to Port Adelaide, they of all teams know how much we gave up to get Grundy, and that was with unknown recovery from injury. 
I think the trade should be a future first with maybe a future third going back but definitely play hard ball. 

18 minutes ago, BigMacjnr said:

Just want to set the record straight they we paid the equivalent of pick 14 in draft pick points to trade up to pick 27 from Port Adelaide,

Doesn't that just prove what we already knew...

Points value doesn't equal the equivalent pick value

1 hour ago, Supreme_Demon said:

I respectfully disagree.

We will do the right thing by Brodie Grundy. But we will also do what BENEFITS the Melbourne Football Club.

I reiterate that Brodie Grundy has signed a 4 year deal with us.

We have all the power. Don't forget that.

This means if Port Adelaide wish to obtain a trade for Brodie Grundy they need to come up with an attractive offer that is beneficial for both parties.

Otherwise, we simply say NO to Port Adelaide. We have all the bargaining power.

Mate, respectfully, that’s just not the case.

We have the premier ruckman in the game who is incapable of playing as a forward that rucks part time, therefore we have $650k worth of another player plying his trade in the VFL. We need to invest that money and whatever value we can get into a forward to help us win before Gawn, May and Viney are done in the next 3 years.

Players can also say no to moving which also diminishes our ‘holding of cards’…

1 hour ago, rpfc said:

Players can also say no to moving which also diminishes our ‘holding of cards’…

Unless we arranged the meeting with Hinkley, Rozee and Butters, we can safely assume Grundy wants to leave.

He is contracted to us.

We hold the cards.

We will assist him to get to Port, or wherever, but won't be screwed over as suggested by Ralphy.

He will likely replace Lycett, who is on the same money at Port.

I don't think Lycett is an AA ruckman.

Port are one of our main opposition.

We get a fair deal, or we tell him to go to a club that gives us one, or he can stay with us as Insurance.

His and his preferred club's choice.

“Coach Ken Hinkley spent the day in Melbourne to lead the power pitch, joined by All Australian pair Zak Butters and Connor Rozee.

“Port now the clear front runners for Grundy who looks increasingly likely to request a trade at season’s end.

“Expect Melbourne to drive a hard bargain.”

Edited September 2, 20232 yr by Redleg

1 hour ago, rpfc said:

Mate, respectfully, that’s just not the case.

We have the premier ruckman in the game who is incapable of playing as a forward that rucks part time, therefore we have $650k worth of another player plying his trade in the VFL. We need to invest that money and whatever value we can get into a forward to help us win before Gawn, May and Viney are done in the next 3 years.

Players can also say no to moving which also diminishes our ‘holding of cards’…

Alright. That's fair enough.

Nevertheless, I don't want Melbourne getting screwed over in any trade with Port Adelaide.

As long as it's a fair deal then that's all that really matters.

Port have no draft pick currency.  And they're trying to land ratugalea with a prayer and fairy dust

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Port have no draft pick currency.  And they're trying to land ratugalea with a prayer and fairy dust

Do they have anybody we might want?

21 minutes ago, Uncle Fester said:

Do they have anybody we might want?

MG

9 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

MG

Re-signed with Port a few days ago. 

35 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Port have no draft pick currency.  And they're trying to land ratugalea with a prayer and fairy dust

Looks like future picks, or we have a player in mind.

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Unless we arranged the meeting with Hinkley, Rozee and Butters, we can safely assume Grundy wants to leave.

He is contracted to us.

We hold the cards.

We will assist him to get to Port, or wherever, but won't be screwed over as suggested by Ralphy.

He will likely replace Lycett, who is on the same money at Port.

I don't think Lycett is an AA ruckman.

Port are one of our main opposition.

We get a fair deal, or we tell him to go to a club that gives us one, or he can stay with us as Insurance.

His and his preferred club's choice.

“Coach Ken Hinkley spent the day in Melbourne to lead the power pitch, joined by All Australian pair Zak Butters and Connor Rozee.

“Port now the clear front runners for Grundy who looks increasingly likely to request a trade at season’s end.

“Expect Melbourne to drive a hard bargain.”

Red, if we have a fwd lined up that we plan on using that $650k on, do you think we drive a ‘hard bargain’ especially with our draft hand? 

The journos can ‘expect’ all they want - and I do love how we take their words without salt when it suits - but we will get similar to what we paid and move on.

9 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Red, if we have a fwd lined up that we plan on using that $650k on, do you think we drive a ‘hard bargain’ especially with our draft hand? 

The journos can ‘expect’ all they want - and I do love how we take their words without salt when it suits - but we will get similar to what we paid and move on.

Similar to what we paid is not a bad result.

I was posting in reference to the “we will do whatever we are told type of deal.”

11 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Red, if we have a fwd lined up that we plan on using that $650k on, do you think we drive a ‘hard bargain’ especially with our draft hand? 

The journos can ‘expect’ all they want - and I do love how we take their words without salt when it suits - but we will get similar to what we paid and move on.

If we have a forward in mind we may need a decent pick from a Grundy trade to help make that work 

22 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Looks like future picks, or we have a player in mind.

I liked Josh Sinn in his draft year, half back left footer with excellent pace. Has struggled for opportunity this year in the senior team. Contracted until 2025.

Grundy for Sinn is a fair swap.   They have no draft picks currency after JHF deal last year.  

One out of the box strategy that hasn't been tried.

For teams with 2 rucks (e.g. Cox, Darcy) what if Grundy trails their 2nd ruck into their back line or the bench and plays on the opposition giraffe?

Our forward line remains in tact.

All the maggot Media want to do is try to destabilise us.

They haven't stopped writing up about every other Team.

They should make everyone on this site and all the players sick.

The more we keep winning the more it will annoy them.

I don't know Grundy, but i could not think of any reason why he would want to go there. They are very suspect with their concussion protocols. They have JUST hung on to their Coach and their Captain was seemingly not treated very well.

6 hours ago, old55 said:

Grundy going to one of our main competitors say either Port or Sydney over the next few years will result in a fair loss of IP. Of course Collingwood has rolled that same dice with us this year.

I reckon we'll see us innovate and continue to evolve over summer irrespective of whether we win the flag or not. The IP thing wouldn't bother us IMO.

7 minutes ago, Demons1858 said:

One out of the box strategy that hasn't been tried.

For teams with 2 rucks (e.g. Cox, Darcy) what if Grundy trails their 2nd ruck into their back line or the bench and plays on the opposition giraffe?

Our forward line remains in tact.

So you're expecting Grundy, who's spent all year trying to develop his forward craft and failed, is now a capable key defender for the finals?

I think most on here are misreading the tea leaves. We want Grundy out as much as Port want him. There won't be any hard ball on our part. And we won't hold him to his contract as a trade manoeuvre.

Edited September 2, 20232 yr by mo64

2 hours ago, rpfc said:

Mate, respectfully, that’s just not the case.

We have the premier ruckman in the game who is incapable of playing as a forward that rucks part time, therefore we have $650k worth of another player plying his trade in the VFL. We need to invest that money and whatever value we can get into a forward to help us win before Gawn, May and Viney are done in the next 3 years.

Players can also say no to moving which also diminishes our ‘holding of cards’…

Problem is we need a backup regardless, that backup is going to cost 400k plus a pick, if dees have to kick in cash to whoever wants to trade for Grundy what’s the point if we end up worse off or not better pick and cash wise not taking into account that the replacement will be worse than Grundy.

To my mind, the MFC made a big sales pitch and a commitment to Grundy when we contracted him., and we need to make Gawndy work.He is a AA ruckman. He is a top bloke. He has all the qualities we want in a clubman. There is no real reason the two cannot work together - even if it’s 15 min on and 15 min bench time each quarter. WTF would you let him go and replace him with a second rate or has-been ruckman? Make it work Melbourne, or look very silly if you cannot.

I think we will play him Thursday.
 

26 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

To my mind, the MFC made a big sales pitch and a commitment to Grundy when we contracted him., and we need to make Gawndy work.He is a AA ruckman. He is a top bloke. He has all the qualities we want in a clubman. There is no real reason the two cannot work together - even if it’s 15 min on and 15 min bench time each quarter. WTF would you let him go and replace him with a second rate or has-been ruckman? Make it work Melbourne, or look very silly if you cannot.

I think we will play him Thursday.
 

Sunk cost. We won’t try to make it work - this is a QF. Win this and we are on the right side of the draw to Port at the G for a chance to go to a GF. 

It didn’t work - Gawn can’t make it work - it’s not the end of the world. 

Let’s pick the best team to win some finals.

32 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

To my mind, the MFC made a big sales pitch and a commitment to Grundy when we contracted him., and we need to make Gawndy work.He is a AA ruckman. He is a top bloke. He has all the qualities we want in a clubman. There is no real reason the two cannot work together - even if it’s 15 min on and 15 min bench time each quarter. WTF would you let him go and replace him with a second rate or has-been ruckman? Make it work Melbourne, or look very silly if you cannot.

I think we will play him Thursday.
 

"We need to make Grundy work"

Since when? Just because we made a sales pitch and it didn't work, doesn't mean we owe Grundy [censored].

A club doesn't owe a player anything.. ever. Players come and go but the footy club will always be there. That kind of poor mentality gets you no where.

He could be the greatest bloke in the world for all I care but if Goody sees fit that he isn't in our best 22 for a premiership then I'm taking the coach over supporters who are caught up in romance in sport.

He's not in our best 22 for a reason and I'll back the the premiership coach supports who purely want him in the side because he's a "good bloke."

4 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

"We need to make Grundy work"

Since when? Just because we made a sales pitch and it didn't work, doesn't mean we owe Grundy [censored].

A club doesn't owe a player anything.. ever. Players come and go but the footy club will always be there. That kind of poor mentality gets you no where.

He could be the greatest bloke in the world for all I care but if Goody sees fit that he isn't in our best 22 for a premiership then I'm taking the coach over supporters who are caught up in romance in sport.

He's not in our best 22 for a reason and I'll back the the premiership coach supports who purely want him in the side because he's a "good bloke."

While I don't completely agree with NC I could see Grundy playing a role next Thursday if the match ups and weather conditions suited. The big question is, how much does Grundy want out? Why can't we kick this can down the road for one more season? Goody has admitted that it hasn't worked 100% as envisioned but also said that parts of the plan have. We signed him to a 5yr deal. Would he be any less attractive an option to another team in 12mths time?

8 hours ago, Deebauched said:

Robert Flower could have been a 4 x Premiership player had he signed with Carlton back around  1978. Chose loyalty over success.  Carlton were all over him. The pen and contract sat on their desk gathering dust.

Glad he stayed. Still a club legend with no flags.

Goldstein has already played in prelims and finals. He's at the tail end of his career now and won't ever play finals again, unless he can last 5 years. Not having a go at club loyalty, he's already payed and some to North, and owes them nothing. Different situation to Robert Flower, or Nathan Jones for that matter who only made finals at the end after a career of loyalty and determination to take the club there. Goldstein isn't on that same timeline.

I brought it up because the person I was replying to suggested Goldstein for a year or two next year, and there's just no way its happening because Goldstein wants to retire a one club player.

Edited September 2, 20232 yr by John Demonic