2 hours ago, Sydee said:

Fair enough - my point was that he has more value to Sydney @now than us because we have Max. The salary is kind of irrelevant because both clubs will/have paid that.

We paid pick 25 and in my opinion the jury was still out on whether his body was still sound enough - he has proven that it is - therefore I'd still expect a pick inside 25. Time will tell

Time will tell but the salary is relevant as it's for another 4 years ... so close enough to $3Million.  It's a big commitment for Sydney and we won't be wanting to be paying a percentage of Brodie's salary as the Pies are

My view is we'll get a pick somewhere in the 30's and that will be the end of it

Edited October 10, 20232 yr by Macca

Whatever the machinations with this deal making, one question. Who the hell is our backup if Max goes down? 

6 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

Why?  What large salary player are we bringing in?  We would have budgeted for him to stay for his full tenure when he was recruited.

Yes, we'd like him off but not at any price.  I'd say Swans need a good ruck more than we need his salary off the books.

It allows us at the very least to frontload a few guys thus allowing some cap space going forward

7 minutes ago, hemingway said:

Whatever the machinations with this deal making, one question. Who the hell is our backup if Max goes down? 

Collingwood managed without a ruckman for around six weeks. They won 5 IIRC

Rucks can be covered

If Sydney want us to cover some of his salary, they should be prepared to handover pick 11. If not, Pick 24 thanks. Otherwise we hold onto him. 

Edited October 10, 20232 yr by Gawndy the Great

The pressure is on Sydney to get the deal done. Grand finalists 2 years ago, bombed out this year with dubious goal reviews that always go carltons way and have just bolstered their midfield stocks. They will see Grundy as an essential piece to having a crack at the premiership. The deal is nowhere near as important to us he can play at Casey unless Gawn is injured.

 

7 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Cleary suggesting they offered 46 and we want a pick in the 20s. Don't think we'll get 23, they'll probably get something around there for Zerk-Thatcher and we'll get that

5 minutes ago, Mickey said:

Cleary suggesting they offered 46 and we want a pick in the 20s. Don't think we'll get 23, they'll probably get something around there for Zerk-Thatcher and we'll get that

bzt is at peptides and want to go to the pear; how are the bloods getting any pick traded for him?

3 hours ago, hemingway said:

Whatever the machinations with this deal making, one question. Who the hell is our backup if Max goes down? 

Presumably Tom Fullerton and Tom Schache

As much as we said we'll facilitate a trade, he has another 4 years to run on his contract. MFC don't need to trade him out.

Sydney need a ruck to replace Hickey. Just because he's surplus for us at the moment does not mean he doesn't have trade currency. He's a 2x Copeland winner and a 2x All Australian. 

We paid slightly cheaper than normal to get him off the pies books. Sydney should be paying full market price not the discount price.

Pick 46 is an insult given they also hold #33 (or whatever it is after compensation picks).  Not that I think #33 is fair.

We gave #27 last year and he hadn't played senior football for months partly due to injury and partly due to Collingwood not selecting him in the last 6 weeks of 2022.

Grundy is now injury free and has played the whole VFL/AFL season showing he has fully recovered.  We took a risk re his injury last year; there is no risk for Sydney. 

Edited October 10, 20232 yr by Lucifers Hero

2 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Pick 46 is an insult given they also hold #33 (or whatever it is after compensation picks).  Not that I think #33 is fair.

We gave #27 last year and he hadn't played senior football for months partly due to injury and partly due to Collingwood not selecting him in the last 6 weeks of 2022.

Grundy is now injury free and has played the whole VFL/AFL season showing he has fully recovered.  We took a risk re his injury last year; there is no risk for Sydney. 

I’d like to see us wheel Gawn out in a moon boot in the next few days, just to put doubt in Sydney’s mind - that we might need I keep Grundy.

9 minutes ago, KingDingAling said:

I’d like to see us wheel Gawn out in a moon boot in the next few days, just to put doubt in Sydney’s mind - that we might need I keep Grundy.

I like that idea.

35 minutes ago, KingDingAling said:

I’d like to see us wheel Gawn out in a moon boot in the next few days, just to put doubt in Sydney’s mind - that we might need I keep Grundy.

Or does Port actually want a ruck more?

Or for that kind of unders, maybe we'd just prefer to have a quality VFL ruck and insurance for Max.

Edited October 10, 20232 yr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

Max might seem indestructible, given all the constant roughing-up he handles so well, but he will be 32 at the start of next season. That's an age at which even niggling injuries start to take more time to heal, and we have no other back-up if Grundy leaves. If Sydney won't part with a high second-round pick, I would rather we kept Grundy, who remains one of the best ruckmen in the AFL. It's not his fault that his experimental role didn't work out. Imagine our regret if Grundy goes for pick 46 and Max is injured in round one.

You listen to the Media sheet can us about getting rid of Brodie for a pittance after the supposed big experiment fails to materialize. Another free stab in the back....they love it.

If we don’t get what we want for Grundy, we can always go back to Grundy and ask him whether he wants to remain at the club as a back up for Max, or perhaps consider other clubs outside of Sydney. Sydney don’t hold all the cards like many believe. Grundy won’t want to stay as a back up. 

16 hours ago, Macca said:

You want to give $700k per annum to a player who has clearly checked out? 

There's also a chance that we may need the salary space if we trade a player in

WE aren't paying 700k..   that's the point here. What he's getting and what we pay are two very different things.

What does Sydney really need MORE ..an Adams...or a RUCK..   not just a ruck...but a capable one.

I'd play hardball with this bunch. Never done us a favour unlike some other clubs.

Why aid the enemy...[censored] them !!!

Edit..

WE need to get suitable value to suit US ...not facilitate blody Sydney and Collingwood  ffs

 

Edited October 10, 20232 yr by beelzebub

14 hours ago, hemingway said:

Whatever the machinations with this deal making, one question. Who the hell is our backup if Max goes down? 

Fullarton.

Outside of that, Shache (on paper only) as the non-playing sub.

The only other option is an extremely green Verral.

Edited October 10, 20232 yr by Demon Dynasty

Sydney needs grundy more than Adams

7 hours ago, KingDingAling said:

If we don’t get what we want for Grundy, we can always go back to Grundy and ask him whether he wants to remain at the club as a back up for Max, or perhaps consider other clubs outside of Sydney. Sydney don’t hold all the cards like many believe. Grundy won’t want to stay as a back up. 

While it would appear from the outside looking in that both club & player are amicably moving on, i personally feel the relationship has moved well beyond that sort of outcome.

Plus there's the list issue of carrying four tall combos (ruck / forward-part time ruck) of Fullarton, Scache, Verral and Grundy surely.

Edited October 10, 20232 yr by Demon Dynasty

23 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Sydney needs grundy more than Adams

Exactly...Grundy is all but a necessity....Adams a nicety.

If they could take only one, and I'm not for an instant sugesting they'll only get one, but if they had to choose it would be Grundy every day of the week.

15 hours ago, hemingway said:

Whatever the machinations with this deal making, one question. Who the hell is our backup if Max goes down? 

Spargo