I wonder if Brody  is now at a club “that values him”

A bit disappointing that the Brodie Grundy trade didn't work out. Many of us had high hopes.....but oh well! 🤷🏼‍♂️

 

As for the trade of pick #46 and a future 2nd round pick for Brodie Grundy. Talk about getting screwed! I would of preferred a lower pick. But it is what it is I guess?

 

I wish Brodie Grundy all the best (except against Melbourne).

I have no idea if this has been posted previously but holy hell, this is hilarious!

https://instagram.com/stories/brodiegrundy/3211067659330522718?igshid=MWZjMTM2ODFkZg==

I still live in fear of Max breaking down early in the season It would be a nightmare as we have no real replacement who can do what Max does around the ground behind the ball and team leadership

10 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Yes, I certainly am for you on this part..

 

Gee, thanks Dazzler, but I don't need anyone to worry about me.

1 hour ago, Kent said:

I still live in fear of Max breaking down early in the season It would be a nightmare as we have no real replacement who can do what Max does around the ground behind the ball and team leadership

Like this year?

11 hours ago, DeeMee said:

I wonder if Brody  is now at a club “that values him”

He already was. 

Grundy didn't work out for us primarily because Max couldn't play effectively as a forward as he hoped.

I think the insinuation that Grundy wouldn't play for us in the finals is far fetched.

The criticism that he began discussing his future with other teams at that time is misplaced. He only had a few weeks to make a major life move.

There's no doubt in my mind that he could have played for us and sorted his future simultaneously. It happens in RL all the time.

He didn't play for us in the finals because the FD didn't select him.

1 hour ago, old55 said:

He didn't play for us in the finals because the FD didn't select him.

I doubt whether he was ever under consideration

As to why?  We may never find out the exact reasons although we can take an educated guess that the relationship was fractured (at least)

11 minutes ago, Macca said:

I doubt whether he was ever under consideration

As to why?  We may never find out the exact reasons although we can take an educated guess that the relationship was fractured (at least)

Because the FD thought the 23 they selected had the best chance of winning?

Post the bye Grundy played in 4 games and we went 1-3 in those games.  Overall the team went 7-3. We went 6-0 without Grundy ...

Edited October 12, 20231 yr by old55

I'm a little bit surprised this deal was done before the Fullarton one was over the line 

We seem to have lost our bargaining power with Brisbane now Grundy is definitely out the door 

Not that I expect us to offer much for Fullarton anyway.

4 minutes ago, Sydee said:

I'm a little bit surprised this deal was done before the Fullarton one was over the line 

We seem to have lost our bargaining power with Brisbane now Grundy is definitely out the door 

Not that I expect us to offer much for Fullarton anyway.

It's a good point.  I'm hoping it's because they wanted to know they had the $650k freed up for something in the next few days

4 minutes ago, old55 said:

Because the FD thought the 23 they selected had the best chance of winning?

It's highly questionable that the selection committee could ever believe that Schache was ever a better option than Grundy in a final

Schache lead up form for Casey was bog average whilst Grundy was doing quite well

Simply saying that they simply didn't pick Grundy is quintessential fence sitting

You're allowed to question club decisions you know?  Rhetoric and the company line is boring and uninteresting

 

6 minutes ago, Sydee said:

I'm a little bit surprised this deal was done before the Fullarton one was over the line 

We seem to have lost our bargaining power with Brisbane now Grundy is definitely out the door 

Not that I expect us to offer much for Fullarton anyway.

It was always going to be done before Fullarton. There was no need for Fullarton if the Grundy deal fell through and he ended up staying.

2 minutes ago, Macca said:

It's highly questionable that the selection committee could ever believe that Schache was ever a better option than Grundy in a final

Schache lead up form for Casey was bog average whilst Grundy was doing quite well

Simply saying that they simply didn't pick Grundy is quintessential fence sitting

You're allowed to question club decisions you know?  Rhetoric and the company line is boring and uninteresting

 

I added information to my post above.

Post the bye Grundy played in 4 games and we went 1-3 in those games.  Overall the team went 7-3. We went 6-0 without Grundy ...

Schache is more flexible than Grundy, he can play forward, back or ruck - that's why he made a better sub than Grundy.

Simply saying we didn't pick Grundy because we thought the team had a better chance of winning is the simplest explanation based on the facts.

Edited October 12, 20231 yr by old55

@old55

Schache was supposedly the back up ruckman to Gawn (in the SF) but Grundy was doing all the ruck work for Casey

Whichever way you slice it the selection of Schache over Grundy was questionable 

Just now, Macca said:

@old55

Schache was supposedly the back up ruckman to Gawn (in the SF) but Grundy was doing all the ruck work for Casey

Whichever way you slice it the selection of Schache over Grundy was questionable 

Schache was back up for tall injuries in all parts of the ground.  He could go forward and Joel Smith could go back, he could go back, he could cover for Max in the ruck.  Grundy could only cover Max, yes better than Schache, but that's all he could do.

12 minutes ago, old55 said:

I added information to my post above.

Post the bye Grundy played in 4 games and we went 1-3 in those games.  Overall the team went 7-3. We went 6-0 without Grundy ...

And if Schache was first ruck in those early games in the season proper?

Early in the season I believe we went 5 & 1 with Grundy at the helm

Now, I believe the relationship was beyond repair and that's why I believe he wasn't picked

But we can agree to disagree

Edited October 12, 20231 yr by Macca

As for the trade value we received for Grundy, assuming the Swans are thereabouts next season, somewhere between 28 & 38 when considering academy players and the like

Pick 46 for points value or for upgrades

Not great but to be expected for many here.  He's worth more than what we received but he was surplus to our needs and when trading, that is a factor

So is the fact that the Swans really needed him but ... 4 more years at $700k per year might be a year too long

And we won't be paying any of his salary.  He's off the books

So ends a rather strange relationship

Edited October 12, 20231 yr by Macca

13 hours ago, Supreme_Demon said:

A bit disappointing that the Brodie Grundy trade didn't work out. Many of us had high hopes.....but oh well! 🤷🏼‍♂️

As for the trade of pick #46 and a future 2nd round pick for Brodie Grundy. Talk about getting screwed! I would of preferred a lower pick. But it is what it is I guess?

I wish Brodie Grundy all the best (except against Melbourne).

I disagree about us being screwed on this. The Swans wanted to give us just 46 which I agree was too far below the 27 we traded for him. But a Swans 2nd rounder is worth at worst 36 and maybe as high as 29 (assuming they just scrape into the 8) so I reckon that's way more than the Club would have initially expected.

40 minutes ago, Macca said:

It's highly questionable that the selection committee could ever believe that Schache was ever a better option than Grundy in a final

Schache lead up form for Casey was bog average whilst Grundy was doing quite well

Simply saying that they simply didn't pick Grundy is quintessential fence sitting

You're allowed to question club decisions you know?  Rhetoric and the company line is boring and uninteresting

 

As far I recall Grundy had one good game for Casey which was the Wildcard Round that Casey won by 101 points against North. Where does the 'quite well' come from? 

27 minutes ago, Macca said:

And if Schache was first ruck in those early games in the season proper?

Early in the season I believe we went 5 & 1 with Grundy at the helm

Now, I believe the relationship was beyond repair and that's why I believe he wasn't picked

But we can agree to disagree

I think you need to differentiate Grundy's performances as sole ruckman from those where both he and Max were playing. If you are playing a sole ruckman then Max obviously gets picked. So the form when Max was out of the side injured was irrelevant (and in any case it was against easier opponents generally). The fact that you believe the relationship was beyond repair is neither here nor there. Do you have special information that the rest of us are not privy to?
 

9 minutes ago, Sydney_Demon said:

As far I recall Grundy had one good game for Casey which was the Wildcard Round that Casey won by 101 points against North

Do you have special information that the rest of us are not privy to?
 

Grundy played well as a ruckman and dominated the hitouts (for Casey)

And it's called an opinion ... we've all got them.  The fact that Grundy wasn't picked promotes discussion

Schache is a player without any strengths at AFL level ... at least we know that Grundy can ruck 

Having our only key forward (T-Mac) as the back-up ruckman in the SF was also highly questionable 

But no big deal, going out in straight sets is par for the course these days.  The club can do no wrong.  All good

Grundy should have been the sub in the SF but I believe the reason why he wasn't picked is because he was already packing his bags ... and that's not a problem if he has been told that his chances were limited

1 hour ago, Macca said:

It's highly questionable that the selection committee could ever believe that Schache was ever a better option than Grundy in a final

 

It’s funny that folks are quick to say Grundy should’ve been picked before Schache (which I agree, he should have been) but won’t hazard a guess as to why. They assume it was a stupid decision on the part of the selectors. It takes two to Tango… and to want to play in a particular match. 

1 minute ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

It’s funny that folks are quick to say Grundy should’ve been picked before Schache (which I agree, he should have been) but won’t hazard a guess as to why. They assume it was a stupid decision on the part of the selectors. It takes two to Tango… and to want to play in a particular match. 

It all started once Grundy was dropped ... chances are that he was told why and what chances he had of being recalled

I reckon that part of it is true and then the rest of it is speculation & opinions

The bit about forward craft so late in the season at Casey (for a veteran player) is highly questionable as well (in terms of arriving at a successful outcome)

So if told that his chances were limited then it's time to move on and if he had checked out (at least mentally) then there was little chance of a recall

So I'm not blaming Grundy or the club for the falling out.  It takes 2 to tango

These things happen in pro sports

But I'm not buying Schache over Grundy on form or overall ability

4 hours ago, old55 said:

I think the insinuation that Grundy wouldn't play for us in the finals is far fetched.

There's no doubt in my mind that he could have played for us and sorted his future simultaneously. It happens in RL all the time.

He didn't play for us in the finals because the FD didn't select him.

You are probably right old.

But what i would say is there is a different culture in rugby league in terms of players announcing they are leaving during the season and continuing to be super committed to the club they are leaving and playing at a very high level. There were two such players in the Penrith team that payed in their incredible GF win.

I'm not sure the same culture exists in the AFL. It certainly doesn't in terms of announcing they are leaving mid season, but i wonder if it is more common for some such players to perhaps not go full tilt once they have decided they are leaving than it is in RL.

I'm not saying that's the case for Brodie but it is a possibility.

And whilst i'll happily give him the benefit of the doubt, i'll also give the club the benefit of the doubt (ie there is a chance, albeit slight, that there hand was forced in terms of not selecting Brodie for the finals - which by the by I would have preferred he was).  

It's worth remembering too that we didn't axe brodie, he asked to be traded. For understandable reasons he wanted out, but the fact remains he could have chosen to stay and make it work. And perhaps if he had done so he might have been selected and he might be premiership player.

 

Edited October 12, 20231 yr by binman

1 minute ago, Macca said:

 

But I'm not buying Schache over Grundy on form or overall ability

Nor am I. I’m sure no one’s buying it, and that’s because he wasn’t picked over Grundy on form or overall ability. Maybe he was picked because he wanted to be picked. Again, it certainly does take two to tango.

Look, people are gonna believe what they wanna believe. With some there’s simply no convincing them otherwise. And that’s fair enough. But people should be open to considering different possibilities because many’s the time the reality is not what they so vehemently believe.