Farewell Brodie Grundy

[Roost it far 6,040]

5 minutes ago, Redleg said:

You should hope Tony Sheahan was right, he said 11. Maybe more to the deal,  but getting 11 would be sensational for us. It is sounding like a deal that was done a while ago, as Sheahan suggested.

Where did he say 11? I guess if other players/swaps are involved?

[old dee 22,850]

14 minutes ago, Redleg said:

You should hope Tony Sheahan was right, he said 11. Maybe more to the deal,  but getting 11 would be sensational for us. It is sounding like a deal that was done a while ago, as Sheahan suggested.

To be honest I was thinking 11 would be out of the question. I thought their no.2 pick and another next year. 

[whatwhat say what 18,918]

i fully expect it'll be a pick around what he cost us but, most importantly, we're not contributing to his salary at all for the next five years of his contract

[Kent 2,581]

17 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

Agreed.

Gawn did not hold up his end of the bargain. It also did not help that he got injured early, was slow to get back to full fitness, and when he played forward it was wet and windy.

I actually thought he impacted the contest up forward against Carlton, but his goal kicking is an abomination. He is just not a forward. Neither is Grundy.

Our desperate need to get a tall forward working, thanks to injuries to Tmac, BB and then Petty and then Melksham, meant that we tried to force a square peg into a round hole. 

It did not work, and having a million dollar bench player who can't do much else but ruck, is a luxury we cannot afford. 

Grundy can't play forward, but he also can't play behind the ball or take a contested mark like Gawn. Which means he can only do one thing, and that is be a first choice ruck. But is he as good a first choice ruck as Gawn? No he is not.

Having said all that, the reality is that Gawn is 32 next season. He has had a long history of knee issues. He cannot go on forever, and the irony is that if Grundy did not choose to leave, he would probably end up getting a lot more game time next year. 

surely thats why we recruited him

Max didnt want to transition it seems to me one knee injury form disaster as you stated

[old dee 22,850]

16 minutes ago, Redleg said:

You should hope Tony Sheahan was right, he said 11. Maybe more to the deal,  but getting 11 would be sensational for us. It is sounding like a deal that was done a while ago, as Sheahan suggested.

To be honest I was thinking 11 would be out of the question. I thought their no.2 pick and another next year. 

[Swooper1987 2,745]

12 minutes ago, Kent said:

surely thats why we recruited him

Max didnt want to transition it seems to me one knee injury form disaster as you stated

Max has been one knee injury from disaster his whole career.  His last big knee was over 10 years ago.  Since then he pulled the hammy off the bone in 2017 and had a couple of PCL's which he has recovered from in world record time.  The guy has been incredibly durable for the position he plays.  He's the fittest big man in the league and at 32 probably still has two really good years left and then a transitioning out year or two.  Grundy has been a pretty average player since 2019, when he was really challenging Max as the best in the game.  Hasn't achieved anything of note from 2020 onwards.  He sustained a reasonably significant knee injury in 2022 and then came back to suffer a foot injury.  We recruited him hoping that he might get back to what he was 5 years ago.  He's not going to be back to where he was.  He can't defend, can't really take a contested mark, can't play forward.  He can run and he is good below his knees for a big guy.  That's about it.  I'd take my chances with Max holding up for a bit longer.

[BaliDemon 401]

Some footy journos like Sam Landsberger are pushing the deal will get done ‘quickly’, Sydney will get Grundy relatively ‘cheap’ angle. “Melbourne’s mistake” … “They want him out the door” … “Didn’t deem him good enough for senior selection” … etc etc.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-trade-news-rumours-whispers-2023-brodie-grundy-sydney-deal-could-be-first-deal-done-brynn-teakle-north-melbourne-kai-lohmann-contract/news-story/ec3d2b218bdb8b496af364cdbb801fa7

Edited September 21, 2023 by BaliDemon

[layzie 28,721]

If rumours of any kind of bust up between Grundy and the club are true, then I don't see how this gives us a lot of leverage. Sure we could force him to honour his contract but that could have other ramifications and infect the morale of the team. 

Haven't even got a recent 'trade bait game' from him to hang our hat on. I'd be gobsmacked if we got 11 but over the moon if it somehow happened. 

[MrFreeze 1,369]

This deal will be done quickly and the trade value will be fair for both clubs. Both teams have good reputations of 'just getting it done'. Dees will not play hard ball, ain't our style and neither will Sydney. I expect the value to be around the 30 mark as we received. 

[Redleg 37,571]

On 9/22/2023 at 8:40 AM, Roost it far said:

Where did he say 11? I guess if other players/swaps are involved?

 

[Redleg 37,571]

2 hours ago, BaliDemon said:

Some footy journos like Sam Landsberger are pushing the deal will get done ‘quickly’, Sydney will get Grundy relatively ‘cheap’ angle. “Melbourne’s mistake” … “They want him out the door” … “Didn’t deem him good enough for senior selection” … etc etc.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-trade-news-rumours-whispers-2023-brodie-grundy-sydney-deal-could-be-first-deal-done-brynn-teakle-north-melbourne-kai-lohmann-contract/news-story/ec3d2b218bdb8b496af364cdbb801fa7

It's funny how the narratives go.

Landsberger saying Grundy will go cheaply, because he was not in our semi final 23, yet for JJ a premiership player, who was in the semi final 23, they will say he is worth nothing as compo. Then they are pushing a McKay compo pick 2, for the Roos, for a guy who is a perennially injured, ordinary player, who I believe has some of the worst contest stats in the AFL.

The media clearly run the narratives, but luckily not the actual situations.

 

[BaliDemon 401]

22 minutes ago, layzie said:

If rumours of any kind of bust up between Grundy and the club are true, then I don't see how this gives us a lot of leverage. Sure we could force him to honour his contract but that could have other ramifications and infect the morale of the team. 

Haven't even got a recent 'trade bait game' from him to hang our hat on. I'd be gobsmacked if we got 11 but over the moon if it somehow happened. 

They’re not true. Unsubstantiated, unhelpful gossip posted by a ‘legend in their own lunchtime’ cheer squad member on this forum. 

The Grundy trade will be unaffected by any of that nonsense.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,580]

4 hours ago, BaliDemon said:

Some footy journos like Sam Landsberger are pushing the deal will get done ‘quickly’, Sydney will get Grundy relatively ‘cheap’ angle. “Melbourne’s mistake” … “They want him out the door” … “Didn’t deem him good enough for senior selection” … etc etc.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-trade-news-rumours-whispers-2023-brodie-grundy-sydney-deal-could-be-first-deal-done-brynn-teakle-north-melbourne-kai-lohmann-contract/news-story/ec3d2b218bdb8b496af364cdbb801fa7

Double speak a plenty in all this talk over the value of rucks.

Apparently you don't need a good ruck,  but if all you have are under developed kids to play the role, who would get smashed then maybe you need at least a solid performer with height and a developed body - turns out they arn't that easy to come by and if you've got one that is, then they're worth something.

Add to all this is that Grundy isn't your average second string ruck and has put in a solid comeback season after having an injury cloud hanging over him when we picked him up.  Hicky was a solid contender, who had Max's respect.  I've no doubt the Sawns would appreciate that he bought that to their side and would this value the contribution a player like Grundy could make.

Collingwood desperately needed to offload salary cap space and valued that more than anything.  I don't think we're in that same position and think we certainly won't want to accept unders for Grundy.

 

As an asides, while I don't think it's what is driving the Grundy trade, I'm woundering what our plans are for the cap space that we free up from Grundy?  Does that help retain a player like Jordon or give us greater barging power to attract a mature key forward?

[Redleg 37,571]

What we have said all along.

 

Collingwood has no intention of trying to wriggle out of any contract obligations to Brodie Grundy despite him moving onto a third club in the coming trade period.

Despite trade speculation the Pies might ask the AFL if they still had a responsibility to pay Grundy $250,000 a season for four more years, Collingwood is aware of its commitment.

They signed a heads of agreement with Grundy rather than the Demons to pay a portion of his contract, with Melbourne paying the extra $650,000 plus.

It means while Melbourne will remove his salary on a deal through to 2027 the Pies will hold up their end of the bargain.

[beelzebub 22,225]

9 hours ago, Redleg said:

You should hope Tony Sheahan was right, he said 11. Maybe more to the deal,  but getting 11 would be sensational for us. It is sounding like a deal that was done a while ago, as Sheahan suggested.

Was thinking a later 1st rounder and some sort of steak knives...  11 would be fantastic 

[beelzebub 22,225]

39 minutes ago, Redleg said:

What we have said all along.

 

Collingwood has no intention of trying to wriggle out of any contract obligations to Brodie Grundy despite him moving onto a third club in the coming trade period.

Despite trade speculation the Pies might ask the AFL if they still had a responsibility to pay Grundy $250,000 a season for four more years, Collingwood is aware of its commitment.

They signed a heads of agreement with Grundy rather than the Demons to pay a portion of his contract, with Melbourne paying the extra $650,000 plus.

It means while Melbourne will remove his salary on a deal through to 2027 the Pies will hold up their end of the bargain.

N.I.D.  

[Demon Dynasty 15,410]

On 9/21/2023 at 1:45 PM, SthSea22 said:

Is Grundy a better option than Hickey?

I think the media are overvaluing the Grundy post injury, looked slow and could not jump in the ruck contests

 

Wash your mouth SthSea.

He looked a million dollars post the injury with us and definitely worth a pick in the late teens!!

Edited September 22, 2023 by Demon Dynasty

[Supreme_Demon 3,009]

I would be over the moon if we got draft pick #11 for Brodie Grundy!

 

[Superunknown 3,311]

7 hours ago, Redleg said:

It's funny how the narratives go.

Landsberger saying Grundy will go cheaply, because he was not in our semi final 23, yet for JJ a premiership player, who was in the semi final 23, they will say he is worth nothing as compo. Then they are pushing a McKay compo pick 2, for the Roos, for a guy who is a perennially injured, ordinary player, who I believe has some of the worst contest stats in the AFL.

The media clearly run the narratives, but luckily not the actual situations.

 

The media did a stellar job of getting Maynard off then making it Brayshaw’s fault 

[rumpole 480]

In hindsight, the Grundy trade might not have turned out to be a great idea after all …

 

 

[layzie 28,721]

Don't be surprised to see Grundy in the stands next week..

[YearOfTheDees 3,092]

The suggestion that Grundy refused to play late in the season is crazy, no footballer would ever give up the chance to play in finals. It was a match committee decision and maybe one kick away from being the correct one. Most clubs play two rucks against Gawn and the fact that we could not make it work comes down to the coaching. If the AFL give away the Sub next year and go to a five man interchange "as rumoured" we will be sorry to see him go. 

[Diamond_Jim 11,745]

The Saga continues

See this post I just made on the Trade Rumors thread

A potentially big twist in the Grundy deal... (Collingwood playing the spoiler)

This column can reveal that, when the deal goes through, Collingwood will seek clarity from the AFL as to whether the club can remove itself from the deal, and therefore clear the $350,000-a-year space in their future total player payments.

A senior club source, who wouldn’t speak publicly due to the confidentiality of player contracts, confirmed the Magpies had discussed internally the status of Grundy’s seven-year Collingwood contract if he were to move clubs again.

Collingwood’s position will be that it had a deal with Grundy and Melbourne, but not with Grundy and Sydney. It’s a position that might be difficult to get past the bosses at AFL HQ, given that Andrew Dillon and Laura Kane are both lawyers.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/money-money-money-why-the-grundy-poker-game-is-heating-up-20230926-p5e7s6.html

[Queanbeyan Demon 5,929]

31 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

The Saga continues

See this post I just made on the Trade Rumors thread

A potentially big twist in the Grundy deal... (Collingwood playing the spoiler)

This column can reveal that, when the deal goes through, Collingwood will seek clarity from the AFL as to whether the club can remove itself from the deal, and therefore clear the $350,000-a-year space in their future total player payments.

A senior club source, who wouldn’t speak publicly due to the confidentiality of player contracts, confirmed the Magpies had discussed internally the status of Grundy’s seven-year Collingwood contract if he were to move clubs again.

Collingwood’s position will be that it had a deal with Grundy and Melbourne, but not with Grundy and Sydney. It’s a position that might be difficult to get past the bosses at AFL HQ, given that Andrew Dillon and Laura Kane are both lawyers.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/money-money-money-why-the-grundy-poker-game-is-heating-up-20230926-p5e7s6.html

They are both lawyers maybe, but is either of them going straight?

[Roger Mellie 3,492]

On 9/22/2023 at 11:14 AM, layzie said:

If rumours of any kind of bust up between Grundy and the club are true, then I don't see how this gives us a lot of leverage. Sure we could force him to honour his contract but that could have other ramifications and infect the morale of the team. 

Haven't even got a recent 'trade bait game' from him to hang our hat on. I'd be gobsmacked if we got 11 but over the moon if it somehow happened. 

I presumed it was all quite professional and that Grundy understood it just wasn't working in a 'no offense taken' kind of way. But, if playing the Schachster as sub wasn't the biggest eff you Grundy, ever, I'm not sure what is. 

I also can't recall Max spending much if any time up forward this year other than fleeting moments, as part of the grand ruck plan, when the two were playing. Perhaps it's just my failing memory :-(