Traded Brodie Grundy [Traded to Melbourne for #27]

[Pure_Ownage]

Because they know there is no way they could of re-signed JDG and brought in Hill/McStay etc if Grundy stayed.

Yes but hill and mcstay are worse than grundy unless grundy is cooked.

 

[Seeds]

Why? Unless his body is cooked it makes no sense and if its cooked why would melb trade for him? This trade is all very odd to me but then again collingwoods list management is very odd.

Agree something doesnt stack up. Maybe collingwood thinks Grundys body is completely cooked. Even then i still think they could negotiate for more. Or maybe grundy has threatend to never play for the club again if they dont trade him quickly. Something very odd.

18 months ago nearly every pies fans was arguing on here that grundy was the best ruckman in the comp.

 

[Ginnieboy]

Why? Unless his body is cooked it makes no sense and if its cooked why would melb trade for him? This trade is all very odd to me but then again collingwoods list management is very odd.

Long story short Fly doesn’t like him.

 

[Ginnieboy]

Because they know there is no way they could of re-signed JDG and brought in Hill/McStay etc if Grundy stayed.

Except for the fact we just did.

 

[Ginnieboy]

Also remember Melbourne fans you owe us for giving you Dawes and Lumumba.

 

[WilloTree]

What are you planning to give the Dees for Jackson ? Ha ha dear with no eyes

 

[Bay Pie]

I'm not buying the 'free up money for Mitchell' at all.

We're only touching Mitchell if Hawthorn pay a really big chunk of his salary. I'd guess leaving considerably less than $600k for us to pay.

The money freed up allowed us to resign JDG and bring in McStay. Nice diversion by the club, so when McStay stinks it up and Brodie kills it, they'll be able to deflect it away, indicating the saving on Brodie wasn't for McStay. I can't believe we're doing this, netting out as Brodie for McStay + a 2nd round pick.

Freakin madness.

 

[Mich0]

Also remember Melbourne fans you owe us for giving you Dawes and Lumumba.

Don’t forget Ben Kennedy

 

[beerbandit]

Yes but hill and mcstay are worse than grundy unless grundy is cooked.

Grundys injuries may be worse then first thought, I’m sure he will undergo a medical at Melbourne but it may well be a bit of Dale Thomas about it where the club knew he was cooked.

 

[PieLebo87]

If thats the deal you are robbing collingwood blind.

grundy is the same age as cameron when we drafted him. We paid 3 first rounders for cameron (who was also coming off an injury plagued year) and well over 600 thousand

There’s a bit of a difference between one of the best KPFs in the game and a ruckman who hasn’t fired a shot in 2 years.

 

[PieLebo87]

Because they know there is no way they could have re-signed JDG and brought in Hill/McStay etc if Grundy stayed.

Wrong. They’ve done all that and Grundy hasn’t been traded. Heck, even Jackson hasn’t been traded.

Pies simply don’t want to pay another $4.5m for 5 years. He’s 28, turning 29… I don’t even know why Melbourne wants to have someone at that age until they’re 33-34.

 

[TheBoss]

Wrong. They’ve done all that and Grundy hasn’t been traded. Heck, even Jackson hasn’t been traded.

Pies simply don’t want to pay another $4.5m for 5 years. He’s 28, turning 29… I don’t even know why Melbourne wants to have someone at that age until they’re 33-34.

It's a "win now" move for Melbourne, but I don't see how Gawn and Grundy would be a good tandem. Both excel as the primary ruck but don't offer much when played out of position. I don't see how they complement each other as both are s**t as forwards. Maybe the plan is to have Grundy be the primary follower while we use Gawn's marking behind the ball?

Grundy is as much as a like-for-like replacement for Jackson that you could get. But I am not a huge fan of the deal as it doesn't fix the mid-forward line connection.

From a team balance perspective, Lobb makes more sense than Grundy.

 

[PieLebo87]

It's a "win now" move for Melbourne, but I don't see how Gawn and Grundy would be a good tandem. Both excel as the primary ruck but don't offer much when played out of position. I don't see how they complement each other as both are s**t as forwards. Maybe the plan is to have Grundy be the primary follower while we use Gawn's marking behind the ball?

Grundy is as much as a like-for-like replacement for Jackson that you could get. But I am not a huge fan of the deal as it doesn't fix the mid-forward line connection.

From a team balance perspective, Lobb makes more sense than Grundy.

I was initially for it but I just can’t see how it’ll benefit the Dees to the extent where it’s a worthwhile trade.

It’s always handy having 2 gun ruckmen, but like you said, Gawn and Grundy are fairly similar in that they’re primarily ruckmen and not much else.

The fact the club is keen on him at 28-29 for the next 5 years at $3m confuses me.

 

[Juzzk1d]

It's a "win now" move for Melbourne, but I don't see how Gawn and Grundy would be a good tandem. Both excel as the primary ruck but don't offer much when played out of position. I don't see how they complement each other as both are s**t as forwards. Maybe the plan is to have Grundy be the primary follower while we use Gawn's marking behind the ball?

Grundy is as much as a like-for-like replacement for Jackson that you could get. But I am not a huge fan of the deal as it doesn't fix the mid-forward line connection.

From a team balance perspective, Lobb makes more sense than Grundy.

When Gawn is thrown back, he is a massive weapon. Adds an extra intercept defender in the mix, with the opposition having to lower their eyes. Which also frees up May and Lever to cover the holes.

We struggle to move the ball up the ground. Having another ruckman as a key marketing target in both halves of the ground adds a lot of power and mismatches when playing against teams who have one ruckman out there.

This will work.

 

[Trav 20]

I was initially for it but I just can’t see how it’ll benefit the Dees to the extent where it’s a worthwhile trade.

It’s always handy having 2 gun ruckmen, but like you said, Gawn and Grundy are fairly similar in that they’re primarily ruckmen and not much else.

The fact the club is keen on him at 28-29 for the next 5 years at $3m confuses me.

You can be confused. You don't need to ''see it''.

What's relevant is that Melbourne sees it. Not you.

Btw, 29-32 is smack bang the prime years for a ruckman. And guess what, our window matches those years.

We managed to win a flag with the Gawn/Jackson combo. Grundy is better than Jackson, so I suspect the club knows what it's doing.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

I

Why? Unless his body is cooked it makes no sense and if its cooked why would melb trade for him? This trade is all very odd to me but then again collingwoods list management is very odd.

Its not Grundy we dislike its his salary

 

[PieLebo87]

Its not Grundy we dislike its his salary

I personally never liked him.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

I personally never liked him.

I personally never knew him.

 

[Lampers]

Except for the fact we just did.

Do you think the AFL keep a running tally of the salary cap as each contract drops?

And rejects a transaction if it projects the team to be outside the cap?

Of course they don’t. They’ve done it for pre-season picks in the past, but that pretty easy as most of the moving parts can’t move any more by that stage.

It’s absolutely possible Collingwood may have signed up those players which puts them over the projected salary cap if Grundy’s contract remains with them - which is fine if they somehow find space before that projected year happens.

The Treloar and Phillips situation proves that clubs are allowed to get themselves into positions where they project to exceed the salary cap.

Collingwood look to be essentially trading their way out of a $1m per year mistake and are paying for the benefit of saving $700k of that mistake.

I could see the shoe being on the other foot over the next couple of years with Melbourne’s long term signings of Petracca and Oliver in particular. Melbourne have lost Hunt (meh) already and Bedford (more for opportunity it seems), and there is some sniffing around for Harmes and Pickett too.

 

[Lore]

 

[PieLebo87]

Massive respect for Taylor Adams. He constantly speaks up via social media when players (both Collingwood and others) get picked at by the vultures and does it with absolute class.

Then you’ve got clowns like Dangerfield (Mason Cox does it often too) tweeting/posting the stupidest s**t to inflate their own egos further. (Refer to today’s one he did - absolutely zero substance)

 

[Ginnieboy]

Do you think the AFL keep a running tally of the salary cap as each contract drops?

And rejects a transaction if it projects the team to be outside the cap?

Of course they don’t. They’ve done it for pre-season picks in the past, but that pretty easy as most of the moving parts can’t move any more by that stage.

It’s absolutely possible Collingwood may have signed up those players which puts them over the projected salary cap if Grundy’s contract remains with them - which is fine if they somehow find space before that projected year happens.

The Treloar and Phillips situation proves that clubs are allowed to get themselves into positions where they project to exceed the salary cap.

Collingwood look to be essentially trading their way out of a $1m per year mistake and are paying for the benefit of saving $700k of that mistake.

I could see the shoe being on the other foot over the next couple of years with Melbourne’s long term signings of Petracca and Oliver in particular. Melbourne have lost Hunt (meh) already and Bedford (more for opportunity it seems), and there is some sniffing around for Harmes and Pickett too.

Disagree, the Grundy contract probably affect the Fiorini and Mitchell deals, but as of right now we are under the cap, there is no way we would risk our cap on the Grundy deal, otherwise at the last minute we would simply have to give him away, once the Grundy deal is done we’ll probably go after the other 2/3 we’re chasing.

 

[PieLebo87]

Disagree, the Grundy contract probably affect the Fiorini and Mitchell deals, but as of right now we are under the cap, there is no way we would risk our cap on the Grundy deal, otherwise at the last minute we would simply have to give him away, once the Grundy deal is done we’ll probably go after the other 2/3 we’re chasing.

The Grundy trade is a salary dump of sorts, but not because Collingwood is at risk of exceeding their cap. They’re wanting to redistribute that cash in other areas of the field.

A club that’s struggling with a bulging salary cap wouldn’t be potentially taking on two separate cap dumps themselves. (Fiorini and Mitchell)

 

[V_23]

Can someone please explain why Melbourne would even entertain the idea of getting Grundy? Seems ludicrous to me. You don’t even need one gun ruckman to win a premiership, let alone two. You’re much better off spending your money on midfielders and forwards (admittedly, they’re rarely on offer).

 

[Bianconeri]

Yes but hill and mcstay are worse than grundy unless grundy is cooked.

Hill and McStay fill greater needs though