Scodog10
Brownlow Medallist
You know Collingwood people can be negative and correct at the same time, yeah? Because he’s right a 7 year extension is too long.
List Mgmt. Trade & F/A - 2020
- Thread starter unplugged
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
TradeDraft
Post-Human
Then don't have to go the Complete Opposite way though
TradeDraft
Post-Human
Then I guess we will see lot of Teams being Dumb offering Players 7+ Year Deals in the Near Future
Scodog10
Brownlow Medallist
Then I guess we will see lot of Teams being Dumb offering Players 7+ Year Deals in the Near Future
Potentially, but I doubt it because I think we’ll see the end of the super long deal over the next few years as the power swings back toward clubs and issues start to present for clubs signing up guys in their mid 20’s to such long deals (the one’s that I’d be super sus on are Grundy, GWS’ and Lynch). For instance the only player I could justify contracting for 8 years on our list is Stephenson.
TradeDraft
Post-Human
What will Change to make the Clubs more in Charge?
So you been more then Happy to let our best Player go as 7 Years is Too Long?
Stephenson has been Good but has not Proved he be worth such a Long Extentsion
Scodog10
Brownlow Medallist
Less restrictions on trading contracted players, increased future trading and a proper in season trade period.
I wouldn’t say more than happy, but if it was a hard or fast 8 years of Grundy or we lose him then I would have been absolutely fine with the club allowing him to leave so long as they prepared accordingly. IMO, Grundy and his management would have folded had we stuck to our guns. I wouldn’t have gone past 5 years which means he’s contracted for 6 seasons, said “that offer won’t be changing” and shifted priority to JDG and Moore.
That’s debatable re Stephenson because he isn’t off contract until the end of 2021 by which time he will justify that sort of contract if he tracks along his current trajectory.
TradeDraft
Post-Human
Other Teams would Happily Offered Grundy 7 years IF it Meant they could get him and that is why we had to Match the Length
- Sep 13, 2013
- 31,411
- 28,204
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Juventus
It would have been nice if Grundy stopped hitting it to his feet so and causing repeat stoppages.
sr36
Hall of Famer
Pendles spoke to Grundy before every stoppage. I don't think you can blame Grundy for the decision to continue to hit it in close. It was a crap decision though.
T.Shaw doesn’t need to be a Collingwood pusher in the media, he is paid to give his opinion...and just like many on boards like these he doesn’t have to agree with Collingwood.
It would hv been great to sign Brody for just 3 years IMO, but that is just my own personal preference that no contracts should be much longer than that.
Shaw just trots our the same other dribble - recent premiership teams had only average rucks, and 7 years is a long time - that other media have gone with.
Go back a bit further and it was Geelong getting Ottens, Pies getting Jolly that tipped us over the edge...bloody Didak won the goal kicking in our premiership year and Geelong had N.Ablett as CHF! Geelong lifted in 2011 when their KPF went off injured. Sydney won in 2012 with meh KPFs. Would T.Shaw be parroting the death of the KPF back in 2012??
WC with Cox, Port with Primus/Lade/Brogan and the Lions smashing us in the ruck in GFs again showed how a dominant ruck can take you to a flag.
Not securing Brody, our best player in his prime, would have been an interesting call...as why would guys like DeGoey and Moore then actually want to stick with us?
I also assume that part of the reason for extending the length is to reduce the per season cost, he could have demanded 1.3mil over the next couple of years but by us stretching it out to seven would mean we have more money in the cap in the next couple of years to secure guys like DeGoey andMoore.
It would hv been great to sign Brody for just 3 years IMO, but that is just my own personal preference that no contracts should be much longer than that.
Shaw just trots our the same other dribble - recent premiership teams had only average rucks, and 7 years is a long time - that other media have gone with.
Go back a bit further and it was Geelong getting Ottens, Pies getting Jolly that tipped us over the edge...bloody Didak won the goal kicking in our premiership year and Geelong had N.Ablett as CHF! Geelong lifted in 2011 when their KPF went off injured. Sydney won in 2012 with meh KPFs. Would T.Shaw be parroting the death of the KPF back in 2012??
WC with Cox, Port with Primus/Lade/Brogan and the Lions smashing us in the ruck in GFs again showed how a dominant ruck can take you to a flag.
Not securing Brody, our best player in his prime, would have been an interesting call...as why would guys like DeGoey and Moore then actually want to stick with us?
I also assume that part of the reason for extending the length is to reduce the per season cost, he could have demanded 1.3mil over the next couple of years but by us stretching it out to seven would mean we have more money in the cap in the next couple of years to secure guys like DeGoey andMoore.
TradeDraft
Post-Human
Then you lose lot of your Gun Players with only Offering 3 Year Deals as player want more of a Security then a 2-3 Year Deal.
IF we lost Grundy we no longer been Premiership Contenders
BEEG
Hall of Famer
- Aug 2, 2007
- 31,039
- 37,268
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Dallas Mavericks
- Banned
- #7,140
The others below have answered but he mentioned the last 7 minutes when we were beaten around the packs but kept doing the same thing.
TradeDraft
Post-Human
Didn't Geelong only win 1 Flag once Ablett left?
Hawks has Roughead as a Key Forward to help. We have no one to Really take Grundy's Spot.
Look at 2018 we nearly won without a KPD and they are Easier to find
BEEG
Hall of Famer
- Aug 2, 2007
- 31,039
- 37,268
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Dallas Mavericks
Experts have said that ruckman is the spot you can get away with over most positions.
Grundy is a must have but we would survive and still be very good without him.
Negotiation suggests that it is not a ‘one way street’.Grundy's seven-year contract is too long: Shaw
By Jon Pierik
February 1, 2020 — 3.07pm
Shawry not happy with Brodie contract
Collingwood great Tony Shaw says the Magpies should not have given Brodie Grundy a deal for longer than five years, but understands they are paying a premium because they are in the premiership window.
Grundy has secured a seven-year contract, tying him to the club until the end of 2027, because he still had this year to run on his contract, but the deal has split opinions.
Brody Grundy, along with Max Gawn, is considered the premier ruckman in the competition.CREDIT:AAP
He is a dual All-Australian and arguably the best big man in the league but the physical punishment a ruckman typically endures means he could struggle to still be playing by the end of the contract, when he will be 33.
Shaw, the former Magpies' skipper and coach, said Lance Franklin's on-going knee issues entering the seventh season of his nine-year contract with the Swans should be a warning to the Pies.
Advertisement
"I look at Buddy's body now and he might not get to nine or 10 (years). He (Grundy) is 26 (in April) but ruckmen are a different breed and they are only one jump and one bad landing and one knee hit away from not playing for a long time," Shaw said.
"I would have given him five. That would have been heaps. If he didn't want it, sometimes you have got to go to the well and (play) hard. He is a good player but the thing about Brodie is that he has become like a midfielder. Have a look at the last couple of premierships that have been won – they (teams) didn't have a dominant ruckman.
"They were competitive, (Toby) Nankervis (at Richmond)... it's not like you have to have a dominant ruckman to win. Look at the Western Bulldogs, they didn't have a dominant ruckman."
Grundy's best football is arguably still ahead of him and, with suitors already lining up, including from his home town of Adelaide, and with these offers set to escalate this year, because he could have explored free agency after this season, the Magpies had to ease their usual stance of not awarding long-term deals. The club had originally not wanted to offer more than five years.
"Good luck to him. I have no worries about him. He is a ripper but, to me, you are one jump, you are one contact, you are one bad fall away from doing your knee as a ruckman," Shaw said.
"You are in a higher stress area than any midfielder that I know. That's why I wouldn't go there. He has got to play until he is 33. He has taken a lot of work already, so his body is probably an older body for his sizing and the age.
"But they (Magpies) are in the (premiership) window and they probably wouldn't want to lose him over the next two years. They are paying overs for three years and hoping nothing happens in between."
Grundy will earn in the region of $1 million a year, making him one of the highest-paid ruckman in the game's history.
The specifics of the contract have not been divulged but the Magpies could face a salary-cap squeeze this year for Jordan de Goey, 24 next month, and Darcy Moore, who recently turned 24, are also off contract. Skipper Scott Pendlebury is also be chasing a new deal.
Grundy has been instrumental in the Magpies' resurgence over the past two seasons, having claimed successive best-and-fairest awards, and he will need to be again this year as they seek redemption for a shock preliminary-final defeat to Greater Western Sydney.
"We lost a grand final and a preliminary final but we should have won the preliminary. As a matter of fact, that last seven minutes of ruck work (against the Giants), it wasn't his (Grundy's) fault, but the organisation around the ruck work was horrible and there was probably a lack of leadership in those last seven minutes," Shaw said.
"I felt worse after the preliminary final loss last year than what I did in the grand final the year before."
TradeDraft
Post-Human
Then maybe been better IF we did Trade Grundy then?
From a supporter perspective, I am club first, so prefer the flexibility of 3 year contracts as a max.
The club has to balance the preferences of the player though, they ain’t playing football manager.
So if a guy like Grundy wants a longer contract, and we can make it work, then it is a no brainer.
Because yes, if we lost our best player...why would guys like Moore and DeGoey stay?
Scodog10
Brownlow Medallist
I’m not concerned with what other clubs were prepared to offer Grundy. Better them take that risk at $1.2m pa than us taking on that same length deal at $800-900k pa.
At the end of the day their decision making shouldn’t dictate our cap structure. It all boils down to your preparedness to lose him and if that’s what it took to get the right deal so be it. You’re more emotionally invested in Grundy staying than me, as most supporters are, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that the world would keep spinning though if we negotiated harder. That’s all.
FWIW it’s also completely wrong to say we had to match that length we didn’t have to do anything we only chose too and I’m tired of the black or white narrative to this discussion.
TradeDraft
Post-Human
The Club Tried for 3 year deal but sounded like that got Shutdown Quick.
I dare say Club would worked something out that both Benfitted Grundy and the Club.
Agree IF Grundy Left it would not fill Moore and De Goey with the Future at Collingwood
TradeDraft
Post-Human
I highly doubt it's bad as the Media try and make it sound.
Don't think we Committed Salary Cap Suicide by Signing Grundy.
So you could have the Best Player Ever BUT IF he wanted more then a 3 Year Deal you would let him go?
Guess with this Deal then the Team and the List has gone Backwards quite a Bit then and we go back to being a Bottom 6 Side because of this then Scodog10 ?
No he said his ‘preference was’ maximum three years. What you settle for in years, money and clauses normally somewhat different.
- Status
