Oppo Camp Brodie Grundy (Traded to Melbourne 2022)

[Carringbush2010]

That's probably why he doesn't get paid $1m a year

Yeah but near enough to be too much.

 

[Carringbush2010]

So in your fairyland, nobody is worth $1m a season? Because nobody has had a season of 19 disposals, 5 goals and 33 hitouts a game.

You're saying players don't gather 30 d, and 3 goals a week?

Sure there's not many of them, there's a couple, that's why not many get paid like Grundy, because there's not many of them. But Grundy is getting paid like players that are having impact that he's not having.

If he plays like pre lim Gawn every week, then yep it's justified, until then the money could be better used.

 

[sr36]

You're saying players don't gather 30 d, and 3 goals a week?

I'd say it very confidentally. I think Harry McKay is the only player in the league who averaged that many goals per game- (someone who played not many games may also have) And Harry averaged less than 10 possessions a game.

 

[gouki88]

You're saying players don't gather 30 d, and 3 goals a week?

Sure there's not many of them, there's a couple, that's why not many get paid like Grundy, because there's not many of them. But Grundy is getting paid like players that are having impact that he's not having.

If he plays like pre lim Gawn every week, then yep it's justified, until then the money could be better used.

Nobody in the competition is even close. Of the 30+ disposal winners the highest goal average is 0.4 (shared by multiple). Petracca averaged 1.2 goals a game on 29 disposals a game, by far the closest - still not halfway there on the goal mark though.

Leigh Matthews at his best nearly qualifies (27 disposals, 3.8 goals). Dusty's closest was 30 disposals and 1.5 goals a week. Gary Ablett Jr. was 32 and 1.8 goals a week.

So no, there is basically one player in history that I can think of that even sniffed 30 disposals and 3 goals a week. And it is the greatest player of all time.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'd say it very confidentally. I think Harry McKay is the only player in the league who averaged that many goals per game- (someone who played not many games may also have) And Harry averaged less than 10 possessions a game.

Ok, but I don't need to be super accurate to know that Grundy is being paid too much. He's not the sort of player that earns that sort of money, very few are IMO.

I'd also say 200k a year could be better spent, at the very least help our tpp.

How people on here are trying to justify his contract in futility, the mind boggles.

Grundy is a great ruckman, potentially generational, however there's never been and probably never will be a ruckman that has consistent match winning impact that deserves those dollars over that length of time.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Nobody in the competition is even close. Of the 30+ disposal winners the highest goal average is 0.4 (shared by multiple). Petracca averaged 1.2 goals a game on 29 disposals a game, by far the closest - still not halfway there on the goal mark though.

Leigh Matthews at his best nearly qualifies (27 disposals, 3.8 goals). Dusty's closest was 30 disposals and 1.5 goals a week. Gary Ablett Jr. was 32 and 1.8 goals a week.

So no, there is basically one player in history that I can think of that even sniffed 30 disposals and 3 goals a week. And it is the greatest player of all time.

Without going down the rabbit hole of only one player in history with those numbers, it just proves the point.

The club is paying Grundy the sort of money that only that one player should be getting.

Sure, one could use the Buddy argument 'but hey look over there' or other clubs. Great, bad for swans good for everyone else.

Grundy contract, bad for us, good for everyone else.

And let's not pretend we're in a comfortable cap position, we aren't.

That's the whole point of contention around his contract, he'll never play to those sort of dollars, not possible. We are paying too much.

Anyone can defend it til the cows come home, doesn't change what he's getting paid and doesn't change our cap situation. If you're happy with it then good for you.

 

[gouki88]

Without going down the rabbit hole of only one player in history with those numbers, it just proves the point.

The club is paying Grundy the sort of money that only that one player should be getting.

Sure, one could use the Buddy argument 'but hey look over there' or other clubs. Great, bad for swans good for everyone else.

Grundy contract, bad for us, good for everyone else.

And let's not pretend we're in a comfortable cap position, we aren't.

That's the whole point of contention around his contract, he'll never play to those sort of dollars, not possible. We are paying too much.

Anyone can defend it til the cows come home, doesn't change what he's getting paid and doesn't change our cap situation. If you're happy with it then good for you.

If you think there aren't any players worth it that's fine. It's irrelevant, because there's no getting it back now. If bog average players like Brad Hill and Zac Williams are earning nearly $1m a season then All-Australians are definitely going to.

 

[manicpie]

Nobody in the competition is even close. Of the 30+ disposal winners the highest goal average is 0.4 (shared by multiple). Petracca averaged 1.2 goals a game on 29 disposals a game, by far the closest - still not halfway there on the goal mark though.

Leigh Matthews at his best nearly qualifies (27 disposals, 3.8 goals). Dusty's closest was 30 disposals and 1.5 goals a week. Gary Ablett Jr. was 32 and 1.8 goals a week.

So no, there is basically one player in history that I can think of that even sniffed 30 disposals and 3 goals a week. And it is the greatest player of all time.

"Phil Carmen"? sorry, I loved Phil and always believed him to be the GOAT, not saying he was, just my fantasy. In regards to Grundy, well, he plays for us so I'm just going to let his footy do the talking. I think he might be in for a great year next year. surely he would be a bit driven to reclaim the number one mantle from gawn, and a new coaching panel will turn him around

 

[gouki88]

"Phil Carmen"? sorry, I loved Phil and always believed him to be the GOAT, not saying he was, just my fantasy. In regards to Grundy, well, he plays for us so I'm just going to let his footy do the talking. I think he might be in for a great year next year. surely he would be a bit driven to reclaim the number one mantle from gawn, and a new coaching panel will turn him around

Phil might have a claim at most talented of all time, certainly. Just an f-wit when it mattered most!

I think he'll return reinvigorated

 

[manicpie]

P

Phil might have a claim at most talented of all time, certainly. Just an f-wit when it mattered most!

I think he'll return reinvigorated

Phil also head butted my year 12 teacher Grahame Carbury, I can still see him coming to class with his nose all bandaged up

 

[Carringbush2010]

If you think there aren't any players worth it that's fine. It's irrelevant, because there's no getting it back now. If bog average players like Brad Hill and Zac Williams are earning nearly $1m a season then All-Australians are definitely going to.

The 'look over there' argument.

Opposition supporters could you this same 'look over there' argument, 'poorly performing Grundy is getting 1m$ a year'

What I think would be fine is paying someone like Trac, Bont or Dusty at our club that sort of money, not a ruckman, regardless of how good that ruckman is.

And you're right it's irrelevant, yet I'll still reply to posts on the subject and you'll still defend the contract, like we're doing now.

 

[gouki88]

The 'look over there' argument.

Opposition supporters could you this same 'look over there' argument, 'poorly performing Grundy is getting 1m$ a year'

What I think would be fine is paying someone like Trac, Bont or Dusty at our club that sort of money, not a ruckman, regardless of how good that ruckman is.

And you're right it's irrelevant, yet I'll still reply to posts on the subject and you'll still defend the contract, like we're doing now.

It's not a "look over there" argument. It's the nature of the football free agent market. If we don't play the game we lose our A-grade talent. Pretty simple stuff

 

[Carringbush2010]

It's not a "look over there" argument. It's the nature of the football free agent market. If we don't play the game we lose our A-grade talent. Pretty simple stuff

And my argument is (and others obviously) we would've been better off to let him go and better use the money.

Instead we're paying money (when the money is tight to begin with) of that rare impact player that wins matches off their own boot with regularity. Grundy is not that player.

Bad for us, good for everyone else.

 

[gouki88]

And my argument is (and others obviously) we would've been better off to let him go and better use the money.

Instead we're paying money (when the money is tight to begin with) of that rare impact player that wins matches off their own boot with regularity. Grundy is not that player.

Bad for us, good for everyone else.

I cannot agree with that at all. Any of it. It was the right move to try and keep him (contract was too long, but we needed to keep him) and Grundy is a match-winner.

I don't think I've ever seen a single one of your posts be positive about the Pies, so this kind of theme from you is unsurprising.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I cannot agree with that at all. Any of it. It was the right move to try and keep him (contract was too long, but we needed to keep him) and Grundy is a match-winner.

I don't think I've ever seen a single one of your posts be positive about the Pies, so this kind of theme from you is unsurprising.

Agree to disagree, Grundy is not a 'matchwinner' - those players win games off their own boot regularly. He's a great ruckman, not a Trac or Bont.

You've defended the contract and now state it's too long, yeah it is, and also too much.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I cannot agree with that at all. Any of it. It was the right move to try and keep him (contract was too long, but we needed to keep him) and Grundy is a match-winner.

I don't think I've ever seen a single one of your posts be positive about the Pies, so this kind of theme from you is unsurprising.

Probably coz there isn't much to be positive about the last few years, I'll post credit and criticism where due.

 

[GCPie]

The only player I would have allocated 1m per year would be G Ablett Snr as he was a true match winner.
The problem we have is that Grundy's contract is going to hamper the Pies unless - 1. We can restructure the contract (don't the AFLPA has that yet), 2. We can trade him (not likely as he is not worth the contract and the other clubs know that) or the most likely 3. The salary cap rises so his overall % of it decreases to make it more manageable.
We know the previous administration did this and we just have to learn to deal with it as bad as it may be.

 

[Gabbo64]

The 'look over there' argument.

Opposition supporters could you this same 'look over there' argument, 'poorly performing Grundy is getting 1m$ a year'

What I think would be fine is paying someone like Trac, Bont or Dusty at our club that sort of money, not a ruckman, regardless of how good that ruckman is.

And you're right it's irrelevant, yet I'll still reply to posts on the subject and you'll still defend the contract, like we're doing now.

If the contract is shite then he contract is shite. But is's a contract and we're stuck with it regardless.
But Grundy is a great player with longevity, so I'd rather have a shite contract with him than say a Brad Hill.
If you look at both of them, then we are the lucky ones.

 

[Carringbush2010]

If the contract is sh*te then he contract is sh*te. But is's a contract and we're stuck with it regardless.
But Grundy is a great player with longevity, so I'd rather have a sh*te contract with him than say a Brad Hill.
If you look at both of them, then we are the lucky ones.

Oh I don't disagree.

To be clear I'm replying because others want to debate with me on whether the contract is worthy, I don't think it is. That doesn't mean I don't realize we're stuck with it. It also doesn't mean I don't regard Grundy as a great player, I've clearly stated I believe he is.

Just not worth that money or length of contract.

Also I don't see the point in using other clubs bad contract management to defend bad contract management.

 

[Scribe26]

Agree to disagree, Grundy is not a 'matchwinner' - those players win games off their own boot regularly. He's a great ruckman, not a Trac or Bont.

You've defended the contract and now state it's too long, yeah it is, and also too much.

'Match-winner' is a subjective myth that's fun to talk about when a player kicks an important goal or makes a few important plays in a game of footy. If anything, it's a relic to the 80s and 90s.

How many games does Trac or Bont 'win off their own boot' when their teams were going sh1t pre-2021? How many games did Bucks win for us off his own boot prior to 2000?

I consider monstering hit-outs, smacking your direct opponent around the ground, getting 20+ touches and 5+ tackles a game as more 'match-winning' than a forward bobbing up with a couple of goals in a quarter.

I agree with Gabbo64 above. There are 25 other problems with our list or salary cap that I'd have a go at before I complained about Grundy, who we probably paid the market rate for after two of the most dominant years from a Collingwood ruckman since Peter Moore.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The only player I would have allocated 1m per year would be G Ablett Snr as he was a true match winner.
The problem we have is that Grundy's contract is going to hamper the Pies unless - 1. We can restructure the contract (don't the AFLPA has that yet), 2. We can trade him (not likely as he is not worth the contract and the other clubs know that) or the most likely 3. The salary cap rises so his overall % of it decreases to make it more manageable.
We know the previous administration did this and we just have to learn to deal with it as bad as it may be.

Thank you.

 

[Carringbush2010]

How many games does Trac or Bont 'win off their own boot' when their teams were going sh1t pre-2021?

So we should be paying overs because we're sh*t? I don't think so.

There are 25 other problems with our list or salary cap that I'd have a go at before I complained about Grundy,

Hmm, just a hint the thread title is about Grundy, just in case you forgot.

who we probably paid the market rate for after two of the most dominant years from a Collingwood ruckman since Peter Moore.

And yet we have nothing to show for it, apart from a Brownlow. But we're not here to argue that are we, we're debating the worth of the contract.

 

[Gabbo64]

Oh I don't disagree.

To be clear I'm replying because others want to debate with me on whether the contract is worthy, I don't think it is. That doesn't mean I don't realize we're stuck with it. It also doesn't mean I don't regard Grundy as a great player, I've clearly stated I believe he is.

Just not worth that money or length of contract.

Also I don't see the point in using other clubs bad contract management to defend bad contract management.

I'm not defending it, just saying not every club gets it right. I am sure that if Grundy finished top 3 in the Brownlow for the last 2 years (which he is capable of) we wouldn't even be discussing this. Unfortunately for him, and us, that wasn't the case.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'm not defending it, just saying not every club gets it right. I am sure that if Grundy finished top 3 in the Brownlow for the last 2 years (which he is capable of) we wouldn't even be discussing this. Unfortunately for him, and us, that wasn't the case.

I didn't say you, you replied to my reply to another poster. I'm also not arguing what he's capable of, and we're one of those clubs that get it wrong - consistently. What's your point?

 

[Scribe26]

So we should be paying overs because we're sh*t? I don't think so.

I'm sorry, I can't remember saying we should pay overs, but I must have going by this comment?

You suggested Grundy gets 'match-winner' money. I'm suggesting there's no such thing in football anymore. You pay your best-performed, consistent players and leaders and while we can all sit here and pretend to be experts after the fact, I think it's fair to say that after 2018-2019, the Grundy contract was market value or close enough to.

Hmm, just a hint the thread title is about Grundy, just in case you forgot.

Which is why I didn't come in here to discuss the latest episode of Ted Lasso. Thanks for confirming.

And yet we have nothing to show for it, apart from a Brownlow. But we're not here to argue that are we, we're debating the worth of the contract.

A great example again of how one 'match-winning' player or star doesn't win flags. They're hard to get, premierships. Take the little wins along the way mate.