Pure_Ownage
TheBrownDog
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Because they know there is no way they could of re-signed JDG and brought in Hill/McStay etc if Grundy stayed.
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.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.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.
Except for the fact we just did.Because they know there is no way they could of re-signed JDG and brought in Hill/McStay etc if Grundy stayed.
Also remember Melbourne fans you owe us for giving you Dawes and Lumumba.
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.Yes but hill and mcstay are worse than grundy unless grundy is cooked.
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.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
Wrong. They’ve done all that and Grundy hasn’t been traded. Heck, even Jackson hasn’t been traded.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.
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 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.
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.
You can be confused. You don't need to ''see it''.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.
Its not Grundy we dislike its his salaryWhy? 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.
I personally never liked him.Its not Grundy we dislike its his salary
I personally never knew him.I personally never liked him.
Do you think the AFL keep a running tally of the salary cap as each contract drops?Except for the fact we just did.
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.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.
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.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.
Hill and McStay fill greater needs thoughYes but hill and mcstay are worse than grundy unless grundy is cooked.