Traded Brodie Grundy [Traded to Melbourne for #27]

[Suma Magic]

Hard to see how trading him makes sense.

Either McStay at 600k and 300k spent on paying Grundy to play elsewhere. Maybe a second round pick.
Or
Grundy on a mill.

So a choice between:
Mcstay, second rounder, 100k
or
Grundy

Surely Grundy would be better? The shit deal is a sunk cost that they have to wear regardless of what happens.

 

[Bay Pie]

Hard to see how trading him makes sense.

Either McStay at 600k and 300k spent on paying Grundy to play elsewhere. Maybe a second round pick.
Or
Grundy on a mill.

So a choice between:
Mcstay, second rounder, 100k
or
Grundy

Surely Grundy would be better? The s**t deal is a sunk cost that they have to wear regardless of what happens.

Freakin madness isn't it. Too many Pie supporters drinking Wright's bathwater. S**t deal is s**t.

 

[Forethought]

Exactly. Collingwood has absolute 0 leverage here

I believe a team like the Dees absolutely will be focused on what makes them a better side especially once Jackson goes. I don’t see them throwing away a perfect chance to make that happen based on a few hundred thousand. They have more of a liability if Gawn goes down without a player like Grundy that could derail their season over what a couple of hundred thousand.

Having done a Harvard business course on mediation and negotiating my experience on leverage positions is first understanding the other parties needs. For this the Dees have clearly stated a 2 key ruckman policy. Their mids would have a fair say on this too.

 

[Prexm]

Hard to see how trading him makes sense.

Either McStay at 600k and 300k spent on paying Grundy to play elsewhere. Maybe a second round pick.
Or
Grundy on a mill.

So a choice between:
Mcstay, second rounder, 100k
or
Grundy

Surely Grundy would be better? The s**t deal is a sunk cost that they have to wear regardless of what happens.

If Grundy can return to his best then the deal is real bad. But that is the if , he has been very average for 3 seasons.

 

[danster168]

I wonder if Grundy could average 11 disposals, 4 marks, 7 hitouts and 1 goal per game.

Tough ask.

conveniently left out his tackle numbers. Makes me wonder what else you left out.

 

[iameviljez]

I believe a team like the Dees absolutely will be focused on what makes them a better side especially once Jackson goes. I don’t see them throwing away a perfect chance to make that happen based on a few hundred thousand. They have more of a liability if Gawn goes down without a player like Grundy that could derail their season over what a couple of hundred thousand.

Having done a Harvard business course on mediation and negotiating my experience on leverage positions is first understanding the other parties needs. For this the Dees have clearly stated a 2 key ruckman policy. Their mids would have a fair say on this too.

I wEnT tO hArVaRd

 

[Trav 20]

conveniently left out his tackle numbers. Makes me wonder what else you left out.

Because tackles are the first thing I think of when I assess a key forward

You can throw in Reid's one extra contested mark every 8 quarters.

 

[leon123]

I wEnT tO hArVaRd

you should be proud then, not an easy task to be accepted and it is of very high global standard

 

[Duskfire]

If Grundy can return to his best then the deal is real bad. But that is the if , he has been very average for 3 seasons.

If he has been average for three seasons they shouldn't have put him on such a major contract, since thats when he signed it right? Three seasons ago?

 

[LBJ6]

What do dees/pies/neutrals think about his trade value given the following salary assumptions? I’ve put my thoughts below.

Values if the new club pays (of 5 x $1m) the following

$1m: pick 20-25 (from pies)
$900k: pick 40 (from pies)
$850k: token pick
$800k: pick 40
$700k: pick 20-25
$600k: top 10

I think that it is a bit too simplistic to look at it as the value of one year of his contract.

He is 29 next year and has 5 seasons remaining. He also has a history of being injury prone.

The thought of having to pay a 31, 32 + 33 year old Grundy $700k plus per annum from taking on this contract is quite sickening.

 

[danster168]

Because tackles are the first thing I think of when I assess a key forward

You can throw in Reid's one extra contested mark every 8 quarters.

You still mentioned that Ben Brown is worse so im not sure what we're arguing about. I reckon I'm better than Ben Brown and I'm not even joking.

But back to Grundy, if we trade out a first rounder for him, it's going to stall us a few years.

 

[deck]

Hard to see how trading him makes sense.

Either McStay at 600k and 300k spent on paying Grundy to play elsewhere. Maybe a second round pick.
Or
Grundy on a mill.

So a choice between:
Mcstay, second rounder, 100k
or
Grundy

Surely Grundy would be better? The s**t deal is a sunk cost that they have to wear regardless of what happens.

The whole thing doesn't add up to me unless we are getting a good draft pick in return or a shit load of cap space. And with what is coming in it don't look like it.

 

[Suma Magic]

I think that it is a bit too simplistic to look at it as the value of one year of his contract.

He is 29 next year and has 5 seasons remaining. He also has a history of being injury prone.

The thought of having to pay a 31, 32 + 33 year old Grundy $700k plus per annum from taking on this contract is quite sickening.

I was talking per year. So if 700k per year then pies pay 1.5m.

 

[Duskfire]

I also think he is a weird fit for Melb, and I am not just saying that because I want Gawn to go to Geelong (pretty please). At first I was all for it, but looking into, Gawn isn't really that big a goal kicking ruck. I think I exaggerated that because of how well he did against Geelong in last years prelim, but that did seem to be a bit of an outlier. Maybe he would be if Grundy were there though? Maybe they see Gawn as an answer to Melbs forward line woes.

The whole thing seems strange. Strange Collingwood would want to get rid of him, strange that Melb would take him. It feels like a trade that isn't really going to benefit anyone

 

[Mich0]

I also think he is a weird fit for Melb, and I am not just saying that because I want Gawn to go to Geelong (pretty please). At first I was all for it, but looking into, Gawn isn't really that big a goal kicking ruck. I think I exaggerated that because of how well he did against Geelong in last years prelim, but that did seem to be a bit of an outlier. Maybe he would be if Grundy were there though? Maybe they see Gawn as an answer to Melbs forward line woes.

The whole thing seems strange. Strange Collingwood would want to get rid of him, strange that Melb would take him. It feels like a trade that isn't really going to benefit anyone

Agree, feels a bit like the Lobb trade. More being clubs finding a way to shoehorn a player in to appease the trade request more then it being a genuine need. Bizarre

 

[iameviljez]

I also think he is a weird fit for Melb, and I am not just saying that because I want Gawn to go to Geelong (pretty please). At first I was all for it, but looking into, Gawn isn't really that big a goal kicking ruck. I think I exaggerated that because of how well he did against Geelong in last years prelim, but that did seem to be a bit of an outlier. Maybe he would be if Grundy were there though? Maybe they see Gawn as an answer to Melbs forward line woes.

The whole thing seems strange. Strange Collingwood would want to get rid of him, strange that Melb would take him. It feels like a trade that isn't really going to benefit anyone

They really need to find the next 2M Peter - that player who can pinch-hit in the ruck, but primarily works as a marking target up forward. Then top up with a Jono Ceglar type - or even just keep Sam Weideman as the Break Glass ruckman.

 

[PieLebo87]

I can't believe I didn't think of this earlier, but why didn't Melbourne make a play for Dan McStay? A KPF who can support Gawn in the ruck.

 

[danster168]

I also think he is a weird fit for Melb, and I am not just saying that because I want Gawn to go to Geelong (pretty please). At first I was all for it, but looking into, Gawn isn't really that big a goal kicking ruck. I think I exaggerated that because of how well he did against Geelong in last years prelim, but that did seem to be a bit of an outlier. Maybe he would be if Grundy were there though? Maybe they see Gawn as an answer to Melbs forward line woes.

The whole thing seems strange. Strange Collingwood would want to get rid of him, strange that Melb would take him. It feels like a trade that isn't really going to benefit anyone

lol yeah no chance Gawn would ever leave Melbourne but I agree in that this trade is a lose-lose.

 

[PieLebo87]

lol yeah no chance Gawn would ever leave Melbourne but I agree in that this trade is a lose-lose.

I can't see Collingwood winning in this trade regardless.

Melbourne though - you win a premiership next year with Grundy, it becomes a winner for you.

 

[danster168]

I can't believe I didn't think of this earlier, but why didn't Melbourne make a play for Dan McStay? A KPF who can support Gawn in the ruck.

Agree. I mean I don't think he's that good but definitely would've preferred him to Grundy. Same with Henry (albeit, not a key forward)

 

[old55]

But back to Grundy, if we trade out a first rounder for him, it's going to stall us a few years.

Rubbish. Grundy will be a ready to go ruckman next year. A first round pick will be an 18yo.

If you made some argument about 5 years from now it would at least be credible enough to consider.

 

[PieLebo87]

Agree. I mean I don't think he's that good but definitely would've preferred him to Grundy. Same with Henry (albeit, not a key forward)

You already have a Henry type, it doesn't solve your forward problem. It needs to be a bigger bodied gorilla to bring the footy down for the mosquito fleet to get to work.

McStay wouldn't have been the worst possible recruit - I'm not super thrilled about him coming to Collingwood, but only because of how much it'll cost us in cap space, more than anything else. I guess a positive spin is what we save in draft picks, we pay for in an overinflated contract.

 

[danster168]

I can't see Collingwood winning in this trade regardless.

Melbourne though - you win a premiership next year with Grundy, it becomes a winner for you.

Agreed. but we won't. not with the worst forward line in the afl

 

[danster168]

You already have a Henry type, it doesn't solve your forward problem. It needs to be a bigger bodied gorilla to bring the footy down for the mosquito fleet to get to work.

McStay wouldn't have been the worst possible recruit - I'm not super thrilled about him coming to Collingwood, but only because of how much it'll cost us in cap space, more than anything else. I guess a positive spin is what we save in draft picks, we pay for in an overinflated contract.

Yeah I do agree but there's no big key forwards on the market. So the best we can hope for is bringing in good players and hope Goodwin opts for a small fwd line and tells Ben Brown to pack his bags.

 

[danster168]

Rubbish. Grundy will be a ready to go ruckman next year. A first round pick will be an 18yo.

If you made some argument about 5 years from now it would at least be credible enough to consider.

Grundy won't be first ruck tho. so what's he going to be, a part time good ruck and a spud forward? Grundy will be good for 2 years. An 18 yo can be good for 12 years. When we won last years granny we have first year player in Bowey who blanketed Weightman, as well as youngsters in Jackson and Rivers.