Traded Brodie Grundy [traded to Sydney for #46 and F2]

[iameviljez]

Wouldn’t put sitting behind a 6x AA premiership captain and one of the best ruckman the game has ever seen in the same bucket as “falling out of favor”, but yeah sure ok.

He is still in the VFL, and did not exactly smash it out of the park in either league.

He probably still starts at 12 clubs in the league - including mine - but he is not 2018 Grundy.

 

[branedotorg]

i know it's probably been said but if Melbourne get rid of him they do need a journeyman ruckman in case Gawn goes down again - tom mcdonald

25

Tom Mcdonald

Age

31

Ht

195cm

Wt

101kg

Pos.

D/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.4

4star

K

9.7

4star

HB

6.7

4star

M

5.6

5star

T

1.9

4star

MG

261.8

4star

D

8.0

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

3.0

2star

M

3.4

3star

T

0.6

1star

MG

135.6

2star

D

13.8

4star

K

6.8

3star

HB

7.0

5star

M

4.4

4star

T

1.4

4star

, adam tomlinson

20

Adam Tomlinson

Age

30

Ht

194cm

Wt

95kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

15.5

4star

K

9.8

4star

HB

5.8

4star

M

4.8

5star

T

2.3

4star

D

15.5

4star

K

9.8

4star

HB

5.8

3star

M

4.8

4star

T

2.3

3star

D

15.5

4star

K

9.8

4star

HB

5.8

4star

M

4.8

5star

T

2.3

4star

, ben brown

50

Ben Brown

Age

31

Ht

200cm

Wt

100kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.7

3star

K

7.7

3star

HB

3.0

3star

M

4.8

5star

T

1.2

3star

G

2.2

5star

D

7.9

2star

K

6.3

3star

HB

1.6

1star

M

3.7

4star

T

0.9

2star

G

1.0

4star

D

8.0

2star

K

4.6

2star

HB

3.4

3star

M

4.4

4star

T

1.4

4star

G

1.2

4star

, schache either rubbish in the ruck or on the way out.

Farris-White is a baby so i'd guess verral is the next in line?

 

[Mich0]

He is still in the VFL, and did not exactly smash it out of the park in either league.

He probably still starts at 12 clubs in the league - including mine - but he is not 2018 Grundy.

Pretty simple thinking “his in the VFL” if you don’t bother to look at the context around it. I am sure most list managers will as it’s fairly important aspect to understanding where players are at.

Especially considering probably close to half the league is playing in the VFL.

He got 30 disposals and 3 goals last weekend. If that isn’t smashing it out of the park I don’t know what is.

 

[iameviljez]

Pretty simple thinking “his in the VFL” if you don’t bother to look at the context around it. I am sure most list managers will as it’s fairly important aspect to understanding where players are at.

Especially considering probably close to half the league is playing in the VFL.

He got 30 disposals and 3 goals last weekend. If that isn’t smashing it out of the park I don’t know what is.

Admittedly I didn’t see last weekend, but for the month before he wasn’t exactly tearing it up.

He’s still a good footballer. But he is pretty clearly not the elite ruckman he once was.

 

[iameviljez]

i know it's probably been said but if Melbourne get rid of him they do need a journeyman ruckman in case Gawn goes down again - tom mcdonald, adam tomlinson, ben brown, schache either rubbish in the ruck or on the way out.

Farris-White is a baby so i'd guess verral is the next in line?

Naismith?

 

[Mich0]

i know it's probably been said but if Melbourne get rid of him they do need a journeyman ruckman in case Gawn goes down again - tom mcdonald, adam tomlinson, ben brown, schache either rubbish in the ruck or on the way out.

Farris-White is a baby so i'd guess verral is the next in line?

Verral is a baby. If we lose Grundy we need some new depth, which means we have to go fork out for another ruck however cheap they are. But in doing so diminishes any benefits we get from losing Grundy.

 

[iameviljez]

Verral is a baby. If we lose Grundy we need some new depth, which means we have to go fork out for another ruck however cheap they are. But in doing so diminishes any benefits we get from losing Grundy.

It does, but it can be pretty destructive to carry an Unhappy Camper in the side, especially one on a pretty decent amount of coin.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

So Melbourne gave up pick 27 to pay Grundy 650K a year for 5 years when he was 29.
So Port should give up a similar pick to pay Grundy 650K a year for 4 years when he is 30.

Arguments against this:

Melbourne side: Argument 1: But we are happy to retain him so they should pay more: Counter argument: I doubt you want to be paying a bloke 650K a year to play in the VFL team. It would be smarter to get a cheap 150K second ruck and spend the money elsewhere.

Argument 2: But Gawn's career is almost done. Counter argument: Gawn is the sort of player similar to Goldstein that could play for another 3-4 years and still be at least a good ruckman.

Argument 3: But what happens if Gawn gets a long term injury? No way we should trade him. Counter argument: That's a risk but you could still get a good effort out of a backup ruck. My team this year got good service in the ruck out of Billy Frampton

17

Billy Frampton

Age

27

Ht

201cm

Wt

100kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.1

2star

K

5.1

2star

HB

4.0

3star

M

3.1

3star

T

0.7

3star

MG

99.0

2star

D

8.5

2star

K

4.8

2star

HB

3.8

3star

M

3.5

3star

T

0.5

1star

MG

99.0

2star

D

9.2

3star

K

5.6

3star

HB

3.6

3star

M

2.8

3star

T

1.0

3star

MG

107.0

2star

.

Argument 4: Grundy was injured when we got him so now that he is not injured another team should pay more then pick 27. Counter argument: He has barely been injured throughout his career. You were not taking any risk on those injuries and he is worth the same draft pick.

Argument 5: Why should we get rid of him? If there was a good player in the trade period maybe but only then. Counter argument: You should let him play first ruck somewhere else after promising him first ruck duties at Melbourne. Plus freeing up his salary allows you to at the very least front load some contracts for your stars. Giving you more opportunities in the future to get some out of contract stars.

Ports side: Argument 1: Why should we pay a second round pick for a VFL ruckman. Counter argment: He's an AFL ruckman in your team and a big upgrade on what you have. He plays almost every week and he has over his career barley been injured.

Argument 2: But he is a year older then last year so he is worth less. Counter argument: There is really no difference between a 29 year old ruck and a 30 year old ruck. Good ruckmen tend to have careers well into their 30's.

Argument 3: But Grundy is no longer the player he was when he was AA why should we give up a second rounder for a has been. Counter argument: There is always a chance that he can find that AA form again at your club and he is still a solid durable ruck that on his day can beat almost anyone.

So after all the banter he is worth imo about the same pick as Melbourne paid for him a year ago. Melbourne should let him go after promising him first ruck duties and not delivering. Get the deal done.

 

[My Tilly]

He got 30 disposals and 3 goals last weekend. If that isn’t smashing it out of the park I don’t know what is.

Who did he play against?
I reckon Rhys Stanley would have managed 20 disposals and a goal against Kooper Keogh.

 

[Revan11]

So Melbourne gave up pick 27 to pay Grundy 650K a year for 5 years when he was 29.
So Port should give up a similar pick to pay Grundy 650K a year for 4 years when he is 30.

Arguments against this:

Melbourne side: Argument 1: But we are happy to retain him so they should pay more: Counter argument: I doubt you want to be paying a bloke 650K a year to play in the VFL team. It would be smarter to get a cheap 150K second ruck and spend the money elsewhere.

Argument 2: But Gawn's career is almost done. Counter argument: Gawn is the sort of player similar to Goldstein that could play for another 3-4 years and still be at least a good ruckman.

Argument 3: But what happens if Gawn gets a long term injury? No way we should trade him. Counter argument: That's a risk but you could still get a good effort out of a backup ruck. My team this year got good service in the ruck out of Billy Frampton.

Argument 4: Grundy was injured when we got him so now that he is not injured another team should pay more then pick 27. Counter argument: He has barely been injured throughout his career. You were not taking any risk on those injuries and he is worth the same draft pick.

Argument 5: Why should we get rid of him? If there was a good player in the trade period maybe but only then. Counter argument: You should let him play first ruck somewhere else after promising him first ruck duties at Melbourne. Plus freeing up his salary allows you to at the very least front load some contracts for your stars. Giving you more opportunities in the future to get some out of contract stars.

Ports side: Argument 1: Why should we pay a second round pick for a VFL ruckman. Counter argment: He's an AFL ruckman in your team and a big upgrade on what you have. He plays almost every week and he has over his career barley been injured.

Argument 2: But he is a year older then last year so he is worth less. Counter argument: There is really no difference between a 29 year old ruck and a 30 year old ruck. Good ruckmen tend to have careers well into their 30's.

Argument 3: But Grundy is no longer the player he was when he was AA why should we give up a second rounder for a has been. Counter argument: There is always a chance that he can find that AA form again at your club and he is still a solid durable ruck that on his day can beat almost anyone.

So after all the banter he is worth imo about the same pick as Melbourne paid for him a year ago. Melbourne should let him go after promising him first ruck duties and not delivering. Get the deal done.

Fantastic post.

There’s a few on here that should read this about 10 times.

 

[Down the throat]

Fantastic post.

There’s a few on here that should read this about 10 times.

But that's the rub isnt it? Port don't have a pick in that range - so it either becomes a pick upgrade for Melbourne to your F1 - or Melbourne takes unders on the arguments presented.

Even something like your second and fourth probably holds little interest (unless we've bundled a bunch of picks together for GC to get up the draft - but that's likely to only happen on draft night).

 

[danster168]

We were told he’d dominate 2021… then 22… then 23. His tap work is still as ordinary as it was at his peak, and his around the ground work has diminished significantly.

So Melbourne gave up pick 27 to pay Grundy 650K a year for 5 years when he was 29.
So Port should give up a similar pick to pay Grundy 650K a year for 4 years when he is 30.

Arguments against this:

Melbourne side: Argument 1: But we are happy to retain him so they should pay more: Counter argument: I doubt you want to be paying a bloke 650K a year to play in the VFL team. It would be smarter to get a cheap 150K second ruck and spend the money elsewhere.

Argument 2: But Gawn's career is almost done. Counter argument: Gawn is the sort of player similar to Goldstein that could play for another 3-4 years and still be at least a good ruckman.

Argument 3: But what happens if Gawn gets a long term injury? No way we should trade him. Counter argument: That's a risk but you could still get a good effort out of a backup ruck. My team this year got good service in the ruck out of Billy Frampton.

Argument 4: Grundy was injured when we got him so now that he is not injured another team should pay more then pick 27. Counter argument: He has barely been injured throughout his career. You were not taking any risk on those injuries and he is worth the same draft pick.

Argument 5: Why should we get rid of him? If there was a good player in the trade period maybe but only then. Counter argument: You should let him play first ruck somewhere else after promising him first ruck duties at Melbourne. Plus freeing up his salary allows you to at the very least front load some contracts for your stars. Giving you more opportunities in the future to get some out of contract stars.

Ports side: Argument 1: Why should we pay a second round pick for a VFL ruckman. Counter argment: He's an AFL ruckman in your team and a big upgrade on what you have. He plays almost every week and he has over his career barley been injured.

Argument 2: But he is a year older then last year so he is worth less. Counter argument: There is really no difference between a 29 year old ruck and a 30 year old ruck. Good ruckmen tend to have careers well into their 30's.

Argument 3: But Grundy is no longer the player he was when he was AA why should we give up a second rounder for a has been. Counter argument: There is always a chance that he can find that AA form again at your club and he is still a solid durable ruck that on his day can beat almost anyone.

So after all the banter he is worth imo about the same pick as Melbourne paid for him a year ago. Melbourne should let him go after promising him first ruck duties and not delivering. Get the deal done.

As a dees fan I totally agree with all of this.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Met with us during the week apparently. Sounds like he’s as good as gone for the Dees.

 

[QPower]

Makes bit more sense but still don’t see why the Dees would downgrade from Grundy to Hayes for a Pick 37 (which will become a pick in the 40s) and 250-350k cap space unless we had something else lined up for that money.

Last year we were reluctant to trade Weiderman for pick 37 until we had lined up Schache to come in as depth and Weiderman is not nearly half as important to our flag window as Grundy is.

I think a deal will be done fairly easily.

Port deal in good faith and Goodwin/Dees come across as looking after their people well and will want to help Grundy given the Dees sold him a vision of a two ruck system that hasn’t worked (through no fault of Grundy or the Club).

For two mature well run Clubs, this will be easy business.

 

[Lach72]

Surprised Sydney aren’t having a good look

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So Melbourne gave up pick 27 to pay Grundy 650K a year for 5 years when he was 29.
So Port should give up a similar pick to pay Grundy 650K a year for 4 years when he is 30.

Arguments against this:

Melbourne side: Argument 1: But we are happy to retain him so they should pay more: Counter argument: I doubt you want to be paying a bloke 650K a year to play in the VFL team. It would be smarter to get a cheap 150K second ruck and spend the money elsewhere.

Argument 2: But Gawn's career is almost done. Counter argument: Gawn is the sort of player similar to Goldstein that could play for another 3-4 years and still be at least a good ruckman.

Argument 3: But what happens if Gawn gets a long term injury? No way we should trade him. Counter argument: That's a risk but you could still get a good effort out of a backup ruck. My team this year got good service in the ruck out of Billy Frampton.

Argument 4: Grundy was injured when we got him so now that he is not injured another team should pay more then pick 27. Counter argument: He has barely been injured throughout his career. You were not taking any risk on those injuries and he is worth the same draft pick.

Argument 5: Why should we get rid of him? If there was a good player in the trade period maybe but only then. Counter argument: You should let him play first ruck somewhere else after promising him first ruck duties at Melbourne. Plus freeing up his salary allows you to at the very least front load some contracts for your stars. Giving you more opportunities in the future to get some out of contract stars.

Ports side: Argument 1: Why should we pay a second round pick for a VFL ruckman. Counter argment: He's an AFL ruckman in your team and a big upgrade on what you have. He plays almost every week and he has over his career barley been injured.

Argument 2: But he is a year older then last year so he is worth less. Counter argument: There is really no difference between a 29 year old ruck and a 30 year old ruck. Good ruckmen tend to have careers well into their 30's.

Argument 3: But Grundy is no longer the player he was when he was AA why should we give up a second rounder for a has been. Counter argument: There is always a chance that he can find that AA form again at your club and he is still a solid durable ruck that on his day can beat almost anyone.

So after all the banter he is worth imo about the same pick as Melbourne paid for him a year ago. Melbourne should let him go after promising him first ruck duties and not delivering. Get the deal done.

Good post.

Makes sense for Grundy to move on as many expected, neither him or Gawn can play mainly up forward.

Dees better off finding a younger & cheaper backup.

So what is he worth, assuming any new club picks up $650 pa for another 4 years... & Pies the rest.

Wouldn't be a little less than than the pick 27 Dees gave up last trade period.

Port's 1st pick this year is sitting at #37 may not be enough. Future 2nd not much different & they are not giving up q future 1st.

Sydney have a far better draft hand & their pick #30 looks around the mark.

 

[markm106]

Surprised Sydney aren’t having a good look

If Port are right into him it’s possible if he moves from Vic it’ll be to SA over another state.

 

[Mich0]

Wow Port are coming hard for a contracted player mid-season, not even sure if this is allowed?

That said with that level of desperation surely Dees demand F1

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Wow Port are coming hard for a contracted player mid-season, not even sure if this is allowed?

That said with that level of desperation surely Dees demand F1

I didnt know it was school holidays already.

 

[Matrix10]

I think a deal will be done fairly easily.

Port deal in good faith and Goodwin/Dees come across as looking after their people well and will want to help Grundy given the Dees sold him a vision of a two ruck system that hasn’t worked (through no fault of Grundy or the Club).

For two mature well run Clubs, this will be easy business.

“ Port deal in good faith “ ! Please spare me the self proclamation of good will tidings. Nick Stevens got no such treatment from where he requested to be traded too. On a side note. Hope you guys get Grundy. Will look good in the SANFL

 

[QPower]

“ Port deal in good faith “ ! Please spare me the self proclamation of good will tidings. Nick Stevens got no such treatment from where he requested to be traded too. On a side note. Hope you guys get Grundy. Will look good in the SANFL

Most people move on after 20 days, others can’t move on after 20 years.

 

[Matrix10]

Most people move on after 20 days, others can’t move on after 20 years.

Fair call . Your mob is still my second mob I will adjust my moving on compass. Italian stubbornness in my blood. Scuse

 

[BEEG]

Not only did Grundy not play today, he didn't even turn upto the Casey game.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Not only did Grundy not play today, he didn't even turn upto the Casey game.

Strange decision when the Dees are still in the finals & decent chance of a flag...

 

[Elmer_Judd]

Not only did Grundy not play today, he didn't even turn upto the Casey game.

Was he eligible to play for Casey in the VFL finals though??