List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade and F/A Discussion 2022--> PART 2

[Pistol Night]

Be a neat trick indeed to get swept down the Murray to Adelaide.

They could get off at Goolwa and get an Uber up there. Would be pretty impressive

 

[magpies42]

Across America newly-drafted players can be traded straight away. The AFL didn't introduce it because they felt it was too disruptive and young players weren't ready to be thrown around so much.

I know the context of the question, I chose to ignore it because we aren’t in America.

 

[Mooresome]

Thanks guys ,the last 3 or 4 pages are some of the best post i have read on this forum.

 

[Pistol Night]

Thanks guys ,the last 3 or 4 pages are some of the best post i have read on this forum.

The off season produces the most relevant and topical insights.

 

[MyManLynch]

I’m flying back this week & heading home (Echuca) for a spot of fishing…from my lounge room…

 

[magpies42]

Really? Where has Wrighty stated Grundy was let go because Cox and Cameron offered more in the ruck? That, and that Grundy can't mark, was the entire gist of the bullshit we've endured all year. I guess we'll see if Grundy is as poor as suggested and in decline when he fronts up for the Dees in 2023.

Grundy will dominate, that much you can guarantee. I get the sense he didn’t like the pressure that came with Collingwood.

 

[MyManLynch]

Grundy will dominate, that much you can guarantee. I get the sense he didn’t like the pressure that came with Collingwood.

We tend to eat our own…

 

[magpies42]

We tend to eat our own…

I think the media eats our own, we don’t help ourselves by buying into all the nonsense and headlines.

I guess you’re right, it’s disgraceful what the general supporter base buys into. So many closet Carlton supporters it’s a joke

 

[Mollythedolly]

Grundy will dominate, that much you can guarantee. I get the sense he didn’t like the pressure that came with Collingwood.

I get the impression that some supporters held unrealistic expectations of him once his salary grew from circa $600k to circa $900k and overstated the "decline" in his performance in accordance with those expectations.

I also think he'll dominate at the Dees.

 

[Pistol Night]

I get the impression that some supporters held unrealistic expectations of him once his salary grew from circa $600k to circa $900k and overstated the "decline" in his performance in accordance with those expectations.

I also think he'll dominate at the Dees.

Exactly. You can have a lean patch on 500 and no one cares

 

[Wearmouth]

Really? Where has Wrighty stated Grundy was let go because Cox and Cameron offered more in the ruck? That, and that Grundy can't mark, was the entire gist of the bullshit we've endured all year. I guess we'll see if Grundy is as poor as suggested and in decline when he fronts up for the Dees in 2023.

Yes, Really…….

In that he made sure to mention that recruiting McStay and Hill and the others, had no bearing on Soy Boy needing to be moved on. That was enough of a hint that we don’t need you. And we want to move you on for other reasons.

And yet after we fell short in the PF. You’d think that keeping Soy Boy may have still been on the cards. But I guess GW’s actions spoke louder than the words you’re looking for. He sent him on his way for some Lima beans and a nice Red Wine.

That said/unsaid, GW doesn’t strike me as someone who speaks too many words. I think he is more of a carries a big stick type of operator.

I expect Soy Boy to throw down one last time. That’s if he has any respect for himself and his predicament. Just like Treloar did for the Fleabags in his first year. It’s from then on, what he produces that will be the Dreamons problem. Just like it is the Fleabags now with Treloar.

I bet you that the Fleabags wish they still had Dunkley and never entertained the idea of Treloar…..

But hey that’s just my opinion. And I know you don’t like it. And it creates you and all the other Soy Boy Dufflecoaters all this angst. But I sure as hell won’t apologize for seeing things you don’t. Maybe if you opened your eyes a little and expanded your mind more you could see further than just what’s in front of your nose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sr36]

Yes, Really…….

In that he made sure to mention that recruiting McStay and Hill and the others, had no bearing on Soy Boy needing to be moved on. That was enough of a hint that we don’t need you. And we want to move you on for other reasons.

And yet after we fell short in the PF. You’d think that keeping Soy Boy may have still been on the cards. But I guess GW’s actions spoke louder than the words you’re looking for. He sent him on his way for some Lima beans and a nice Red Wine.

That said/unsaid, GW doesn’t strike me as someone who speaks too many words. I think he is more of a carries a big stick type of operator.

I expect Soy Boy to throw down one last time. That’s if he has any respect for himself and his predicament. Just like Treloar did for the Fleabags in his first year. It’s from then on, what he produces that will be the Dreamons problem. Just like it is the Fleabags now with Treloar.

I bet you that the Fleabags wish they still had Dunkley and never entertained the idea of Treloar…..

But hey that’s just my opinion. And I know you don’t like it. And it creates you and all the other Soy Boy Dufflecoaters all this angst. But I sure as hell won’t apologize for seeing things you don’t. Maybe if you opened your eyes a little and expanded your mind more you could see further than just what’s in front of your nose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Grundy is the other half of moneyball, which wasn't just about recruiting bloke's whose stats were undervalued because they contributed to scoring runs, it was also about getting rid of blokes who were over-priced because of factors that were highly valued but didn't do that much to contribute to the scoring of runs. Basically, Grundy did really well on some metrics, but did he really do that much to help us score or stop the other team from scoring - certainly nowhere near his contract value. That's my take on why he was moved on.

 

[jonbe54]

Grundy is the other half of moneyball, which wasn't just about recruiting bloke's whose stats were undervalued because they contributed to scoring runs, it was also about getting rid of blokes who were over-priced because of factors that were highly valued but didn't do that much to contribute to the scoring of runs. Basically, Grundy did really well on some metrics, but did he really do that much to help us score or stop the other team from scoring - certainly nowhere near his contract value. That's my take on why he was moved on.

First few years he was a truly new prospect for other coaches to plan around - a 6 foot plus ruck rover with decent skills - but with no coaching for him to change his tap pattern (directly at his feet) it wasn't that hard to block his run at the ball.

Thereafter his advantage was largely nullified.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Exactly. You can have a lean patch on 500 and no one cares

How lean a patch would I get for say 100k?

 

[Pistol Night]

How lean a patch would I get for say 100k?

As lean as there comes

 

[Seedsfan]

So any talk of us looking at any DFA’s?

 

[sr36]

As lean as there comes

Isaac Chugg disagrees.

 

[TradeDraft]

So any talk of us looking at any DFA’s?

Nope

 

[JuniorB]

Have I missed anything?

 

[sr36]

Have I missed anything?

Not much, except Carlton surprisingly delisted Charlie Curnow and we've added him as a DFA

 

[Juan Ide]

An emerging trend in the trading philosophies of some teams thus far in this trading period? A phenomenon that seems to revolve around what may be called 'strength-position-twinning'? We've had Neale and Dunkley and Gawn and Grundy as prime examples of this. The chief characteristic of the strategy appears to be that these teams are doubling up in areas of significant existing positional superiority. Nor does this seem to be sheerly a matter of simple succession planning (given the relatively minor age differentials of the 'twins' involved in comparison with that between an established player and a young recruit). In some ways, Collingwood seems to be adopting this strategy: Adams and Mitchell a prime example (and maybe, to a lesser extent McStay and Cameron?). The question is - other than providing useful injury cover - what is the primary purpose of doing this?

 

[sr36]

An emerging trend in the trading philosophies of some teams thus far in this trading period? A phenomenon that seems to revolve around what may be called 'strength-position-twinning'? We've had Neale and Dunkley and Gawn and Grundy as prime examples of this. The chief characteristic of the strategy appears to be that these teams are doubling up in areas of significant existing positional superiority. Nor does this seem to be sheerly a matter of simple succession planning (given the relatively minor age differentials of the 'twins' involved in comparison with that between an established player and a young recruit). In some ways, Collingwood seems to be adopting this strategy: Adams and Mitchell a prime example (and maybe, to a lesser extent McStay and Cameron?). The question is - other than providing useful injury cover - what is the primary purpose of doing this?

I'd suggest that teams have strengths that they've built strategy around and thus want to ensure that their strength remains a strength. I think that's what the Dees and Grundy is about.

I don't think we fit, as we were recruiting for an area of weakness.

 

[Jen2310]

So going by the dates, next wed we may know if we have nominated any NGA, and who is getting a rookie promotion (apart from noble)

 

[Bianconeri]

An emerging trend in the trading philosophies of some teams thus far in this trading period? A phenomenon that seems to revolve around what may be called 'strength-position-twinning'? We've had Neale and Dunkley and Gawn and Grundy as prime examples of this. The chief characteristic of the strategy appears to be that these teams are doubling up in areas of significant existing positional superiority. Nor does this seem to be sheerly a matter of simple succession planning (given the relatively minor age differentials of the 'twins' involved in comparison with that between an established player and a young recruit). In some ways, Collingwood seems to be adopting this strategy: Adams and Mitchell a prime example (and maybe, to a lesser extent McStay and Cameron?). The question is - other than providing useful injury cover - what is the primary purpose of doing this?

I think brining in McStay and Mitchell are helping us tape over a weakness not doubling down on a strength.

 

[Juan Ide]

I'd suggest that teams have strengths that they've built strategy around and thus want to ensure that their strength remains a strength. I think that's what the Dees and Grundy is about.

I don't think we fit, as we were recruiting for an area of weakness.

So you see Adams and Mitchell working side-by-side at the contest? So do I, but that of course means that someone must make way from the best 22. Or maybe not, if next season it become best 23?