List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade and F/A Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
I think the Herald Sun estimate of the top 100 paid players had him at $550-650k.
Still enormous value, but not quite the number you're suggesting.

Still, I think it puts perspective on McStay's value. We shouldn't be offering him much more than $500k, even if he does require shifting from a competitive club. If he wants to return to Vic and also be at a competitive club, he can sign for similar to what Brisbane are offering. We shouldn't be paying him overs as a role player.
Don't think the one year contract of a veteran who is signing for a less than he has historically received or produced is relevant for anyone's contract, other than Pendles, Sidey and Howe.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I didn't think it was that hard. If we want to get rid of Grundy (I believe we do), his contract means he can say yes or no to anything. He can say Melbourne or bust. He can say I'm staying no matter what. Weak positioning at a negotiating table.

It’s not that hard. He’s contracted. That means we’re in a very strong position. We don’t like the deal, we keep him. I think the weight you give to the rumours we want to get rid of him is over the top.
 
He has every reason to TD - doesn't matter who's fault it is it remains an anchor around our necks list management wise for the next 5 years unless something changes.

Eddie and Guy
 
Of course we can. It's not a very compelling strategy if we want him to go though.
Not as straight forwarding as wanting him gone. There'll be a point in terms of salary and trade where we'll want to deal. Just as other clubs will have their own points. Those points are pure guesses though.
 
I thought the reports were inflated at the time. I can't believe we gave Grundy that contract.

I still think the $1m often cited is inflated. Closer to $900k would be my guess. Duration was the only thing I had an issue with.
 
I think this is the point, we got to a PF without Grundy. Now imagine we had an extra Key Forward, Back and Small Forward on our list to choose from.

The question isn't whether Grundy is a quality footballer.... he is, no doubt. But his contract allows us to strengthen areas we are weak in.

We have got extra talls. We’ve got Kreuger, Dean, McMahon, Begg and Kelly. They’ve all been added over the last couple of years. Retaining Grundy doesn’t preclude us from drafting or trading additional options.

Small forwards? We opted to back in the players we already had rather than chase Stengle when he was available, we overlooked Fowler midseason when we had the chance. Why do you think we need additional small forwards when the club does seem to think we do? Retaining Grundy doesn’t preclude us from drafting or trading additional options.

I’ve said consistently this season that an area we badly need to bolster is rucks because Grundy’s absence has highlighted how light on we are. So why trade Grundy to recruit a ruck option that likely isn’t as good as him?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Don't think the one year contract of a veteran who is signing for a less than he has historically received or produced is relevant for anyone's contract, other than Pendles, Sidey and Howe.
Yes, that perspective holds a little, but this is why Geelong is very competitive every year.
That contract, if correct, is great value for them.
Meanwhile, they have been able to fit in Jeremy Cameron on $1m+ a season to compliment it.

I still think the low end of that range is about right for McStay and $650k is too much - if that is correct.
He shouldn't be a top 100 paid player in the League.
We need to hold a bit more discipline than we have in the past. He's a role player, albeit best 22 in a competitive club.
 
If Henry leaves we'll surely end up with two first rounders.

Package them up for a top 5 pick and get Cadman. Easy money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top