List Mgmt. List Management 2023-24

Remove this Banner Ad

Long live PAFC said:
Is it? Mitch and Clurey have long terms injuries, that’s your key position depth. We have four rucks, bad luck that three are injured. Evans, Raz, McEntee, Rioli, DBJ - should be enough small forward depth.

Arguably we are short a running HBF and/or wing. Yes we could use better players in ruck, key back and small forward but the players are on the list.




1. Because players take pay cuts all the time. See Geelong over the years, see Bowes dropping from 800k to less than 500k, see Boak and Wines shifting pay around. It’s not an uncommon practice and not unreasonable to think Grundy may consider it. Play Melbourne reserves or come to port and be number one for 50-100k less.

2. Why performance based? Well we don’t know. Maybe 100k is performance or none. We don’t know. Why wouldn’t some of it be performance based?

The pies had multiple heavy contracts and should never have paid grundy what they did and for that length. Performance based or not, they had to move him on. Would they have preferred to keep him on a lesser contract for sure but they signed him to that heavy deal. Several years later, now playing reserves, it’ll be a different story for grundy I suspect.

3. No fewer ifs in yours. My point is that there are plenty of ways to make this work and that the concerns you have, which are very reasonable, are able to be solved. So I think the contract size can be solved and I think Danté won’t be discouraged by Grundy coming.
Click to expand...
We a need a quality ruckman a key defender and another tall up forward before we can challenge.
The ruckman we have on the list (only Visentini has a future) The small forwards only Rioli is class (don’t bother mentioning Fantasia he is done)
We have plenty of half back flankers/ wing options.
 
Long live PAFC said:
1. Because players take pay cuts all the time. See Geelong over the years, see Bowes dropping from 800k to less than 500k, see Boak and Wines shifting pay around. It’s not an uncommon practice and not unreasonable to think Grundy may consider it. Play Melbourne reserves or come to port and be number one for 50-100k less.

2. Why performance based? Well we don’t know. Maybe 100k is performance or none. We don’t know. Why wouldn’t some of it be performance based?

The pies had multiple heavy contracts and should never have paid grundy what they did and for that length. Performance based or not, they had to move him on. Would they have preferred to keep him on a lesser contract for sure but they signed him to that heavy deal. Several years later, now playing reserves, it’ll be a different story for grundy I suspect.

3. No fewer ifs in yours. My point is that there are plenty of ways to make this work and that the concerns you have, which are very reasonable, are able to be solved. So I think the contract size can be solved and I think Danté won’t be discouraged by Grundy coming.
Click to expand...

1. none of those players took pay cuts. none.

bowes would have had years added to his deal to agree to take a lower amount. we obviously can't add years to grundy's to lower the yearly amount.

neither Boak or wines have agreed to have their existing contracts reduced so I don't know what youre talking about.

2. you're reaching here. you have zero idea if its performance based, much less so heavily performance based to make any kind of difference.

why wouldn't it be performance based? because grundy and his agent would not favour such a deal.

3. my what? my argument against your ideas? there are no ifs there. its not required.

no, my concerns are not 'able' to be solved.

you cannot 'solve' his contract size. it is what it is.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

philthy05 said:
1. none of those players took pay cuts. none.

bowes would have had years added to his deal to agree to take a lower amount. we obviously can't add years to grundy's to lower the yearly amount.

neither Boak or wines have agreed to have their existing contracts reduced so I don't know what youre talking about.

2. you're reaching here. you have zero idea if its performance based, much less so heavily performance based to make any kind of difference.

why wouldn't it be performance based? because grundy and his agent would not favour such a deal.

3. my what? my argument against your ideas? there are no ifs there. its not required.

no, my concerns are not 'able' to be solved.

you cannot 'solve' his contract size. it is what it is.
Click to expand...

So Philthy your suggestions are, according to past posts;
  • grundy’s size of contract may cause salary cap issues
  • the length of contract is an issue as he may not be able to complete it at a high quality
  • his length of contract may force Danté and Teakle, etc out because Hinkley would play an ageing Grundy over them

Correct?

My point is his size of contract can be manipulated. There are many examples of this. Boak, Wines and Gray all shifted payments around to ease our cap. Wines said he would take a pay cut to help get Merrett to the club. Geelong, as a club, famously take lesser contracts to get more talent in. Bowes took a salary cut - 1.6 over two years + a contract for another two years at min AFL wage is another 800k, that’s what he gets if he stays at the Suns, quite different to the 2 mill he is getting over 4 years. Collingwood players took cuts to get Beams in the door. There are historic examples of players being retired but still on lists to facilitate cap arrangements. Some senior players are moved to the rookie list to move some money outside of the cap.

None of us know how much the contract is actually worth nor the terms. We don’t know how much Collingwood are paying or for how long. So my ifs are just the same as yours. My point is that we can change and manipulate the dollar sum to make it work. Melbourne are managing it despite the hefty contracts to Gawn, May, Lever, Pickett, Petracca and Oliver.

In terms of length, more and more players and playing longer. This includes rucks, see previous posts about numerous rucks playing after the age of 30 and playing well post 30.

As to making Danté leave, well see my previous post.

At the end of the day, we take Grundy for his contract, 900k for four years, minus the alleged Collingwood sum 250k. That’s 650k a year. Lycett was on 600k for four years. We fit his contract in fine and the cap has gone up since then. I would back grundy to give us a hell of a lot more value than Lycett. Grundy is a ruck that would fit our game plan very well, optimises our chances now and is the best ruck that may be available.
 
Would rather get Heath Grundy out of retirement than go for Brodie Grundy.
 
lel when all we have to look forward to this off season is a fullback that just pushes everyone in the back and cost us goals, darcy fort who gave luke jackson video game numbers in todays game and brodie grundy who probably wont come here because its not hip or indie enough, will be too busy combing his hair regardless. Lookin real bright
 
Long live PAFC said:
So Philthy your suggestions are, according to past posts;
  • grundy’s size of contract may cause salary cap issues
  • the length of contract is an issue as he may not be able to complete it at a high quality
  • his length of contract may force Danté and Teakle, etc out because Hinkley would play an ageing Grundy over them

Correct?

My point is his size of contract can be manipulated. There are many examples of this. Boak, Wines and Gray all shifted payments around to ease our cap. Wines said he would take a pay cut to help get Merrett to the club. Geelong, as a club, famously take lesser contracts to get more talent in. Bowes took a salary cut - 1.6 over two years + a contract for another two years at min AFL wage is another 800k, that’s what he gets if he stays at the Suns, quite different to the 2 mill he is getting over 4 years. Collingwood players took cuts to get Beams in the door. There are historic examples of players being retired but still on lists to facilitate cap arrangements. Some senior players are moved to the rookie list to move some money outside of the cap.

None of us know how much the contract is actually worth nor the terms. We don’t know how much Collingwood are paying or for how long. So my ifs are just the same as yours. My point is that we can change and manipulate the dollar sum to make it work. Melbourne are managing it despite the hefty contracts to Gawn, May, Lever, Pickett, Petracca and Oliver.

In terms of length, more and more players and playing longer. This includes rucks, see previous posts about numerous rucks playing after the age of 30 and playing well post 30.

As to making Danté leave, well see my previous post.

At the end of the day, we take Grundy for his contract, 900k for four years, minus the alleged Collingwood sum 250k. That’s 650k a year. Lycett was on 600k for four years. We fit his contract in fine and the cap has gone up since then. I would back grundy to give us a hell of a lot more value than Lycett. Grundy is a ruck that would fit our game plan very well, optimises our chances now and is the best ruck that may be available.
Click to expand...
Grundy is 29 and already has four years left on his contract. He's not going to stretch it out like Bowes could.

This is not me being against recruiting him, on balance I'm still happy to pick up every cent of his contract, but expecting that he's going to take a pay cut to come here when last year he didn't even want to come here at all is delusional.
 
Schulzenfest said:
Grundy is 29 and already has four years left on his contract. He's not going to stretch it out like Bowes could.

This is not me being against recruiting him, on balance I'm still happy to pick up every cent of his contract, but expecting that he's going to take a pay cut to come here when last year he didn't even want to come here at all is delusional.
Click to expand...
Yup fair call.

And I agree, the biggest issue will be getting grundy to want to come to us full stop. Then getting a reasonable deal done.

My point was that the contract dollar value can be managed and there are lots of ways to do that, which don’t involve Grundy taking a cut, although that is also an unlikely option. Lots of different ways it can be done, only one of those was him taking a cut. Maybe we pay him extra in the first or two year. Maybe he is a rookie in final two years so 80k sits outside the cap. Maybe an extra year is added, where he is retired, placed on the LTI list and we can smooth some it that way.


This was the point I made at the end. Even if we front his contract, less the Collingwood payment, that’s only a tad more than we are paying Lycett. We have managed that, Melbourne are managing it.
 
Long live PAFC said:
Yup fair call.

And I agree, the biggest issue will be getting grundy to want to come to us full stop. Then getting a reasonable deal done.

My point was that the contract dollar value can be managed and there are lots of ways to do that, which don’t involve Grundy taking a cut, although that is also an unlikely option. Lots of different ways it can be done, only one of those was him taking a cut. Maybe we pay him extra in the first or two year. Maybe he is a rookie in final two years so 80k sits outside the cap. Maybe an extra year is added, where he is retired, placed on the LTI list and we can smooth some it that way.


This was the point I made at the end. Even if we front his contract, less the Collingwood payment, that’s only a tad more than we are paying Lycett. We have managed that, Melbourne are managing it.
Click to expand...
In theory Grundy could leave the Dees and stay in Victoria.
Money is not the issue for Port, the nett cost to us is roughly what we are paying for Lycett completed contract of about $650K.
Albeit, we have offered Lycett a reduced, 12 month contract.

The issue is, does Grundy wish to leave his Victorian hipster life style.
 
Long live PAFC said:
Yup fair call.

And I agree, the biggest issue will be getting grundy to want to come to us full stop. Then getting a reasonable deal done.

My point was that the contract dollar value can be managed and there are lots of ways to do that, which don’t involve Grundy taking a cut, although that is also an unlikely option. Lots of different ways it can be done, only one of those was him taking a cut. Maybe we pay him extra in the first or two year. Maybe he is a rookie in final two years so 80k sits outside the cap. Maybe an extra year is added, where he is retired, placed on the LTI list and we can smooth some it that way.


This was the point I made at the end. Even if we front his contract, less the Collingwood payment, that’s only a tad more than we are paying Lycett. We have managed that, Melbourne are managing it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely none of those are remotely realistic

We aren’t adding another year to his contract.

We aren’t adding him to the rookie list in the last year of his contract or the lti list and even if we did that drop in the ocean in 4 years time solves nothing.

Also re-jigging his contract? Possibly but we’re still on the hook for the same amount of money. It doesn’t make him cheaper. And that money comes from somewhere. It’s 200k we can’t front load someone else’s contract year?

Cause if we’ve got 200k spare wouldn’t we bring someone else’s forward to get the same result you’re claiming we get from front loading grundys

Also, we have zero idea if his contract is already front loaded? Or back loaded? Or just flat?



I disagree with schulzenfest about whether we should get Grundy but at least he’s got a reasonably logical argument for it being - Grundy is the best ruck available on the market - let’s get Grundy and take the cap hit

I disagree with your entire premise where we get Grundy but not the cost cause “magic”

Why doesn’t melb do the same magic and just keep him instead of losing Grundy and having to chase a backup ruck to Gawn?
 
philthy05 said:
Absolutely none of those are remotely realistic

We aren’t adding another year to his contract.

We aren’t adding him to the rookie list in the last year of his contract or the lti list and even if we did that drop in the ocean in 4 years time solves nothing.

Also re-jigging his contract? Possibly but we’re still on the hook for the same amount of money. It doesn’t make him cheaper. And that money comes from somewhere. It’s 200k we can’t front load someone else’s contract year?

Cause if we’ve got 200k spare wouldn’t we bring someone else’s forward to get the same result you’re claiming we get from front loading grundys

Also, we have zero idea if his contract is already front loaded? Or back loaded? Or just flat?



I disagree with schulzenfest about whether we should get Grundy but at least he’s got a reasonably logical argument for it being - Grundy is the best ruck available on the market - let’s get Grundy and take the cap hit

I disagree with your entire premise where we get Grundy but not the cost cause “magic”

Why doesn’t melb do the same magic and just keep him instead of losing Grundy and having to chase a backup ruck to Gawn?
Click to expand...
Probably need to stop this back and forth now, I’m sure everyone else is bored.

We can all agree the pies were dumb to make this contract in the first place and that we don’t know any of the real details.

Philthy my point is that he is the best ruck that may be available and that we can cover his contract. He is that extra mid ruck that you said Ken wants and give as a reason for Port not playing Hayes. He would optimise the now. And, if as reported, Collingwood are paying 250k then Grundy would cost us 650k a year. That’s only slightly more than Lycett cost us and the cap has gone up since then. This has been my point.

You’ve said it’s too long. I’ve said players are playing longer and there are examples of rucks playing after 30.

You’ve said it’ll mean Danté would go. I’ve said no it won’t and who cares if he does.

You’ve said it will force someone out because of the cost. I’ve compared it to Lycett’s contract and said there are avenues for managing contracts.

You’ve said why would Melbourne trade him to a rival rather than manage his contract and keep him as back up? Great question, well the pies traded him to clear cap space and traded him to a rival. The Dees would be doing something similar but we need to have a good trade and convince grundy. If grundy wants to come, it would be rare for a team to not trade that player and have him sit in the VFL. I don’t know of a team that would have such a highly paid player run around in the twos.

Anyway Philthy I respect your opinions and I’m with you that it’s a risk. I just think it’s a risk we should take.
 
Grundy will come back into the Demons this week with Petty being injured.

They did think about dropping Petty and playing Grundy this week but oppted for Petty so you think that would be the move?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Do we have a dip at the Nick Haynes salary dump?
 
davesnothere said:
Grundy will come back into the Demons this week with Petty being injured.

They did think about dropping Petty and playing Grundy this week but oppted for Petty so you think that would be the move?
Click to expand...
Petty kicked 6 last week, Kenny doesn’t coach Melbourne😂
 
Long live PAFC said:
We currently have Duursma, Bergman, Boak, Wines, Bonner playing as wingmen. Maybe Sinn too. Duurs is the only natural here and is out of form. Sinn is line ball to make it.

A quick, running wingman/half back would be good.
Click to expand...


Not long ago we were really set for wingmen.

Amon, duursma Farrell, Bonner, Bergman , sinn, boak could go out there and so on. Rozee and butters could play out on the wing.

But now Amon has left, Farrell has been moved back, duursma keeps getting injured, who knows whether sinn can stay on the park. Bergmans gone back for now.

It’s not as stacked as it was.

Having said that we have Rome Burgoyne coming in 2024 who is a pure wingman and Louie Montgomery who will likely start his career as a flanker / wingman.




Ford Fairlane said:
Click to expand...


Lol what the actual ****.

Was a pretty ordinary game. Took a few contested marks but really didn’t have an opponent and just sat in the hole for our trademark high bombs to the oppo defenders.
 
Our no.1 need would have to be a tall defender. We need to replicate what hawthorn did in 2012 and grab a Brian Lake.

I think our Rucks are ok If we hold onto Hayes, if we let him go we need to pick up a 2nd ruck. I'd play Visentini as 1st ruck, retire Lycett.

A new forward coach to go along with a new forward would also be handy.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. List Management 2023-24

Similar threads

Marmozet
AFLW AFLW List Management 2023-24
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
163
Views
10K
Coobk001
Coobk001
L
List Mgmt. List Management 2024-25
203 204 205 206 207
Replies
5K
Views
255K
avs
A
RossFC
SANFL List Management 2023-24
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
158
Views
10K
RossFC
RossFC
RossFC
SANFL List Management 2024-25
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Ford Fairlane
Ford Fairlane
Marmozet
Review Round 24, 2024 vs Fremantle
11 12 13 14 15
Replies
366
Views
12K
Scodges
Scodges
Marmozet
Review Round 24, 2023 vs Richmond
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
213
Views
7K
longdonkey
longdonkey
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Round 24, 2024 vs Fremantle
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
428
Views
16K
Dutchy5150
Dutchy5150

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top