Will Collingwood try to move Grundy on with that contract?

[sydney_gws]

They owe their first pick to GWS. They have the Bulldogs 2nd rounder and Crows and Dockers 3rd rounders to help pay for Daicos.

I'm trying to think of what a potential trade with North to get the 1st pick would have to be. Their 2nd rounder, plus a couple of top 30 kids from last years draft (if willing to go), plus maybe Elliott, Crisp and Maynard with maybe a couple of 3rd rounders for points coming back?

They'd really have to load up the mother of all deals.

Would not take that deal, north need a marque player to restore some credibility, will not pass on Horne.

 

[master bate]

Would not take that deal, north need a marque player to restore some credibility, will not pass on Horne.

I agree. Just saying it would have to be something like a 4 or 5 players for 1 deal. I forgot about the future first. Including that would be a huge risk and probably still require 3 other things.

North are analytical with Luffy there, so they might think about it but it's the kind of deal that requires a lot from both sides. And after the Hodge for McPharlin and Croad deal I'm not sure we'll ever see a pick 1 traded - even if in that case on talent alone the Dockers probably did just fine (didn't maximise Croad's talent).

 

[master bate]

The AFL dont get a say on trades.

Front ending is what a lot of clubs do. And would make sense to taper him off.

Hawks could even look end of 2022 when Big Boy is possibly retiring.

But history says premierships are not often won by the team with the best ruck in the comp.

So you can go for a solid ruck on less money and spend the extra on mids and forwards.

The AFL must have a line somewhere for how much you can pay for a player to pay for another team and in which years. In the best case scenario for North they'd frontload the deal big time and pay it all themselves, then ask the Pies to chip in 400k a year in the last 3 of the little that is left. That can't be allowed.

Actually who am I kidding, it's the AFL, make it up as you go along.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Grundy's contract isn't actually a big deal anymore - if we rebuild correctly, that is.

For most rebuilding clubs, the minimum salary cap spend means you overpay spuds. For us, we can just use that room to pay off as much of Grundy and Treloar's contracts as possible before we are competitive again.

 

[Scotland]

Pendlebury and Mayne are 33, Greenwood 32, Roughead and Howe 31, Sidebottom, Thomas, Cox 30.

If they move Grundy on, who are they moving him on to pay for exactly?

 

[Shadow89]

Grundy's contract isn't actually a big deal anymore - if we rebuild correctly, that is.

For most rebuilding clubs, the minimum salary cap spend means you overpay spuds. For us, we can just use that room to pay off as much of Grundy and Treloar's contracts as possible before we are competitive again.

I think that's the problem for me though, is that by the time you're competitive again, he'll be at the end of his career - possibly 30-31 or even 32 - depending on how things go.

Means you've kept a million dollar ruckman, for nothing more than helping you through a rebuild?

It's an odd situation, and one that's compounded by the fact that all of Sidebottom, Pendles, Cox, Howe, Roughead, Elliot, etc. won't be there/will be nearing the end by the time Grundy, Adams, Crisp, Maynard, Josh and Nick Daicos, Quaynor etc. are surrounded by enough developed talent to launch another finals bid.

Would be different if Grundy had signed a big contract but for only 4-5 years, as you could offload that towards the end/keep it while you guys are non-competitive. 7 years though, it's a really long time.

Especially when you consider that by that time, Crisp, Maynard, Adams etc. will be retired/nearing retirement, and someone like Josh Daicos will be nearly 30.

It's such a mess, and I'm still not convinced it's something that Bucks was keen on (specifically the contract length). Definitely reeks of higher ups not seeing the forest for the trees/wanting short term success at the expense of long term stability.

 

[Kangas_11]

Clubs assume this kind of risk all the time.

It would be insane for a rebuilding club to take that kind of risk though.

Generally speaking the risk taking teams when it comes to trading futures are teams that thing they are close to contending.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It would be insane for a rebuilding club to take that kind of risk though.

Why?

Generally speaking the risk taking teams when it comes to trading futures are teams that thing they are close to contending.

This isn't based on anything.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

I think that's the problem for me though, is that by the time you're competitive again, he'll be at the end of his career - possibly 30-31 or even 32 - depending on how things go.

Means you've kept a million dollar ruckman, for nothing more than helping you through a rebuild?

It's an odd situation, and one that's compounded by the fact that all of Sidebottom, Pendles, Cox, Howe, Roughead, Elliot, etc. won't be there/will be nearing the end by the time Grundy, Adams, Crisp, Maynard, Josh and Nick Daicos, Quaynor etc. are surrounded by enough developed talent to launch another finals bid.

Would be different if Grundy had signed a big contract but for only 4-5 years, as you could offload that towards the end/keep it while you guys are non-competitive. 7 years though, it's a really long time.

Especially when you consider that by that time, Crisp, Maynard, Adams etc. will be retired/nearing retirement, and someone like Josh Daicos will be nearly 30.

It's such a mess, and I'm still not convinced it's something that Bucks was keen on (specifically the contract length). Definitely reeks of higher ups not seeing the forest for the trees/wanting short term success at the expense of long term stability.

Yes, it was obviously a catastrophically terrible decision to sign him for 7 years, just like every decision the club has made recently but we are talking about how to limit the damage not wallow in the past.

The contract would still be a terrible burden in a system with no minimum salary cap. But 'luckily' because of that silly rule, it should make no difference as that money would just be used to overpay spuds in a rebuild. Pay Grundy too much, pay 3 spuds too much, what's the difference?

And it's not 'nothing' to have Grundy locked in for the entire rebuild. He doesn't care any more but he is still a better player than most of the spuds and kids we will have running around for us. You need to keep some elite players during a rebuild and at least he can't walk from us without a trade.

 

[Benji85]

Collingwood stretching their salary cap through some creative accounting was a riskier move than most clubs would make, but they probably would have done their calculations about player attrition and the trade 'currency' that they'd be able to build, offloading some players in the years to come etc. Then the mother of all global financial disasters hits, wrecking the AFL's revenue streams..... and now Collingwood find themselves having sailed up shit creek, into shit river and down in into shit reservoir where they are looking at being blasted out into the great Southern shit-sea, financially I mean.

The issue isn't so much their salary cap problems, it's the way they went about dishonestly offloading the players to ease cap pressure. Why the **** didn't they just come out with something like:

"We took a bit of a risk with the way we formulate player salaries, thinking it would lead to situation x and y and hopefully another shot at a Premiership. Unfortunately we simply couldn't have anticipated a world-wide pandemic which, given the salary cap reductions and financial restrictions imposed by the AFL, has meant we could be in breach of our salary cap obligations next season. Sorry to the fans and especially the players affected, we'll support you through this difficult time. Now here's a few weeks of damage control, with "Good Guy" Bucks coaching some aus-kick and cooking some onions on a BBQ and maybe even Dane Swan

Dane Swan

Age

40

Ht

185cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

26.9

5star

K

16.4

5star

HB

10.4

5star

M

5.9

5star

T

3.1

5star

CL

5.4

5star

No current season stats available

D

12.0

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

5.0

4star

M

3.0

3star

T

1.0

3star

taking over our twitter for the day lmao amiright?!!"

Rather than:

"No body ****ing likes you, the players hate you, your wife sucks and is selfish, you're mentally weak, you're taking this personally etc etc. Oh you want some damage control? you got it!!! Here's some pelican, (absurdly) named "Ned Guy" to give the most incoherent, bullshit train wreck of an interview, next we'll (verrrrry) poorly defend claims of racism and ghastly treatment of some indigenous players, ok so now our president of 22 years will **** up and resign, then FIGJAM 2.0 will bury his head in the sand (when he isn't coming across as completely incapable of feeling of course), and to round it all out we'll never really give you any definitive answers about our disastrous financial mismanagement of players salaries but rather, we'll let the AFL media run a narrative on that. Cya chumps"

Consistently misleading both the players and the fans like they've done is so deceitful it almost beggars belief.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Oh you want some damage control? you got it!!! Here's some pelican, (absurdly) named "Ned Guy" to give the most incoherent, bullshit train wreck of an interview

Who are you going to send out to explain this debacle?

Um, we'll send someone... I dunno... Ned?

Ned who?

Ned. You know Ned.

Ned who?

Ned... that guy... Ned's the guy... Ned Guy. Yeah, that's him.

 

[Kangas_11]

This isn't based on anything.

The teams that have traded future first rounders in the last few years (Demons, GWS, Geelong) have either thought they would be contending or thought they could contend by targeting a specific player, such as Pickett for the Dees.

The teams on the the other side mitigated the risk by guaranteeing overs on the deal, and that is what North would need to do in your scenario. A player + future 1st for pick one wouldn't be enough, North would need to guarantee a top 5 pick from this draft, plus a first next year and potentially more to even consider trading out of the number 1 spot.

Even then I'd be hesitant because Horne and Daicos appear to be a clear 1/2 this year, so missing out on one of those could be a rebuild killer.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The teams that have traded future first rounders in the last few years (Demons, GWS, Geelong) have either thought they would be contending or thought they could contend by targeting a specific player, such as Pickett for the Dees.

Teams in all manner of positions have been involved in trades including future picks.

The teams on the the other side mitigated the risk by guaranteeing overs on the deal, and that is what North would need to do in your scenario. A player + future 1st for pick one wouldn't be enough, North would need to guarantee a top 5 pick from this draft, plus a first next year and potentially more to even consider trading out of the number 1 spot.

Plenty of ways to skin a cat. But I could suggest something objectively reasonable to you and you'd still say "nah too risky" simply because the idea of trading out #1 unsettles you. I'm not interested in some kind of pointless bidding game where I try to get you to agree to something you're psychologically set against.

Even then I'd be hesitant because Horne and Daicos appear to be a clear 1/2 this year, so missing out on one of those could be a rebuild killer.

How is missing out on one player a "rebuild killer" if you accumulate more selections and use them well? That's ridiculous.

North are going to need more picks than they've got. I'm not sure what kind of genius plans you have to acquire those picks. You're going to go to the draft with picks 1, 20 and 38 and hope for the same again next year?

 

[Kangas_11]

Plenty of ways to skin a cat. But I could suggest something objectively reasonable to you and you'd still say "nah too risky" simply because the idea of trading out #1 unsettles you. I'm not interested in some kind of bidding game where I try to get you to agree to something you're psychologically set against.

How is missing out on one player a "rebuild killer" if you accumulate more selections and use them well? That's ridiculous.

By all means, give me your most reasonable suggestion and I'd be happy to tell you if it's too risky. A vague player plus first doesn't really help though.

And for North, missing out on a potential superstar in Horne could be a rebuild killer, as this draft is shaping to have a decent drop after the top 2 and be very even after pick 3. There's plenty of good young mids on the North list, but if I'm being honest, none that are looking like top 5 elite mids. Trading pick #1 would be risking our best chance to get one of these elite players.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

By all means, give me your most reasonable suggestion and I'd be happy to tell you if it's too risky. A vague player plus first doesn't really help though.

Because I'm so eager for you to sign off on it? You'd deem any suggestion "too risky". I'm not interested in the fan dance, sorry.

And for North, missing out on a potential superstar in Horne could be a rebuild killer, as this draft is shaping to have a decent drop after the top 2 and be very even after pick 3. There's plenty of good young mids on the North list, but if I'm being honest, none that are looking like top 5 elite mids. Trading pick #1 would be risking our best chance to get one of these elite players.

OK good luck with that. As if you can tell one way or the other.

There's talent spread throughout the first round in every draft. Every year we get the same spiel about how the #1 kid is a potential superstar and more often than not he's not even the best player in his draft.

If you look over the past several drafts, it's not obvious at all that you're better off with a single early pick versus two picks 6-15, assuming you select well.

 

[Kangas_11]

Because I'm so eager for you to sign off on it? You'd deem any suggestion "too risky". I'm not interested in the fan dance, sorry.

This really sounds like you can't think of a reasonable deal, but fair enough, I won't keep asking and derailing the thread.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This really sounds like you can't think of a reasonable deal, but fair enough, I won't keep asking and derailing the thread.

Actually it sounds like no reasonable deal would satisfy you because you think it's fundamentally too risky to part with pick 1.

 

[cznsnowy91]

Actually it sounds like no reasonable deal would satisfy you because you think it's fundamentally too risky to part with pick 1.

I'd be down to trade pick one. Your suggestion was Collingwood future first rounder (which is a huge risk for a known commodity that is pick one) + a few players. Pick one commands more than it's worth, so what's the trade?

 

[M Malice]

"What we know is a drop, what we don't know is an ocean."

You're living up to your quote here.

LOL, good one. I wasn't thinking footy r0v3r, it goes a bit deeper than that.

 

[markm106]

I can’t imagine anyone picking up the 1 million dollars. And I can’t imagine Collingwood being keen on paying a player big bucks to play elsewhere.

When I wrote this I left the word another out. I meant they wouldn’t want to pay another player big bucks. Only realised after getting a few lols. That would be disastrous for them if it came to that. Surely they’d be trying to avoid that situation again. Unless they got way overs in a trade.

 

[LeverPuller]

When I wrote this I left the word another out. I meant they wouldn’t want to pay another player big bucks. Only realised after getting a few lols. That would be disastrous for them if it came to that. Surely they’d be trying to avoid that situation again. Unless they got way overs in a trade.

I dunno. The thing with ditching him - even IF you have to pay part - is you can get rid of the Treloar cash faster too.

Say they are stuck paying Grundy $400k/year

Grundy + Treloar leftover is worth$1.3/year under the cap right now.

Means you could get rid of the Treloar money by 2023. And then start shedding the Grundy money.

You’d probably be able to clear most of it by 2025. Which is still 2 years ahead of the end of the Grundy deal.

 

[The Dougster]

How long is Goldstein going to keep playing?

Would the Roos want him for $800k ?

No hope

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

De Goey is the one they should be trading.

He'll be a FA next year and they're not going to want to pay him $4 million over five years to keep him. They should cash him out a year early, probably for future picks.

I doubt any Club has interest in De Goey.

 

[Dazb86]

I doubt any Club has interest in De Goey.

Seems like an Essendon type of pick up

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Seems like an Essendon type of pick up

I really doubt the Bombers would take him, even on a Rookie wage.