Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

The Club was right to put the feelers out early. My concern is with the messaging, which has had the inevitable impact of driving down his value. Perhaps it's just not reasonable to expect football clubs to do all aspects of their business professionally but this smacks of amateur hour. I'm not talking about them moving Grundy on - I'm talking about the inept way they've tried to do it. Melbourne certainly appears to have slaughtered Collingwood - if I were their football manager, I'd be rubbing my hands with glee: Melbourne is in its premiership window and is about to trade up massively by replacing Jackson with Grundy and also reap a series of high draft picks into the bargain. It doesn't matter how generously you view Collingwood's actions - or what you think Jackson might one day become - it looks inept by our side. Not the footballing decision, the implementation.

Which leads me to wonder who actually does the negotiations for Collingwood in such matters? Surely it isn't left to the people responsible for the football strategy, unassisted?

gurugeoff wrote:there are two scenarios here

1/. we trade Grundy, and have some salary cap available for someone else

2/. nobody wants Grundy, and we have to have available $1,000,000 in our salary cap

I assume the club has to be able to cover point 2. If so, they will have a spare $700,000 / $800,000 to then spend if Grundy leaves.

The more i look at it, expect nothing back for Grundy - be grateful if someone takes him

I think what you can safely assume if the Grundy deal isn't done, is that we'll still go ahead and do the Frampton trade as I don't think Frampton is on big money. However any trading for Fiorini or Mitchell won't be done as that will take us too close to our salary cap.

whats the chances he stays?

The feelers had to go out early to allow Grundy to adapt to the idea of leaving when he initially didn't want to and have opportunity to talk to other clubs.

The "leaks" are all part of the conditioning process, lesson learned after the Treloar trade. Image if this sprung out of a clear blue sky during trade week that we were seeking to trade Brody, the fans would have rioted.

Seems very suss and weird to me , that STILL he has said nothing publicly, and neither has the Club, on him going. ?? Trades are well under way, and still nothing, just all media hype and spin. its very strange, unless some back room deal Contract deal, is trying to work out with him. ??

stui magpie wrote:The feelers had to go out early to allow Grundy to adapt to the idea of leaving when he initially didn't want to and have opportunity to talk to other clubs.

The "leaks" are all part of the conditioning process, lesson learned after the Treloar trade.
Imagine if this sprung out of a clear blue sky during trade week that we were seeking to trade Brody, the fans would have rioted.

There might be some merit and logic there mate...

Particularly when a player is under a heavy contract such as his...

The first stage is denial, then we come around to acceptance, where we are now.

But yes, the whole conditioning process is geared over many weeks, for the ambulance chasers and jackals in the media to gloat over, and the fans to get their heads around...

I've said it a few times but CBF going back to find it.
More or less we are better spending 700K on McStay (although I dont think we needed Grundy off the books for him), Mitchell, Hill etc who fill the needs we have, than have a 25% better ruckman than Cameron. That 25% assumes Grundy gets back to his best which he has not been for 2 seasons.

The 25% just wont fill the gaps we have. Cox and Cameron exceeded every expectation this year. We have McStay to pinch it and i hear Frampton is the same.

I must say I am disappointed that our club never tried to develop Grundy as a key forward/ruck. Despite what some have said, he is quite a good pack mark and is a very accurate kick. There would be very few defenders big and strong enough to play on Grundy.

Maybe, he was not capable of becoming a predominantly key forward, but sadly we will never know. On face value I'd much prefer Grundy at full forward than McStay.

Certain players a great in their position but also pinch hitters in the ruck

Tomahawk at Gebung does it regularly so Frampton might do similar in defence

Get rid of some of the cellar dwellers. Macrae Poulter McInnes Murley McMahon Harrison and Chugg. Are these Players ever going to be A+ AFL players. This should save $700K with Ollie leaving. Keep Grundy instead of paying to have him play for Melbourne. Makes me feel sick and with Adam T running around as well. Does not seem like a great deal paying someone to play in last years premiers. Go Pies

RudeBoy wrote:I must say I am disappointed that our club never tried to develop Grundy as a key forward/ruck. Despite what some have said, he is quite a good pack mark and is a very accurate kick. There would be very few defenders big and strong enough to play on Grundy.

Maybe, he was not capable of becoming a predominantly key forward, but sadly we will never know. On face value I'd much prefer Grundy at full forward than McStay.

Grundys greatest attribute as a ruckman isn't his actual ruck work but his ability to play as a bullocking midfielder and be able to do it all game.

At just 2m tall and not possessed with a great leap he is going to struggle more and more as he ages against the increasingly younger and taller opponents.

He would make a very good hard running bullocking CHF, where he could use his best assets to the team's advantage, but if he does it seems likely it won't be with us.

58pie wrote:Get rid of some of the cellar dwellers. Macrae Poulter McInnes Murley McMahon Harrison and Chugg. Are these Players ever going to be A+ AFL players. This should save $700K with Ollie leaving. Keep Grundy instead of paying to have him play for Melbourne. Makes me feel sick and with Adam T running around as well. Does not seem like a great deal paying someone to play in last years premiers. Go Pies

I'm not sure if you've been following the news but McMahon and Chugg have already been delisted. Harrison and Murley are first-year players, Macrae is contracted for next year (at least) and McInnes has the makings of a very fine player - the only thing that stopped him developing in the seniors was a season-ending injury.

Already read the delists and studied the players mentioned but the point is we have some dough up our sleeve. I would rather give it to Grundy than Melbourne. Nick Daicos stood out but do any others on our list do that? Maybe Josh Carmichael Charlie Dean. Is Madgen as good as Gayfer both had NO Skills but only one is a winner. Go Pies

^^^ Yep, if any first year players fail to live up to the standard of Nick Daicos they should automatically be delisted.

(Remind me, which is the sarcasm emoticon?)

58pie wrote:Already read the delists and studied the players mentioned but the point is we have some dough up our sleeve. I would rather give it to Grundy than Melbourne. Nick Daicos stood out but do any others on our list do that? Maybe Josh Carmichael Charlie Dean. Is Madgen as good as Gayfer both had NO Skills but only one is a winner. Go Pies

Well you can get rid of Murley and Harrison and Draper who have just completed the first year of their two year rookie contracts and free up a few dollars for about four weeks. But then we have to go to the draft again and offer the 2022 draftees the same contracts that we just jettisoned because we have a minimum list requirement.
Your savings on contracts come from players on their second or third contracts, like the Browns, not “ minimal “ sign on contracts for late picked draftees.