Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

RudeBoy wrote:For reasons unbeknown to us, it seems the club is pretty keen to get Grundy off their books.

The reasons might be unbeknown to you, but they are quite clear to those among us who aren't too perturbed to see what's been right in front of us for years.

Presti35 wrote:What are Melbourne going to give us in return?

What is the asking price for a player like Grundy?

If Collingwood hasn't lost leave of its senses, a first rounder, a future first rounder and two second rounders would be unders - that's what Geelong got for Kelly.

I think the gist of the conversation would have been big Maxy asserting himself. “I’m number one ruckman, mr fancy pants. Don’t forget it if you come here. And don’t shout Steven May any drinks.”

And I hope Thor shouted the coffee!

Pies4shaw wrote:

Presti35 wrote:What are Melbourne going to give us in return?

What is the asking price for a player like Grundy?

If Collingwood hasn't lost leave of its senses, a first rounder, a future first rounder and two second rounders would be unders - that's what Geelong got for Kelly.

It would have to massive as you’re indicating or no deal (despite me being a critic of his game in the last two years)

Wonka wrote:

Jezza wrote:Hawthorn interested in Grundy. Probably seen as a potential replacement for McEvoy.

As others have said already, the more clubs that are interested the better the possible deals that Graham Wright has to play around with, so Hawthorn's interest is good news, and we might hope that other clubs with retiring ruckmen might join them, for example St. Kilda might transfer their fixation with De Goey to Grundy, now that Ryder has retired.

Plus if we can get a bottom club with salary cap space then we might be able to offload the whole contract.

^ Yes, only on Nick's will you find people wanting to conduct a fire-sale to get rid of a player that last year's premier and this year's top team are apparently both courting to take over their first ruck.

Mr Miyagi wrote:I think the gist of the conversation would have been big Maxy asserting himself. “I’m number one ruckman, mr fancy pants. Don’t forget it if you come here. And don’t shout Steven May any drinks.”

And I hope Thor shouted the coffee!

That probably wouldn't have been the gist - the reporting of the conversation when it first broke last week was to the effect that Melbourne are keen to use Grundy as first ruck because they would like to move Gawn forward. That'd be better for them in two ways - first, Gawn is a better contested mark than most of their forwards (and Brown is nearing the end) and secondly, Grundy is a better ruckman than Gawn and much more mobile around the ground.

If we’re trading a ruck I’d much rather it be Cameron. While his stocks are up currently and his marking is better than Grundy he’s not a dominant ruck and I can’t see him ever being top 10 by position. If we want a better marking player than Grundy this can be achieved by recruiting key position players.

In terms of salary cap I assume by the time we top up Grundy’s wage elsewhere and pay Cameron we’d be looking at saving just 200-250k by trading Grundy.

I think that the discussion around 'offloading' Grundy are actually quite crass.

We have a Copeland Trophy winning, twice AA ruckman who, conceivably is entering his golden years as an elite ruckman (28-32 year old) and we are working out a way to offload him...

Naturally Geelong and Melbourne are very interested suitors (as are North, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Gold Coast, GWS and Hawthorn). That, in and of itself, tells you something.

I am actually very bullish about seeing a fully-fit Grundy slotted into our mix in 2023. We will automatically increase our tall stocks by having him back on the field to be complemented by either Cox or Cameron.

I do not envy the task ahead of our list management team post season- delicate calls will need to be made on a number of players who have been on the list for a few years, but have been denied an opportunity to fully develop as junior players due to the seasons where the Under 18 competitions were suspended due to COVID.

Naturally, tough calls will need to be made, but taking Grundy off our playing list via trade should not be one of them.

As an aside, I think that AFL lists should go back to 42 listed players plus 3 rookies.

I agree, it’s just plain rude!

It was a joke, Pies4shaw. Although Maxy did sound grumpy.

As noted by many, to trade Grundy purely to dump some salary seems a stupid decision. I can't help wondering if there's something else going on, like the coaching staff wanting him to play a different role and he's not happy to buy into that?

There is almost certainly something else going on - there always is. But we, on the outside, will likely never know the breadth and extent of all the inner workings which can influence a players decision.

The discussion can be crass or unbecoming or rude or ungrateful, but the bottom line is if Brody wants to be at Collingwood, all he has to say is "I'm not going anywhere". If he doesn't say that categorically, and plays somewhere else, then by extension he is comfortable in moving.

Stay or go - I don't mind - so long as whatever the outcome is inches us closer to success.

"Naturally Geelong and Melbourne are very interested suitors (as are North, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Gold Coast, GWS and Hawthorn). That, in and of itself, tells you something."

let's see how many of these suitors will take on his full salary. Probably none, they are just looking for a Treloar type bargain.

We've done a lot bloody right this season but not many of us are going to cop paying our best ruck to go play with our toughest opponent.

If they want him, then they can pay for all of him.

F**K Geelong and their magical bottomless salary cap.

piffdog wrote:There is almost certainly something else going on - there always is. But we, on the outside, will likely never know the breadth and extent of all the inner workings which can influence a players decision.

The discussion can be crass or unbecoming or rude or ungrateful, but the bottom line is if Brody wants to be at Collingwood, all he has to say is "I'm not going anywhere". If he doesn't say that categorically, and plays somewhere else, then by extension he is comfortable in moving.

Stay or go - I don't mind - so long as whatever the outcome is inches us closer to success.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts. Similarly, if Collingwood don’t think there’s a gain to be had from any trade, then they only need to say “ Brodie, since all parties explored their options but ultimately failed to agree, you remain a required player and we’re looking forward to you coming back in 2023 and making us even better “. Footy is now a business and the business is all about winning.