Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Yes McStay has been soft tonight. Outmarked easily by mid sized defenders.

This decision by our club is a weird one. What could Wright, who is an excellent operator, possibly see in him??

It’s not even the Grundy v McStay conversation - even McStay in as an independent addition to the list regardless of the Grundy situation is a very odd one…. He’s crap!!

Agreed. Surely this changes their minds on recruiting him.

uncanny wrote:Agreed. Surely this changes their minds on recruiting him.

+ 3, this Mcstay does not impress me one iota, we would be **** to give up Grundy for this jerk, it cannot happen now, grossly overrated by Wrighty, for sure.

Piesnchess wrote:

uncanny wrote:Agreed. Surely this changes their minds on recruiting him.

+ 3, this Mcstay does not impress me one iota, we would be **** to give up Grundy for this jerk, it cannot happen now, grossly overrated by Wrighty, for sure.

"Jerk"? Why?

^ Cos hes an overrated Brisvegas Lion.

McStay is clearly independent to the Grundy situation but some have tried to latch onto it every time he has a poor game to make it seem like it’s a straight swap and we’d be mad to consider it.

They are right, which is why it isn’t…

Clearly Grundy being moved in is because the club realised he was surplus to our needs after the performance of Cox and Cameron and saw an opportunity to create some space for an a grader we actually need. We’ve already missed out on one or two this year, so hopefully they just put it in the bank and start chasing someone now for next season.

Or we can keep Grundy, keep our cap $@&^# and McStay and Frampton really are the best we could ever hope for over the next 5 years.

Last week Brisbane and McStay played very well. Last night they were very poor. To judge McStay in that game is silly. Next Charlie Cameron and Lachie Neal are rubbish too in that criteria.

The issue is not trading Grundy for McStay. The issue is Grundy currently costs “us” too much because of the overs a previous administration chose to pay him. This necessarily impacts on the pies ability to have choices with respect to maintaining current players and the ability to attract new players. This has been stated many times earlier by other posters.

watt price tully wrote:Last week Brisbane and McStay played very well. Last night they were very poor. To judge McStay in that game is silly. Next Charlie Cameron and Lachie Neal are rubbish too in that criteria.

The issue is not trading Grundy for McStay. The issue is Grundy currently costs “us” too much because of the overs a previous administration chose to pay him. This necessarily impacts on the pies ability to have choices with respect to maintaining current players and the ability to attract new players. This has been stated many times earlier by other posters.

The problem is, from a purely salary cap perspective, if we end up paying close to $300,000 of Grundy's million dollar salary plus a reported $650,000 to McStay, then we have only 'saved' around $50,000. That part of it clearly makes no sense.

RudeBoy wrote:

watt price tully wrote:Last week Brisbane and McStay played very well. Last night they were very poor. To judge McStay in that game is silly. Next Charlie Cameron and Lachie Neal are rubbish too in that criteria.

The issue is not trading Grundy for McStay. The issue is Grundy currently costs “us” too much because of the overs a previous administration chose to pay him. This necessarily impacts on the pies ability to have choices with respect to maintaining current players and the ability to attract new players. This has been stated many times earlier by other posters.

The problem is, from a purely salary cap perspective, if we end up paying close to $300,000 of Grundy's million dollar salary plus a reported $650,000 to McStay, then we have only 'saved' around $50,000. That part of it clearly makes no sense.

WPT, nice try mate but some just don't get it, they see things in isolation and make decisions in the moment.

Forget long term strategy

burnsy17 wrote:Yes McStay has been soft tonight. Outmarked easily by mid sized defenders.

This decision by our club is a weird one. What could Wright, who is an excellent operator, possibly see in him??

It’s not even the Grundy v McStay conversation - even McStay in as an independent addition to the list regardless of the Grundy situation is a very odd one…. He’s crap!!

I am glad you didn't delist Leon Davis after the 2002 GF.

^ Because you so much enjoyed seeing him be useless in several more? Did it escape your attention that the only Grand Final Collingwood won between 2002 and 2011 was the one he didn't play in?

A few observations:

* firstly, I am in the 'Keep Grundy' camp because his best is very good and I think that he can regain his very best form after a horror 2022 with injuries.

*secondly, all of Cameron, Cox and Grundy deliver different attributes to the team: Grundy is excellent at roaming the ground as a 200cm ruck rover if you will; both Cox and Cameron are capable of multiple goal returns when resting forward; none of the three could be regarded as an elite 'tap-ruckman'; Cameron and Cox are very capable marking around the ground.

* thirdly, salary-cap space is an issue for all 18 clubs. My perception of what our club is trying to do here is make a balanced call on whether to trade Grundy (freeing up cap-space) or to convince Grundy of the merits of remaining on the same money (total), but extend his contract by another year this dropping his annual salary for the next five years from $950 (approx) to around a more manageable $800 pa (approx). but adding another year. These are the sacrifices some players at some clubs make to chase the player/s necessary to win a flag- Naturally, there is no legal obligation for Grundy to take a pay cut such as this.

*finally, Grundy has given excellent service for the majority of his time in Black & White. It is not his fault that the previous Board/List Management team at Collingwood offered him the huge contract. Whilst he and his manager would have been involved in the negotiations that led to the seven year contract, at the end of the day, the Magpies made the legal offer which Grundy agreed to.

Whichever way this goes, I will always be grateful for the way Grundy helped to lead the team to the 2018 Grand Final and that thrilling goal that he kicked in that famous win over the Tigers with 4 seconds left in the match.

Floreat Pica comrades.

warburton lad wrote:A few observations:

* firstly, I am in the 'Keep Grundy' camp because his best is very good and I think that he can regain his very best form after a horror 2022 with injuries.

*secondly, all of Cameron, Cox and Grundy deliver different attributes to the team: Grundy is excellent at roaming the ground as a 200cm ruck rover if you will; both Cox and Cameron are capable of multiple goal returns when resting forward; none of the three could be regarded as an elite 'tap-ruckman'; Cameron and Cox are very capable marking around the ground.

* thirdly, salary-cap space is an issue for all 18 clubs. My perception of what our club is trying to do here is make a balanced call on whether to trade Grundy (freeing up cap-space) or to convince Grundy of the merits of remaining on the same money (total), but extend his contract by another year this dropping his annual salary for the next five years from $950 (approx) to around a more manageable $800 pa (approx). but adding another year. These are the sacrifices some players at some clubs make to chase the player/s necessary to win a flag- Naturally, there is no legal obligation for Grundy to take a pay cut such as this.

*finally, Grundy has given excellent service for the majority of his time in Black & White. It is not his fault that the previous Board/List Management team at Collingwood offered him the huge contract. Whilst he and his manager would have been involved in the negotiations that led to the seven year contract, at the end of the day, the Magpies made the legal offer which Grundy agreed to.

Whichever way this goes, I will always be grateful for the way Grundy helped to lead the team to the 2018 Grand Final and that thrilling goal that he kicked in that famous win over the Tigers with 4 seconds left in the match.

Floreat Pica comrades.

Nailed it

Pies4shaw wrote:^ Because you so much enjoyed seeing him be useless in several more? Did it escape your attention that the only Grand Final Collingwood won between 2002 and 2011 was the one he didn't play in?

That’s a shit comment, mate.

RudeBoy wrote:

watt price tully wrote:Last week Brisbane and McStay played very well. Last night they were very poor. To judge McStay in that game is silly. Next Charlie Cameron and Lachie Neal are rubbish too in that criteria.

The issue is not trading Grundy for McStay. The issue is Grundy currently costs “us” too much because of the overs a previous administration chose to pay him. This necessarily impacts on the pies ability to have choices with respect to maintaining current players and the ability to attract new players. This has been stated many times earlier by other posters.

The problem is, from a purely salary cap perspective, if we end up paying close to $300,000 of Grundy's million dollar salary plus a reported $650,000 to McStay, then we have only 'saved' around $50,000. That part of it clearly makes no sense.

That’s true too assuming the amounts are correct. However, the other parts of a deal might lie in such things as draft picks, value adding in relation to draft picks and swaps and say a sliding scale of Grundy co-payment.

Let me get my people to speak with your people