Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

stui magpie wrote:

Pies4shaw wrote: McStay is a potato. It would make no sense whatsoever to pay $300K of Grundy's salary to have him play for Melbourne and then pay $600K to McStay (who can't get a touch against Melbourne). The effect of that would be to replace a great player with a talentless hack - at effectively the same cost. That way lies madness.

We rarely agree but yes.

Put it this way, if the plan IS to play McStay as a forward we achieve the net same financial result and a better football outcome by keeping Grundy and just playing him as a key forward where, on his worst day, he'd have to offer more than McStay.

If we are going to move Grundy on, you have to do it now. The chances of offloading him in future years diminishes.

If we keep him, we have to be prepared to have him playing til the end of 2027.

That, I think, is the worry.

Exactly, the fact already no one is willing to pay more than $700,000 for this B&F winning multi AA ruckman shows how far his value has already dropped in just 2 years of his contract.

As for McStay, the talk around him was long before any talk of offloading Grundy became official so I don’t really see that as the swap. The hope is there is an unknown deal in the offing to make them need to make this salary dump.

^ That makes no sense - if we want to move Grundy on so badly that we want to pay a third of his salary to next year's major competition to play him against us, how are we going to recruit anybody useful with the $600K, especially if we're doing the $600K McStay deal? I'm not commenting on Grundy's "value" as a footballer - everyone knows your view about that, such as it is - but the arithmetic doesn't work.

IF Grundy leaves, and we do this absolute bullshit Treolar crap, of playing him $300 K a year, to play and star against US, an insane proposition, I will defo not be taking out a membership next season, No way Jose, the Club can stick it, im fuming over this prospect.

IF Grundy leaves, and we do this absolute bullshit Treolar crap, of playing him $300 K a year, to play and star against US, an insane proposition, I will defo not be taking out a membership next season, No way Jose, the Club can stick it, im fuming over this prospect.

IF Grundy leaves, and we do this absolute bullshit Treolar crap, of playing him $300 K a year, to play and star against US, an insane proposition, I will defo not be taking out a membership next season, No way Jose, the Club can stick it, im fuming over this prospect.

If the club is so keen to trade Grundy elsewhere, and apparently willing to continue to pay a reasonable portion of his salary, I just wonder if there are other reasons for wanting him gone? This is pure supposition on my part, but perhaps he doesn't provide sufficient commitment and team spirit around the place. Maybe he doesn't have much support from his teammates? This is pure conjecture on my part, but I don't think Grundy has ever been part of the leadership group, which makes me wonder.

If none of the above is at play, then what seems to be transpiring is a repeat of the Treloar fiasco, and a result of the club's previous mismanagement of our salary cap. That would be a damning indictment.

DP

Not going to lie…how are we genuinely considering trading Grundy…must stay

Also mcstay…please no…

So, in sum, after all the excited histrionics and flights of fancy, in reality the most sensible outcome with the least unknowns and leaps of logic is that a very talented and proven player stays and plays well in the system of the new coach under whom everyone is doing better.

Those hyperventilating about the bloke are snookered by their own valuation: if he's as bad as they say (which obviously he isn't) or if we overdid the contract (which we did), the most likely and best outcome is that he stays and comes good as has the rest of the team.

This equation is the textbook definition of a sunk cost, which is more about the psychology of coping with mistakes and staying calm in the face of a mistake. That is, it's about the psychology of accepting 'what's done is done'; all you can now do is make the mistake worse by reacting to it.

The demonisation of the bloke and fanciful leaps such as others paying overs, other trades miraculously turning into champions, the bloke being a dead weight making the team worse, the bloke not trying because he's paid too much, hidden unknowns that change the equation, etc., are simply ways of trying to escape the plain fact that 'what's done is done'.

Sure, there might be stuff we're unaware of, but by definition we can't take the unknown into consideration, while we know the media sprays bullets hoping for a hit. This is where trust in your decision makers comes into it, either way they call it.

Pies4shaw wrote:^ That makes no sense - if we want to move Grundy on so badly that we want to pay a third of his salary to next year's major competition to play him against us, how are we going to recruit anybody useful with the $600K, especially if we're doing the $600K McStay deal? I'm not commenting on Grundy's "value" as a footballer - everyone knows your view about that, such as it is - but the arithmetic doesn't work.

I’m saying we had already factored the McStay deal in to next years cap before any talk of Grundy being traded, so the 700k+ we save on Grundy can be used on someone else, it won’t be McStay.

In truth, none of us, me included, have any phucking idea what's happening or why.

DP

RudeBoy wrote:In truth, none of us, me included, have any phucking idea what's happening or why.

True dat.

stui magpie wrote:

RudeBoy wrote:In truth, none of us, me included, have any phucking idea what's happening or why.

True dat.

I hope the club does! and I certainly hope Thor knows lol