(Jolly to Pies, Pick 14 & 46) If Jolly leaves, I'm gonna cry....

[reigning premier]

Starting to think that this may a great deal for us;

1. No Point keeping a player who doesn't want to be here.
2. Jolly is probably at the best price we're evere going to get for him.
3. We have secured Seaby. He'll come on OK I reckon.
4. There's more than a couple of clubs out there that are desperate for a top flight ruck man.
5. Jolly is still under contract so we can really put the screws on potential suitors
6. A first round pick this years, even in a "skinny" draft will be priceless considering the upcoming "compromised" drafts of the next 4 or so years.

[GongSwan]

Make your own assessment. Do you think a midfield which relies heavily on Bird, Jack, Meredith, Veszpremi, Hannebury, Smith, maybe even Kennedy if he comes is going to be well placed in the next 24 months to challenge the Geelong, St Kilda, Carlton, Western Bulldogs midfields? Most of them are barely more than boys and need time and experience.

Agree much. Now we have Seaby, we can use Pyke and the other young blokes in the ruck, and let the team grow and gel as a unit, especially the midfield. We should be using our highest draft picks for quick outside elite running midfoelders. Forwards we got, bacmen we got, maybe one more tall. But we need 2 or 3 years for the young brigade we have to develop. The ruck can do that as well

[top40]

With Seaby already in, a gain of a 23year talent like Mumford would be an excellent pick up.

How about a direct trade, Mumford for Jolly? In the context of their respective ages and level of experience, it would be very similar to the 1997 Wayne Schwass-Shannon Grant direct trade.

[caj23]

With Seaby already in, a gain of a 23year talent like Mumford would be an excellent pick up.

How about a direct trade, Mumford for Jolly? In the context of their respective ages and level of experience, it would be very similar to the 1997 Wayne Schwass-Shannon Grant direct trade.

1. Geelong can't afford Jolly in their salary cap

2. Mumford has played 15 games and has yet to prove he is a long term AFL player, so unless picks were being thrown our way we'd be ripped off

[top40]

1. Geelong can't afford Jolly in their salary cap

2. Mumford has played 15 games and has yet to prove he is a long term AFL player, so unless picks were being thrown our way we'd be ripped off

You might be on the money about the Geelong salary cap issue.

However, I respectively disagree with you about the potential of Mumford. He is already proven to be a very good player, and went very close to be a Premiership player. Are we all still scared by the unfortunate Paul Chambers experiment back in 2006?

[Bleed Red Blood]

You might be on the money about the Geelong salary cap issue.

However, I respectively disagree with you about the potential of Mumford. He is already proven to be a very good player, and went very close to be a Premiership player. Are we all still scared by the unfortunate Paul Chambers experiment back in 2006?

To start with we we're ripped off in the Schwass/Grant trade. Grant played a further 11 years at the Roos'. Won a Norm Smith, All-Australian etc. We got less than half that from Schwass.

To trade Jolly for Mumford would be comicaly stupid.

[Plugger46]

To start with we we're ripped off in the Schwass/Grant trade. Grant played a further 11 years at the Roos'. Won a Norm Smith, All-Australian etc. We got less than half that from Schwass.

To trade Jolly for Mumford would be comicaly stupid.

Absolutely. Not a chance in the world that would happen.

[top40]

To start with we we're ripped off in the Schwass/Grant trade. Grant played a further 11 years at the Roos'. Won a Norm Smith, All-Australian etc. We got less than half that from Schwass.

To trade Jolly for Mumford would be comicaly stupid.

Unfortunately the Swans were comically stupid back in 1997.

[Triple B]

To start with we were ripped off in the Schwass/Grant trade.

Incorrect. We were not 'ripped off'.

Shannon Grant was out of contract and determined to go back to Melbourne.

Certainly NM got the better of it, but we did way better than losing Grant for nothing via the draft.

It was a classic win-win at the time and still was. NM had a better win for certain, but we came out a winner as well.

[liz]

Incorrect. We were not 'ripped off'.

Shannon Grant was out of contract and determined to go back to Melbourne.

Certainly NM got the better of it, but we did way better than losing Grant for nothing via the draft.

It was a classic win-win at the time and still was. NM had a better win for certain, but we came out a winner as well.

Further, if you are going to use the Schwass / Grant deal as a precedent, surely the argument would be that the Cats would be mad to do a straight swap of Mumford for Jolly.

(I am not arguing they would be - just that that would be the analagous conclusion.)

[annew]

Is Mumford out of contract?

[Lohengrin]

Further, if you are going to use the Schwass / Grant deal as a precedent, surely the argument would be that the Cats would be mad to do a straight swap of Mumford for Jolly.

(I am not arguing they would be - just that that would be the analagous conclusion.)

Exactly. The comparisons are back to front. If we were "comically stupid" then, we should definitely do the deal now.

And Schwass made sense for us - Grant was going home and we were in a premiership window, so Schwass added a lot.

[Primmy]

Exactly. The comparisons are back to front. If we were "comically stupid" then, we should definitely do the deal now.

And Schwass made sense for us - Grant was going home and we were in a premiership window, so Schwass added a lot.

I remember reading an article way back then when they sent in Roosy to have a chat. His chat was along the lines of the advantages of being a "big fish in a small pond" over "a small fish in a big pond". Made sense to me then. Apparently Shagger had other ideas. Turns out he was right. There was no way we could keep him. It was a good trade at the time.

[Damien]

Jolly joins Collingwood http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/af...-1225784004377

[Lohengrin]

That's a decent outcome for us.