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

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • reigning premier
    Suspended by the MRP
    • Sep 2006
    • 4335

    #61
    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.

    Comment

    • GongSwan
      Senior Player
      • Jan 2009
      • 1362

      #62
      Originally posted by liz
      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
      You can't argue with a sick mind - Joe Walsh

      Comment

      • top40
        Regular in the Side
        • May 2007
        • 933

        #63
        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.
        Last edited by top40; 7 October 2009, 03:46 PM. Reason: add question mark

        Comment

        • caj23
          Senior Player
          • Aug 2003
          • 2462

          #64
          Originally posted by 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.
          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

          Comment

          • top40
            Regular in the Side
            • May 2007
            • 933

            #65
            Originally posted by Will Sangster
            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?

            Comment

            • Bleed Red Blood
              Senior Player
              • Sep 2003
              • 2057

              #66
              Originally posted by top40
              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.

              Comment

              • Plugger46
                Senior Player
                • Apr 2003
                • 3674

                #67
                Originally posted by Bleed Red Blood
                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.
                Bloods

                "Lockett is the best of all time" - Robert Harvey, Darrel Baldock, Nathan Burke, Kevin Bartlett, Bob Skilton

                Comment

                • top40
                  Regular in the Side
                  • May 2007
                  • 933

                  #68
                  Originally posted by Bleed Red Blood
                  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.

                  Comment

                  • Triple B
                    Formerly 'BBB'
                    • Feb 2003
                    • 6999

                    #69
                    Originally posted by Bleed Red Blood
                    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.
                    Driver of the Dan Hannebery bandwagon....all aboard. 4th April 09

                    Comment

                    • liz
                      Veteran
                      Site Admin
                      • Jan 2003
                      • 16787

                      #70
                      Originally posted by Triple B
                      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.)

                      Comment

                      • annew
                        Senior Player
                        • Mar 2006
                        • 2164

                        #71
                        Is Mumford out of contract?

                        Comment

                        • Lohengrin
                          On the Rookie List
                          • Jul 2008
                          • 641

                          #72
                          Originally posted by liz
                          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.

                          Comment

                          • Primmy
                            Proud Tragic Swan
                            • Apr 2008
                            • 5970

                            #73
                            Originally posted by Lohengrin
                            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.
                            If you've never jumped from one couch to the other to save yourself from lava then you didn't have a childhood

                            Comment

                            • Damien
                              Living in 2005
                              • Jan 2003
                              • 3713

                              #74
                              Jolly joins Collingwood http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/af...-1225784004377

                              Comment

                              • Lohengrin
                                On the Rookie List
                                • Jul 2008
                                • 641

                                #75
                                That's a decent outcome for us.

                                Comment

                                Working...