Mumford coming to Sydney

[MF]

I reckon it might be

14 & 28 for Mumford & 17

Maybe, but that would be about absolute worst case scenario for us I reckon.

To suggest we're effectively going to trade Jolly for Mumford and 46 is absolutely stupid.

 

[DaVe86]

I reckon it might be

14 & 28 for Mumford & 17

Sounds fair.

 

[rocker_oz33]

However Mumford does not = Jolly.

true mummy and seaby still wont even = jolly.but mummy will be a good ruckman and his efforts at the stoppages will suit the swans style pick 28 is fair.

 

[CaptainChardonnay]

Screw fair..... They can have a straight swap for Playfair if they want.

 

[.Shotties.]

hell no

perpetual charity worth 8 points a year based on spurious cost of living arguements

Ah yes, explain to me how the cost of living allowance works, again?

 

[Big Nasty]

Screw fair..... They can have a straight swap for Playfair if they want.

would you throw in Chambers to sweeten the deal?

 

[CaptainChardonnay]

true mummy and seaby still wont even = jolly.but mummy will be a good ruckman and his efforts at the stoppages will suit the swans style pick 28 is fair.

Pick 28 will be the best possible outcome for you I reckon. 38 or 39 looks more likely (I'd be prepared to give you 38)

 

[CaptainChardonnay]

would you throw in Chambers to sweeten the deal?

If you throw in Wojo, we'll give you Spriggs.... Deal done.

 

[blankshots]

You have no clue, Mumford was never going to go PSD, he loved Geelong and we would have loved for him to keep playing for us, he wasn't the sort of player giving us cap issues.
It was just the fact that you guys threw a million bucks at the bloke when we could offer about half of that, can't blame the guy.

I'm not too sure about the $1 mil thing myself (could well regret it a few years down the track). But it sure put us in a great negotiation position (I really doubt any other club will match this salary). He's out of contract, accepted a massive (some will say moronic) offer, no other club will take him in the PSD, so how would you guys ask for more? Last time you made us trade a 31 pick for Chambers and he lasted less than half a season with us.

 

[.Shotties.]

We have an outside midfielder, his name is David...

 

[CaptainChardonnay]

I'm not too sure about the $1 mil thing myself (could well regret it a few years down the track). But it sure put us in a great negotiation position (I really doubt any other club will match this salary). He's out of contract, accepted a massive (some will say moronic) offer, no other club will take him in the PSD, so how would you guys ask for more? Last time you made us trade a 31 pick for Chambers and he lasted less than half a season with us.

It's not over the odds. 4 yrs for $1m+ = <$300k PA. IIRC, Jolly is well over that figure. It may be expensive up front, but I'm confident he will be a $300k+ player. especially when GC & WS are on the prowl for ruckmen.

 

[mocaholic]

So is the deal(s) done? Or what? Get yer freakin' acts together gentlemen and ladies.

NOTE: it's of little consequence rating seaby vs mummy (oh how i love a bloke with a nickname 'mummy') vs jolly. This is all relative only to their value on the trade table, the strength of each club's bargaining position and what clubs have in their salary caps. That's all, bottom line.

There is simply no use rating their value any other way for this mad week.

 

[blankshots]

It's not over the odds. 4 yrs for $1m+ = <$300k PA. IIRC, Jolly is well over that figure. It may be expensive up front, but I'm confident he will be a $300k+ player. especially when GC & WS are on the prowl for ruckmen.

Yeah, hopefully. And it'll end our annual search for Ruckmen for a while...seem to have been the case each year ever since the Stafford days.

 

[RagingRoo]

So is the deal(s) done? Or what? Get yer freakin' acts together gentlemen and ladies.

NOTE: it's of little consequence rating seaby vs mummy (oh how i love a bloke with a nickname 'mummy') vs jolly. This is all relative only to their value on the trade table, the strength of each club's bargaining position and what clubs have in their salary caps. That's all, bottom line.

There is simply no use rating their value any other way for this mad week.

Sydney could alway frontload the first 2 years of his contract and get him to nominate the PSD. If it's 1MIL over 4 years they could tell him to nominate a contract of 800K over 2 years and then renegotiate the final 2 years at 100K.

Surely this would scare off Melbourne and Richmond meaning he walks to Sydney.

 

[blankshots]

Sydney could alway frontload the first 2 years of his contract and get him to nominate the PSD. If it's 1MIL over 4 years they could tell him to nominate a contract of 800K over 2 years and then renegotiate the final 2 years at 100K.

Surely this would scare off Melbourne and Richmond meaning he walks to Sydney.

With the recent retirements/trades (Jolly + Hall), it will probably be front-loaded regardless anyway, to get more flexibility in the cap a few years down the track.

 

[RagingRoo]

With the recent retirements/trades (Jolly + Hall), it will probably be front-loaded regardless anyway, to get more flexibility in the cap a few years down the track.

Just pointing out that Geelong don't have a lot of leverage in this deal and will take 3rd or 4th rounder if on offer?

 

[blankshots]

Just pointing out that Geelong don't have a lot of leverage in this deal and will take 3rd or 4th rounder if on offer?

Given the circumstances, I think it should be #39 or have 46 thrown in as well if they wanted to draft more players.
I'm actually guessing in the end we'll give them #28 just to get some trading credit with them in the next few years down the track.
Generally, we don't really screw people during trade week
(not really sure why though, our ex-Geelong players haven't done much for us)
But asking for a first rounder is just unrealistic in my view (given the circumstances)

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Agreed - Geelong can't really play hardball anyway.

The main incentive in playing hardball is trying to convince the guy to re-sign, as ROK and Bret Thornton have done in recent times, and Geelong can't afford Mumford on the deal he's being offered.

Geelong would take pick #46 for him, IMO.

 

[Rhombus]

Can a Rookie list player be traded?

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Can a Rookie list player be traded?

They can now - The rule was brought in this year.

Clubs are free to trade rookie listed players, but they have to go onto the senior list at the club that receives them.

 

[mocaholic]

Given the circumstances, I think it should be #39 or have 46 thrown in as well if they wanted to draft more players.
I'm actually guessing in the end we'll give them #28 just to get some trading credit with them in the next few years down the track.
Generally, we don't really screw people during trade week
(not really sure why though, our ex-Geelong players haven't done much for us)
But asking for a first rounder is just unrealistic in my view (given the circumstances)

Noughties: Chambers, Spriggs, Playfair. Ba-bow.
Eighties: Williams, Toohey, Bolton.

we did ok when Hafey brought 'em across...

 

[blankshots]

Noughties: Chambers, Spriggs, Playfair. Ba-bow.
Eighties: Williams, Toohey, Bolton.

we did ok when Hafey brought 'em across...

Heh, I meant recently. Wonder where's Chambers now?

 

[laughingnome]

Heh, I meant recently. Wonder where's Chambers now?

Running around for Werribee in the VFL since 2007.

And Mumford is a second round pick, with maybe a 3rd or 4th kicker.

 

[grimlock]

Running around for Werribee in the VFL since 2007.

And Mumford is a second round pick, with maybe a 3rd or 4th kicker.

No I'm pretty sure he gave that up pretty quickly too.

 

[JimmyRecard]

if Mumford goes to PS tigers will take him with pick two.

I hope we offer our pick 35 for mumford which will outbid swans third round.

I see great potential in mummy and definatly a deadly future combo with vickery.