If Mumford was still at Geelong

[SJ]

Or Vardy for that matter.

Obviously the compensation pick was used to great effect with the pickup of Duncan. But the drafting of Vardy was also more than likely a direct result of Mumford leaving. Also, as noted, Wojo is still on the list too.

I'd do that trade again

Not that we had a choice in the first place!

 

[Partridge]

I don't think you could play both under the new rules as Ottens has proven he is no longer anything more than a casual forward these days.

I agree completely, but it is kinda funny it's posted after he kicked more goals in a game than he ever has for us.

 

[alfy!]

Re: If Mumford was still at Geelong ........

We potentially would have retired/lost Wojo, not drafted Duncan, and not drafted Vardy. In the end it has turned out well for us.

Not getting the $300,000 output from him.

Sydney would be pretty happy with Mumford, he has had a decent year.

 

[Sarah2Donohue]

I feel inspired...might create a thread "If Judas was still at Geelong"

Poll:
(a) 1st picked in front of everyone;
(b) delist 10% of list to afford his salary;
(c) In tandem with Selwood, Bartel, Corey, Kelly, SJ, Chapman, Ling, Varcoe, Duncan, Stokes, Wojcinski, Christensen, Cowan.

Don't get grumpy OP. I get the premise, it's just that there's too many "history changed" events associated.

he wasnt epic when he left, just a disgruntled greedy opportunist,*snip*

That's a bit harsh. It was my belief that we didn't promote him off the rookie list and up his earnings, as previously promised. I could be wrong though.

 

[Sttew]

Re: If Mumford was still at Geelong ........

TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU 100%, I was devastated at the prospect of him not getting another contract, one of the most exciting players seen at Geelong, and very influential last year.Would have ceased supporting if he'd gone to St Kilda.Maybe.

Always thought you are a closet Saints supporter!

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Re: If Mumford was still at Geelong ........

Shane Mumford 2011

8 games:
30 kicks (3.75 a game)
60 handballs (7.5)
23 Marks (2.88)
246 hit outs (30.75)
39 tackles (4.88)
5 goals (0.63)

Mitch Duncan 2011
8 games:
80 kicks (10)
63 handballs (7.88)
45 marks (5.63)
16 tackles (2)
11 goals (1.38)

Mumford is hardly a superstar.

Pretty impressive tackling numbers though.

 

[vinum coupe]

Don't get grumpy OP. I get the premise, it's just that there's too many "history changed" events associated.

The reason for thread was more along the lines of "was losing mumford that bad? Everyone cries that we could have kept Mummy (somehow) and lost Blake (somehow) etc.

But I just wonder where he would have fit in with the new roles and the way Ottens has lifted.

Ottens and Mummy would most likely be playing tandem right now. And probably to our detriment.

It hasn't turned out nearly as bad as some people carry on with.
Quite honestly Mummy was just here at the wrong time. If we got him in the 2010 rookie draft I think his timing would be perfect.

And as others have stated. Wojo, Duncan, and Vardy have all been affected by that trade. For the better.

 

[topic97]

The reason for thread was more along the lines of "was losing mumford that bad? Everyone cries that we could have kept Mummy (somehow) and lost Blake (somehow) etc.

But I just wonder where he would have fit in with the new roles and the way Ottens has lifted.

Ottens and Mummy would most likely be playing tandem right now. And probably to our detriment.

It hasn't turned out nearly as bad as some people carry on with.
Quite honestly Mummy was just here at the wrong time. If we got him in the 2010 rookie draft I think his timing would be perfect.

And as others have stated. Wojo, Duncan, and Vardy have all been affected by that trade. For the better.

Spot on!!

At the moment as it stands, we seem to have gained out of him leaving more than we have lost.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

The reason for thread was more along the lines of "was losing mumford that bad? Everyone cries that we could have kept Mummy (somehow) and lost Blake (somehow) etc.

But I just wonder where he would have fit in with the new roles and the way Ottens has lifted.

Ottens and Mummy would most likely be playing tandem right now. And probably to our detriment.

It hasn't turned out nearly as bad as some people carry on with.
Quite honestly Mummy was just here at the wrong time. If we got him in the 2010 rookie draft I think his timing would be perfect.

And as others have stated. Wojo, Duncan, and Vardy have all been affected by that trade. For the better.

I actually agree with that.

But while we wouldn't have benefited on field with Mummy this year, we sure as heck would have next year or the year after when Ottens retires, because he would have been the perfect replacement, even with Vardy's progress I see him as an ideal second ruck rather than a first ruck, and that first ruck is still a gaping hole that we'll need to fill when Otto goes.

There's no way we could have kept Mummy. Even if we had shipped out players (i.e. Blake Stokes etc) to make the room we still could not have justified matching Sydney's offer even if we had the room-our culture has been built on players taking sacrifices to stay together, it would completely contradict that entire culture if we paid a rookie ruckman 400k pa just to keep him here.

 

[The rabbi]

We wouldn't have Mitch Duncan, end of thread.

I agree Gaz, being completely unbiased on this topic.

 

[Vdubs]

Re: If Mumford was still at Geelong ........

Always thought you are a closet Saints supporter!

you have trouble with comprehension, or just a naughty shite stirrer. Why don't you read the post properly?

 

[DanA]

This is crazy Mumford is a gun and is worth a top 10 pick now. We got shafted regardless of how good Duncan turns out.

For me we made a mistake when we chose Blake over King. Here was a club captain and B&F winner effectively pushed out by a no talent petulant child. We easily could have let Blake go and offered King a minimum one year contract promoting Mumford. He'd shown enough signs to make me believe he'd be a player and it's what I was hoping we'd do.

 

[topic97]

Re: If Mumford was still at Geelong ........

you have trouble with comprehension, or just a naughty shite stirrer. Why don't you read the post properly?

Lol, I think that was very tongue in cheek Dubs

And DanA, Mumford is worth a top 10 pick now, but he was still very early in development when he left and had a lot of past fitness issues before we knocked it out of him - that can be a gamble sometimes going into a different environment.

Regardless of this, I think we will be ok in the long run.
Look at it this way, we got our number 1 back in AA or possibly better form - definately the best form since he has been with the club, and thats including 2 premiership wins!!
Then we have Vardy who looks good and is developing nicely alongside Ottens - we can groom him in the next year or so to step up should otto retire.
But not to mention we still have West who is no dud and also Simpson who is still coming along.

And if all else fails, we still have Blake, for this year at least.

Sure, we would benifit from still having mumford, but losing him is not as bad as people make out - we still have great ruck stocks!!

 

[SJ]

This is crazy Mumford is a gun and is worth a top 10 pick now. We got shafted regardless of how good Duncan turns out.

For me we made a mistake when we chose Blake over King. Here was a club captain and B&F winner effectively pushed out by a no talent petulant child. We easily could have let Blake go and offered King a minimum one year contract promoting Mumford. He'd shown enough signs to make me believe he'd be a player and it's what I was hoping we'd do.

The myth grows.

 

[JUBJUB]

This is crazy Mumford is a gun and is worth a top 10 pick now. We got shafted regardless of how good Duncan turns out.

For me we made a mistake when we chose Blake over King. Here was a club captain and B&F winner effectively pushed out by a no talent petulant child. We easily could have let Blake go and offered King a minimum one year contract promoting Mumford. He'd shown enough signs to make me believe he'd be a player and it's what I was hoping we'd do.

He we go again

 

[Partridge]

This is crazy Mumford is a gun and is worth a top 10 pick now. We got shafted regardless of how good Duncan turns out.

For me we made a mistake when we chose Blake over King. Here was a club captain and B&F winner effectively pushed out by a no talent petulant child. We easily could have let Blake go and offered King a minimum one year contract promoting Mumford. He'd shown enough signs to make me believe he'd be a player and it's what I was hoping we'd do.

First part, totally disagree. Mumford is not that good. Duncan I'm very confident will make up for that and then some.

Second part, does anyone care to offer anything vaguely resembling evidence for this? Not rumours, not innuendo, I'd like to see where the club admitted they were held over a barrel - as if such a thing would happen these days. Or was it the well-used "friend of a mate who worked with a mate who drove past the ground once overheard a phone conversation that said Blake wanted King gone". Sounds reliable.

Trading King and keeping Blake was the correct option too. Blake was good enough to help the team win a premiership a full two seasons later. In case anyone was paying attention King played that day too and was probably worst on ground.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

This is crazy Mumford is a gun and is worth a top 10 pick now. We got shafted regardless of how good Duncan turns out.

It's a trade where both teams are extremely happy and will probably continue to be with their end of the deal. Not quite a Wellman/Jarman/Salmon level masterpiece, but possibly on a Schwass/Grant level?

 

[TheHonestyPolicy]

I havent quite read the entire thread so apologies if already stated but the full extent of the Mumford trade needs to be understood first.

We got pick 28/Duncan and didnt have to give up Wojo thats already been said and it allowed an opening for us to take Vardy @ Pick 42.

What we may be forgetting here is the Cats were called into break a trade deadlock that year as the mediating third party, now thats from memory so if anyone can explain that better by all means. Since we had just acquired pick 28 for Mumford we on-traded our other second round pick of pick 33 for picks 40, 42 and 56 which yielded Christensen, Vardy and Cowan. On top of getting Duncan and keeping Wojo.

I got over losing Mumford a long time ago

 

[Pure_Ownage]

This is crazy Mumford is a gun and is worth a top 10 pick now. We got shafted regardless of how good Duncan turns out.

For me we made a mistake when we chose Blake over King. Here was a club captain and B&F winner effectively pushed out by a no talent petulant child. We easily could have let Blake go and offered King a minimum one year contract promoting Mumford. He'd shown enough signs to make me believe he'd be a player and it's what I was hoping we'd do.

When was the last time recently you saw a ruckman traded for a top 10 pick? And were they better than Mummy? Don't get me wrong I think he's a very good young ruckman but you're overreaching a bit there.

Anyway, IMO we made the right decision in regards Blake/King. Now the matter in which it was handled was disgraceful (offering him the contract and then withdrawing it the next day) and we ought to wear the blame for that, but that aside we made the right decision, we were in the middle of a premiership window and the available data said that Blake was durable and King was not. The fact that King only lasted three more years, the last of which he couldn't play at all, says we were right.

The other thing I think you're missing is the money, yes if Blake had gone Mumford may have played in a premiership, but Sydney offered him massive money and a long term contract (and even had he played in the flag there's no way we would have offered him that sort of money because we couldn't have afforded it, nor would we have given him 4 years). To put it in context, to match Sydney's reported offer we would have had to offer Mumford about the same money that Jimmy Bartel is on. Does anyone not see the problem with that and the effect it would have had on the culture? I'm as annoyed as anyone that Mumford won't be replacing Ottens when he retires, but it's not Blake's fault.

 

[Partridge]

When was the last time recently you saw a ruckman traded for a top 10 pick? And were they better than Mummy? Don't get me wrong I think he's a very good young ruckman but you're overreaching a bit there.

Anyway, IMO we made the right decision in regards Blake/King. Now the matter in which it was handled was disgraceful (offering him the contract and then withdrawing it the next day) and we ought to wear the blame for that, but that aside we made the right decision, we were in the middle of a premiership window and the available data said that Blake was durable and King was not. The fact that King only lasted three more years, the last of which he couldn't play at all, says we were right.

The other thing I think you're missing is the money, yes if Blake had gone Mumford may have played in a premiership, but Sydney offered him massive money and a long term contract (and even had he played in the flag there's no way we would have offered him that sort of money because we couldn't have afforded it, nor would we have given him 4 years). To put it in context, to match Sydney's reported offer we would have had to offer Mumford about the same money that Jimmy Bartel is on. Does anyone not see the problem with that and the effect it would have had on the culture? I'm as annoyed as anyone that Mumford won't be replacing Ottens when he retires, but it's not Blake's fault.

Perfect summation of the situation. Well said.

 

[Catman]

Mumfords knee is screwed,so he'll prove to be no loss when he's retired with in the next couple of years.

This. Second year in a row he's gone down with knee issues. Considering the way he plays it's no real surprise.

Who knows, if he stayed, and continued to have problems we might be saying we should have traded him to Sydney when we had the chance.

 

[meto]

Mumford's to slow, Hawkins will be better as Mumfords stocks decline.
Just a ruck, and that's it, I believe his best is over all ready.

 

[Vdubs]

This. Second year in a row he's gone down with knee issues. Considering the way he plays it's no real surprise.

Who knows, if he stayed, and continued to have problems we might be saying we should have traded him to Sydney when we had the chance.

the years of obesity, plus the efforts to lose the sausage weight have taken their toll on his knee, and as said , the way he plays, which is ok for short term, but not sustainable, means Geelong have as usual, made all the correct decisions. As PO said eloquently, all factors considered, and all players concerned, win-win for all involved

 

[darren forssman]

When was the last time recently you saw a ruckman traded for a top 10 pick? And were they better than Mummy?

out of interest, from the ones to change clubs recently what value were ottens (from memory, 2 picks just outside the top 10), jolly to swans, jolly to pies, warnock to blues, hudson to the doggies, fraser to suns (hahahah...joke), etc. there may have been a few others i missed, but the grey matter aint working this morning.

im kind of shocked that big guys arent worth more, look at the effect of ottens and jolly for instance.

and to consider the blues gave up kennedy and 2 picks for judd...but imagine if they kept kennedy and had drafted quality tall and mid. judd is a gun, but players like kennedy (good hands and a dead eye dick) are rare.