Don't want Jolly

[kp83]

Hickey gets injured, Stanley rucks full time, rips hamstring, Lewis Pearce left to shoulder load and gets smashed week in week out, develops chronic fatigue and never plays again, leaves Holmes and Maister to play out the year in the ruck.

Welcome to the BigMart school of pessimism, but this is the arguement FOR Jolly.

We want someone for free, which Jolly is as a delisted free agent. He may not actually play, or if he does its just to rest our developing talls here and there. We don't need or want to develop another ruck, we have two to four very promising types who just need an experienced body to help if desperate, if thats Jolly, I'm cool with it.

Ahh, the voice of reason and intelligence. Very welcome on this site sometimes...

[Shanka]

Agree fully with st ick! Jolly will be a great teacher for our young guys and if he needs to play he will. Nice addition for free

[Richter]

What are people on about regarding Jolly being a knob? I have really never heard that and a brief google search netted nothing.

Irrespective, he strikes me as the perfect player to provide a mature back-up/competitiom to Hickey/Stanley, as well as imparting some nous to the young rucks, for a season or two.

Whilst I know he finished his season half way through having gotten injured, here's his stats for the year...

9 games averaging 11.8 disp, 4.4 marks, 0.4 goals, 3.6 tackles, 23.2 hitouts, 2.6 clearances, 1.3 i50s

(For those interested here's Big Ben's stats for the year...

22 games averaging 11.5 disp, 4.7 marks, 0.3 goals, 2.9 tackles, 20.4 hitouts, 1.6 clearances, 0.7 i50s)

Jolly's season stacks up pretty well in comparison to McEvoys doesn't it? Oh, and Jolly got those stats in 10% less time on ground per game too.

[Con Gorozidis]

Sounds like we are getting him so we better get used to it.
Im not sure why so much anti sentiment on here?
I vaguely recall him saying something controversial a while back but I cant even remember what it was.

I think Hickey/ Stanley with a mature back up/coach that we dont have to spend a draft pick on is a bloody great idea.

[joffaboy]

Do people dislike him because of on-field sledging or the Age columns he has written over the years? Or is it something else?

If it's his penmanship, by my recollection he hated Neale Daniher's coaching style and had a crack at Josh Fraser. If he joins the Saints I'll go back and read them again (I'm otherwise not that interested in revisiting his pearls of wisdom). Here's a link.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/by/Darren-Jolly

But in the meantime, to get a premiership player with two different clubs as a short term back-up ruck and a potential longer term ruck-coach prospect, I can't see any downside. Provided the price is right, it seems to me to fit the overall development strategy.

So he bagged b!tchslap? Big deal. Everyone knows he was a soft <redacted>

[thejiggingsaint]

I'm of the (humble) opinion that to get Darren Jolly for nothing is a good move by our footy department. I really don't see any reason why we wouldn't want a proven (dual premiership) ruckman as a back-up/mentor to our developing kids. As for him being an ex-magpie well? So what? It's about time we got rid of our hang ups about where this or that player came from, and just got behind the recruiting staff who (IMHO) are doing a fair old job at the minute!

[SuperDuper]

good idea imo to get jolly to the club for no cost.
Great spread of rucks on our list with Jolly ....Hiclkey Stanley and Pierce are all still young
Jolly to play a handful of games when needed

It does cost. it costs us a pick in the draft or the delisting of a contracted player. It always costs something. Understand why they are doing it but not sure we need to do it. Certainly doesnt worry me what sort of guy he is. Im sure we have other dickheads on our list.

Clearly Plugger, I was referring to draft picks when I said it will cost us nothing. We just add him to our list without losing a draft pick in any of the 2013 drafts.

As for his salary, we need to pay 95% of the salary cap (or some such minimum amount) .. I cant see how we can reach this amount if Fisher and Dal leave, even one of them... so I would guess total salary payments will not increase if he comes, once they juggle all the contracts to make sure we pay the full 95%...

As for the list, if it means a player gets delisted and even has a contract payed out.. then so be it... again we can probably do this and still be at the minimum of the salary cap....All our players were given opportunities this year.. Some look like they are not AFL standard..
I would not be surprised if TDL is moved on, for example.. if you want you can call that a cost.... but I would attest that it would be paying peanuts.. compared to the high cost of using a high draft pick for a replacement ruck (eg on Longer)

And we also get as a gain a lot of experience to pass on to our young ruck trio and indeed to our entire young playing group

So: cost-benefit analysis seems very positive to me

[Junction Oval]

Watters would know Jolly well, so he will know whether "the fit' with the Club and our players will be a positive one.

If that side is ok and we can get him for very little, then it is potentially a good experience gain for us and a good back-up for our younger guys. Not playing a full season would propably suit his fitness situation.

[Con Gorozidis]

Lets be realistic plugger.
Jolly will cost us stuff all. Hes obviously an intelligent bloke and a virtual coach.
Spots on our list really arent that precious - tdl dunny lever crocker polo etc etc we have had plenty of dead wood on there forever and always will.
As long as we dont waste a top 50 draft pick on a ruck I am happy.
Im still a bit uncertain why hes supposedly such a s*** bloke ?

[MCG-Unit]

Don't mind if Jolly is taken as a delisted free agent, as a back up ruck. Surely they need someone in case Hickey or Stanley go down.
Whether it's Jolly, West, Giles, McKernan, Spencer or Hille (out of retirement).

Don't want rebuilding to mean Saints are fodder for teams every week.

Jolly might be the best - may still have 1-2 years in him and hopefully the medical will determine whether there is any long term debilitating injury that supposedly prevents him from jumping. Plus the coaching part.

The more urgent need IMO is bigger bodied inside mids, 3 or 4 would be ideal..........

[gringo]

As I said I'm no fan but the thing he does have is experience and we are vulnerable if we get an injury as Pierce and holmes are still a year from being viable options as first ruck.

[BigMart]

SW thought TDL was a 'good fit' or Pelchin or both?

I reckon he is a first class arrogant prick, he openly bagged others, team mates and media on that crap footy show on Sundays and wrote garbage in the paper, usually a whinge...

Reasonable player.... About as good as Ben will get....

[groupie1]

If you don't like jolly then that is a good reason to get him and play him at sandy all year as a backup for catastrophes.

I like your thinking...

[Hurricane]

The hesitation I have outside his attitude is how big a contract he might want.

Jolly is, as has been said, a duel premiership ruckman who has been around for a while. He isn't an idiot. Even if he is he will have an agent/manager who isn't. He will know that we need an experienced ruckman and have cap space. My concern is that he would try and bail us up for money that could be better spent elswhere.

BANG BANG

[Devilhead]

The hesitation I have outside his attitude is how big a contract he might want.

Jolly is, as has been said, a duel premiership ruckman who has been around for a while. He isn't an idiot. Even if he is he will have an agent/manager who isn't. He will know that we need an experienced ruckman and have cap space. My concern is that he would try and bail us up for money that could be better spent elswhere.

BANG BANG

He's 33 years old - it is either us or retire - wouldnt think we would be that desperate for him that we would let him hold us to ransom

He will be back-up for Hickey and Stanley if one them goes down injured - he will also be used as a mentor most likely to all 3 of our young rucks.

We would be stupid not to spell this out to him and he would be stupid if he didnt realise what his role would be anyway

Hey Darren this is what we are offering and this is the way its going to be - take it or leave it

[plugger66]

good idea imo to get jolly to the club for no cost.
Great spread of rucks on our list with Jolly ....Hiclkey Stanley and Pierce are all still young
Jolly to play a handful of games when needed

It does cost. it costs us a pick in the draft or the delisting of a contracted player. It always costs something. Understand why they are doing it but not sure we need to do it. Certainly doesnt worry me what sort of guy he is. Im sure we have other dickheads on our list.

Clearly Plugger, I was referring to draft picks when I said it will cost us nothing. We just add him to our list without losing a draft pick in any of the 2013 drafts.

As for his salary, we need to pay 95% of the salary cap (or some such minimum amount) .. I cant see how we can reach this amount if Fisher and Dal leave, even one of them... so I would guess total salary payments will not increase if he comes, once they juggle all the contracts to make sure we pay the full 95%...

As for the list, if it means a player gets delisted and even has a contract payed out.. then so be it... again we can probably do this and still be at the minimum of the salary cap....All our players were given opportunities this year.. Some look like they are not AFL standard..
I would not be surprised if TDL is moved on, for example.. if you want you can call that a cost.... but I would attest that it would be paying peanuts.. compared to the high cost of using a high draft pick for a replacement ruck (eg on Longer)

And we also get as a gain a lot of experience to pass on to our young ruck trio and indeed to our entire young playing group

So: cost-benefit analysis seems very positive to me

If you add him to the list you do lose a draft pick though or you must delist someone else as you have pointed out. The money isnt the issue I was taklking about. How poor would our list management be if for the second year in a row we delisted contracted players. It isnt a good imagine for the club if you remember the crap we copped for Winmar last season. I hope if we are going to delist a contracted player they do it early so that player cant complain about not being able to shop himself around in the trade period.

And also if we get Jolly where does he play at sandy when not in the seniors? Pierce needs game time in the ruck but under the new agreement ww will eventually sign with sandy im sure sandy will have more say in the running of the side and jolly would clearly be a better ruck option at this stage of their careers. We have 3 potential ruckmen. Do we really need 4? Im not so sure. By the way I never said lets not get him just said not sure we need him.

[seano1]

hardly mercenary came back to melb due to his wifes illness and her and his family here to support them...Collingwood had a deal with swans so no drama there and now he`s been delisted costs us nothing and due to his age will play for a cheaper price which will save the club some $ and he can help teach younger ones the role he does know his stuff...as for nasty bring it on we need some nasty on the field to help our guys..we dont have one

[SaintPav]

I don't really want him but I can't see both Hickey and Rhys rucking for an entire season.

They could easily both go down.

Is Jolly the right backup given his injury concerns?

[Richter]

hardly mercenary came back to melb due to his wifes illness and her and his family here to support them...Collingwood had a deal with swans so no drama there and now he`s been delisted costs us nothing and due to his age will play for a cheaper price which will save the club some $ and he can help teach younger ones the role he does know his stuff...as for nasty bring it on we need some nasty on the field to help our guys..we dont have one

Article on Jolly's wife suffering with postnatal depression.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/t ... 6703419148

Seems like a pretty decent guy.

[Superstar]

no need to use anything on hum if the saints take delisted free agent

Is he a delisted free agent or simply delisted?

If he came to us as some kind of FA I presume that would affect any comp for Dal should he leave us as a FA.

Alternatively, could we simply take him with our last pick in the PSD (I doubt any other club would take him)?

For what's its worth, all delisted players are now automatic free agents. It's a different window though. Jolly could be signed After the trade period, before the draft. There is another window to sign delisted players after the draft.

Delisted players don't need to go in the draft anymore.

[arpstk]

Think the move would be inspired as mature Rookie and Ruck coach would cost Peanuts.
Would be one year only as player .

Agree knows his craft and hope he does have some nasty about him

[PJ]

I think we need more pr*cks we are way to nice as it is.

[lefty]

Jolly is a hack, is crap, and is smug. I have no idea why we'd go for Jolly.

If you're going to rebuild with youth (22 and under) then do it.

Don't waste my time getting a "experienced" ruckman.

Jolly is 100% a waste of time.

[PJ]

I really think people just do not understand why you pick up someone like Jolly. He is back-up while inexperienced young players are developing, he provides additional coaching support and adds to our player mentor role while we build what is fast becoming one of the youngest lists in the league. We also need to build our coaching base.

Unless you know the guy personally comments about his persona are pointless and to be pretty blunt just sound ignorant. If you want to appear stupid then go ahead and make stupid posts.

[St Ick]

I really think people just do not understand why you pick up someone like Jolly. He is back-up while inexperienced young players are developing, he provides additional coaching support and adds to our player mentor role while we build what is fast becoming one of the youngest lists in the league. We also need to build our coaching base.

Unless you know the guy personally comments about his persona are pointless and to be pretty blunt just sound ignorant. If you want to appear stupid then go ahead and make stupid posts.

Agree, very ignorant. Pretty bloody poor form to be honest.

I think others want us to spend a first rounder on Longer, so that Hickey or Longer will the be wasted in the twos ultimately stunting their development, then the same ppl will criticise us for spending pick 17 on Longer when Dumont went at 17 and wins the rising star, the same ppl will then blame the club for spending two first rounders in consecutive years on rucks. I can't see why we'd spend up big on a ruckman, and our rucks are very inexperienced, so Jolly is a wonderful fit with his big body and knowledge. We need mids and backs, or at least we need to spend our early picks on these types.