WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB – JAKE MELKSHAM

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,654]

Which isn't often, let's be honest.

Sadly, I don't think you are joking

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,654]

Or..... it just makes sense? Considering he'll be on our list for more than... this year?

It's logic big dawg. I agree his year wasn't great. Underwhelming. Does it mean I think he was a bad pickup? Far too early to make that call.

The argument for Melksham is there. Which is why the club are interested bro.

Along these lines, there should be no more criticism of BP as a recruiter until everyone he recruited departs the club.

We have all been unfair on our bro

[Bang Bang Bang 5,839]

stevethemanjordan, you talk like you know it all, but that's a lot of text with very little actual substance.

Comparing Melksham with the likes of Matt Jones, Bail and Terlich is a [censored] poor argument, in fact it just highlights the type of player Melksham is. Better than those 3, wow, what a game changer.

Melksham is no good, hasn't been any good in his first 6 years and that won't change.

Try aiming a bit higher.

Matt Jones did crack it for 9 games this year, nearly half the season! if getting Melksham helps decrease that figure to 0 in 2016 then I can see the rationale. It's a fairly weak argument though.

[stuie 7,374]

This time of year everyone seems to panic about every recruit/trade not being a Dangerfield or Fyfe. Let's not forget we have other spots to fill too, like those of Bail, M.Jones, Terlich, McKenzie etc. Just because we're seemingly into someone as a trade doesn't mean we're offering 10 years at 1mil a year. IF we are interested in Melksham it's clearly to bolster the talent of our depth, not to take the spot of Bernie.

We can talk to more than one player at a time, and I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be going after Milkshake at the expense of going after Danger.

Let's get some perspective on our list. Melksham is clearly better than our current depth options in Riley, M.Jones, McKenzie and on and on... So he would improve that part of our list.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Right. Well I'll give Lamumba more than 'one' average year before I judge whether or not he's a good pickup. In fact I might wait until his time is up at the MFC and then reflect on his contribution and whether or not he was a good pickup for us or not.

But good on you for saying that.

exactly.

he is a running back/winger that we needed, to instill into our list & gameplan. he's a good start, to change from the likes of Bail & MJones, Mckenzie etc.

These are all just stepping stones along our new journey, with a footy dept who know the right way about things, but we still have to take little steps across this pond, as the bigger fish haven't wanted to leap onto our Lilly, in recent times.

[dee-luded 2,959]

It's spelt 'Lumumba', have some respect.

Nice and easy approach to wait wait for the career to be over before making a call.

Why bother arguing in favour of Melksham before we've even got him then?

i shaw am glad that someone saw & reported on the important details, in this sorry saga of all our woes. goodonya DA

[Gator 17,481]

Yes, regretfully so.

I honestly thought he'd have trouble putting on weight from early photos and clearly I'm wrong.

Is this the same BenHur trying to create a cool and new online identity?

You'll also look silly if Melksham ends up at our club.

The one and the same, although I prefer Hannabal, but alas,that's a lifetime ago and my poor old dog is dead anyway (she was Hanna for short). Btw, I've never tried to hide this, although some seem to think it's a win if they "out me".

Anyway, I'm all about love and peace these days

I don't want Melksham, because he's just another C-grader. I accept he has some AFL traits and that Goodwin sees something, but after 6 years I'd rather back the draft.

Besides, with Trengove (who I've always rated and believe will make it), plus Petracca, Stretch, ANB, vanDenberg, Kent, Harmes, etc., I think he'll struggle for a game.

I didn't want Lumumba and nothing has changed my mind.

I'm not averse to genuine class, but I see no point in bringing in more very average players. I'd rather back the draft.

Edited September 12, 2015 by ProDee

[stuie 7,374]

The one and the same, although I prefer Hannabal, but alas,that's a lifetime ago and my poor old dog is dead anyway (she was Hanna for short). Btw, I've never tried to hide this, although some seem to think it's a win if they "out me".

Anyway, I'm all about love and peace these days

I don't want Melksham, because he's just another C-grader. I accept he has some AFL traits and that Goodwin sees something, but after 6 years I'd rather back the draft.

Besides, with Trengove (who I've always rated and believe will make it), plus Petracca, Stretch, ANB, vanDenberg, Kent, Harmes, etc., I think he'll struggle for a game.

I didn't want Lamumba and nothing has changed my mind.

I'm not averse to genuine class, but I see no point in bringing in more very average players. I'd rather back the draft.

Yeah just think, we could have had two absolute guns with picks 61 an 79, instead of that useless Garlett...

Edited September 12, 2015 by stuie

[bing181 9,330]

Drums beating fairly loudly on this one.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-trade-period-2015-jake-melksham-to-be-either-at-essendon-or-melbourne-in-2016-20150912-gjl0ka.html

[dee-luded 2,959]

The one and the same, although I prefer Hannabal, but alas,that's a lifetime ago and my poor old dog is dead anyway (she was Hanna for short). Btw, I've never tried to hide this, although some seem to think it's a win if they "out me".

Anyway, I'm all about love and peace these days

I don't want Melksham, because he's just another C-grader. I accept he has some AFL traits and that Goodwin sees something, but after 6 years I'd rather back the draft.

Besides, with Trengove (who I've always rated and believe will make it), plus Petracca, Stretch, ANB, vanDenberg, Kent, Harmes, etc., I think he'll struggle for a game.

I didn't want Lamumba and nothing has changed my mind.

I'm not averse to genuine class, but I see no point in bringing in more very average players. I'd rather back the draft.

we can't have too many kids all at once... as the ratio is important in maintaining a solid comradeship without losing a healthy direction... see GCSuns.

Steady as she goes is the way forward, with players we can bring in easily, if the young talent messes up, getting too smart by half.

Melksham fits the bill as bringing up the level of our list... just hes not one of the A graders that we are still chasing.

Edited September 12, 2015 by dee-luded

[beelzebub 23,383]

Drums beating fairly loudly on this one.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-trade-period-2015-jake-melksham-to-be-either-at-essendon-or-melbourne-in-2016-20150912-gjl0ka.html

They're just repeating earlier article

[BAMF 4,387]

Matt Jones did crack it for 9 games this year, nearly half the season! if getting Melksham helps decrease that figure to 0 in 2016 then I can see the rationale. It's a fairly weak argument though.

Matt Jones got 9 games in 2015. How many would he get next year?

Harmes, Stretch, ANB, Vandenberg, White, Brayshaw all went past him this year.

Add in Petracca, Trengove and Kent who are all returning from injuries.

That places Matt Jones at the back of the group of Newton, Michie, Toumpas and JKH.

Thats pretty much everyone on the list who will be ahead of him in the pecking order. So bringing in Melksham will have very little impact on how many games M.Jones plays next year.

[MadAsHell 4,215]

I used to actually like your posts and agreed with most of them, but for you not see how Melksham would be in our best 22, that's a bit of a worry.....they have in a way served their time already, any punishment they will be given will consider how the past 2 years or so has affected them all...

So what's you're opinion of Goodwin now??

1. The only way he would be in our best 22 would be if he was the only player we traded in and we let go of all of Howe, Watts & Grimed.

2. As for suspensions the 34 will get. The time served ship has sailed. Good chance they'll get a season at least.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Yeah just think, we could have had two absolute guns with picks 61 an 79, instead of that useless Garlett...

You're comparing Garlett with Melksham?

[CityDee 738]

Pass we should forget about essendrug until they have served their sentence .

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

Ironic that we apparently would've picked Melksham with pick 11 in 2009 (which we used on Gysberts) given that Essendon picked Melksham with pick 10.

I'll back Simon Goodwin's judgement on this one.

[daisycutter 29,745]

They're just repeating earlier article

in fact it was the same article - lol

[the fork 357]

God... make it go away...

[Dr. Gonzo 24,322]

Please name your best 22 for next year including Melksham.

How many clubs go through a season only using the same 22 that line up in Round 1? Reality is its about whether he would be in our top 30-odd players who will rotate through the season.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

We should be looking for the next Vandenberg instead of perusing turnips like this!

And 4 years, is that a joke? He's a WADA boy. God I hope this is untrue.

[Deecisive 1,709]

interesting reading bigfooty thread on Melksham and seeing the change in attitude from a day or so ago when they wanted to trade him for anything they could get even a 4th round pick. Then once the Melbourne interest story broke he is suddenly worth a whole lot more, maybe 2nd round or better. you have to laugh at the stupidity of it all.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

interesting reading bigfooty thread on Melksham and seeing the change in attitude from a day or so ago when they wanted to trade him for anything they could get even a 4th round pick. Then once the Melbourne interest story broke he is suddenly worth a whole lot more, maybe 2nd round or better. you have to laugh at the stupidity of it all.

To be fair that happens with all clubs supporters.

Everyone here would trade Matt Jones in a heartbeat. All of a sudden there is interest in him from a club and some posters are trying to package him in to some sort of deal to land one of their star players, as if he is suddenly worth a whole lot. Happens every year.

[Jaded No More 68,974]

Ironic that we apparently would've picked Melksham with pick 11 in 2009 (which we used on Gysberts) given that Essendon picked Melksham with pick 10.

I'll back Simon Goodwin's judgement on this one.

Good god. So many terrible repressed draft memories flooding back!

[Gator 17,481]

Yeah just think, we could have had two absolute guns with picks 61 an 79, instead of that useless Garlett...

You're a dill Stu and never fail to salute.

All positions on the list are important. Do you need reminding that Harmes, White and vanDenberg are rookies ? I also like the look of Max King.

Silly campaigner.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,095]

As an example, never in my wildest dreams did I think Stefan Martin would become a really consistent and valuable AFL ruckman let alone last this long on an AFL list. It's clear he needed a change.

But looking at the Melksham case, we're talking about a former number 10 draft pick. Clearly, he was rated. He actually possesses attributes that our list lacks. I can't understand why the same posters who vehemently defend the development of Jack Watts are happy to completely write off a player who has been similarly frustrating for supporters..

Firstly, just because you didn't see what Stef was capable of doesn't mean that others couldn't. I wasn't at all happy when he left.

Secondly, You're declaring that because Melksham is a former top 10 pick he must be a good pick up. How about we take Morton and Sylvia as delisted free agents then? They were both TOP FIVE PICKS!!!! You need to accept that sometimes clubs get these picks wrong, or they stuff up the development badly enough to wreck them.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-trade-period-2015-jake-melksham-to-be-either-at-essendon-or-melbourne-in-2016-20150912-gjl0ka.html

You may notice the best picture they have of him is one where he's being beaten to the ball.

Just because the Bombers supposedly play hardball on trading doesn't mean we'll cough up more than his value. The last 2 years have shown us to be very smart at getting more than we give. Garlett, Vince, Lumumba, Cross. Any exceptions? Wouldn't we expect the list builders to remain smart? If we can get him for value, we'd be crazy not to as he's just coming into the ripe stage of his career.

Actually, we've shown ourselves to consistently pay overs for players we don't really need. Look at the overpayment for Dawes and Lamumba. The Bombers will demand more than the Pies did. We got lucky with Vince and Garlett was out the door anyway. They took some junk picks rather than see him go FA.