WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB – JAKE MELKSHAM

[monoccular 17,428]

35 minutes ago, Nasher said:

They probably just took the view that even if he got rubbed out, it would be worth it. One year in the context of a whole career is almost immaterial; he'll come back at the ripe old age of 25 and have another 5+ years.

It's really not that different to drafting a player who does his knee on day 1, although for this he can return fit and with no risk of reoccurrence. I really don't see the big deal.

One could wonder though just how much mental scarring there will / could be.  Certainly returning to play with full commitment at the club that "did this to you" (though not lessening their own responsibility as they were complicit themselves) would be extremely difficult.   Hopefully the change of scenery will help him through.  He could well use the year out for some psychological training to help him with the burden of being widely sledged as a drug cheat as well of course as getting himself superfit for day 1 of the next preseason, and avoiding back yard basketball.  I hope his new club offers him this support although I guess it can't do so officially. 

Edited January 12, 2016 by monoccular

[P-man 13,366]

42 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

I really don't understand this line of thinking. If a player does his knee on day one it's an accident that is unavoidable. MFC recruited Melksham knowing he could be rubbed out for 1 or 2 years & we still followed through & paid the asking price which Essendon demanded from us. 

Your point regarding it only being a year out of his career is an odd one also. A very good to exceptional AFL player will play 10-12 years of good footy. An average player might get around 4-6 good years in his career & most will probably on average play a lot less. Having one year taken out of his career & not being able to train with the club is a blow that we could have minimised at least.

I don't see how the trade can be judged a good one at the moment or glossed over as not a big deal now that Melksham will be out for a year. All these points are without even considering whether he will be a good player for us or not if & when he does get on the field. He has been ordinary at Essendon for a couple of years & if you ask Essendon supporters they weren't fazed to lose him. When I add all these points up it doesn't look like an astute piece of trading, but like all trades we can only view it after the players career is over. I hope for the MFC's sake it does work out, but on the face of it, it is looking like a bad trade.

Everything you say here has merit, including the fact that we can only truly judge the value of the trade in the fullness of time. I doubt Melksham was central to any plans in 2016 so in the immediate term it's a frustration but not a massive loss.

In short, we could sit and stew over what was a reasonably foreseeable outcome, but if he returns in 2017 and hits the ground running, all that stewing will have largely been wasted energy. 

[jackaub 1,402]

5 minutes ago, P-man said:

Everything you say here has merit, including the fact that we can only truly judge the value of the trade in the fullness of time. I doubt Melksham was central to any plans in 2016 so in the immediate term it's a frustration but not a massive loss.

In short, we could sit and stew over what was a reasonably foreseeable outcome, but if he returns in 2017 and hits the ground running, all that stewing will have largely been wasted energy. 

Yes but we needn't be sitting here stewing at all should we?Its the loss of a player worth Pick 25 with no surety for 12 months

In all respects a bad and unnecesary choice

[Nasher 33,616]

55 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

I really don't understand this line of thinking. If a player does his knee on day one it's an accident that is unavoidable. MFC recruited Melksham knowing he could be rubbed out for 1 or 2 years & we still followed through & paid the asking price which Essendon demanded from us. 

Your point regarding it only being a year out of his career is an odd one also. A very good to exceptional AFL player will play 10-12 years of good footy. An average player might get around 4-6 good years in his career & most will probably on average play a lot less. Having one year taken out of his career & not being able to train with the club is a blow that we could have minimised at least.

I don't see how the trade can be judged a good one at the moment or glossed over as not a big deal now that Melksham will be out for a year. All these points are without even considering whether he will be a good player for us or not if & when he does get on the field. He has been ordinary at Essendon for a couple of years & if you ask Essendon supporters they weren't fazed to lose him. When I add all these points up it doesn't look like an astute piece of trading, but like all trades we can only view it after the players career is over. I hope for the MFC's sake it does work out, but on the face of it, it is looking like a bad trade.

The fact that the bulk of your post focuses on whether Melksham is that good a player or not really just enforces my point that the suspension is immaterial to the value of the trade. If Melksham turns out to be a bust, we'll bemoan the poor trade for years, but if he turns out to be a gun in years 2, 3 and 4 and beyond, we'll all be slapping ourselves on the back for it. Both these outcomes and everything in between are independent of his one season suspension, which is why I see it as little more than a 1%er in the total value of the trade.

At the end of 2019 when he's out of contract and we're looking back, we will barely remember that this even happened, given that there would have been 3 footy seasons in between. 

[Spirit of '87 333]

So no comment from MFC at this stage? Haven't seen anything in their website yet. Bulldogs and Port have both at least made statements in some form in relation to their players involved. 

[Dee-licious 1,949]

2 minutes ago, Spirit of '87 said:

So no comment from MFC at this stage? Haven't seen anything in their website yet. Bulldogs and Port have both at least made statements in some form in relation to their players involved. 

And St Kilda. Nothing from the Dees as yet. Now I get we are in Queensland, but I wonder if we are just making sure that we organise everything before we make our statement. I just cannot believe that we wouldnt have had something ready to go on this though. 

[jnrmac 20,062]

1 hour ago, Bonkers said:

I really don't understand this line of thinking. If a player does his knee on day one it's an accident that is unavoidable. MFC recruited Melksham knowing he could be rubbed out for 1 or 2 years & we still followed through & paid the asking price which Essendon demanded from us.

Maybe EFC indemnified us and have to pay his salary for the time off?

You don't know what is in their contracts....

[whatwhat say what 22,750]

no top-up for the dees in 2016.

[demon-4-life 467]

Just saw on his Twitter that Jake and his partner welcomed a baby girl less than a week ago.

I'm a glass half full guy.  Jake gets more time to bond with his daughter.  More important things than kicking a bit of leather around on some grass.

[Forest Demon 4,681]

If we are able to promote a rookie, I would like to see Mitch White get the opportunity. Melksham was recruited to play half back, and while I am sure they could shuffle things a bit, Harmes and Michie are not like for like replacements. White had a very good debut in the last game of last year and pre-season form permitting, don't think he would look out of place on the senior list. Give him the opportunity, put the heat on him, and see if he stands up. I am pretty confident he would succeed.

[CBDees 3,167]

5 minutes ago, Forest Demon said:

If we are able to promote a rookie, I would like to see Mitch White get the opportunity. Melksham was recruited to play half back, and while I am sure they could shuffle things a bit, Harmes and Michie are not like for like replacements. White had a very good debut in the last game of last year and pre-season form permitting, don't think he would look out of place on the senior list. Give him the opportunity, put the heat on him, and see if he stands up. I am pretty confident he would succeed.

Exactly my sentiments. Shame however that Casey effectively lose a good player from their list, however l am one that subscribes strongly to the view that the effected Clubs, particularly Essendon, should be topped up. If they were, the big losers would be the VFL (& the SAFL) through no fault of theirs.

[Wilson7 2,670]

No fan of Jake, up to his neck in the cover up, we don't need people like that at the club, i wish we never recruited him.

[BrisbaneDemon 1,572]

2 minutes ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

No fan of Jake, up to his neck in the cover up, we don't need people like that at the club, i wish we never recruited him.

So Jake was the one behind it all? 

[Wilson7 2,670]

Just now, BrisbaneDemon said:

So Jake was the one behind it all? 

He conspired with the other players to hide and lie about what they did, no excuse in my book mate. He's lucky he didn't get longer, i have zero respect for Melksham or any of the other lying players after reading the finding

[Whispering_Jack 30,104]

2 hours ago, Nasher said:

They probably just took the view that even if he got rubbed out, it would be worth it. One year in the context of a whole career is almost immaterial; he'll come back at the ripe old age of 25 and have another 5+ years.

It's really not that different to drafting a player who does his knee on day 1, although for this he can return fit and with no risk of reoccurrence. I really don't see the big deal.

We knew it was a risk and we accepted it although I can say very clearly that we might well have underestimated the risk involved:-

See my comments in http://demonland.com/forums/topic/38382-the-saga-continues-wada-appeals/?page=148

Quote

The question about the possibility of sanctions against Melksham was asked of Jason Taylor at the club's recent pre draft function and the response was that the club had advice that the possibility of any major sanction was low.

I don't know what source such advice came from but, after a long time in the law, I can say that I would never give that advice to anyone.

I regard a 12 month enforced holiday from the game a "major" sanction.

[MrReims 313]

3 minutes ago, BrisbaneDemon said:

So Jake was the one behind it all? 

Ha ha ha, that's hilarious. It's over now, he's not playing this year and we lost a pick in the 20's but Viv will be a senior player again. LETS ALL PANIC!!! I don't see this trade as being of any huge consequence to us this year so why the venom?

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

3 minutes ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

He conspired with the other players to hide and lie about what they did, no excuse in my book mate. He's lucky he didn't get longer, i have zero respect for Melksham or any of the other lying players after reading the finding

Harsh.

[Wilson7 2,670]

Just now, Clint Bizkit said:

Harsh.

Harsh but true Bizkit, What the players did to cover it up was disgraceful

[poita 3,902]

3 hours ago, Nasher said:

They probably just took the view that even if he got rubbed out, it would be worth it. One year in the context of a whole career is almost immaterial; he'll come back at the ripe old age of 25 and have another 5+ years.

It's really not that different to drafting a player who does his knee on day 1, although for this he can return fit and with no risk of reoccurrence. I really don't see the big deal.

Of course, he could do his knee on day 1 of next season, in which case we would be two years into a four year contract for no return. It was a bad trade at the time, and this confirms it.

[beelzebub 23,370]

Paint this anyway you like but the club has plainly stuffed up here. 

Those who did their diligence and sought to understand properly what was the situation saw this coming. If the club didn't they have been sadly inept.

And we move on to a 2016 without the Milkshake. 

Didn't see that coming

[DSP 1,488]

Great start to the season.

I hope Goody is safe.

[stuie 7,374]

So out of curiosity, how many of those saying this is now a disastrous trade would have expected pick 25 in a weak draft to be a regular 22 player in their first year?

We've got at least 2 experienced AFL people at our club who would have known what went on at Essendon and that Melksham would likely miss a year, so not sure why everyone is acting like we were blindsided by this. Although those people are probably the same ones who were bagging out Mahoney at the start of the trade period without realizing there was a bigger picture.

 

[M_9 2,082]

55 minutes ago, Forest Demon said:

If we are able to promote a rookie, I would like to see Mitch White get the opportunity. ...Harmes and Michie are not like for like replacements....

Hames ain't a rookie.

[Mach5 4,767]

7 minutes ago, DSP said:

Great start to the season.

I hope Goody is safe.

Hahaha how on earth could he not be?

[KingDingAling 3,758]

19 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Paint this anyway you like but the club has plainly stuffed up here. 

Those who did their diligence and sought to understand properly what was the situation saw this coming. If the club didn't they have been sadly inept.

And we move on to a 2016 without the Milkshake. 

Didn't see that coming

Yep. Essendon would be in a lot more trouble if they didn't bend sides over during trade week. What is the value of Melksham atm? Carlisle? Not alot, about as much as it should've been during trade week. St Kilda paid massive overs for Carlise, us for Melksham. I'm more interested in our rookie upgrade atm though. On wards and upwards.