WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB – JAKE MELKSHAM

[Mach5 4,767]

I think Tyrone Vickery should be enough evidence that things aren't always so clear cut & final.

[jackaub 1,402]

NO!

[Moonshadow 17,675]

4 years at $400k+ for a guy who will simply bolster the talent of our depth? No thanks.

[picket fence 17,035]

Wouldn't offer him 40 Cents!!

[daisycutter 29,603]

Wouldn't offer him 40 Cents!!

or 40 pesos

[hells bells 2,023]

Prefer others

[waynewussell 5,220]

Can't read any more of this (insert Irish word for excrement) without offering an opinion...

MFC can not get whoever is available (for so many obvious reasons I do not have to list!)

Jake Melksham would be comfortable playing for Bombers if they offered more than is on the table (and they probably will)

He is a better AFL player than 13 players that are on our list at the moment!

If we are his second choice for a three year deal then count our blessings in a cut-throat, fire-sale period... depending n what we have to give up to secure him.

THAT IS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER... What do we have to give up?

Anyone who is shooting from the hip about his worth should do no more than watch his most recent game... if you have the time.

I already know that Jake has the character and motivation to be a very worthwhile addition to our list.

The denigration here of his ability and achievement to date is pathetic.

[rpfc 28,252]

Meh.

I mean, he would be great for midfield depth, but how deep?

If Goodwin sees something then back your man I guess.

But...

Meh.

[bing181 9,193]

4 years at $400k+ for a guy who will simply bolster the talent of our depth? No thanks.

That's what has been reported, but whether that's the case or not, we don't know. And never will.

I'd be worried about the WADA situation more than anything else. Not going to end well I suspect, and then what?

[Palace Dees 2,270]

I ask the question, do we have room for both James Harmes and Jake Melksham's teeth in the same club?

[SaberFang 7,151]

I wonder if the club would build any clauses into the contract in the scenario he gets banned?

[Redleg 40,817]

I'm with you but sadly we don't get a say.

Pity about that, as if we did in the Prendergast years, we would now have a much better list.

Just as a few examples, I recall WJ's and my anger at being told we were taking Gysberts instead of Daniel Talia on draft night and the heavy push on here for Hall and Darling in their years.

[Jaded No More 68,866]

Pity about that, as if we did in the Prendergast years, we would now have a much better list.

Just as a few examples, I recall WJ's and my anger at being told we were taking Gysberts instead of Daniel Talia on draft night and the heavy push on here for Hall and Darling in their years.

[daisycutter 29,603]

Can't read any more of this (insert Irish word for excrement) without offering an opinion...

MFC can not get whoever is available (for so many obvious reasons I do not have to list!)

Jake Melksham would be comfortable playing for Bombers if they offered more than is on the table (and they probably will)

He is a better AFL player than 13 players that are on our list at the moment!

If we are his second choice for a three year deal then count our blessings in a cut-throat, fire-sale period... depending n what we have to give up to secure him.

THAT IS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER... What do we have to give up?

Anyone who is shooting from the hip about his worth should do no more than watch his most recent game... if you have the time.

I already know that Jake has the character and motivation to be a very worthwhile addition to our list.

The denigration here of his ability and achievement to date is pathetic.

thanks, jake

[beelzebub 23,313]

Can't read any more of this (insert Irish word for excrement) without offering an opinion...

MFC can not get whoever is available (for so many obvious reasons I do not have to list!)

Jake Melksham would be comfortable playing for Bombers if they offered more than is on the table (and they probably will)

He is a better AFL player than 13 players that are on our list at the moment!

If we are his second choice for a three year deal then count our blessings in a cut-throat, fire-sale period... depending n what we have to give up to secure him.

THAT IS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER... What do we have to give up?

Anyone who is shooting from the hip about his worth should do no more than watch his most recent game... if you have the time.

I already know that Jake has the character and motivation to be a very worthwhile addition to our list.

The denigration here of his ability and achievement to date is pathetic.

wada says hello

[mo64 5,853]

Can't read any more of this (insert Irish word for excrement) without offering an opinion...

MFC can not get whoever is available (for so many obvious reasons I do not have to list!)

Jake Melksham would be comfortable playing for Bombers if they offered more than is on the table (and they probably will)

He is a better AFL player than 13 players that are on our list at the moment!

If we are his second choice for a three year deal then count our blessings in a cut-throat, fire-sale period... depending n what we have to give up to secure him.

THAT IS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER... What do we have to give up?

Anyone who is shooting from the hip about his worth should do no more than watch his most recent game... if you have the time.

I already know that Jake has the character and motivation to be a very worthwhile addition to our list.

The denigration here of his ability and achievement to date is pathetic.

So that means that there are 27 better players on our list. That makes Melksham a fringe player at a poor club, as he is at Essendon.

[Radar Detector 1,347]

The draft and trade caper is all about what you get for what you give up. Melksham is a largely known quantity with both good and bad attributes. Would ye be better than some on our list? Yes. Would he be guaranteed best 22? No. Would he improve our depth? Depends on who else goes out and in.

I would make the assumption that McKenzie, Riley, Terlich et al will be gone anyway and replaced with top 40ish pick in the draft. The likes of Brayshaw, Stretch and ANB based on last year's draft. So who would Melksham really be replacing? Is he an updgrade on Matt Jones and Bail? Probably. Watts, Garland or Howe? Probably not.

It's ridiculous to compare this situation with Garlett who was also a known quantity (a 40-goal a year forward for most of his career) and one that we picked up for steak knives. And it's even more ridiculous to compare him with an A-grade midfielder who will instantly transform our best 22.

Like RPFC said... meh. Should be one of those late trade period resolutions once you can see where the dust has settled on everyone else.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

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.

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

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.

In truth, you lost me at 'top ten draft pick means there's clearly something there'. He was taken one pick ahead of Gysberts.

And you kind of managed to get worse from there.

Having a few close friends who are Essendon supporters, I've known pretty much the whole of Melksham's career up close. The reason? A lot of Bomber fans get wound up every time they see him. "Here comes a turnover", "oh, let's see him go high and give away a free", or the more simply "what's the point of getting to a contest if you can't actually make a contest". I actually had a bit of sympathy for poor little Milkshake, because he definitely tried. You could see his legs pumping along all day, but the results were a lot like out-of-form Brock Mclean. Get to a contest, fail to really affect result... repeat...

Finally, in a midfield crying out for speed, Melksham ain't the answer.

You comparison to Garland, and dismissal of any meaning to the Melbourne Football Club Best & Fairest, is odd. I can't think of a time in fifteen years as a member where the Bluey was ever voted on by 'the board', as you say. There have been 'all the coaches', 'the head coach', 'the coaches and even some player input', 'the coaches with Cameron Schwab sending them irritating text messages', really a lot of variations, but it has never, ever gone outside the football department.

Personally, I'd recommend trying our luck with a late draft pick, rather than committing to Melksham. Maybe Goodwin is convinced that all the guy needs is some special attention to really improve his game. If we get him, I'll have a little chuckle and look forward to being annoyed by my Essendon friends, but won't write him off completely, not right away. Maybe he will, like Mclean, turn things around and manage a couple of years of solid contribution before fading again.

This can be in reply to both of your posts:

Whether or not I could see Martin reach the level of football he produced last year isn't really relevant. It's the fact that he made such a significant step forward as a player. I think it's fair to say he hadn't shown much at all throughout his time with us which is backed by us letting him go for not much in return.

It's also irrelevant that you weren't happy that he left. The fact is, he is now playing really consistent and competitive football at a DIFFERENT club and it's clear to me that a change of clubs contributed to this change in his playing form. How much or little I'm not sure. Are you refuting that? He became the player he is now after a change of clubs.

As for the drafting comment and comparisons between Melksham, Morton and Sylvia, I really should have prefaced my first comment by saying the following:

During the BP recruiting years, it has now become fairly obvious that many of the players we picked including most if not all of our top 20 picks completely lacked certain key attributes/personality traits. For example: Self-determined and driven characters, extremely competitive, naturally hard working players.

I'm not sure if you've realised that under the new recruiting department, those types of attributes/personality traits are now the ones at the top of the list for players who are being brought to our club.

Melksham, (unlike Watts, Morton, Gysberts, Cook, Blease, Strauss etc) actually possesses those traits which is one reason of many that we'd be interested.

You're right, I shouldn't have just said 'he's a former top 10 draft pick so clearly there's some sort of talent or good mix of attributes there'. I should have gone into more detail about the differences in those attributes and general personality traits. Obviously I'm aware that certain picks are just bad picks. But a pattern has emerged from our previous recruiting compared to the recruiting we are now doing in terms of the 'type' of players we are going for.

Does all of this mean that I'm dying to get Melksham at our club?! No!

'Little Goffy', when you say things like, 'in a midfield crying out for speed, Melksham is not the answer' it just confirms that you don't actually understand why the club would be potentially interested in his services. No [censored] he's not the answer to any of our list problems! Fark. Those comments are infuriating.

If it were possible for the club to attract Bennell, Dangerfield, Treloar, O'Meara and Prestia in one trade period, do you think we'd be talking about this?!

Here are the facts:

*We are not a destination club for top players and we'd be extremely fortunate to land any of the above names in one trade period let alone over the next few years.

*We have the worst list depth and more than likely have the most amount of dead-wood still on our list with a large portion to be moved on over the coming months.

*Because of this reason, it's an unfortunate reality that we need to take our chances on players like Melksham in the hope that a new club will be the catalyst they need for a breakout in form/change in mindset. Ala Stef Martin, Jay Schulz,Ted Richards etc.

*Bringing in new depth players and pushing out old depth players is part of every clubs list management process and for us trying to build a strong brand and playing culture is absolutely necessary.

Every post against the idea of bringing Melksham to the club is for some reason idiotically assuming one or two of the following:

Assuming that the club will pick him up irrespective of the risk that he may be banned from playing.

He'll be brought to the club as a best 22 starting player and contribute to poor performance.

We'll be paying way overs for him.

We'd be better off with McKenzie, Matt Jones, Bail instead of him as depth.

Completely writing off the idea that a change of clubs could actually be what he needs as a player.

Scratch the [censored] surface and you'll see a whole lot of reasons as to why we'd be potentially interested in bringing him to our club.

Edited September 14, 2015 by stevethemanjordan

[beelzebub 23,313]

Every post against the idea of bringing Melksham to the club is for some reason idiotically assuming one or two of the following:

He'll be brought to the club as a best 22 starting player and contribute to poor performance.

We'll be paying way overs for him.

We'd be better off with McKenzie, Matt Jones, Bail instead of him as depth.

Completely writing off the idea that a change of clubs could actually be what he needs as a player.

Scratch the [censored] surface and you'll see a whole lot of reasons as to why we'd be potentially interested in bringing him to our club.

where in your appreciation of this do you account for the idea he probably wont be playing for ANYONE in 2016 ?

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

where in your appreciation of this do you account for the idea he probably wont be playing for ANYONE in 2016 ?

I'm assuming that they'll be monetary fines rather than bans.

I also should have prefaced my argument with that.

Obviously if there's a chance of him being banned then we won't be picking him up but no doubt the club know more about that.

Will edit, thanks.

Edited September 14, 2015 by stevethemanjordan

[beelzebub 23,313]

I'm assuming that they'll be monetary fines rather than bans.

I also should have prefaced my argument with that.

Obviously if there's a chance of him being banned then we won't be picking him up but no doubt the club know more about that.

Will edit, thanks.

why...WADA issue "Holidays" to athletes

[waynewussell 5,220]

"So that means that there are 27 better players on our list. That makes Melksham a fringe player at a poor club, as he is at Essendon."

No mo, It means he would, in my opinion, be in our top 27 at the moment.

​

[binman 42,628]

I really only watch demon games these days (with the exception of finals). And when i do i can't distinguish between opposition players and unless they kick a bag or are really cutting us up don't even notice them. So i don't have a clue how good Melksham is.

That said i would two things. Goodwin has coached him and so i assume wold have a pretty good idea of his ability. Secondly since Hird went to the club it is safe to assume it has been a nightmare at EFC, certainly since the ASADA thing blew up. Hard to reach your potentail in that environment i suspect. Perhaps he can at the dees and Roos etc think so then that good enough for me

Edited September 14, 2015 by binman

[Red N Blue Society 165]

Melksham is very average at best..We've had enough of his type at Melbourne of late...No thanks.

AAA+ range mids as Roosy said & not DDD- Duds who go missing out of the best 22 frequently..

[G-max 154]

Looks like we're being used as leverage again.

I hope we're building up credit with agents with all of these stories about us being linked to players. Anytime an agent needs one of their players re-signed they come to Melbourne, we publicly express interest and soon afterwards they re-sign with their club. I'm probably giving our list management more credit than they're due, but this is how things work in the NBA. Rather than being a [censored] bag to agents we build a positive relationship which comes in handy when we negotiate with any of their players who we actually want.

A quick survey of Essendon supporters at work: "Go ahead, take him..."