WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB – JAKE MELKSHAM

[sue 9,096]

That makes no sense. His manager states that it's Essendon or us, and you say that it's a scrap of info? It was pretty categoric if you ask me, and proved to be correct.

My point was that EFC blabbed it, not MFC. My reference to scraps was not to that statement which as you say was categoric. It was to the other speculative stuff we've been drowned in for the last 2 weeks.

[bing181 9,193]

Once an uncontracted player commits to a club as his destination, 99% of the time that's where he'll end up. Which is why we held the upperhand on the Melksham deal.

FGS, get over it. In the larger scheme of things, it just doesn't matter - though Melksham was always worth around what we paid.

BTW, Cam McCarthy (GWS) says hi.

Typical of so many posters on this board, but across every club at the moment. We were screwed, player X was worth much more than what we got/we were screwed, overpaying for player X.

[DeeSpencer 25,444]

Still amazed how many posters care about the difference between pick 25 and 29.

I amazed that you or anyone else don't.

AFL footy is such a tough industry and games every week are decided by small margins.

Clubs scrap for every dollar from us fans, they scrap for every dollar to spend on coaches and fitness staff and so on.

Collingwood could've accepted picks 5 and 25 for Beams last year but instead asked for more and got Crisp who now looks like a very good player who should play 100-150 games for them.

I'm all for paying up in a trade when it's needed. But when it's not then why pay more than you could?

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

I amazed that you or anyone else don't.

AFL footy is such a tough industry and games every week are decided by small margins.

Clubs scrap for every dollar from us fans, they scrap for every dollar to spend on coaches and fitness staff and so on.

Collingwood could've accepted picks 5 and 25 for Beams last year but instead asked for more and got Crisp who now looks like a very good player who should play 100-150 games for them.

I'm all for paying up in a trade when it's needed. But when it's not then why pay more than you could?

It's just that it is pretty unlikely that our preferred player at 25 will be gone at 29

[mo64 5,853]

FGS, get over it. In the larger scheme of things, it just doesn't matter - though Melksham was always worth around what we paid.

BTW, Cam McCarthy (GWS) says hi.

Typical of so many posters on this board, but across every club at the moment. We were screwed, player X was worth much more than what we got/we were screwed, overpaying for player X.

Do you understand the difference between "contracted" and "uncontracted", or just couldn't comprehend what I wrote?

[KingDingAling 3,752]

I amazed that you or anyone else don't.

AFL footy is such a tough industry and games every week are decided by small margins.

Clubs scrap for every dollar from us fans, they scrap for every dollar to spend on coaches and fitness staff and so on.

Collingwood could've accepted picks 5 and 25 for Beams last year but instead asked for more and got Crisp who now looks like a very good player who should play 100-150 games for them.

I'm all for paying up in a trade when it's needed. But when it's not then why pay more than you could?

Yep, and so called experts were calling 5 and 25 enough. Collingwood stood their ground, and they got Crisp - who went onto finish 3rd in their B&F. The Pies turned a negative (loss of Beams) into a positive, and they did so because they weren't in a rush to get the deal done. They stood their ground and were rewarded accordingly.

[Akum 2,660]

Yep, and so called experts were calling 5 and 25 enough. Collingwood stood their ground, and they got Crisp - who went onto finish 3rd in their B&F. The Pies turned a negative (loss of Beams) into a positive, and they did so because they weren't in a rush to get the deal done. They stood their ground and were rewarded accordingly.

Could it be possible that there's a slight difference in quality of the merchandise being traded - Beams vs Howe?

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

Could it be possible that there's a slight difference in quality of the merchandise being traded - Beams vs Howe?

The other difference is that the Pies wanted to hang on to Beams, whereas I suspect we were keen to get rid of Howe.

[KingDingAling 3,752]

Could it be possible that there's a slight difference in quality of the merchandise being traded - Beams vs Howe?

I wasn't specially talking about Howe or MFC. I was just referring to way Collingwood handled the Beams deal. At the time of the Beams deal, the footy media were criticizing Collingwood for not rushing and taking 5 and 25. The Pies stood their ground and Crisp was later included in the deal. Crisp then went on to have a great year. That is the only point I was trying to make.

[bing181 9,193]

Do you understand the difference between "contracted" and "uncontracted", or just couldn't comprehend what I wrote?

Can't present your case without getting personal?

[djr 1,433]

I amazed that you or anyone else don't.

AFL footy is such a tough industry and games every week are decided by small margins.

Clubs scrap for every dollar from us fans, they scrap for every dollar to spend on coaches and fitness staff and so on.

Collingwood could've accepted picks 5 and 25 for Beams last year but instead asked for more and got Crisp who now looks like a very good player who should play 100-150 games for them.

I'm all for paying up in a trade when it's needed. But when it's not then why pay more than you could?

On what grounds do you say that we paid more for Melksham? Just because we received p29 later you are jumping up and down saying that Ess would have accepted p29. You don't know. They are hard arses to deal with and if we were too we would still be at a standoff with supporters yelling to "do something".

Footy clubs enter each trade period with specific goals to try and secure players they have identified during the season/s eg Melksham, Kennedy and Bugg that will improve their list. The club obviously believed that Melksham was worth a 2nd round pick and Kennedy around a late 2nd to 3rd and they got the job done around those picks.

No one will remember the noise and drama involving these trades in years to come. All we will remember is what great pickups they were.

Edited October 20, 2015 by djr

[rpfc 28,252]

I wasn't specially talking about Howe or MFC. I was just referring to way Collingwood handled the Beams deal. At the time of the Beams deal, the footy media were criticizing Collingwood for not rushing and taking 5 and 25. The Pies stood their ground and Crisp was later included in the deal. Crisp then went on to have a great year. That is the only point I was trying to make.

Well, it's a misguided point for the reasons already stated. We couldn't have played this game of trade chicken - we didn't want to keep him!

Let's get the pitchforks out for when we lose a Beams calibre player.

[Gorgoroth 12,920]

If we are trying to trade pick 29 out for another player then the point is moot, maybe a pick in the 30's doesn't get bug, but 29 does...

Who knows.

I've warmed to having Milkshake play for us.

[Nasher 33,607]

Arguing over whether we should have used 29 (which we didn't have yet) instead of 25 just reeks of whinging for the sake of it. Practically speaking the chances of that changing the player we select in the draft very remote.

[mo64 5,853]

If we are trying to trade pick 29 out for another player then the point is moot, maybe a pick in the 30's doesn't get bug, but 29 does...

Who knows.

I've warmed to having Milkshake play for us.

Bugg hasn't been offered a contract by GWS, so anything other than an exchange of late picks would be stupidity on our part.

Arguing over whether we should have used 29 (which we didn't have yet) instead of 25 just reeks of whinging for the sake of it. Practically speaking the chances of that changing the player we select in the draft very remote.

Tell that to the other 16 clubs who all haggle over what seems to be minor draft picks (excluding Hawthorn who haven't had to worry about the draft in years). With the points sytem in play for academy/FS selections, it does matter. We were still in play for other deals, so why not try to improve our draft position and potentially try to unlock another deal.

Edited October 20, 2015 by mo64

[rpfc 28,252]

Bugg hasn't been offered a contract by GWS, so anything other than an exchange of late picks would be stupidity on our part.

Tell that to the other 16 clubs who all haggle over what seems to be minor draft picks (excluding Hawthorn who haven't had to worry about the draft in years). With the points sytem in play for academy/FS selections, it does matter. We were still in play for other deals, so why not try to improve our draft position and unpotentially try to unlock another deal.

Bastinac is rumoured to be going to the Lions for ND17 and Bewick...

We are dealing with Essendon here - I was surprised they settled so early with us on ND25 for Melksham.

This haggling stuff is a two way street and while I would put any club to the sword and pick up someone in the PSD - maybe the player doesn't like that answer and maybe he says to his new coach 'well, I would like to stay rather than risk it.'

In the end - I am sorry to say - the difference between ND25 and ND29 is infinitesimal.

[H_T 3,043]

Bastinac is rumoured to be going to the Lions for ND17 and Bewick...

We are dealing with Essendon here - I was surprised they settled so early with us on ND25 for Melksham.

This haggling stuff is a two way street and while I would put any club to the sword and pick up someone in the PSD - maybe the player doesn't like that answer and maybe he says to his new coach 'well, I would like to stay rather than risk it.'

In the end - I am sorry to say - the difference between ND25 and ND29 is infinitesimal.

And there may be a chance we get around that pick back if a bundle for Bugg nets 26/27...which would be a pretty solid trade period performance.

[Willmoy1947 4,081]

Somebody know how Melksham went during any finals that he participated in, as this is extra experience we are picking up

and as soon as next year hopefully it could be pretty important.

[Deecisive 1,709]

the problem we faced with Howe was that he was uncontracted that left us no leverage over him at all. If he had been under contract we could have told him he was staying, that may have pushed up his price. the only threat we had was to send him to the psd which would have been cutting off our nose to spite our face. we got what we got, lets start to look forward to the inclusion of some harder and faster players.

[What 18,810]

Somebody know how Melksham went during any finals that he participated in, as this is extra experience we are picking up

and as soon as next year hopefully it could be pretty important.

Hes never played in a final. Dont forget he comes from Essendope, not a proper AFL team.

[G-max 154]

I've just re-watched Melksham's efforts in round 1 and 2 this year and was impressed with his efforts. Against Sydney he went head-to-head with Hannebery at stoppages and had 20 disposals (10 contested) at 60% effectiveness and laid 9 tackles. Against Hawthorn he went head-to-head with Jordan Lewis at stoppages and had 26 disposals (4 contested) at 57% effectiveness. He also had 12 inside 50s including the key centre clearance that led to the match winning goal. I chose to watch these games because they were against quality opposition and came before WADA re-opened the investigation.

In both matches he was playing more of an outside midfield role and generally only got involved if the ball spilled out or a teammate found him by hand. His accuracy is one of the biggest knocks against him but when he had space he managed to find a target effectively most of the time. When under pressure he blazed away by foot though not necessarily in a bad way - as his inside 50 count against Hawthorn suggests. By hands he was good at finding a teammate and it was encouraging to see him provide a shepherd after he'd offloaded it.

He showed a lot of toughness and went very hard at the contest. A couple of times he was roughed and he didn't back down (even from bigger players like Tippett). He tackled hard and was quick to get back to his feet in order to stay in the play. I got the feeling he wasn't applying a hard tag to either Hannebery or Lewis and it was more of a head to head match up. As it was, particularly with Hannebery, Melksham often trailed behind him and probably lacked the pace to stick with him (as do most players).

I think he'll fit in nicely in our midfleld and having watched these games I'm more confident that he'll be in our best 22. I recommend checking these games out. I used my AFL live pass. I'd love to track down some footage of this 3 vote, 29 disposal effort from 2011 in a win against Geelong but I can only watch games back to 2012 with my pass.

[What 18,810]

I've just re-watched Melksham's efforts in round 1 and 2 this year and was impressed with his efforts. Against Sydney he went head-to-head with Hannebery at stoppages and had 20 disposals (10 contested) at 60% effectiveness and laid 9 tackles. Against Hawthorn he went head-to-head with Jordan Lewis at stoppages and had 26 disposals (4 contested) at 57% effectiveness. He also had 12 inside 50s including the key centre clearance that led to the match winning goal. .

Thats very impressive.. they won that game vs the Hawks too. And didn't they lose to the Swans by less than a kick?

Melksham was a key part of both those great efforts

ps. I hate Essenscum

[G-max 154]

12 point win in the end for Sydney. They came back from down 41 and kicked 7 goals in the final term.

With Melksham matching up against them, Hannebery had 26 touches and Lewis had 34.

[ILLDieADemon 804]

I've just re-watched Melksham's efforts in round 1 and 2 this year and was impressed with his efforts. Against Sydney he went head-to-head with Hannebery at stoppages and had 20 disposals (10 contested) at 60% effectiveness and laid 9 tackles. Against Hawthorn he went head-to-head with Jordan Lewis at stoppages and had 26 disposals (4 contested) at 57% effectiveness. He also had 12 inside 50s including the key centre clearance that led to the match winning goal. I chose to watch these games because they were against quality opposition and came before WADA re-opened the investigation.

In both matches he was playing more of an outside midfield role and generally only got involved if the ball spilled out or a teammate found him by hand. His accuracy is one of the biggest knocks against him but when he had space he managed to find a target effectively most of the time. When under pressure he blazed away by foot though not necessarily in a bad way - as his inside 50 count against Hawthorn suggests. By hands he was good at finding a teammate and it was encouraging to see him provide a shepherd after he'd offloaded it.

He showed a lot of toughness and went very hard at the contest. A couple of times he was roughed and he didn't back down (even from bigger players like Tippett). He tackled hard and was quick to get back to his feet in order to stay in the play. I got the feeling he wasn't applying a hard tag to either Hannebery or Lewis and it was more of a head to head match up. As it was, particularly with Hannebery, Melksham often trailed behind him and probably lacked the pace to stick with him (as do most players).

I think he'll fit in nicely in our midfleld and having watched these games I'm more confident that he'll be in our best 22. I recommend checking these games out. I used my AFL live pass. I'd love to track down some footage of this 3 vote, 29 disposal effort from 2011 in a win against Geelong but I can only watch games back to 2012 with my pass

I thought about watching those games but I just can't put myself through watching those Black and Red wankers.

[Axis of Bob 11,674]

An interesting article for those who were upset that we were paying too much for Melksham and thought we should be paying 'hardball' like St Kilda.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/how-harvard-helped-the-dangerfield-deal-20151031-gkno93.html