On 12/09/2015 at 03:33, mo64 said:

It all depends on what we give up for him and his contract. I don't want to give up a 2nd round pick (25ish) for a depth player, nor do I want to have a depth player on a 3/4 year contract. I just don't see Melksham as offering any more than another fringe player in Grimes.

Of course, I agree with that.

I'm basing my argument on the fact that we'd be getting him for something like we got for Garlett.

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

From the article it says that a contract hasn't been put on the table by the MFC but that Goodwin is interested. Hopefully if this goes further it is not for anything more than a 3rd or 4th rounder. Judging by our trading in the last few years we wouldn't give too much up for him(fingers crossed we wouldn't). Essendon have a history of being more than awkward to deal with at the trade table. It may be likely that the price we want to pay & what Essendon expect are a fair way apart. All speculative of course.

  On 12/09/2015 at 03:35, AdamFarr said:

I'm just not convinced he's much of an upgrade, if at all on blokes like Matt Jones and Bail. It'd be a step backwards. He can run, but he's a turn over merchant. Sound familiar?

In my opinion he's a better user of the ball than both.

  On 12/09/2015 at 03:33, stevethemanjordan said:

When you're the MFC, you need to do both...

We've seen how hard it is to attract A-grade talent to this club. We're not exactly Disney Land up in here.

If you think that off-loading a bunch of dead-wood and not bringing in upgraded talent that doesn't happen to be A-grade and may not be considered best 22 upon arrival then you're living in fantasy land.

The reality is, on top of targeting serious talent, we need to keep targeting players who will help build depth and help build a competitive environment until it gets to a stage where we won't be delisting 6-8 players a year!

Keep going mate, they will figure it out eventually....

  On 12/09/2015 at 03:35, AdamFarr said:

I'm just not convinced he's much of an upgrade, if at all on blokes like Matt Jones and Bail. It'd be a step backwards in terms of where our list is. He can run, but he's a turn over merchant. Sound familiar?

He is a huge upgrade on these guys, make no mistake about that...

  On 12/09/2015 at 03:33, mo64 said:

It all depends on what we give up for him and his contract. I don't want to give up a 2nd round pick (25ish) for a depth player, nor do I want to have a depth player on a 3/4 year contract. I just don't see Melksham as offering any more than another fringe player in Grimes.

Exactly. I want us to get rid of Grimes too, so to be adding Melksham seems redundant.

  On 12/09/2015 at 03:24, stevethemanjordan said:

Top 10 draft pick means there's clearly 'something' there. You've got to possess either some sort of talent, some elite attributes/traits to get you there.

He's not potentially an upgrade on the list cloggers. He is a [censored] upgrade on them. How anyone can refute that I have no idea... His season in 2013 shits all over any 'best form' we've seen from Bail, McKenzie or Jones.

It sounds much more to me like supporters gathering like vultures in an excitable way only to be talking about their own personal 'dislike' for him. From what I've been reading on this thread, it sounds as if posters don't want him because of this supposed '[censored] attitude' or 'hot-head' character that he is. Is that really a good basis for forming a view on whether or not a player like him could be at the very least an upgrade on our deplorable depth who we've had to hold onto for far too long?

As for his personal attributes and qualities, again I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you.

I see him as someone who is really competitive and has a flair of aggression at the ball and player, he is a really hard runner, he has an ability to hit the scoreboard. I agree he's not an elite kick but I see it as more of a decision making thing than anything else. Similar to Viney.

If we're talking about his draft number I'd say that he possesses qualities that are much more important to the foundation of a side than qualities we've seen with our own past top 10 draft picks who haven't made it. Morton being one. No competitive edge, outside receiver, poor contested player, poor tackler, no elite kick etc.

As for Garland, he's a 28 year old senior figure at our club who's fluctuation in form over the years has been painful to watch. Regardless of the bluey, (which is voted by members of the board), his position in the backline could be filled by someone who provides more than just a 'beat your man' philosophy. The backline is a major problem and I see Garland as someone who in this day and age of football, doesn't provide enough run, intensity, counter attacking play, foot or decision making skills to propel us forward.

Melksham is a young midfielder who even if he was playing at Casey, would absolutely be an upgrade on having someone like Matt Jones as a depth midfielder.

Do you genuinely believe we'd be better off having one of Jones, McKenzie or Bail as a replacement for an injured starting 22?

C'mon.

I don't think we're doubting Jake can play, Steve. I think we're just petrified of paying overs for him - myself included.

As a Melbourne supporter, blind faith is pretty [censored] hard to do.

say it aint so.....please

  On 12/09/2015 at 03:44, Tall Timber said:

I don't think we're doubting Jake can play, Steve. I think we're just petrified of paying overs for him - myself included.

As a Melbourne supporter, blind faith is pretty [censored] hard to do.

Read some of the posts and I think that sentence might change.

The Zanotti Files

41 mins ·

‪#‎tradewinds‬ ‪#‎melksham‬

Jake Melksham will be a Bomber or a Demon.

Essendon have offered him a 2 year deal while the Demons have tabled a 4 year deal to reunite him with Simon Goodwin.

  On 12/09/2015 at 03:53, stevethemanjordan said:

Read some of the posts and I think that sentence might change.

Agreed. I'm certainly doubting his ability to contribute positively and consistently.

So....WADA we think about this Melksham idea ...

People are probably right when they say it depends what we'd give up for him. I still say it's pretty pointless and knowing Essendon they'd want a 2nd rounder, possibly even a first rounder. If we paid that we'd be idiotic.

Edited September 12, 20159 yr by AdamFarr

  On 12/09/2015 at 02:43, stevethemanjordan said:

Would you rather give him a list spot ahead of Matt Jones, Bail, McKenzie, Terlich?

This is such a rubbish argument.

All of those players you have listed are hopeless and shouldn't be on a list. The problem is that through sheer necessity, we have given these guys contracts that they did not deserve and now they are clogging up our list.

Is Melksham an upgrade? Maybe slightly. It simply means that we will have another NQR on the list for 4 years. I would much rather persist with Matt Jones for the final year of his contract and then delist him.

The sad part is we will most likely keep Matt Jones AND pick up Melksham.

I wouldn't be unhappy if we picked him up for free or a Garlett type deal, but not for 4 years. 2 years would be a maximum.

  On 12/09/2015 at 03:19, Henrietta Lumbago said:

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??

Please name your best 22 for next year including Melksham.

Edited September 12, 20159 yr by UTAH

  On 12/09/2015 at 04:23, UTAH said:

This is such a rubbish argument.

All of those players you have listed are hopeless and shouldn't be on a list. The problem is that through sheer necessity, we have given these guys contracts that they did not deserve and now they are clogging up our list.

Is Melksham an upgrade? Maybe slightly. It simply means that we will have another NQR on the list for 4 years. I would much rather persist with Matt Jones for the final year of his contract and then delist him.

The sad part is we will most likely keep Matt Jones AND pick up Melksham.

I wouldn't be unhappy if we picked him up for free or a Garlett type deal, but not for 4 years. 2 years would be a maximum.

Please name your best 22 for next year including Melksham.

I asked HL to do that before. Clearly it's a little harder to fit him in than he expected.

Mids Mids and more mids, when we struggled this season it was when several of the not up to it players from 2012-13 were getting games again. For the right price I don't mind getting somebody like Melksham in

And I am fairly confident the Bombers players will get very limited suspensions from the Wada and pretty sure anything will be backdated. Thier club may well be belted but I think the players will fair okay

I would rather pump games into Harmes, ANB, Stretch & even the likes of Newton & Michie (who offer just as much as Milkshake on what is likely to be MUCH less coin)..... Yes we need midfielders but this is not about slight upgrades on M. Jones & Bail anymore, these blokes are on their way out either this year or next, why give Essendon anything for a bloke who hasn't shown enough in 6 years. I'm happy to trade Watts too & anyone comparing the 2 situations forget Watts is much taller, more athletic & will always be worth more than Milkshake based on potential alone, whether he realizes that potential or not. If we got him for a bargain than maybe, but when was the last time the Dons were easy to deal with?

  On 12/09/2015 at 03:27, ChaserJ said:

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

I think I might vomit.

  On 12/09/2015 at 03:57, The Song Formerly Known As said:

The Zanotti Files

41 mins ·

#‎tradewinds #‎melksham

Jake Melksham will be a Bomber or a Demon.

Essendon have offered him a 2 year deal while the Demons have tabled a 4 year deal to reunite him with Simon Goodwin.

4 years? And people think we'll pick him up cheap like Garlett!! Lol

They'll want a 2nd rounder minimum purely based on us giving a former top 10 pick a 4 year offer!!!

Really wish we had've kept Crossy for another year or 2 instead. He is an upgrade on Cross' 2015 form? I highly doubt it. And I thought Cross was moved on to give more time to youngsters, not a 24 year old who'll be 25 & in his 7th year next year, a veteran who is considered soft and a hack by the majority of Essendon fans (I'd say all their supporters but someone here knows one blind, I mean passionate, supporter that really really rates him apparently - they obviously don't post on Bomberblitz however).

Edited September 12, 20159 yr by thevil1

The 2009 draft continues to haunt us.

  On 12/09/2015 at 04:46, thevil1 said:

4 years? And people think we'll pick him up cheap like Garlett!! Lol

They'll want a 2nd rounder minimum purely based on us giving a former top 10 pick a 4 year offer!!!

Really wish we had've kept Crossy for another year or 2 instead. He is an upgrade on Cross' 2015 form? I highly doubt it. And I thought Cross was moved on to give more time to youngsters, not a 24 year old who'll be 25 & in his 8th year next year, a veteran who is considered soft and a hack by the majority of Essendon fans (I'd say all their supporters but someone here knows one blind, I mean passionate, supporter that really really rates him apparently - they obviously don't post on Bomberblitz however).

his manager said melbourne haven't tabled a deal, so trade winds is just blowing in the breeze

  On 12/09/2015 at 04:47, daisycutter said:

his manager said melbourne haven't tabled a deal, so trade winds is just blowing in the breeze

Thanks DC, am breathing again

He will be the next Demonland whipping boy now that it looks like watts is going.

  On 12/09/2015 at 02:30, Perago Validus said:

Just heard Paul Connors Melksham's manager on SEN.

Basically Goodwin wants Melksham, Melksham loves Goodwin from his time at the bombers.

It's either Essendon or Melbourne for Melksham.

So basically... Connors is trying to use the threat of going to Melbourne to push his clients' price up, or Melksham wants to be at Melbourne because he wants to get out & likes Goodwin & McCartney, so he's angling for MFC...

Either way, I don't see a lot indicating that we are interested.

It would hold a lot more weight if someone from the club gave an indication that we want him.

And I'm sure if we do, it'll be conditional on him being cheap.

Bog ordinary, but a slight improvement on Bail/Matt Jones/Riley/etc.

Marginal improvement if no others are to be found.