Mad_Melbourne, you say that Jake is a sub-average bloke... that's an indication to me that you don't know him and are not in a position to judge his character, let alone his football ability. I get the feeling that Jake will stay with Bombers, so any discussion of what he could or couldn't add to our list is purely speculative. What I do know is Jake is a respectful, hard-working and sincere bloke who does his family proud!

Hope/trust we have more elite midfield targets than Melksham.

That said, would happily have him at the Dees for the right deal.

Mad_Melbourne, you say that Jake is a sub-average bloke... that's an indication to me that you don't know him and are not in a position to judge his character, let alone his football ability. I get the feeling that Jake will stay with Bombers, so any discussion of what he could or couldn't add to our list is purely speculative. What I do know is Jake is a respectful, hard-working and sincere bloke who does his family proud!

its too easy to stick the boot in on an anonymous forum so i will not bother continuing down that track. I am sure he is good to his family and friends as most people are.

None the less, it does not make my statements of what he can offer to the team incorrect as he played his best season through the midfield as a tagger.

He has limited flexibility and I would still prefer to get games into our younger players ahead of signing a midfielder who would be competing with them rather than a cut above.

Can't say I'm moved to get Melksham. With the WADA appeal still ongoing and we have no idea what the repercussions are if they are found guilty it's irresponsible to offer such a long deal unless there is a trigger that gets us out of it, however I would've thought his manager would make damn sure there wasn't anything like that in the deal.

I would take him, but two very obvious things make me nervous about this move:

1. WADA - if he cops a 2 year ban that would be a disastrous pick up, surely the club are all over this, but who knows

2. Trade Value - if we are offering him a 4 year deal, Essendon are well within their right to ask for our second rounder if we rate him that highly, and knowing Essendon, they will probably want more to begin with

4 years on $400k+ with a potential 2 year ban for a guy that's 15th-22nd best player in the team that finished bottom 6 is a waste IMO.

If this is what we can look forward to then God help us.

Some would say it is because of our 15th to 22nd players selected which is why we are a bottom 6 team, if we can improve these players any possible way then we will improve dramatically, other say we lack A grade talent at the top end, others say we lack depth....I know where I stand..

I rate Melksham higher than Watts, Garland and Howe ( who I think all will go ) but that's my opinion, which everyone is entitled to.

Melksham would be between the 15th and 22nd player I choose to be in the team and he gets a spot on the bench easily...

Don't know how u can [possibly rate him higher. Watts and Howe are elite in one facet Melksham in none. I hope we don't get him.

Do we have room for his and James Harmes' teeth in the one team?

Do we have room for his and James Harmes' teeth in the one team?

Rove McManus with the old joke over here.

If he can fight, he can play footy

and he can fight and play footy.

Don't know how u can [possibly rate him higher. Watts and Howe are elite in one facet Melksham in none. I hope we don't get him.

Watts and Howe are the players which we have given games to and are still coasting and enjoying the ride....we have put 100 games into each of the roughly...so they should be winning us games...but they rant and I don't think they every will, therefore I rate Melksham higher, deal with it.

Watts and Howe are the players which we have given games to and are still coasting and enjoying the ride....we have put 100 games into each of the roughly...so they should be winning us games...but they rant and I don't think they every will, therefore I rate Melksham higher, deal with it.

Id argue both are doing more when compared to Jake Mellsham. Who has also played 100 games and clearly not winning Essendon games. Your method/reasoning is awful and purely wrong. Given the chance to resign Howe and hold onto Watts or give a spot on the list to Mellsham it is a no brainer

3 years, more money than Essendon. Goodwin a fan.

Some of you guys need to remember not every deal is going to be a game changer.

3 years, more money than Essendon. Goodwin a fan.

Some of you guys need to remember not every deal is going to be a game changer.

Thanks for the info Chook. But I still think this sounds like a dud deal. Melksham doesn't add size to our inside midfield and lacks polish on the outside, which is what we lack most.

Essendon will demand a straight swap..Brayshaw + 2nd round pick.. (Not even kidding)

Id argue both are doing more when compared to Jake Mellsham. Who has also played 100 games and clearly not winning Essendon games. Your method/reasoning is awful and purely wrong. Given the chance to resign Howe and hold onto Watts or give a spot on the list to Mellsham it is a no brainer

It's a non-argument.

We've got completely different lists and Essendon's has been much much stronger than ours over the course of both Watts and Howe's careers to date.

We see players just like Melksham being given chances every single year on many different clubs lists. Blease to Geelong, O'Rourke to Hawthorn, Schulz to Port, Martin to Brisbane. Some turn their careers around, others don't.

Given the fact that we will not be landing five A-grade midfielders this trade period, if we're not paying overs, and the club know the risks involved, (re WADA) and think he's in the clear, why would anyone be against picking up a player who will clearly help the midfield depth at the club given the amount of delistings to we're going to see. A handful of whom will be midfielders.

Goodwin has seen far more of him than any of the posters who won't shut-up about how upset they'll be if we get him.

I would much rather throw a lifeline to a player like Melksham than have McKenzie, Bail, Matt Jones etc on the list. He's better than all of them and you're kidding yourselves if you think otherwise.

Zero risk as he's depth at best atm and plenty of reward if he can get his act together.

Look at what Taylor Hunt has done at Richmond after being in and out at Geelong for years. He's no world beater and I'm sure Richmond supporters weren't thrilled in the trade most likely for the same short-sighted views that are being thrown around here.

No-one has to be overly excited about the idea of getting him. Lists like the MFC's need more than one or two years to build a strong foundation of depth, the right personality traits and characters, A-grade talent, role-playing ability etc. We're trying to change the club.

But jesus it's like the world is ending up in here.

Edited September 16, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1k5DFakV9E

Tell me McKenzie, Matt Jones or Bail could kick a left-footed goal from 50...?!

This was the year in which his talent was on display and without doubt it's something to work with.

Happy to give him a chance and a change of scenery might be exactly what he needs.

Like his anger and competitive streak too.

Might be worth giving him a go, if Goodwin likes him, but I expect Essendon to price him out of the market.

It's a non-argument.

I was purely arguing with his statement that he thinks Watts and Howe have underperformed and are not as good footballers relative to Melksham due to them not winning us games and being 100 game players.

I do have my concerns in terms of bringing him over impacting the game time we can get into our younger brigade, earlier I stated my main reasoning for not understanding bringing him in is that he is not immediately top 22 and thus will prevent players like ANB and Harmes getting games. ANB is not a small forward but rather a midfielder and will eventually push into this role and I would prefer to see him push into this role. That being said, I understand the need to continually improve the list and have no qualms if we are bringing players in to do so. Of course Goodwin and Taylor will have more idea on what they want to bring in and his strengths and weaknesses and as they have continually been doing good work i have no problems with any player they bring in.

The biggest concern i have is his percieved value by Essendon in terms of trade, they will argue he is a top 10 draft pick with potential, obviously a required player due to the 2 year contract offer and he has a top 5 in their BNF. That seems like late first round to early second round pick and personally i would rather go to the draft. A straight player swap and I think we would have more value on our list from Watts or Trengove or Howe than Melksham. So to me, it just seems like its a bit of a tough one because i see the trade being a third round pick, or a player like Toumpas + picks or something in that ilk, but its allabout risk v reward.

If we get him for the right price, great, we have improved our list.

He started to play some good footy before this drug scandal hit and as Chook said not every deal will be a game changer. He will add some much needed depth to our midfield.

I was purely arguing with his statement that he thinks Watts and Howe have underperformed and are not as good footballers relative to Melksham due to them not winning us games and being 100 game players.

I do have my concerns in terms of bringing him over impacting the game time we can get into our younger brigade, earlier I stated my main reasoning for not understanding bringing him in is that he is not immediately top 22 and thus will prevent players like ANB and Harmes getting games. ANB is not a small forward but rather a midfielder and will eventually push into this role and I would prefer to see him push into this role. That being said, I understand the need to continually improve the list and have no qualms if we are bringing players in to do so. Of course Goodwin and Taylor will have more idea on what they want to bring in and his strengths and weaknesses and as they have continually been doing good work i have no problems with any player they bring in.

The biggest concern i have is his percieved value by Essendon in terms of trade, they will argue he is a top 10 draft pick with potential, obviously a required player due to the 2 year contract offer and he has a top 5 in their BNF. That seems like late first round to early second round pick and personally i would rather go to the draft. A straight player swap and I think we would have more value on our list from Watts or Trengove or Howe than Melksham. So to me, it just seems like its a bit of a tough one because i see the trade being a third round pick, or a player like Toumpas + picks or something in that ilk, but its allabout risk v reward.

If we get him for the right price, great, we have improved our list.

Fair enough on the argument count then.

As for the bolded bit of what you've written, I tend to disagree.

If we had the sort of depth that Roos and co' had genuine trust and belief in this year, I don't think we would have seen nearly the amount of games given to Stretch and ANB.

I see the fact that they were given games consistently ahead of players like Bail, Jones, McKenzie etc is because Roos doesn't see them at the club going forward.

Stretch is clearly an under-developed kid who wasn't exactly tearing up the VFL. He competed admirably when he was played in or firsts but it's fair to say that he drifted in and out of games as did ANB.

Players like Melksham (who is a direct upgrade on those others I mentioned), is the kind of player who is the perfect target for this kind of role. If you look outside of his 'ability' or 'inability' as a player alone you see that a club like us needs to have depth players in Melksham's age bracket and who clearly possess some talent to allow players like Stretch and ANB to develop their games, bodies and minds at VFL level.

When this happens, the gap in performances from VFL level to AFL level won't be as much.

We've got to remember that it takes time with kids. Melksham wouldn't be getting games 'ahead of' or 'in place of' ANB and Stretch. They're still kids and we need to get to a stage where they're banging the door down in the VFL before getting games. It's not happening yet because of our problems with list depth.

Here's a scenario: Let's say we have a couple of injuries in our starting midfield brigade and we've got a choice of bringing in Melksham or ANB both of whom have been playing VFL. Of course it's form permitting but if they've been playing their role but not dominating, I'd still bring Melksham in as ANB is a second year player and the more time he has developing and feeling comfortable and confident at VFL level, the better off we'll be in the future.

Stretch and ANB have just played their first year. Go and have a look at a club like Sydney or Freo's depth and tell me how often they bring in first or second year kids who were picked in the second and third rounds of their drafts and tell me how many games they're 'given' in their first years. Unless those clubs have a terribly injured best 22 players, you'll find that most of the kids will spend their first and second year playing in the twos.

We need to get to that stage.

Edited September 16, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

Fk me. Melksham?

I still cant get my head around this. Saying he is better than Mckenzie, Bail etc is not saying much as they are some of the worst in the league and will be delisted. 3rd round pick at most

trying to be positive....

maybe Goody can turn him around

maybe he wont be banned by WADA.

he should do well at casey

Id rather get Relton !!

Those calling Melksham a spud need to put it into perspective.

He actually has elite skills on both sides, is quick and a competitor.

The problem is his decision making at times. It's generally ok but when it's bad it's Bad hence the whipping boy status.

Can this be fixed? Who knows? Although maybe a fresh start in a team with a concise game plan might eliminate the clangers.

Flip of a coin I guess, although skills aren't the issue as has been the main gripe with our NQR's.

I think the tenet of what many here are thinking is that Milkshakeman is just another so-so player. I keep hearing that the FD wants to better the list. I dont see getting this bloke as accomplishing that. We have enough so-so bland nqrs.

Id like to think the club has higher aspiarations.

Still is all moot..he's Essendon