1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Really disappointing to hear that we're set to recontract Jake Melksham. Michael Hibberd I can understand because he has been consistent with his form all year, but Melksham..?

He's last couple of games showed that he's just past it. Other then the Carlton game he didn't much in any other games and he was incredibly poor against Sydney.

Played as the 2nd tall forward forward so that alone has chewed games off Jacob Van Rooyen who once again justified on the weekend that he was physically ready to go.

He's going to be 32 next year and our focus needs to be on the next wave of talent coming through like Laurie, Chandler, Bedford and Moniz-Wakefield. 

If we can get an extra list spot to bring in another developing tall forward/ruckman then surely that makes more sense then keeping washed up 32 year old forward flanker.

 

I agree. It doesn’t make sense that they wanted Melk gone last year but will now keep him this year. Even if his salary is drastically reduced. He can only play 1 role - undersized tall distractor. I think he was actually ok in that role is most games but it’s still not going to be a first or even second choice role next year.

I guess he takes Mitch Brown’s list spot in the ‘why is he on the list’ role. Which might be about having a forward line coach at Casey. Still, I’d rather fill that via Casey not with an afl list spot.

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Really disappointing to hear that we're set to recontract Jake Melksham. Michael Hibberd I can understand because he has been consistent with his form all year, but Melksham..?

He's last couple of games showed that he's just past it. Other then the Carlton game he didn't much in any other games and he was incredibly poor against Sydney.

Played as the 2nd tall forward forward so that alone has chewed games off Jacob Van Rooyen who once again justified on the weekend that he was physically ready to go.

He's going to be 32 next year and our focus needs to be on the next wave of talent coming through like Laurie, Chandler, Bedford and Moniz-Wakefield. 

If we can get an extra list spot to bring in another developing tall forward/ruckman then surely that makes more sense then keeping washed up 32 year old forward flanker.

 

I completely agree with your points, but I think we might feel like we will have enough list spots available and that Melksham for another year is better insurance than pick 90 in the draft.

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

From a list management perspective, the right call was to delist Melksham. What Melksham showed in the back half of the season was adequate, but he's hardly a lock to be best 22 next year.

If you look at the make up of our taller forwards potentially next year, we have a lot of players with question marks. There's a lot that could be playing at Casey.

BBB - Knee is shot.

T. Mac - Had his injury concerns and is not getting younger.

Weid - Seems like the coaches have put a line through him as an AFL forward.

Joel Smith - Now playing up forward for Casey. Shown very little.

Grundy - Shown nothing as a forward.

Gawn - Shown little as a forward.

JVR - Hasn't played a game, but we have high hopes.

Fritsch - The beacon in our forward line.

Melksham is a medium sized forward, which we badly need. But he's also old and slow, and doesn't change the dynamics of our forward line. Very few of our medium/tall forwards apply defensive pressure at ground level.

I'd rather have chased a proven goalkicker in Gunston as an UFA, and not re-signed Melksham.

 

 

 

I don't want to jump ahead but a small part of me is sensing our up and coming list management is going to disappoint a lot of supporters.

Jungle drums beating that we're about to hand over a first round draft pick for a 29 year old ruckman as this is what Collingwood will supposedly ask for. If this is going to be the case then it's a huge mistake imo.

I'm genuinely confused why we're putting all our eggs in the Grundy basket when our biggest need right now is a key forward. On top of that, we're then happy to pay at least $650-700k for his salary for the next few years.

This amount of money could be saved to go on an all out assult on say a Harry McKay from Carlton or a Ben King from Gold Coast.

All this just makes zero sense to me.

Then to top it off we're now about to resign a cooked Melksham who was part of the mess that is our forward line.

I have faith in Tim Lamb and co, but if the reports are true which they've obviously have been around the Luke Jackson departing all year and the Brodie Grundy recruitment then its concerning imo for our list demographic moving forward. 

2 hours ago, CYB said:

As mentioned previously, there is a toxic 'party' culture at the Dogs in past years. Those that are averse to those behaviors may want to move away from that environment. That is the only way i can make sense of that potential scenario. But agree, it is very unlikely. 

Apologies, I legitimately meant to say 'wouldn't' surprise me! Haha.

I think it would be unlikely for him to depart but I can see them testing the waters with him. I think this trade period could have a lot of valuations going on. 

2 hours ago, CYB said:

As mentioned previously, there is a toxic 'party' culture at the Dogs in past years. Those that are averse to those behaviors may want to move away from that environment. That is the only way i can make sense of that potential scenario. But agree, it is very unlikely. 

Dunkley won't be there next year for this very reason.

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I don't want to jump ahead but a small part of me is sensing our up and coming list management is going to disappoint a lot of supporters.

Jungle drums beating that we're about to hand over a first round draft pick for a 29 year old ruckman as this is what Collingwood will supposedly ask for. If this is going to be the case then it's a huge mistake imo.

I'm genuinely confused why we're putting all our eggs in the Grundy basket when our biggest need right now is a key forward. On top of that, we're then happy to pay at least $650-700k for his salary for the next few years.

This amount of money could be saved to go on an all out assult on say a Harry McKay from Carlton or a Ben King from Gold Coast.

All this just makes zero sense to me.

Then to top it off we're now about to resign a cooked Melksham who was part of the mess that is our forward line.

I have faith in Tim Lamb and co, but if the reports are true which they've obviously have been around the Luke Jackson departing all year and the Brodie Grundy recruitment then its concerning imo for our list demographic moving forward. 

Agree with you on Melk and I would also have let Hibbo and J. Smith go.

Melk and Hibbo will only be one year though, so they won't be stopping us chasing a player next year.

Salaries are obviously factored into what we need in the cap for 2023 and then beyond.

As for Grundy I absolutely would be furious if we give in and give a first rounder, that is a joke on a salary dump.

I would wait until the last second of trade week, with a second round pick offer and not budge and call their bluff. We have been dudded by the Pies in nearly every trade I can recall.

The money paid to Grundy, at say $600k-$650k pa, is not that much more than average pay and we would be giving average pay to someone else anyway, who is probably not an AA Ruckman and filling a major need of ours.

Grundy's wage will not stop us getting someone else next year, as others will be leaving and it's a moving cap and list every year.

McKay will not leave the Blues and Ben King is unlikely to be available as well.

We will probably be adding some young players so the demographic should be fine.

11 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Melk and Hibbo will only be one year though, so they won't be stopping us chasing a player next year.

Salaries are obviously factored into what we need in the cap for 2023 and then beyond.

Interesting point you raise there. Maybe as fans we should appreciate that trade-period decisions are made on a multi-year basis, not just the immediate one before us.

There appear to be a lot of trades dependant on other dominos.

Freo's Jackson offer dependant on what they get for Lobb, Logue etc

Melb Gundy offer dependant on Jackson deal getting done.

Pies trades subject to Grundy.

48 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I'm genuinely confused why we're putting all our eggs in the Grundy basket when our biggest need right now is a key forward. On top of that, we're then happy to pay at least $650-700k for his salary for the next few years.

This amount of money could be saved to go on an all out assult on say a Harry McKay from Carlton or a Ben King from Gold Coast.

All this just makes zero sense to me.

Hard to disagree with any of that Dazzle.

But then, I was pretty vocal about wasting a first round pick on a highly speculative small forward (Kossie) over Brodie Kemp, and couldn't for the life of me understand why we'd pick a ruckman in Jackson at 3. Plenty questioned the recruitment of Lever and May.

Our list management team have serious runs on the board. If they're chasing Grundy, they'll have a plan for how to use him. 

I'll back them in.

4 hours ago, CYB said:

As mentioned previously, there is a toxic 'party' culture at the Dogs in past years. Those that are averse to those behaviors may want to move away from that environment. That is the only way i can make sense of that potential scenario. But agree, it is very unlikely. 

Come to Junction Oval - we’ve got more of a ‘dinner at expensive French restaurants’ vibe going on down here 

6 minutes ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Hard to disagree with any of that Dazzle.

But then, I was pretty vocal about wasting a first round pick on a highly speculative small forward (Kossie) over Brodie Kemp, and couldn't for the life of me understand why we'd pick a ruckman in Jackson at 3. Plenty questioned the recruitment of Lever and May.

Our list management team have serious runs on the board. If they're chasing Grundy, they'll have a plan for how to use him. 

I'll back them in.

I agree.. they've got good runs. 

Just feel we've changed tactic this year with the way we've list managed.

Re-signing Joel Smith to a 2 year deal was the start for me.. and now the Melksham news and 1st rounder for Grundy just all seems to be a bit all over the shop for my liking.

Edited September 14, 20222 yr by dazzledavey36

4 hours ago, A F said:

I agree with the sentiment, but surely Melksham is merely insurance next year.

surely like Mitch Brown, this year.  "Break Glass in case of emergency".

14 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I agree.. they've got good runs. 

Just feel we've changed tactic this year with the way we've list managed.

Re-signing Joel Smith to a 2 year deal was the start for me.. and now the Melksham news and 1st rounder for Grundy just all seems to be a bit all over the shop for my liking.

My theory on Melk getting another year is that pesky son of his who everyone loved so much in the lockdown bubble in WA must have been DNA tested and he's going to be a superstar and we need Melk to get 6 more games for him to be a father/son. Otherwise a bit surprising. But I'm sure I'm right. 

Smith can't keep getting injured forever can he?  Unless he's me. Fully fit he's a special depth player with his versatility and potentially a very special medi sub for that reason. 

Hibbo earnt another year on the back of one of his best years this year until finals. 

On Grundy haven't we all learnt not to listen to the fourth estate on this stuff. I'd put money on us not paying a first rounder for him. We're in the box seat. However, past experience has taught me rule no. 1 in trading. Absolutely no matter what do not trade players in or out to or from Collingwood no matter what. I don't need another example to prove this rule. 

49 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

My theory on Melk getting another year is that pesky son of his who everyone loved so much in the lockdown bubble in WA must have been DNA tested and he's going to be a superstar and we need Melk to get 6 more games for him to be a father/son. Otherwise a bit surprising. But I'm sure I'm right. 

Smith can't keep getting injured forever can he?  Unless he's me. Fully fit he's a special depth player with his versatility and potentially a very special medi sub for that reason. 

Hibbo earnt another year on the back of one of his best years this year until finals. 

On Grundy haven't we all learnt not to listen to the fourth estate on this stuff. I'd put money on us not paying a first rounder for him. We're in the box seat. However, past experience has taught me rule no. 1 in trading. Absolutely no matter what do not trade players in or out to or from Collingwood no matter what. I don't need another example to prove this rule. 

I think it's only 4 games.

7 minutes ago, BAMF said:

I think it's only 4 games.

do preseason count so we can get them our of the way quickly :) 

He's insurance if needed. And May was right.... sadly. 

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I agree.. they've got good runs. 

Just feel we've changed tactic this year with the way we've list managed.

Re-signing Joel Smith to a 2 year deal was the start for me.. and now the Melksham news and 1st rounder for Grundy just all seems to be a bit all over the shop for my liking.

We gave Hunt 2 years post 2020 when it felt a bit off. Smith might be next level to that but I’m not sure it’s by much. We kept Baker and Mitch Brown last year. And Grundy seems very Ben Brown ish, let’s see what the end cost is, if it’s along the lines of Brown it makes it easier to understand.

Maybe we’re repeating the mistakes of the past, or maybe it’s the best we can do in keeping experience and stability and trying to patch tall forwards.

The one thing we should be doing is using the bulk of the Jacko compensation the draft.

If we end the trade period with a strong draft hand, Grundy, maybe a depth ruck or other key forward and at least one running player then that’s in line with previous moves.

2 hours ago, Winter Dan said:

There appear to be a lot of trades dependant on other dominos.

Freo's Jackson offer dependant on what they get for Lobb, Logue etc

Melb Gundy offer dependant on Jackson deal getting done.

Pies trades subject to Grundy.

I hate it when there's an offer that I don't want to make in the first place  dependant on something else happening. 

Could Goody's close relationship with Melksham have muddied his judgement re the contract extension? Obviously it's not entirely up to Goodwin but I do wonder about this.

6 minutes ago, Scipio said:

Could Goody's close relationship with Melksham have muddied his judgement re the contract extension? Obviously it's not entirely up to Goodwin but I do wonder about this.

I have brought this up before regarding his team selection this year.

To be honest, this is genuinely the only thought I have that may explain him being re-signed.

Other then that, I'm still perplexed that this is under heavy consideration by list management and Goodwin..

27 minutes ago, Scipio said:

Could Goody's close relationship with Melksham have muddied his judgement re the contract extension? Obviously it's not entirely up to Goodwin but I do wonder about this.

There would be a little bit of hope in nursing him to 200, I have no doubt

17 minutes ago, BW511 said:

There would be a little bit of hope in nursing him to 200, I have no doubt

He's played over 200 games already, so you should probably have had a bit more doubt.

Melksham is an experienced role player who can play a wide variety of roles and clearly follows the coach's instructions very well. He came into the side this year and did an excellent negating role on opposition intercept players and won us a game as well. He'll be very low cost, content to play VFL, provide leadership and provides decent cover if things hit the fan. He'll also be an easy delist at the end of next year, which could be important when the alternative would be on a two year contract.

I can see why you'd keep him and see why you'd let him go. But overall the difference between those options is kind of whatever.

This is the most boring rumour thread since 2008.

Anyone one want to hear what I know?  I don't want to trigger any of the mega DL snowflakes so here is your chance to block me if you dont want to hear what I have to say.  Block dont abuse.

3 minutes ago, Grand New Flag said:

This is the most boring rumour thread since 2008.

Anyone one want to hear what I know?  I don't want to trigger any of the mega DL snowflakes so here is your chance to block me if you dont want to hear what I have to say.  Block dont abuse.

Edited September 14, 20222 yr by adonski

5 minutes ago, Grand New Flag said:

This is the most boring rumour thread since 2008.

Anyone one want to hear what I know?  I don't want to trigger any of the mega DL snowflakes so here is your chance to block me if you dont want to hear what I have to say.  Block dont abuse.

What have you got there GNF

3 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I agree.. they've got good runs. 

Just feel we've changed tactic this year with the way we've list managed.

Re-signing Joel Smith to a 2 year deal was the start for me.. and now the Melksham news and 1st rounder for Grundy just all seems to be a bit all over the shop for my liking.

I feel like our 'dicey' quota was used on Joel Smith and and maybe one more at best being Hibbo. I see the case for Melksham but we seem very keen to hang on to players now.