Wiseblood

When are you going to ask Parish to marry you, mate? I like how flippant you are with your comparisons for Oliver though to try and talk him down. He has been likened to players such as Wines and Cripps. Not bad really. And Parish is closest to an Andrew Gaff type of player. If he was all of the above, which you mentioned, then he would going at Pick 1.

They are distant cousins. I don't think it's a good thing that I prefer reading what H_H has to say though...

It will be Pick 10 after the academy bids. Pay attention mate.

He wasn't knocking the comparison mate, just making a comment about him being able to duck into frees like Selwood at his height. The way you jump to defend Parish is admirable, but if I was you I'd have a stiff drink on hand just in case we take someone else. It could be a long night for you.

If he said Parish was a lock at 3, which is clearly what you want, then you wouldn't question it.

Various people in the know. I can't confirm it, but there was enough word going around to suggest that's what clubs were looking for. It could be wrong, it could be right. Either way he tested poorly. We can all confirm that.

The word around the traps was that clubs wanted to see Weideman run at least a 13 in the beep test to prove that, not only was he over his injury, but that he has the capacity to run out games. To suggest that it doesn't matter for a stay at home forward is wrong in the modern game. How often do we get upset at our forward players when they don't chase? Every time the ball hits the deck we need repeat efforts, and what Weideman has shown today is that he is a long way from achieving that. I'm not saying he can't achieve it, but he has certainly put clubs off side today. I can't see us taking him at 3 after today. Pick 7, if Essendon pass, is a possibility but I still think the club may look elsewhere.

Plus I don't think it's a lock that we take Parish. I think there is a little bit of water to go under the bridge yet, and we may see someone like Oliver, who is much more likely to be available at #7, as someone who can contribute in the same way Parish can. That means we may take someone like Curnow at #3 instead with the view to possibly pairing him with Hogan in a few years time.

I'm a bit over people clearly not getting sarcasm on here. Machsy had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek with his response.

Not surprised by his decision to focus on footy. It does, however, allow the media to speculate about it ad nauseum, and for posters on here to take off their jocks so everyone can sh*t in them about the situation. Plenty on here will have their mental health tested by this.

Who knows? But as a rookie it seems like he is worth the punt.

Joel Smith.

Just like your posting mate! Boom Tishhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Well said nutbean. We won't really know how this trade works out for us for a few years at least. Pick 25 may turn out to be a bust and Melksham a servicable player, or it could go the other way. To rubbish it now is short sighted.

It's been said before, but I'll say it again. These guys are two totally different players. Suckling looks excellent in a great side. He needs other players to find the footy for him, and while his disposal is elite there is a reason the Hawks shifted him to the forward line and he found it hard to find a settled spot in the side. He is a player who would struggle with us and look like a bust. He needs good players around him. Melksham has certainly been down on form for the past two years and supporters are right in being a little wary of him. But he can find his own footy, knows how to shut down a man and he can lay plenty of tackles. So while Melksham isn't an Earth shattering recruitment he fills a need far better than Suckling would.

At the very least he and Salem may rotate through HBF and the midfield.

No it's not. There are heaps of deals going on. Mahoney said there was a hold up because of other deals going on. We may have already got other deals going that see us get a second round pick in return. Rolled over? You couldn't be going more over the top if you tried.

I wasn't too enthused when it first broke that we were interested, but our track record over the past 2 years has been very good and I'm happy to back the club. Pick 25 seems overs but it's not really. It's a second rounder which is what a 24 year old, 100 gamer is worth on the market these days. All the best Jake, I'm hoping like crazy that you can come straight in a be a positive, consistent contributor to the side.

It's Pick 25 because of where we finished. It makes a pick in the third round, which is in the early 40s, too low. If we finish higher up the ladder then our second rounder would be somewhere between 30-32. That's just the way it is. If we get something back that's a bonus.

He must be related to hogans_heroes then...

I'm not exactly comfortable with the deal either but he isn't worth our first rounder, obviously, and he is worth more than our pick in the 40s. Unless we can get another pick this deal is about as fair as it's going to get.

That sounds about right to me. A first rounder was overs and a third rounder is probably a touch low. We are going to get something decent for Howe and I can see Melksham contributing just as much, if not more, than Howe has so it's a fair deal in that context.

We would all like to pair up our top picks and land a big fish mate, but the reality is that most, if not all, are off the table. Guys like Hartlett and Parker have either re-signed or signalled an intention to do so, while others like Dangerfield and Treloar have said they want to play at other clubs. If there is no big fish out there this year then the club needs to pour it's energy into improving the list in the best way possible so we are well placed in 2016 and 2017 to make a play for a bigger name. If there is nothing out there this year then there isn't much we can do about it.

I'll be honest, that article was the highlight of my day. Let me have the little things in peace Nasher...

I'll be honest - that article gave me a boner.