Nasher

I can understand a stance of principles Choke, though I don't think it's quite as black and white as "drug cheat". DC et al seem to me to think it's the one year ban that makes a difference. I can't understand that at all.

My answer is a non-commital "I dunno". It sucks, no doubt, but he still has a truckload of time to redeem himself. If we were talking a life ban I might see your point. Ask yourself this: if Melksham has a spectacular 2017 and 2018 for the MFC, was the decision to trade still a bad one? How about if we did the trade at the end of 2016 or 2017 (ie after the ban is served)? Assuming we paid the same price, would that be better? If so, why?

Nobody will be paying him this year.

Okay. Your position is that because the player is going to miss one season out of the four he is contracted for, and for no other reason whatsoever, the entire decision to trade him in was bad. Is that correct? A yes or no will do. Edit: I'm not trying to be a tool here in case it comes across that way. Your position just makes no logical sense to me and I am trying to flesh it out.

It's already down the drain by the sounds of it.

In that case, we might as well just delist him now if we've already decided the whole trade is a bust.

I had this exact example lined up and ready to go in a previous post but left it out in the end. Obviously the club saw the reward as being worth the risks. No different here.

Again, I think you can only conclusively call the trade a mistake if you look at the first year of his contract in isolation and discount all the possibilities for years 2, 3, 4 and beyond.

The fact that the bulk of your post focuses on whether Melksham is that good a player or not really just enforces my point that the suspension is immaterial to the value of the trade. If Melksham turns out to be a bust, we'll bemoan the poor trade for years, but if he turns out to be a gun in years 2, 3 and 4 and beyond, we'll all be slapping ourselves on the back for it. Both these outcomes and everything in between are independent of his one season suspension, which is why I see it as little more than a 1%er in the total value of the trade. At the end of 2019 when he's out of contract and we're looking back, we will barely remember that this even happened, given that there would have been 3 footy seasons in between.

They probably just took the view that even if he got rubbed out, it would be worth it. One year in the context of a whole career is almost immaterial; he'll come back at the ripe old age of 25 and have another 5+ years. It's really not that different to drafting a player who does his knee on day 1, although for this he can return fit and with no risk of reoccurrence. I really don't see the big deal.

The original Weid didn't actually look as ugly as I remembered. If he did away with the mullet and had a shave he'd almost look like a human being, rather than the ogre I remember from my childhood. Moving on...

I'm just disappointed my Wayne Weidemann joke fell flat. Maybe nobody remembers who he is.

Having watched the highlights, I now get the Jordie McKenzie references. Again, not a reflection of expectations or quality of player, just looks and style. He's a dead ringer I reckon.

What do you mean? He looks nothing like Pavlich.

Wines!! I mean, Clayton!! I mean, Oliver!!

That is actually pretty relaxing, and a tad hypnotic.

Melbourne + GWS relationship = Geelong + Adelaide relationship. It's just not getting the same amount of attention because we're two low profile clubs. I also thought Essendon turned over a new leaf this year. St Kilda were this year's trade villains.

Sorry to say but Sandilands is already on a list.

Using an example that a) is still not established fact and b) resulted in a disastrous outcome doesn't do much to strengthen your argument. The last time we know for certain that the coach pulled rank on a recruiter was Daniher insisting Craig Cameron take Luke Molan. Another disaster. The coach would have input at best, but just as one voice in the FD. Even then, that voice should be of Goodwin and not Roos - it is the former's team now. Other than that, the chief recruiter should be trusted to be capable of identifying which players present the most value to the club. He's a senior member of the FD, and is paid accordingly, and that is his chief responsibility.

The bit about them getting Menzel due to their swift dealings with Dangerfield is exactly the same point I made in one of the other threads. If we'd pissfarted around forever on the Melksham deal or the Howe/Toumpas deals, it's highly unlikely we'd have had time to get the GWS and GC deals done that made the whole lot a winner. I doubt the MFC have sent Mahoney and Viney to Harvard (rich vs poor clubs anyone?), and we weren't involved in any high profile trades like the Dangerfield one, but that article could just as easily describe the MFC's dealings in the last few seasons. I agree with you that it really feels like we're in good hands - they're also starting to put the runs on the board to prove it.

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.

There goes that ironyometer again. They're the professionals mate, you're the amateur. Not the other way round.

Don't reckon pick 25 would have got us Dangerfield or Selwood (edit: assuming you mean Joel - if you mean Scott, wgaf? There's players like him everywhere).

Pfff, what would Pelchen know? Or Goodwin, McCartney or Roos? Demonlanders said it was a terrible deal so it must be.

Or maybe it's because all humans are different and respond to stressful situations differently? Just putting this wild, crazy idea out there... The other wild crazy idea is that the Essendung supporters could be full of crap.