Radar Detector

I think the three known changes will be it. I get all the disappointment with Garlett but I think he makes our forward line look a lot more dangerous. He reads the ball off a pack better than almost anyone in our side and only needs a couple of opportunities to hit the scoreboard. Disappointed in the selections again overall though. The listed half forward line is utter poo. Would go close to the worst line we’ve listed in any week all year.

I feel like I see an incarnation of this thread every year on here...

I would've thought someone with nearly 9,000 posts might have actually read a thread or 2 on here. Player sentiment blows like the breeze. But carry on.

All it would take is for someone to link McCartin to Melbourne and this thread will fill with platitudes for the bloke.

Saints might get another crack at a #1 pick as early as this year

Yeah, not counting the expansion sides.

Beat the same team twice in one season (2010 apparently)

Sylvia, McLean, Scully, Trengove, Gusberts, Toumpas and Morton were all recruited as mids.

I have come around to the view that Melksham might be a reasonable acquisition. That said, on the available evidence, I still think we have overpaid for an out of form, dime a dozen midfielder with a potential WADA issue who wanted out of a basket case club. Particularly in the context of what other clubs are doing.

Either way, our crowds should improve. Apparently he brings all the boys to the yard.

I haven't really seen much of Kennedy other than QB but that looks like a pretty fair/decent trade for us CIP. Still don't like the 4 year deal but otherwise seems to make some sense.

No, I described the potential trade as "meh" and suggested that the idea of a four year contract is unnecessary. To me, the issue of whether we recruit him and the offer we make are linked. A change that improves the list in the short term is a good thing in isolation. However a change that improves the list in the short term but holds you to ransom in the medium term is not. Melksham is a dime a dozen midfielder. I'm not particularly offended about adding him to the list, however I am not particularly excited either and I just don't think we should be throwing 4 year contracts at players of his calibre.

I do absolutely understand that. Just as I understood that Mark Neeld didn't expect Matt Jones or Dean Terlich to be fringe 22 players when they were signed on three year deals. That doesn't change the fact that the contracts they were offered were an error because of their duration and it is possible that this will prove to be also. As I said, most players do not get offered four year deals let alone known quantities who are mediocre at best. By all means recruit the guy if it is perceived he will add to the 22, bolster depth or improve training standards. I just don't see the rationale for locking the club into an unnecessary long term deal for a player of this calibre.

I think the asada issue is probably being overplayed here a bit. But the potential recruitment is just so meh. We should be aiming to recruit players who will be long term members of the 22, not who will be fringe initially and hopefully Casey regulars by halfway through a contract. Four years is ridiculous btw. There are seriously good players at all clubs who aren't offered 4 year contracts. We don't need this guy anywhere near that badly and by 2017 we will be asking the Matt Jones and Dean Terlich questions all over again.

Trading 101. Well said.

The draft and trade caper is all about what you get for what you give up. Melksham is a largely known quantity with both good and bad attributes. Would ye be better than some on our list? Yes. Would he be guaranteed best 22? No. Would he improve our depth? Depends on who else goes out and in. I would make the assumption that McKenzie, Riley, Terlich et al will be gone anyway and replaced with top 40ish pick in the draft. The likes of Brayshaw, Stretch and ANB based on last year's draft. So who would Melksham really be replacing? Is he an updgrade on Matt Jones and Bail? Probably. Watts, Garland or Howe? Probably not. It's ridiculous to compare this situation with Garlett who was also a known quantity (a 40-goal a year forward for most of his career) and one that we picked up for steak knives. And it's even more ridiculous to compare him with an A-grade midfielder who will instantly transform our best 22. Like RPFC said... meh. Should be one of those late trade period resolutions once you can see where the dust has settled on everyone else.

Let's not get too silly