bing181

Once again, we didn't give up next year's 1st round pick - we took it this year. We haven't lost a pick. Two picks at the pointy end of the first round trumps pretty well everything IMHO, and to be able to take them sooner rather than later is some rather thick icing on the cake. We need improvement ASAP. In any case, we'll move up the ladder next year, so it's a moot discussion. (insert relevant smiley)

Agreed. OK, it's only under-age footy, but who do we have who can consistently pick out a target like that?

Can't present your case without getting personal?

FGS, get over it. In the larger scheme of things, it just doesn't matter - though Melksham was always worth around what we paid. BTW, Cam McCarthy (GWS) says hi. Typical of so many posters on this board, but across every club at the moment. We were screwed, player X was worth much more than what we got/we were screwed, overpaying for player X.

Still amazed how many posters care about the difference between pick 25 and 29.

Just re Melksham (http://www.boundforglorynews.com.au/free-agenttrade-analysis-jake-melksham/): "Melksham has played as a run-with midfielder, but he’s also shown great signs as a defensive half-forward. He racks up inside 50s, although his delivery in there could be better. He can win his own ball on the inside, as he has terrific strength and desire, but he also runs hard enough to be a link-up player on the outside of the contest. As mentioned, he’s a tackling machine and he’s at worst an above average tagger." "Melksham’s form fluctuated a lot throughout 2015, but he played three outstanding games, and all three were games where the Bombers rose to the occasion in tight clashes. In Round One against the Swans, he finishes with 20 disposals, a goal, 10 contested possessions, nine tackles and six clearances. The next week he had a season high 26 disposals against the Hawks, with 12 inside 50’s and 22 uncontested possessions. He capped the season off with an excellent performance against the Suns, with 10 one percenters." ... and: "Pick 25 in this draft will slide down to around pick 30 when it is all done and dusted with academy selections and compensation picks. 30 is just about spot on for Melksham, as he fills a clear need in the Demons’ midfield. He’s still quite young, but he also brings experience to the Demons and he’s the enforcer type that can keep other teams from tormenting Melbourne’s younger brigade."

Under the deal being negotiated Hawthorn would give up their first round draft pick and Anderson and receive Carlisle from Essendon. Anderson would go to North Melbourne along with Essendon's pick 41 and the Bombers would receive North's first round pick (15) as well as Hawthorn's (18). The net effect of the trade would be: Hawthorn gets Carlisle; North gets Anderson and pick 41; Essendon gets picks 15 and 18.

It's 18 AND 15. Which, for clarification, is two first round picks.

Trade period is supposed to be exciting?

Second rounder seems about right. He's played 100 games, twice in their B&F top 10 (including this year). Has his faults, but lack of competitivity isn't one, and it seems that the club have done their due diligence. Half back an interesting option if that's what they're thinking, would push a player like Grimes out I imagine, and/or free up Salem (as has been suggested). Just don't think we'll see him next season though, which is less than ideal.

So you accept that there are circumstances above and beyond footy ability that might lead to players not getting a regular game with their club.

Who said it was a coup for the club? Not every trade is going to fill us with excitement, nor does it need to.

It's just not a factor. Jeff Garlett couldn't get a game at Carlton either.

A bit different. Most of those players were let go for next to nothing, and Sylvia was a FA, so AFL covered the compo.

All the AFL can do here is offer some kind of relief in terms of allowing us to add a player at a later date. Though hard to see how useful that could be, given that it could easily be February before we/they get final verdicts. If Melksham were suspended, and we could add to the list, I have the perfect proposition for a last-minute call-up: Daniel Cross.

Take with grain of salt, but for discussion purposes: From BF: "Confirmed: Essendon 3rd round selection with jake for the Demons second round selection. Will be done in the first hour of trade week."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/the-names-of-the-34-essendon-players-have-been-released-then-removed-by-the-court-of-arbitration-for-sport/story-fni5f6kv-1227352382547?sv=975afb5f9267749f2fea0ab35af04501 "Jake Melksham"

I wonder if the WADA situation is one of the factors behind a 4-year deal - which becomes, effectively, a 3-year deal. OK, we're probably one player down next year, but having the likes of McKenzie etc. on our list has left us one player down in any case.

Last year we brought in a guy that couldn't get a game at Carlton. Was worth 40 Goals. Melksham has shown that he's a solid, capable, first-22 player. That's the Melksham that we're looking to sign, not the one who has obviously had a hard time over the last 2 years.

No he/they can't.

Ablett. A grade is A grade.

They well might. I'm not sure where the club is re Watts, I was just replying to post that wanted a trade for someone who would be one of our 10 best players. Just think that that possibility is unlikely, and would be surprised if Jack isn't a Demon for at least one more year.

I'd want that too, but think it's very unlikely. Watts hasn't even been able to hold his place in our first 22, so just getting someone who does would already be an upgrade.

I can't find anything in the WADA rules that cover a team situation where players have long-term contracts. I know that in cycling, if you're banned, you aren't paid by your team. Maybe someone else has clear info. At the very least, he would lose match payments (as in the Crowley case), and if the contract is mainly built around match payments, then we don't leave ourselves with too much of a financial millstone. As for bans, I've always thought that they'd be banned. 2 years, but a reduction for no significant fault, probably down to 18 months, perhaps 12 months. But they've already served 6 months or so, and it also depends on what's currently happening. It's the off-season again, so have these players restarted their provisional bans, just in case? IOW, if he only received a 12 month ban, he could be available from early next season. If it's 18 months, he would miss next season, and be ready to go when Goodwin takes over. Also, on returning from a ban, you can return to (team) training 2 months before the end of the ban. As I understand it ...

But payment situation not the same. In theory if you're banned/suspended, you don't (can't?) get paid, but if you're injured you still get paid, including match payments.