bing181

And ... first Rising Star for 2016.

If he goes, the only positive is that we'd receive the mother-of-all compensation. Anyone know who picks 1 and 2 are likely to be in the 2017 draft?

Not sure how this "ends speculation". I would have thought it would have the opposite effect ... as the couple of posts above confirm.

... because everyone rated O'Rourke and Plowman ahead of Stringer, Wines, McRae.

As I understand it, suggesting that Melksham's contract would/should be paid by Essendon. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=HSWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-could-be-forced-to-pay-the-salaries-of-banned-players-at-rival-clubs/news-story/f2ec419c9cfad4301ada984679405a09&memtype=anonymous

They weren't as duped as all that. Either they knew and kept quiet, or they went to some lengths to make sure they didn't know. As for the players, their behaviour only confirms they knew that what they were doing was dodgy as all hell.

Yes, and now they're being penalised for it. But once those penalties have been served, they deserve the same opportunities as all of us, or at the very least, the benefit of the doubt.

At which point I stopped reading. Satellites do not measure temperature.

Two parallel threads going on here ... we are nothing if not multitaskers. Weideman: will be surprised if he gets anything more than a token game or two late in the season. Has missed a lot of footy/training over the last 2 years, and has his work cut out, for this year at least.

These are kids, they all develop at different rates. All that that says is that Parish came on earlier than others. It doesn't say anything at all about his ceiling, or what will happen 4+ years down the track. You only have to look at some of our own recent recruits for verification. Would be happy with either of them. Or even both.

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.