BAMF

Grimes breaking games open? I must have forgotten those ones.

I'm sure it was Dal Santo. I recall the days when Craig Cameron use to post on here back in 2003. Jeez we all use to love it! I also remember you 'Fan.' I'll always remember you by that name and that small avatar of Neale Danniher you had. I was a lurker in those days.

You did say that you would cop flak. Are you surprised now that you have copped it?

I hope this isnt true. I would have prefered using our 2nd round pick in the draft. A third round pick should have got it done. And if it didnt then we force him to the preseason draft.

He doesnt 'get' the argument that we should be happy to pick Melksham up because he is better than Riley, Bail, Mckenzie, Terlich and Matt Jones. And he is right. The last two in particular have been given longer contracts than warranted and now we face the prospect of either paying them out or watch them play out the year at Casey. Now we are discussing giving Melksham a 4 year deal. Personally I think / hope that he would be playing out the last 2 years of his contract with Casey, which would be the same situation we are in now with Jones and Terls. Yes. He would be an upgrade on the players we have delisted. But how much? If you put numbered rankings on players out of 10 and had Bail and Mckenzie as 4, would you be happy that we have improved the list by picking up Melksham who is ranked 5? Yes the list has improved slightly. But its not worth getting too excited and not for a 4 year contract on good coin.

They will have a great shot of playing in the grand final next year. After that, they will lose a heap of players who are best 22. They really need to get rid of some deadwood off their list as well.

The stats he quoted were for Grimes. Not Melksham Melksham's are much worse than Grimes. http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?tid1=6&pid1=3323&tid2=12&pid2=2314&type=A&fid1=S&fid2=S

Hinkley thinks Butcher will make it as a defender. They have given up on the thought of him as a forward.

Vince? Roos' got Vince in. Craig did get us Sellar in 2011.

So you rate Melksham equal to Vandernberg? No Watts? No Garland? Either you dont rate Howe or you figure he is gone. (so do I) There is no way I would get rid of Watts and pick up Melksham. From your 22, I wouldnt have both Dawes and Pedersen and would replace one with Garland. But that decision would not impact Melksham getting a game. I would rate Grimes as ahead of Melksham and before anyone goes off their head, have a look at how Grimes year rates against Melksham's best year of 2013. (ill give you a heads up. Grimes has less clangers and better disposal dif) So Melksham would be getting a spot on the bench ahead of Stretch, ANB, JKH, Newton, Michie, Harmes. I would argue that all of these players would go past him in 2016. Plus any other trades that take place that actually input a best 22 player.

The guy I quoted said that he would clearly be in our best 22. I asked him to name it. Your right. He would be in our top 30. Easily right now. But for how long? I would be hoping/expecting a large number of players to go past him by 2017.

Matt Jones got 9 games in 2015. How many would he get next year? Harmes, Stretch, ANB, Vandenberg, White, Brayshaw all went past him this year. Add in Petracca, Trengove and Kent who are all returning from injuries. That places Matt Jones at the back of the group of Newton, Michie, Toumpas and JKH. Thats pretty much everyone on the list who will be ahead of him in the pecking order. So bringing in Melksham will have very little impact on how many games M.Jones plays next year.

This is such a rubbish argument. All of those players you have listed are hopeless and shouldn't be on a list. The problem is that through sheer necessity, we have given these guys contracts that they did not deserve and now they are clogging up our list. Is Melksham an upgrade? Maybe slightly. It simply means that we will have another NQR on the list for 4 years. I would much rather persist with Matt Jones for the final year of his contract and then delist him. The sad part is we will most likely keep Matt Jones AND pick up Melksham. I wouldn't be unhappy if we picked him up for free or a Garlett type deal, but not for 4 years. 2 years would be a maximum. Please name your best 22 for next year including Melksham.

It has been edited out! It was there earlier today!

I use to have this view too. Unfortunately I've seen this club stuff up so many times that I have learnt to trust my own instincts and opinions. Do you think the club got it right offering Terlich a long contract? We will have to either pay it out or have him taking up a spot on the list next year. Do you think Roo's got the weekly team selection right each time this year? People make mistakes all the time. Roo's and Goodwin arn't exempt from this. If you think Melksham will be a good pickup then let your opinion be known. But I will stand by mine.

The football department is made up of a group of humans. Humans make a lot of mistakes. This is one of them. Check out this response from Essendon supporters http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/17-jake-melksham-offered-a-2-year-contract.655796/page-145

Oh no. I had a sneaky suspicion that Goodwin would rate him. The only thing worse than a home grown spud is an imported spud. 4 years... Sweet Jesus. I have really hope this isn't true. Poster boy of the ASADA scandal.

Actually, my first mistake was thinking 'I wonder what those idiots on Bomberblitz are thinking they will get for that Spud Melksham?'

Rumor on Bomberblitz that we are into Hamish Hartlett. Harlett to Dees Dixon to Port However and 2nd rounder to Suns. We are offering big money to entice him.

I might be mistaken, but I think Max King is from Qld and eligible for a third year like Spencer was.

God no. Why on earth would we use pick 5 on a bloke with multiple knee recons?

I wonder if Jack Viney can punch through a barrier of reality and retcon our drafting history?

Where did you see him play HH?

It will be interesting to see the rules of future pick trades. Can you simply trade for picks? Eg. Hawks think they are travelling very well, they trade their first and second round pick this year to Port for their first two picks next year. That would give Port a good influx of talent now when they need it and then Hawks would have 4 early picks next year. I know that next years talent is suppose to be better. I'm just using this as a potential scenario.

He is contracted. I just can't see Gold Coast letting him go.