poita

There seems to be three possible reasons for the delay in finalising the Melksham deal: 1. Essendon are being their usual dumb arzes and asking for more compensation, in which case we should stop negotiating immediately (and wait for them to come crawling back to us next week), or 2. We expect to get away with paying less compensation. I don't blame us for playing hard ball, but I think we are kidding ourselves - slap $1.6 million worth of contract in front of a player and there is a fair argument that pick 25 is reasonable compensation, or 3. We are still working on a deal for a much better player than Melksham (please let this be the case).

I'm still not convinced that Melksham is the player we need, but it's not up to me. The two things that really bug me about this are: 1. 4 year deals for average players are not good practice. By all means, give Hogan a 10 year contract, and the rest of your top 10 players 4-5 year deals, but we need to stop handing out long term deals to everyone else. Dawes, Lumumba, Jamar, McKenzie - the list of poor decisions is becoming rather long, and that does not include the inappropriate shorter deals given to Barry, Evans and Terlich. 2. Why make commitments to players, particularly average players, before the trade period begins? We have no idea who might become available once proper negotiations commence, and I would hate to think we might miss out on a quality midfielder because we have given up our 2nd round pick to get Melksham.

I'm not sure what part of the (proposed) Melksham deal is worst - the four years, the $$$, the second round pick or the player himself. It is a shocker in every respect. And whilst some around here are in love with Roos and co, I think our trading last year was a bare pass at best. Lumumba was a clear fail, the jury is out on Frost, Newton has been disappointing, and Garlett is a clear win.

Putting aside the WADA shennanigans for a second, Essendon are by a large margin the worst team in the comp to trade with. They severely overvalue every one of their players, which makes it almost impossible to trade with them. I wouldn't want the club wasting it's time negotiating a trade with these morons, let alone for a mediocre player like Melksham. We've got more chance of trading for Dangerfield.

The problem is that a number of the players in the gun are players that Roos brought in two years ago (Riley, Michie, Cross, Hunt, etc). And we will be having the same conversation about Newton and Lumumba next year if they don't improve markedly.

Riewoldt is a super player, we all know that. But Roberton, Dempster and Schneider are experienced players that cost St Kilda very little to bring in. That's not to mention Bruce who was quiet yesterday, but has had a great year. Why do we pay massively over the odds for players like Dawes and Lumumba who give nothing, when there are so many decent players available if you look hard enough? It is highly debatable that our young players are better than St Kilda's. Hogan and Brayshaw probably are, but I would be happy with any of McCartin, Billings, Dunstan, and Goddard over the rest of our list.

Nothing against Tyler Roos, but I would have real issues with the club taking the coach's son as a speculative draft selection. Sure thing if he's a genuine top 20-30 pick, but anything outside that is asking for trouble. Particularly given our recent draft history.

Ridiculous decision. The guy has shown nothing in five years and now we give him more chances.