Devo

We can't complain about Melksham when our depth has been so pitiful for so long. He has his limitations obviously, but he is still an improvement on the likes of Bail, M Jones, McKenzie etc. The best teams are defined by their depth as much as they are by their top end talent. We also can't complain about paying overs to get players in. Melbourne is absolutely not a destination club and we don't have A-grade players begging to wear the red and blue. That's not to take away from the club's ambition to become a destination club, we'd all love Melbourne to become an attractive place for players to come. We become attractive by winning lots of games. Like most other people, I'd prefer we weren't offering Melksham 4 years (and Dawes before him), but it's a product of where the club is currently at. We will have to continue paying overs for players until the club becomes a proper top 8 contender and we have something tangible to offer. What we can ask questions about, as poita pointed out, is why the deal had to be done now. The market for him was not red-hot. The only reason I can see is if Essendon had put a contract in front of him and he was on the verge of signing it.

You're making too much sense, binman

Sounds like a great idea to me.