I see your point, and certainly agree output overrides value..... to a certain extent.
Add Pendlebury into your list of 5 players, and I say every team should probably start with 2 of those 6, maybe 3 at a pinch. I know the game is about points, and not dollars, but there is a direct relationship between the two. The best teams, are also the teams that grow in value the quickest. If you have too many of those 6 in your team, too early, your team value is suffering with your biggest investments dropping in value. Keep in mind, a player that scores at last years average will slowly drop around 10% for the season. It is why I harp on value a little. Just imagine comparing these 2 teams. Team A goes top heavy and spends $3.5m on 6 top heavy players that will slowly reduce in value, and $6.5m on players that overall increase by say 15% early on. Team B spends $1.2m on 2 top heavy players, and $8.8m on players that increase by 15% early on. Let's give the the top heavy players a 5% loss, and guess we are talking about round 6 or 7.
Team A: ($3.5m*.95)+($6.5m*1.15) = value now $10.8m
Team B: ($1.5m*.95)+($8.5m*1.15) = value now $11.2m
Keep in mind points produce dollars, and dollars are used to produce points. It is a cycle that every team needs. With the extra $400k produced, Team B has made improvements quicker than Team A. Yes, you may say he needs to make improvements to match Team A's premiums. My answer to that is, if their non premium cattle are growing at around the same % as each other, you'd be surprised at how little difference there is in their points, BUT Team B's improvement in point scoring will increase quicker, due to more dollars being generated.
My advice is, find a way to figure out which 2 of those 6 will score the best early on (to utilise the Capt loophole), and it may just come down to guessing, and start those 2. Trade the others in when they have a slight drop, or you have the cash. The only downfall on my advice would be, if you chose the wrong 2 to start, and 2 of the others start the season with a bang, before "wilting" to your predicted averages. Their output would still be good, but you might have really payed top dollars for them. One of the keys to success is bringing in the right players at the right time. That means when they represent value on what their output will be after you bring them in. In your scenario, none of them represent value. (Even though I know you don't think/recommend that anyone will start with all 6).
I love the thought put into your responses, sven!
Add Pendlebury into your list of 5 players, and I say every team should probably start with 2 of those 6, maybe 3 at a pinch. I know the game is about points, and not dollars, but there is a direct relationship between the two. The best teams, are also the teams that grow in value the quickest. If you have too many of those 6 in your team, too early, your team value is suffering with your biggest investments dropping in value. Keep in mind, a player that scores at last years average will slowly drop around 10% for the season. It is why I harp on value a little. Just imagine comparing these 2 teams. Team A goes top heavy and spends $3.5m on 6 top heavy players that will slowly reduce in value, and $6.5m on players that overall increase by say 15% early on. Team B spends $1.2m on 2 top heavy players, and $8.8m on players that increase by 15% early on. Let's give the the top heavy players a 5% loss, and guess we are talking about round 6 or 7.
Team A: ($3.5m*.95)+($6.5m*1.15) = value now $10.8m
Team B: ($1.5m*.95)+($8.5m*1.15) = value now $11.2m
Keep in mind points produce dollars, and dollars are used to produce points. It is a cycle that every team needs. With the extra $400k produced, Team B has made improvements quicker than Team A. Yes, you may say he needs to make improvements to match Team A's premiums. My answer to that is, if their non premium cattle are growing at around the same % as each other, you'd be surprised at how little difference there is in their points, BUT Team B's improvement in point scoring will increase quicker, due to more dollars being generated.
My advice is, find a way to figure out which 2 of those 6 will score the best early on (to utilise the Capt loophole), and it may just come down to guessing, and start those 2. Trade the others in when they have a slight drop, or you have the cash. The only downfall on my advice would be, if you chose the wrong 2 to start, and 2 of the others start the season with a bang, before "wilting" to your predicted averages. Their output would still be good, but you might have really payed top dollars for them. One of the keys to success is bringing in the right players at the right time. That means when they represent value on what their output will be after you bring them in. In your scenario, none of them represent value. (Even though I know you don't think/recommend that anyone will start with all 6).
I love the thought put into your responses, sven!
Great Discussion Guys
I think the correct answer totally depends on How much value there is an any specific year.
If finishing the year with the most money was the objective you would ONLY pick rookies and Value Picks.
The problem with this is that you would have about 5 million bucks left in the bank that isn't invested
Obviously if your money isn't invested it isn't going to be earning you points.
In the ideal world you pick your rookies that you are happy to have on the field, your Value picks, your 2 captain options and you have spent your salary cap and have a full team.
In reality (especially this year assuming that we get some good rookies come through) there will be times where you might pick a player purely for their point scoring rather than their value (otherwise you would need to leave money in the bank).
