Strategy Round 5: Trades
- Thread starter Herbie66
- Start date
Would be three trades down on your ruck line and still no Gawn or Grundy.
Rucks can become a real distraction to upgrading your overall team. I wasted 4 trades in rucks last year and still didn’t finish with Grundy - my year suffered as a result.
I think if you do the above you almost need to be prepared to ride mummy for the year, irrespective of the points loss to whoever of Gawn and Grundy you don’t end up with.
Rucks can become a real distraction to upgrading your overall team. I wasted 4 trades in rucks last year and still didn’t finish with Grundy - my year suffered as a result.
I think if you do the above you almost need to be prepared to ride mummy for the year, irrespective of the points loss to whoever of Gawn and Grundy you don’t end up with.
Given 50% have Grundy and Gawn and a r/f R3 ROB serves no purpose except to make their teams worse because they'll lose the r/f link. If you're only trading him for $$ then he has to compared against Stack and Hore and others, to decide how to make best use of the trades.
I am looking at all the discussions about trades this week, and I don't have Marshall or Rocky or whoever, and just can't make sense of any of it. I see no value in ROB and I think the boat has been missed on Marshall and Rocky, given really they're both cash grabs in my view. I can't see how they'll keep going at this level for the season. (Rocky maybe a better chance, but history says injuries, or a change in role if Port start losing could come into it).
So for me, this thread is so far off my thinking I can't comprehend it.
Even the rookie trades, I can't see how everyone's thinking of ditching Butters, while people seem to be holding Setterfield even given he's shown little and is out for a couple of weeks.
For me this is a week to either hold, or trade down rookies for $$ or if you're really worried about those forward rookies do one down one up. But no one's made enough money to do that to anyone they want (even to Marshall), so everyone's trying to invent stuff which might hurt them in the long run.
I'll probably swing Moore forward to at least give a bit more passable depth in the forward line and decide whether my team can handle a double down.
I am looking at all the discussions about trades this week, and I don't have Marshall or Rocky or whoever, and just can't make sense of any of it. I see no value in ROB and I think the boat has been missed on Marshall and Rocky, given really they're both cash grabs in my view. I can't see how they'll keep going at this level for the season. (Rocky maybe a better chance, but history says injuries, or a change in role if Port start losing could come into it).
So for me, this thread is so far off my thinking I can't comprehend it.
Even the rookie trades, I can't see how everyone's thinking of ditching Butters, while people seem to be holding Setterfield even given he's shown little and is out for a couple of weeks.
For me this is a week to either hold, or trade down rookies for $$ or if you're really worried about those forward rookies do one down one up. But no one's made enough money to do that to anyone they want (even to Marshall), so everyone's trying to invent stuff which might hurt them in the long run.
I'll probably swing Moore forward to at least give a bit more passable depth in the forward line and decide whether my team can handle a double down.
I would have thought you lose it, until you trade ROB again. So basically it's your assessment of the risks in the short term (where you'd still have ROB coverage) vs the costs of those 2 trades vs the $$gains. In the perfect world you've used 2 trades to facilitate a, say, 170k gain, but never used ROBs points. And then are using those $$ to upgrade a forward.
Keeping Crisp hey? 3 fairly bad scores and a horrible BE means he is out of my team while he still has some value. Could possibly swing Moore back and still get Marshall, you may need to end up with Balta on field if you do that though, if Parker isn't named. Probably not worth it, but it's an option...
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 19,855
- Likes
- 929
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I do not have Bines. I actually have Graham as a POD as he DEF/RUC. My plan was possibly trade Burgess out for ROB by shifting Graham to DEF to loophole there temporarily whilst ROB comes in as cash generating R3. However, like everyone else I now concerned about the forward line this week with Setterfield suspended, if anyone else out like Heeney would be very vulnerable up forward. Keeping Burgess just to shift forward to cover for forward out not really what I want to do so wait and see how teams are dropping tomorrow.
At this stage I expect Heeney to play as my forward and Parker to retain his spot at Saints so still may do my trades as planning but now it is a real wait and see. I may have to alter to trade Setterfield which was not planning to do.
At this stage I expect Heeney to play as my forward and Parker to retain his spot at Saints so still may do my trades as planning but now it is a real wait and see. I may have to alter to trade Setterfield which was not planning to do.
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 19,855
- Likes
- 929
- AFL Club
- Carlton
For sure. I guess I'd like to at least get some use out of my cash cows 
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,958
- Likes
- 126,613
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Remaining salary: 8,100
Trades left: 28 (Previous 2 were Out: T Greene, M Hore, In: B Smith, J Scrimshaw)
Greatly appreciate thoughts on the preferred option out of the below
1. Hold/No trades
2. Z Butters to R O'Brien (via X Duursma moving to M8, C Burgess moving to D8 and P Bines moving to F8) but no cover until Setterfield returns
3. Z Butters and B Scott to R O'Brien (via above) and M Hore (via C Burgess) thus providing cover until Setterfield returns but involves bringing M Hore back in.
4. B Scott to R O'Brien (via W Setterfield to M9, P Bines to F8) allowing M Parker and C Burgess to be looped.
