Strategy Round 5: Trades

[quite ironic]

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.

The only people who lose it are those that have Justin Westhoff in their Forward Line

 

[bomberboy]

Setterfield and Butters to Stack and ROB gives me 300k for an upgrade next week, but also gives me the bench of Bines and Balta... How game is everyone to roll with this for a week?

 

[frosty1]

The only people who lose it are those that have Justin Westhoff in their Forward Line

Or Lycett, Lobb, Roughead, Ceglar, [Westhoff] or Vardy (as playing options, in order of average points, currently)

 

[quite ironic]

Or Lycett, Lobb, Roughead, Ceglar, [Westhoff] or Vardy (as playing options, in order of average points, currently)

Sorry I meant the only half useful one.

Actually scratch that right now there are absolutely zero useful forward ruck DPP players.

Bines is actually the best of the lot for his loopholing

 

[frosty1]

Sorry I meant the only half useful one.

Actually scratch that right now there are absolutely zero useful forward ruck DPP players.

Bines is actually the best of the lot for his loopholing

You're knocking back 90 averages in your forward line now?

 

[bomberboy]

You're knocking back 90 averages in your forward line now?

How many of these players do you have personally?

 

[TommyGobbler]

Is it too early to trade Matt Parker?

He's shown an ability to scores 80's so potentially has another 100k to make.

My options are:
Parker > Lloyd
Petrucelle > Whitfield

 

[Monya Meow Meow]

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...

I wish I could trade his sorry a** out but not really liking my options at the moment especially with the FWD line uncertainty this week.

 

[TommyGobbler]

Crows ruckman Sam Jacobs has a meniscus issue in his right knee. Will decide tomorrow the next course of action. If he has surgery, expected to be out 4-8 weeks, but could potentially be managed the rest of the season

Just now on Twitter.

 

[frosty1]

How many of these players do you have personally?

90 averages in my fwd line? 4

Usefulish ruck forwards? Lycett only. And his average is entirely made up of that one week, so I don't see him as a long term starting fwd. But the value of the ruck/fwd link will keep him in my side I reckon, even if he slides to the bench. Could see people having Lobb. Would be surprised with many of the others.

It's a structural choice, but when the whole forward line is a massive mess, I could live with M8 averaging 85ish.

 

[frosty1]

But an R3 making money is very appealing, especially in relative terms if others do not make cash there.

On reflection, this is a pretty compelling argument. Personally have other positions where I also won't be making any $$ from unless they're fixed, so it's a case of weighing them all up.

 

[OzRulesFootball]

On reflection, this is a pretty compelling argument. Personally have other positions where I also won't be making any $$ from unless they're fixed, so it's a case of weighing them all up.

I actually got three at moment.
R3 for RUC/Def captain loophole mainly is the first. The second and third DEF/MId loophole agent and FWD/Mid loophole agent. I am thinking I got to remove one now to generate more cash and DEF/MID looks most likely of Tobe Watson to sacrifice. But if I see other cash generators turn up and none of my cash generating cows ready to milk, the luxury of loophole agent/place holders will have to be reduced.

Indeed mostly a case of weighing them all up and working out the best path to take going forward.

 

[Grundogging]

I've been mulling over moving Nank on for Mummy, but now I'm thinking ROB might be the way to go in a more aggressive downgrade (R1 is Gawn - R3 is Bines, no DPP backup).

I'd likely have the cash to do an early FWD upgrade in the next week or two anyway to push Drew back down to F6 (happy enough with choosing from Moore, Scrimshaw, Duursma and Collins at D4-6), but this would free up a lot more cash going forward, meaning less rookie trades needed to find $$$ prem upgrades.

I'm also mulling over bringing Stack in for Butters to generate another wad of cash - this would leave me with only 25 trades though so would that be too aggressive?

 

[quite ironic]

You're knocking back 90 averages in your forward line now?

Lycett?

He’s a chance to be dropped this week along with 3/4 scores under that 90 average.

Absolutely!

 

[Couch Coach]

Jay Lockhart vs Sydney Stack?

I haven't watched either play so can watches advise if the following is correct:
Stack: Pros; Higher Ceiling Cons; JS with Richmond injured players on the way back
Lockhart: Pros; DPP, JS Cons; Lower scores

I will bring one in this week (leaning towards Stack) but just want to validate.

Thanks for reading.

 

[bomberboy]

Jay Lockhart vs Sydney Stack?

I haven't watched either play so can watches advise if the following is correct:
Stack: Pros; Higher Ceiling Cons; JS with Richmond injured players on the way back
Lockhart: Pros; DPP, JS Cons; Lower scores

I will bring one in this week (leaning towards Stack) but just want to validate.

Thanks for reading.

Stack is reportedly playing Short's role, if that helps.

 

[BigRuss]

If Sauce misses an extended period ROB is an absolute no brainer. Don't overthink it, he's rookie priced ruck cover who looks set to make his 150k fairly rapidly.

 

[Couch Coach]

If Sauce misses an extended period ROB is an absolute no brainer. Don't overthink it, he's rookie priced ruck cover who looks set to make his 150k fairly rapidly.

Is $150K enough?
If you don't have him you have to spend 1 trade to bring him in and another to release the $ increase.

If you allocated say 2 trades for corrections and haven't used them then fine, but if you have already used your corrective trades then $75K per trade seems to be unders.

 

[Zimmer]

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.

This is how I've been feeling about it - nothing more to say. Other than Hore and Stack and getting rid of Setterfield, a lot of the discussion this week seems to be based on points or $s chasing that have already left the station, bank.... etc. Sorry for the mixed metaphor.

Everyone seems a bit trigger happy. There's another one.

 

[quite ironic]

Is $150K enough?
If you don't have him you have to spend 1 trade to bring him in and another to release the $ increase.

If you allocated say 2 trades for corrections and haven't used them then fine, but if you have already used your corrective trades then $75K per trade seems to be unders.

I feel the general rule of thumb to make 150k is a bit less for an R3.

It’s very rare you can find a cash cow here and they are more important than any other position if you can because other cash cows will come through all the other lines every week.

It’s very y likely another ruck cash cow comes through and most people are left with a Bines donut who’s made $0 throughout the season if one does come through.

If ROB doesn’t work out I could literally downgrade him to any rookie on any line due to Duursma, Setterfield, Bines, Drew, Moore etc having DPP.