I guess the ideological difference is that I don't believe that "Won't be a premium" means "Rookie" as you seem to. The whole game isn't cut up into Keepers and Rookies. There's a whole swag of players inbetween.
They're called the ignore basket. If they're not a cash cow or a keeper, they shouldn't be in your sights. If you're picking players who aren't in your final side or best helping you upgrade, why are you picking them?
Rookies are first year players, basement priced. That's pretty cut and dried. Yes, we see players come back from injury or discounted 4 game seasons from the previous year - but they're simply rookie 'priced'. I don't think I've ever seen a single $330k player ever referred to as a rookie.
Call it a cash cow then if you want to put a singular definition into what a rookie pick is. I personally use the terms interchangeably because I think there are only two things a player should be picked for, they're either making you a ton of cash or they're a keeper.
Technically there is a 3rd group which is the late season downgrades who are just there to bank as much money as possible, add DPP flexibility and loopholing but they're not a starting team consideration.
If you're picking them as a mid-pricer or a stepping stone - sure you might value someone at $350k by their ability to generate cash for your team before being traded - a similar role to rookies - but that doesn't make them a rookie. Hence why I don't really see the comparison for Preuss to "other rookies". Especially when you consider there's no rookie priced player that can come into the Ruck and take his spot.
I feel like you're obfuscating the point by focusing on the word rookie. Again, use cash cow if it's easier for you, but compared to other cash cows, most of whom cost ~124k, a 300k one has a very high standard required to be a good pick. I see an entire field, Marshall can start in the rucks and you can pick a cash cow at any other position. If DPP players didn't exist, then sure it becomes more of an OR discussion but you can pick a cash cow on any line in place of Preuss.
I also hate the idea of a stepping stone. It's a term that makes what is probably a bad pick sound like something good. If that stepping stone isn't producing more cash than cheaper options then you've just spent more money on a worse investment.
Of course Pruess is going to be "outcashed" by a rookie who's priced at 120k. Why wouldn't he be. You're looking for them to reach 350k and be milked. No one is expecting Pruess to reach 600k for an equivalent profit. My plan is pretty simple - Preuss at 90 makes circa 150k with a spike game - Gawn at what I think is a hyper inflated average now that we're back to long quarters (and natural ruck attrition) loses 100k - and they become a cheapish swap down the line.
Repeat that first line to yourself. You've literally said that a 120k cash cow is a better pick than Preuss for cash generation. You're now arguing that keeping 180k in the bank makes it easier to upgrade in the future, another complete fallacy people are using to start Preuss. Just pick two 120k cash cows that are going to outcash Preuss and keep the money in the bank to make your Gawn upgrade, you're better off in every way, putting 180k into Preuss actually just puts that capital at risk for your plan if he fails or is injured (what if he goes 70, 70 and then gets injured for 10 in round 3 and drops 50k?).
You're again conflating Gawn's outcomes into Preuss' outcomes. I'm not saying start Gawn over Preuss, I'm questioning why you would start Preuss, based on the numbers you've given, over the other cash cows that you've admitted are better picks. If you said player X would make 200k and player Y would make 150k and neither is a keeper, why would you ever take player Y? (admittedly, there are reasons and Preuss actually has the strongest of those!).
I guess part of my rationale is backed by what is such a specific area, the rucks. The gameplan for everyone is simple - we all want to end up with Grundy and Gawn I suspect. So I think you can look at the Ruck area in isolation, and come up with a specific plan.
Specific area, yes, isolated, no. I agree on the basic strategy, I totally disagree about shutting your mind off to the rest of the field being pathways to your end game. If Jackson Mead (I don't know why he's become my generic rookie guinea pig) is going to make 200k and Preuss is going to make 150k, which one helps you more towards Gawn?
Treacy at 102k puts all the other positions in play as pathways to Gawn, Marshall doubles that if you like him as a starting pick.
Again, I actually like Preuss, I think he can actually make 200k and that's he's a justifiable pick as an R3 even because that cash generation trumps a dead R3 (whether it's worth the starting capital is a genuine debate for that choice). I think there's a case for him starting at R2 even, just that people should analyse that decision on merit and not conflated scenarios that distort the real picture.
Ultimately it's simple, pick Preuss because he is a good pick. Remove everything else from the scenario, compare him to his peers, which are cash cows for all but the most optimistic of Preuss fans, and then pick him if he stacks up. FWIW I think his job security, very high ceiling (proven 140 at least) and role all support him as a starting pick but he needs to be a good starting pick whether Gawn averages 80, 120 or 140 and none of those outcomes change Preuss' as a pick in any way (well, technically the 80 would shift the keeper level and could!).
and still be in front on points. 