Position SC 2021: Midfielder Discussion
- Thread starter THCLT
- Start date
To be fair.. plenty of players only have a few possessions in the first 1/4 then come home with a wet sail and score their avg. Cripps immediately comes to mind. Just as Petracca often does the opposite.
If he had played a full game v Guthrie and posted a stinker of a score...fair enough but it was just 11mins.
If he had played a full game v Guthrie and posted a stinker of a score...fair enough but it was just 11mins.
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 575
- Likes
- 1,040
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Love how people make it seemingly so easy to pick up someone at $ 600k 
I struggle getting upgrades when they are $ 500 - 550 k
I guess maybe one way would be to start 2 x $ 350 k player for the 6 first rounds then go down to a rookie and then up to Neale
I struggle getting upgrades when they are $ 500 - 550 k
I guess maybe one way would be to start 2 x $ 350 k player for the 6 first rounds then go down to a rookie and then up to Neale
125k rookie makes $ 150 k = 275 k
1 down to new rookie , leaves $ 425k
1 down to new rookie , leaves $ 575
now I understand if ALL our rookies make $ 150 k we need 2 and a bit downgrades to get a $ 600k player
too easy (just hope we get 15-17 rookies each week playing and we won't have any issues at all)
think from a previous post it gennerally takes 10 rounds for a rookie to make the $ 150 k mark
can you post my side that has 11 midpricers in it, would be keen to see it
dont all those sides at the end of the season that use no trades at all and outscore the winner have about 6-8 mid pricers in them normally
2 x $ 700 k = $ 1.4 million
7 x $ 200k = $ 1.4 million
Bench = $ 1 million
$ 6.2 million left for 13 players, not buying too many (any) guaranteed premiums for approx $ 500k
Love these 13/14 premium sides with rookies that probably have little chance of playing Round 1 , I guess people are happy wiith donuts from the start
1 down to new rookie , leaves $ 425k
1 down to new rookie , leaves $ 575
now I understand if ALL our rookies make $ 150 k we need 2 and a bit downgrades to get a $ 600k player
too easy (just hope we get 15-17 rookies each week playing and we won't have any issues at all)
think from a previous post it gennerally takes 10 rounds for a rookie to make the $ 150 k mark
can you post my side that has 11 midpricers in it, would be keen to see it
dont all those sides at the end of the season that use no trades at all and outscore the winner have about 6-8 mid pricers in them normally
2 x $ 700 k = $ 1.4 million
7 x $ 200k = $ 1.4 million
Bench = $ 1 million
$ 6.2 million left for 13 players, not buying too many (any) guaranteed premiums for approx $ 500k
Love these 13/14 premium sides with rookies that probably have little chance of playing Round 1 , I guess people are happy wiith donuts from the start
Last edited:
125k rookie makes $ 150 k = 275 k
1 down to new rookie , leaves $ 425k
1 down to new rookie , leaves $ 575
now I understand if ALL our rookies make $ 150 k we need 2 and a bit downgrades to get a $ 600k player
too easy (just hope we get 15-17 rookies each week playing and we won't have any issues at all)
think from a previous post it gennerally takes 10 rounds for a rookie to make the $ 150 k mark
can you post my side that has 11 midpricers in it, would be keen to see it
dont all those sides at the end of the season that use no trades at all and outscore the winner have about 6-8 mid pricers in them normally
2 x $ 700 k = $ 1.4 million
7 x $ 200k = $ 1.4 million
Bench = $ 1 million
$ 6.2 million left for 13 players, not buying too many (any) guaranteed premiums for approx $ 500k
Love these 13/14 premium sides with rookies that probably have little chance of playing Round 1 , I guess people are happy wiith donuts from the start
1 down to new rookie , leaves $ 425k
1 down to new rookie , leaves $ 575
now I understand if ALL our rookies make $ 150 k we need 2 and a bit downgrades to get a $ 600k player
too easy (just hope we get 15-17 rookies each week playing and we won't have any issues at all)
think from a previous post it gennerally takes 10 rounds for a rookie to make the $ 150 k mark
can you post my side that has 11 midpricers in it, would be keen to see it
dont all those sides at the end of the season that use no trades at all and outscore the winner have about 6-8 mid pricers in them normally
2 x $ 700 k = $ 1.4 million
7 x $ 200k = $ 1.4 million
Bench = $ 1 million
$ 6.2 million left for 13 players, not buying too many (any) guaranteed premiums for approx $ 500k
Love these 13/14 premium sides with rookies that probably have little chance of playing Round 1 , I guess people are happy wiith donuts from the start
Love how people make it seemingly so easy to pick up someone at $ 600k
I struggle getting upgrades when they are $ 500 - 550 k
I guess maybe one way would be to start 2 x $ 350 k player for the 6 first rounds then go down to a rookie and then up to Neale
I struggle getting upgrades when they are $ 500 - 550 k
I guess maybe one way would be to start 2 x $ 350 k player for the 6 first rounds then go down to a rookie and then up to Neale
Purely for the injury concerns, he attained what is basically perfection with his scoring last season, needs everything to go right to sustain it and that injury concern is a genuine concern for him given that required level.
Still think he's fine if he averages 120+ but it's not an ideal result.
It takes dedication to get there but realistically Neale is probably going to cost you 650k+. The reality is that it's actually quite easy for a player like him to sustain his price. Basically needs to average 115 if you want him to drop ~100k but he'd need to do it without having a big score in there. Alternatively he'd need an absolute stinker in there, like a 65 type score, if he's averaging 125 which seems a very reasonable outcome.
He's just so capable of huge scores that even a bad score doesn't guarantee a big price drop, especially given his bad scores have generally been really good.
Also strongly dislike the logic of starting more expensive players to get you there. Sure if they're going to make more cash than rookies they make sense, otherwise you may as well get the 125k rookie and keep that 225k in the bank and go all in. Spending more starting money to generate less cash is a bad investment, you actually are just putting the cash at risk of that player failing so you can generate less cash.
It's very possible to get 13-14 with genuine premiums, it just means overloading in the backs/forwards over the rucks/mids and not taking the absolute top picks on each line.
The problem is it's quite likely that at least a couple of those top picks remain just as expensive and they're must haves at the end of the day.
Done this a few times but that's just a really bad starting pick. Those guys need to be keeper level picks. If they're not keepers and they're only generating 50k you're losing both points and cash on rookies.
Still think people get fixated on the raw points. Taranto at 100 sounds better than Rookie at 60 except it's not if you get fair to even mediocre return on the cash difference. At fair value you've got Taranto at 100 vs Rookie at 60 and ~61 points worth of cash to invest elsewhere. 60 isn't even a rookie you'd look to start generally so this isn't some outstanding rookie alternative.
Still think he's fine if he averages 120+ but it's not an ideal result.
Love how people make it seemingly so easy to pick up someone at $ 600k
I struggle getting upgrades when they are $ 500 - 550 k
I guess maybe one way would be to start 2 x $ 350 k player for the 6 first rounds then go down to a rookie and then up to Neale
I struggle getting upgrades when they are $ 500 - 550 k
I guess maybe one way would be to start 2 x $ 350 k player for the 6 first rounds then go down to a rookie and then up to Neale
He's just so capable of huge scores that even a bad score doesn't guarantee a big price drop, especially given his bad scores have generally been really good.
Also strongly dislike the logic of starting more expensive players to get you there. Sure if they're going to make more cash than rookies they make sense, otherwise you may as well get the 125k rookie and keep that 225k in the bank and go all in. Spending more starting money to generate less cash is a bad investment, you actually are just putting the cash at risk of that player failing so you can generate less cash.
It's very possible to get 13-14 with genuine premiums, it just means overloading in the backs/forwards over the rucks/mids and not taking the absolute top picks on each line.
The problem is it's quite likely that at least a couple of those top picks remain just as expensive and they're must haves at the end of the day.
Done this a few times but that's just a really bad starting pick. Those guys need to be keeper level picks. If they're not keepers and they're only generating 50k you're losing both points and cash on rookies.
Still think people get fixated on the raw points. Taranto at 100 sounds better than Rookie at 60 except it's not if you get fair to even mediocre return on the cash difference. At fair value you've got Taranto at 100 vs Rookie at 60 and ~61 points worth of cash to invest elsewhere. 60 isn't even a rookie you'd look to start generally so this isn't some outstanding rookie alternative.
If you're not starting Neale, you're doing so because you expect his average to drop back to the pack. If that's the case, then you don't need him at all because there'll be others who are in that pack that you have started with or will trade up to. If he stays head and shoulders above the pack then you've lost but you were never going to get him anyway and hopefully you've spent your money wisely elsewhere.
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,890
- Likes
- 11,150
- AFL Club
- West Coast
If Neale drops to 120 he would like still be top of most midfields, even 115 isn't the pack in a normal year.
115 would be $100k fall plus a reduction in MN takes another circa $65k off his price.
Every year we hear players are too hard to bring in. we generate $2.5m, all players attainable.
What hurt with Lloyd, Neale and Gawn last year is they outperformed the prior average which saw them go up in price when others we depreciating 10%. Neale could underperform last year and still be worth bringing in, at 115 and at $570k I would be happy with that.
It was stunning he wasn't tagged more last year and year before, what will change is the media around his neck, Brownlow medalist typically receive more attention in following year (has anyone analysed this?).
115 would be $100k fall plus a reduction in MN takes another circa $65k off his price.
Every year we hear players are too hard to bring in. we generate $2.5m, all players attainable.
What hurt with Lloyd, Neale and Gawn last year is they outperformed the prior average which saw them go up in price when others we depreciating 10%. Neale could underperform last year and still be worth bringing in, at 115 and at $570k I would be happy with that.
It was stunning he wasn't tagged more last year and year before, what will change is the media around his neck, Brownlow medalist typically receive more attention in following year (has anyone analysed this?).
Again, this is a fallacy. If you've spent the 330k reasonably you're not banking any points, you're losing points and then you're burning a trade on top of it.
Think of two teams, they're identical but for 3 players and we're assuming players produce what they're priced at (otherwise you're just playing the guessing game) except for our rookie and Taranto.
Team Taranto - Taranto at 100, Bolton and ZWilliams
Team Rookie - Rookie at 60, Dangerfield and Petracca.
Team Taranto produces you 271.5 points for your $1374700, Team Rookie produces you 291.4 points for 7.5k less (Petracca was slightly cheaper than what I had left 5 players in!).
Now obviously this is very simple but it illustrates the on-field value of Taranto at 100 vs what is a very ordinary on-field rookie.
To be clear, this isn't based on Taranto so don't get caught up on names here, I could just have called them all Player A, B, C etc and shown the same outcome. The rookie, if you get fair value on the money, will result in more points for your team and more cash generation.
Hence why I say Taranto needs to be a keeper, at his starting price he is either a keeper (great result) or a bad outcome compared to a rookie.
There are also cases for the Taranto pick, if he's capable of enormous scores that would price spike and actually turn him into an excellent cash cow, say a 125+ type month and his scoring history in 2019 probably supports that he is (though good luck pulling the trigger!), his job security and, hopefully, lower variability in scoring are among the strongest reasons I can think of but really at the end of the day the main reason to take him is you believe he's likely to be a keeper and, imo, that alone is a good enough reason to start him and all the other things I've said would just be supporting evidence for the chance you're wrong about him being a keeper that he could still work. Basically the case for a Taranto priced pick that you're picking to upgrade is generally going to be a poor case, especially compared to a rookie with some job security as the comparison.
Think of two teams, they're identical but for 3 players and we're assuming players produce what they're priced at (otherwise you're just playing the guessing game) except for our rookie and Taranto.
Team Taranto - Taranto at 100, Bolton and ZWilliams
Team Rookie - Rookie at 60, Dangerfield and Petracca.
Team Taranto produces you 271.5 points for your $1374700, Team Rookie produces you 291.4 points for 7.5k less (Petracca was slightly cheaper than what I had left 5 players in!).
Now obviously this is very simple but it illustrates the on-field value of Taranto at 100 vs what is a very ordinary on-field rookie.
To be clear, this isn't based on Taranto so don't get caught up on names here, I could just have called them all Player A, B, C etc and shown the same outcome. The rookie, if you get fair value on the money, will result in more points for your team and more cash generation.
Hence why I say Taranto needs to be a keeper, at his starting price he is either a keeper (great result) or a bad outcome compared to a rookie.
There are also cases for the Taranto pick, if he's capable of enormous scores that would price spike and actually turn him into an excellent cash cow, say a 125+ type month and his scoring history in 2019 probably supports that he is (though good luck pulling the trigger!), his job security and, hopefully, lower variability in scoring are among the strongest reasons I can think of but really at the end of the day the main reason to take him is you believe he's likely to be a keeper and, imo, that alone is a good enough reason to start him and all the other things I've said would just be supporting evidence for the chance you're wrong about him being a keeper that he could still work. Basically the case for a Taranto priced pick that you're picking to upgrade is generally going to be a poor case, especially compared to a rookie with some job security as the comparison.
Those players are very hard to obtain though.
If we generate 2.5m, using 500k of that to get one player leaves you 2m or just 285k per upgrade for the other 7, assuming you managed 14 keepers. That drops to 250k if you've only managed 13. That's an average upgrade at 410k for your other 7 upgrades, you're going to struggle to find good picks in that range with any consistency.
Realistically you're looking at a perfect 2 weeks worth of trading to get that jump done as well, which is also always difficult to manage.
And if they don't drop, you're cactus, believe me after I started Cripps over Neale last year
If we generate 2.5m, using 500k of that to get one player leaves you 2m or just 285k per upgrade for the other 7, assuming you managed 14 keepers. That drops to 250k if you've only managed 13. That's an average upgrade at 410k for your other 7 upgrades, you're going to struggle to find good picks in that range with any consistency.
Realistically you're looking at a perfect 2 weeks worth of trading to get that jump done as well, which is also always difficult to manage.
And if they don't drop, you're cactus, believe me after I started Cripps over Neale last year
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2020
- Messages
- 53
- Likes
- 256
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Rowell's 3 game span where he exploded and averaged 142 last year:
2 goals p/g
7.33 tackles p/g
22 disposals p/g
13 contested possessions p/g
All at 76% ToG. I keep flipping back and forth between these numbers being unsustainable and there being a spike in ToG that sees his scoring jump regardless of matching these stats.
2 goals p/g
7.33 tackles p/g
22 disposals p/g
13 contested possessions p/g
All at 76% ToG. I keep flipping back and forth between these numbers being unsustainable and there being a spike in ToG that sees his scoring jump regardless of matching these stats.