Strategy Round 2: Trades

[dlanod]

Interesting, everyone using hand picked examples to say you should never trade to a mid pricer with early season form. On percentages, this obviously works due to players have spike games.

However, this strategy means you effectively forgoes any breakout players for the season, even if they end up D2 or F2?

Last year you would have 100% ignored Maynard and Ridley in your backline, I think the best coaches will be a little bit more nuanced in their decision making when it comes to early season form. Every player has spike games, so can't be seduced by those, however improved role and responsibility can be a great sign for an improved season. I refused to pick Jack Steele due to the "mid pricer" rule last year, and it consistently cost me!

Bringing in a "breakout" player after a single good score is insane.

Bringing in one after two good scores is incredibly risky and backfires more often than not.

Bringing in one after three or four good scores is about where I think sensible SC coaches target. The player would have gained a bit of cash but there's still plenty of growth, so you're still getting value and the risk is greatly reduced.

That's if we're talking someone in the $300k-400k range... Obviously the lower the player's price is the lower the risk is anyway, so if the player is barely above rookie price, e.g. $250k, I have a lot fewer issues with bringing them in at the two game mark since the initial jump is going to be higher, you're not investing as much, and can effectively treat them as a cashcow if they do backfire.

 

[Professor]

Thought we had 5 trades? 😜

 

[Socrates2]

I'm hoping Daniher can kick a bag at some stage on a dry ground, I'm not confident though.

 

[Socrates2]

Thought we had 5 trades? 😜

View attachment 27519

That was just last year only.

 

[lappinitup]

I don't think it's a case of never.. just that you need to be crystal clear what your plans and expectations are.

For every Ridley and Maynard there are countless Libbas and Zakas.. I don't think anyone would say there aren't success stories, but getting them right amidst a sea of options is never easy. It's also worth noting the good one's really end up at an unreachable price so you can still get them later (albeit at a premium on their starting price).

But take your point - SC isn't a game of hard and fast rules and circumstances are key, but I've found that history has a tendency to repeat itself so it's worth keeping it in mind!

If you are going to group anyone who scores 100 in round 1 as a potential break out player - then yes, percentages are always going to be on the side of caution. However, if you assess the game that simplistically, I think you will struggle regardless!

Personally don't think Zaharakis is anything like the Ridley/Maynard types, so shouldn't be grouped. He was a mature player, playing same role, in the same team. It was clearly a spike and he played his spike scores early in season, he has always played a few.

Bringing in a "breakout" player after a single good score is insane.

Bringing in one after two good scores is incredibly risky and backfires more often than not.

Bringing in one after three or four good scores is about where I think sensible SC coaches target. The player would have gained a bit of cash but there's still plenty of growth, so you're still getting value and the risk is greatly reduced.

That's if we're talking someone in the $300k-400k range... Obviously the lower the player's price is the lower the risk is anyway, so if the player is barely above rookie price, e.g. $250k, I have a lot fewer issues with bringing them in at the two game mark since the initial jump is going to be higher, you're not investing as much, and can effectively treat them as a cashcow if they do backfire.

Conversely, I had thought about Maynard all pre season in 2020. Thought he scored nicely in 2019 when not playing the lock down role and all signs for 2020 were him being freed up to play that rebounding defender role.

He scored a ton in Collingwood's proper pre season hit out, he scored well in round 1 and his role continued to look very advantageous.

When needing to do a little restructure, I thought brining him in was a no-brainer, far from "insane".

I again feel it is a little more nuanced than a single good score, you would be picking them on more than the score - you would have assessed their role and responsibility, you would asses the team structure and possible changes.

 

[Connoisseur]

Ideally no trades but I will give some thought to
Out: B Grundy and P Dow
In: S Martin and D Martin

 

[Juzzo]

Interesting, everyone using hand picked examples to say you should never trade to a mid pricer with early season form. On percentages, this obviously works due to players have spike games.

However, this strategy means you effectively forgoes any breakout players for the season, even if they end up D2 or F2?

Last year you would have 100% ignored Maynard and Ridley in your backline, I think the best coaches will be a little bit more nuanced in their decision making when it comes to early season form. Every player has spike games, so can't be seduced by those, however improved role and responsibility can be a great sign for an improved season. I refused to pick Jack Steele due to the "mid pricer" rule last year, and it consistently cost me!

In previous years I have kicked myself for not getting on those early bolters who seemed to have turned a corner for what ever reason. I pulled Ridley in last year at his max price I reckon.

 

[GrainFedBeef]

Not even if it gives you a bit of breathing room to consider which premo to bring in?

Trade Rowell to Guilden. Brockman offers the opportunity to turn it around. To easily I have traded a playing rookie in round 3 alone to see them go up significantly. Rowell I expect is out for a lot of weeks.

I do understand that you want to see another week, I am ok with that.

re Danger, I will see how Grundy goes Thurs night. If he does poorly and I think I need two trades in round 3 to be used, I pull the trigger on Danger this week. If Grundy does well, I will wait one more week to have better info.

It amazes me whilst there is the Libba who can do well for 4 rounds, many revert round2.

 

[GrainFedBeef]

View attachment 27513
Interesting to see how this effects Bergman.

Bonner hammy should save Bergman.

Plus Jones injured in the reserve game.

However, Bergman better do well otherwise I will be bringing him in for Chapman in round 4, once he has average 75 in the first two games,

 

[Ricky Bobby]

One for the brave thrill seekers

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1373817722815975424

Any idea how this may impact Logan McDonald ?

 

[Ricky Bobby]

I think these post are a bit cruel - almost like shaming people for wanting to change their teams. News flash - trading after R1 of SuperCoach is not some colossal failure.

Some people didn’t get to watch any preseason games so R1 is the first time they’ve seen the players they’ve picked in action.

Also players get played out of position etc. in preseason games. You can be sure about role until teams are playing for premiership points.

Add to that the fact that some teams might need two trades for rookie corrections next week so there might be no opportunity for a primo or mid price correction before prices change.

Trust your eyes and your gut. If you’re 90% sure you’ve made a stuff up with your starting team - correct it - and don’t let these nay sayers put you off.

Good post. Many past winners have aggressively fixed mistakes in the first couple of rounds. Good corrective trades can set up your season (or so I’m told 😬)

 

[Chumpion]

If you are going to group anyone who scores 100 in round 1 as a potential break out player - then yes, percentages are always going to be on the side of caution. However, if you assess the game that simplistically, I think you will struggle regardless!

Personally don't think Zaharakis is anything like the Ridley/Maynard types, so shouldn't be grouped. He was a mature player, playing same role, in the same team. It was clearly a spike and he played his spike scores early in season, he has always played a few.

I feel like saying all 100+ round one players are breakouts is an extreme stance (and not one I was making). Of course if you took that position you’d struggle to pick the right one. But even if you whittle it down to a select list based on research, preseason form, watching every game etc, there is still no chance you get it right and there is a lot of risk in getting wrong. Not saying it’s not a valid move - my original post was more a cautionary tale to not be blinded by potential/big numbers.

Also not sure you can say that Zaharakis was the same role/same team when pretty much the whole side was suspended and he was one of the few mature players in the team. If that doesn’t scream an increase in role/responsibility then I don’t know what does!

 

[Ricky Bobby]

..mabye T. Mitchell and Heeney for Rowell and Dangerfield. Only 4% have Mitchell.

Tich looks good, but Heeney.... 😬 He could be everything or could be nothing... the random role changes are the killer 😳

 

[manyproblems]

Yeah I agree it's very much context dependent, it's just that in my experience over the past two years these moves have allowed me to get Macrae in a lot quicker than I otherwise would have, and allowed me to get Macrae at a time when his price had dipped a little bit. There's a bit of luck there but I also didn't start Macrae both times in the hope that he would start a bit slow and with the aim of getting him in asap.

What I think is slightly underrated with these is the speed at which you can get an expensive player into your side. Not being invested is definitely a key part but when I got Libba and last year Viney, I was very aware that they were stepping stone players and didn't have plans to hold onto them for very long.

Last years price rise after Round 1 made Viney a very lucrative pick for me. I got rid of one premium I basically only had because I couldn't afford anyone else in Coniglio for Viney, making 110k after round 1. Then after round 4 I did Viney to Macrae for 83K, the move was delayed by one week because of the Dees/Dons game being cancelled. So for two trades where I made 27K I was able to get Macrae into my side very quickly and at a reduced cost.

Interesting point you bring up about speed, something I havent put thought into other than waiting till rooks are ready to cut. Trying to figure out how to be aggressive, looking at a Bowes type to make quick cash.

 

[donnybuang]

Any idea how this may impact Logan McDonald ?

Buddy tells him to get out if his way.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

Buddy tells him to get out if his way.

Haha... yeah, that’s pretty much what I was thinking 😬

 

[NT.Thunder]

Tich looks good, but Heeney.... 😬 He could be everything or could be nothing... the random role changes are the killer 😳

Heeney had a big round 1 last season also IIRC

 

[Quasimodo]

Danger to Titch via DPP looks an obvious move for my side this week ... assuming the former cops 2+ weeks .

I'm also super interested in both Mills and Stephenson who could both prove very successful picks for the money. However Titch appears to be the safer play given his proven track record of midfield piggery. The other two have got off to great starts obviously but are more unknown commodities in the midfield, at least at this stage in their young careers.

Might still be in a position to jump on Stephenson next week if he backs it up with another 25+ possession game. Although that will largely depend on how a couple of my other midpricers like Dow and Daniher perform in Round 2.

 

[Grundogging]

Tich looks good, but Heeney.... 😬 He could be everything or could be nothing... the random role changes are the killer 😳

The healthier Buddy is (and remains), the healthier and more consistent Heeney's SC scoring will be I suspect. That's a proposition that any SC coach worth their salt would see as being as safe as houses...

 

[eekraN]

Any reason why Hickey isn't being discussed? Had a huge game and cheeeeaaaap!

I'm thinking of flipping Grundy for him. Allows me to deal with Rowell and Danniher.