- Joined
- 8 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 6,968
- Likes
- 11,084
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Strategy Round 2: Trades
- Thread starter IDIG
- Start date
It would be fraught with danger on the back of just one game's worth of data. Plus I wouldn't watch Thursday Night Football if you were to make such a move as there's every chance Grundy could tear Pittonet a new one.
Don't get me wrong I think the idea has some merit and as a Swannies supporter Hickey looks like he will be an excellent o***eason acquisition. But as a fantasy move after just one week that would be bold stuff indeed.
Don't get me wrong I think the idea has some merit and as a Swannies supporter Hickey looks like he will be an excellent o***eason acquisition. But as a fantasy move after just one week that would be bold stuff indeed.
If Danger goes for 2 then it's a real toss up as to whether I trade him out for someone like Mills. He'll still be top 6 in Fwds and I'll more than likely want to get him back in. Trouble is that I'll have to field a rookie for cover costing about 100 points ( I would like Mills in the team too). I don't want to fall behind after a pretty good start with a pure G n R's team.
What's the consensus? Trade or hold?
What's the consensus? Trade or hold?
- Joined
- 21 May 2012
- Messages
- 22,311
- Likes
- 31,152
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Awaiting to see what the damage is with Dangerfield's suspension. Unsure what side of the fence I sit on at the moment in terms of how many weeks it needs for me to trade.
Grundy and Cripps on notice this week, and too a lesser extent Gawn. Jordon is the only Round 1 rookie that I have missed, and have sufficient funds to turn McNeil into Jordon either this week or next, depending on how the performances of Cripps and Grundy look early in the round.
If I was to trade Dangerfield this week, options include Walsh, Martin, Dunkley and Mitchell, with Ridley (already 4 Premium DEFs + Clark) and Taranto also options but maybe slightly less as enticing as the former three.
I'd love to go straight to Titch, but would want to get some clarity on how his ribs have pulled up after Saturday.
Grundy and Cripps on notice this week, and too a lesser extent Gawn. Jordon is the only Round 1 rookie that I have missed, and have sufficient funds to turn McNeil into Jordon either this week or next, depending on how the performances of Cripps and Grundy look early in the round.
If I was to trade Dangerfield this week, options include Walsh, Martin, Dunkley and Mitchell, with Ridley (already 4 Premium DEFs + Clark) and Taranto also options but maybe slightly less as enticing as the former three.
I'd love to go straight to Titch, but would want to get some clarity on how his ribs have pulled up after Saturday.
I had the same thoughts. I kind of think about it this way, (could be complete bollocks lol)
He’ll be the top 1-2 FWD. So a trade out now, results in 2 to bring him back in later on. If you trade him out now, you’ll prob have to wait until Rd 8-10 when any rookie has made enough to facilitate the trade, or worse case at his bye. By my thinking you’ve missed out on 6-8 games of potentially 100+..
Realistically I only see Ziebell making enough in a short time to facilitate the upgrade. But by that point, Ziebell would almost be a keeper or a good F6
If Dannger gets 2 weeks, then let’s say he gets 100 each game for arguments sake. That’s 200 points over the two weeks will need to be covered. If you have Neale/Oliver/Gawn etc that’s quite doable. They would need to score a bit more than their projected to make the difference, or at least help the rookie on fields score to make up for what’s lost.
Don’t forget there’s always 3 bye rounds to make up points against opposition players and ranking.
To trade him out now, means a potential re-structure later on, which could delay final upgrade plans..
If you keep him, you’ll still have a premium on the bench and will swing back on field, which I find gives a placebo benefit of an “upgrade” without using a trade on it. 😊
Further to this, a few of the options to trade him to have doubts..
Danger> Dusty) Dusty has form in that he starts the year like a house on fire. Then stagnates and then comes good before finals. Can score 150, but can also throw in 70-75.
Danger > Boak) Age concerns? Injuries?
Fyfe.. same. Almost a given that he’ll miss a game or two due to his injury history.
Walsh.. great first game, but does Cripps bounce back and take his points? What about the introduction of Williams?
Mills - a good option, if he keeps that scoring up. But will Longmire play him in the guts?
Titch - played against an Essendon side that decided to let him run rampant, unchecked. Don’t think many other teams will do that. He’s on my pickup list for sure.
Heeney - How does his role change now Buddy is back.. will he score more consistently?
Danger to rookies ===
If you have all of the relevant rookies (Gulden, Rowe etc) then you’re almost throwing the money (and a trade) away on a speculative rookie. You could however use the money to bring in any of the good rookies you’ve missed.
For me, there doesn’t seem a 100% full proof option to go Danger too, so I would be holding.
If you didn’t have all of the good rookies, or someone like Dunkley, then you could prob do the trade.. but I’d be doing it as a last resort.. 😂.. again just what I’d do. (Could be completely wrong way of looking at it lol)
For me 2 is probably enough for a trade although I can full understand and respect the argument for holding. Having the Rd12 bye the plan would be to bring him back in the week after. Not sure at over $600K he will punish me too badly for not owning him until then. There are a few others like a hungry Dusty or a healthy Titch I FOMO over a little more as a non-owner after seeing a full round of AFL footy.
I also have plenty of VC/C alternatives especially if I was to bring in Titch for him - but I guess we'll see what happens tomorrow night first.
I also have plenty of VC/C alternatives especially if I was to bring in Titch for him - but I guess we'll see what happens tomorrow night first.
Last edited:
If it's a straight hold or trade for 2 weeks then the sensible thing to do is hold (expensive points wise but cheap trades wise)
What is worrying me is the management of Geelong's team ie. resting during the year, plus the fact that Danger does have some groin issues which is why Scott is playing him forward so much, added to that Cameron is out for probably 3 more games (might help a bit bit).
I think I've nailed most of the rookies that I can fit in (McNeil & Brockman aside) I have Dunkley & Martin, Heeney might be an option, but there aren't many Fwd premos that are demanding selection. Which is where my dilemma stems from.
Mills, to me, looks like he'll be a top 6 defender (yes there's the horse affect but his role is good) and would leave me with J. Clark at D6.
Hmm, might have convinced myself to burn a trade........
What is worrying me is the management of Geelong's team ie. resting during the year, plus the fact that Danger does have some groin issues which is why Scott is playing him forward so much, added to that Cameron is out for probably 3 more games (might help a bit bit).
I think I've nailed most of the rookies that I can fit in (McNeil & Brockman aside) I have Dunkley & Martin, Heeney might be an option, but there aren't many Fwd premos that are demanding selection. Which is where my dilemma stems from.
Mills, to me, looks like he'll be a top 6 defender (yes there's the horse affect but his role is good) and would leave me with J. Clark at D6.
Hmm, might have convinced myself to burn a trade........
Looking at 2 options. RD 1 2079
No rookie corrections needed. And running no loop.
Option 1 Danger to the Mids and replace with Titch
Option 2 Danger to Zorko & Gaff to Titch.
Forget the tag, gaff just looked lost with the faster ball movement the WCE used. Think he needs to go. Was selected initially for his durability and 105+ output for the year missing no games. Now I’m not so sure.?
No rookie corrections needed. And running no loop.
Option 1 Danger to the Mids and replace with Titch
Option 2 Danger to Zorko & Gaff to Titch.
Forget the tag, gaff just looked lost with the faster ball movement the WCE used. Think he needs to go. Was selected initially for his durability and 105+ output for the year missing no games. Now I’m not so sure.?
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 3,912
- Likes
- 12,177
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I think it worked pretty well because Viney was aided by the round 1 price rise. I think Bowes is probably not cheap enough to be the one I'd go for this year and I'm happy with all the defenders, I'm not sure any of the popular picks are failing. Also with Viney I was very sure he wasn't a keeper and knew I could use him to get Macrae (a specific high scoring player I started without), Bowes could be a keeper, definitely someone to look at for some money if there's an injury to one of our defenders. Viney was also a free hit in a way given we had so many trades, we could afford to be extra aggressive.
Whether it works is a bit of luck in a sense, If Daniher and Campbell are poor again and Heppell scores over 90 I'm going to be looking at Campbell down and Daniher to Heppell via DPP, that's the kind of move I'd like to do.
Whether it works is a bit of luck in a sense, If Daniher and Campbell are poor again and Heppell scores over 90 I'm going to be looking at Campbell down and Daniher to Heppell via DPP, that's the kind of move I'd like to do.
I drafted Cerra in a SC draft hoping for a 105 average. Saw nothing on the weekend to dent that hope. Role was very good and he's a classy player. Going to be up and down with a young group that will probably share the load a bit but he's a solid choice. He's got more class than the other guys which helps.
Was interesting with Sinclair to be honest but it makes the team a lot better to not have two non-rucks picked to ruck and only stick to one, sure helps when the other team doesn't have a ruck either! Still played McLean who didn't do much.
Coniglio tagged Steele in the first half and then didn't seem to in the 2nd when Steele stopped trying it seemed. Was a weird one, when they were on each other both got the ball and when they weren't neither did.
Still don't like Horse but I have to give him credit for the team selections. He actually dropped Hayward finally after a couple of years of gifting games, didn't play Sinclair and Hickey, played the kids in the right positions, pushed Florent out of the guts where he's looked completely lost. Mills in the midfield finally. Only real gripe was Heeney still stuck at FF. The game itself was rubbish, Brisbane just didn't show up at all and Sydney weren't much better, love to see the pressure gauge but if either team got to even below average at any point I'd be surprised. As fun as it was winning was a really ugly game to watch, like watching flag football.
This is actually the perfect type for the new rules I think. Extract maximum value at the stoppages that exist and then run and spread. McGrath looked great.
Unless you want someone from the first 3 games, which seems like it would be Sloane or Walsh only at a quick glance I think it's at least worth seeing what Gulden does as a loophole (or Berry if you're locked into starting Gulden). If they score 90+ the captain loophole (Neale for example) and that would make holding worthwhile, get an extra week of information and then make the trade. Worst case you avoid a dud rookie score, best case you might get a massive double win.
Stick those two together. Firstly I think McLean goes out for Buddy, Reid was the 2nd ruck anyway and McLean hasn't shown as much as McDonald did in his first 15 minutes in 3 seasons.
McDonald will benefit and be hurt. Buddy draws the ball, that's the negative. McDonald was great until Andrews shut him down in the 2nd half though and with Buddy he's not going to get the Andrews type unless he's already torn the game apart and put the runs on the board. If the Swans lower their eyes and with Dawson, Campbell, Gulden and Mills all there to use it they probably will now then McDonald should overall benefit for mine.
Second what Ben said, other teams are going to tackle and pressure unlike Brisbane who were utterly pathetic in those areas, so he's not going to play uncontested training drill type games that make it easy on a leading forward. He's a damn good one though, already his leading patterns are absurd, most players never reach that level and the ones that do generally take years, just the timing, reading, delaying and re-routing he does on leads is special to watch, I don't know if I've ever seen someone his age do it and I've only seen maybe a dozen guys do it at the level he did against Brisbane. The challenge will be when there's a bit more film and defenders start to take it away and when there is pressure up field which means you have to be more perfect in the execution. Ultimately he's a KPF, I think he's the most advanced we've seen in years but the Swans wont be that good most weeks (again, pressure non-existent) and a young KPF in a bad team is not a good fantasy mix. I think he's capable of 65 but that's probably the higher end of where I'd pick him, think if he reached 75 as an average it would be pretty shocking.
Was interesting with Sinclair to be honest but it makes the team a lot better to not have two non-rucks picked to ruck and only stick to one, sure helps when the other team doesn't have a ruck either! Still played McLean who didn't do much.
Coniglio tagged Steele in the first half and then didn't seem to in the 2nd when Steele stopped trying it seemed. Was a weird one, when they were on each other both got the ball and when they weren't neither did.
Still don't like Horse but I have to give him credit for the team selections. He actually dropped Hayward finally after a couple of years of gifting games, didn't play Sinclair and Hickey, played the kids in the right positions, pushed Florent out of the guts where he's looked completely lost. Mills in the midfield finally. Only real gripe was Heeney still stuck at FF. The game itself was rubbish, Brisbane just didn't show up at all and Sydney weren't much better, love to see the pressure gauge but if either team got to even below average at any point I'd be surprised. As fun as it was winning was a really ugly game to watch, like watching flag football.
This is actually the perfect type for the new rules I think. Extract maximum value at the stoppages that exist and then run and spread. McGrath looked great.
Unless you want someone from the first 3 games, which seems like it would be Sloane or Walsh only at a quick glance I think it's at least worth seeing what Gulden does as a loophole (or Berry if you're locked into starting Gulden). If they score 90+ the captain loophole (Neale for example) and that would make holding worthwhile, get an extra week of information and then make the trade. Worst case you avoid a dud rookie score, best case you might get a massive double win.
Stick those two together. Firstly I think McLean goes out for Buddy, Reid was the 2nd ruck anyway and McLean hasn't shown as much as McDonald did in his first 15 minutes in 3 seasons.
McDonald will benefit and be hurt. Buddy draws the ball, that's the negative. McDonald was great until Andrews shut him down in the 2nd half though and with Buddy he's not going to get the Andrews type unless he's already torn the game apart and put the runs on the board. If the Swans lower their eyes and with Dawson, Campbell, Gulden and Mills all there to use it they probably will now then McDonald should overall benefit for mine.
Second what Ben said, other teams are going to tackle and pressure unlike Brisbane who were utterly pathetic in those areas, so he's not going to play uncontested training drill type games that make it easy on a leading forward. He's a damn good one though, already his leading patterns are absurd, most players never reach that level and the ones that do generally take years, just the timing, reading, delaying and re-routing he does on leads is special to watch, I don't know if I've ever seen someone his age do it and I've only seen maybe a dozen guys do it at the level he did against Brisbane. The challenge will be when there's a bit more film and defenders start to take it away and when there is pressure up field which means you have to be more perfect in the execution. Ultimately he's a KPF, I think he's the most advanced we've seen in years but the Swans wont be that good most weeks (again, pressure non-existent) and a young KPF in a bad team is not a good fantasy mix. I think he's capable of 65 but that's probably the higher end of where I'd pick him, think if he reached 75 as an average it would be pretty shocking.