Exactly, I'd probably argue Short and Ridley are more likely to approach or exceed 105 rather than stay at low 100s. It was a conservative guess, with the likely outcome being even less in favour of Hewett.
The point calculation is correct for the early part of the season, but shouldn't apply to the latter half of the season when most players already have a whole set of premiums. At that stage, it's not a matter of o***etting losses in defence (Hewett) against gains elsewhere, it would be pure losses, assuming the 120k initial difference doesn't affect team structure by round 15/16, which it shouldn't.
The initial 120k difference also doesn't equate to 22 points. Who would you upgrade from your current team that will give you that level of return? Is upgrading someone like Brayshaw to Macrae/Oliver/Steele an increase of 22 points? Is upgrading a midpricer like Rowell/Lipinski/Berry to someone in the 400 - 500k range an increase of 22 points? Is upgrading a rookie to a JHF/Daicos/Berry an upgrade of 22 points? In this case, actually yes, perhaps. But you should have these players anyways so this option wouldn't even be open. And on the flipside a basement price rookie is also likely to generate more cash than a premium rookie (who is intended to offer better scoring/JS ahead of cash generation). The point is - while mathematically Hewett represents value (and is potentially underpriced by 22 points), due to the scoring mechanism of supercoach, this value requires a very, very specific circumstance to be subtracted (since Hewett will be well short of making 150k, and being anywhere close to a satisfactory cashcow). E.g. if you can upgrade a Marshall to a Gawn (top 5 ruck to top 2 ruck), or a mid pricer to a premium (very difficult, you probably need closer to 250k instead), then yes I'd recognise that. Otherwise, I just can't see any practical usage of that additional 120k.
All of this is also based on the assumption that Hewett will outperform his best ever season by a fair amount to even break even.
What happens if young players like Dow/Kennedy shine earlier in the season? What happens once Walsh returns? How does Carlton sustain all of Cripps, Kennedy, Dow, Walsh, Cerra + Hewett? If they are against Brisbane with Neale, Richmond with Dusty or Gold Coast with Miller, teams with standout midfielders, do you think Hewett won't play a defensive role against the top midfielders in the comp?
Look you can bring up the tagger to dominant midfielder transition that Steele/Miller went through. But the key difference is that they are both the #1 midfielders of their respective teams, they ARE the match winners, so they are best optimized as ball-winners rather than support. Hewett will never have that role while being at Carlton when Cripps, Cerra and Walsh are around.
There are so many moving parts here, you've essentially reached the conclusion that you want and then re-constructed the scenario to support it.
The first one is the perfect team fallacy, we all do it but if you ever have the perfect team at round 16, congratulations, you've won 50k. No one has ever had the perfect team, they will be leaking points at multiple positions to someone else who has a different structure and that goes for everyone be they first or 50000th in rank. You need to stop thinking in terms of perfect and start thinking in terms of possible and realistic. If you manage to have D1-6 nailed then I'll be great money you haven't nailed M5-8 or F4-6 instead because you have to make sacrifices somewhere in this game. It's just the way it is. For example last year the winner had Kieren Briggs at D6 in round 23 and Tim Taranto at M8.
You've tastefully ignored the "get what you paid for" to then try and distort the numbers, sure, if every pick that can be suggested has a counter of some player you think is going to break out and increase their scoring by 25 points then no comparison is going to work. The entire point of controlling variables is so you can compare a situation. We all strive for value but the simple fact is if you pick Dunkley and he produces what he has the last two years and I pick Oliver and he produces what he has the last two years then that 120k has produced 22 points a week ignoring durability. We can all play the moving parts game but it achieves nothing. You can say Dale and X is better because you think x improves by 25 but I can then say well what if Y improves by 35, it's an utterly pointless exercise that obfuscates from that actual player being analysed.
Same goes for changing the goal posts on your comparison players. If you think Short is 10+ points underpriced, then pick him, but moving the goal posts and cherry picking a comparison player you like more is just altering the facts again and achieves nothing. The whole point is to isolate what the pick means for a team and what the cash should contribute to the side. 120k simply equals 22 points in direct value with no movement in any direction, it's pure magic number at play, altering that is just manipulation to try and make a different point. If you think D6 scoring is ~103 then Hewett at 95 is going to be a good pick more times than not. Any time you get an acceptable keeper at a 120k discount you've moved forward two steps.
The What If? game is even less fruitful. What if Cripps is injured in round 1 and Hewett becomes their #1 midfielder? Based on history it would seem that Cripps being injured is perhaps the most likely what if involving Carlton's midfield. What if you're wrong about Hewett and he's actually their #1 midfielder, he's better than the player that Cripps has been the past two years and he's definitely a better player than Kennedy or Dow, Walsh is a hybrid and Cerra is mostly outside in his work. The path to #1 inside is legitimate. Again, it's the "dream" result of the pick and not what I would project but to argue it's not a possible outcome I think would be errant.
Hewett may well tag, I think it's a waste given their list has several other guys who can do that, but it's certainly possible, it's one of the risks of the pick, as is the Cripps, Cerra and Walsh trio being there and taking opportunities. I'd argue there's no pick in the game without risk and downside factors, even if there was then injury is always possible.
The Steele/Miller thing is just a weird point from you, they weren't the #1 midfielders when they were taggers, that's the entire point, they played that role while they were asked and worked hard to move up to the #1 slot, Hewett is realistically going from the #4 spot at Sydney to the #2 spot, it's a nice jump. Jake Lloyd wasn't a good fantasy player when he was a winger, Aaron Hall wasn't a good pick as anything but a clearance mid until he became a rebounding defender. Tom Mitchell only scored 85 a game playing pretty much the same role that Hewett scored 88 in. I'm definitely not arguing Hewett as the #1 mid either, if he was their #1 mid I'd say he's a must pick. Heck the whole #1 midfielder thing is odd, we all think Dunkley is a must pick at 160k more than Hewett and he's at best their 5th best midfielder and it's a coinflip between him and Treloar at 5 and 6 and Lachie Hunter isn't exactly a bad one at 7... If the midfield is winning the ball, which is Hewett's job, then there is plenty to go around for the 4 of them including Hewett to be viable.
Totally agree that Hewett is not viable as a cash cow (or a stepping stone if people want to call it that instead) and should not be picked as one, he does not make sense. You pick him because you think he can average 95 and you think the premium threshold is in the 100-105 range. If you think he can average higher that makes the pick stronger, if you don't think he's likely to hit that then shelve the idea, it's not a good pick.
I should add that picking a D6/M8/F6 at the start of the season has genuine opportunity costs throughout the season, it pigeon holes you into specific targets and can make upgrades much more difficult, I'd probably only really recommend a Hewett pick to those who think he can go 100+ and be a genuine D4 option, then at least you can miss and still have the D6 fallback.
It's all good to not like Hewett, the expectation above his best season is a perfectly valid point, the 4th midfielder is spot on, the concerns are spot on in general. As I've said, he's not been in my side at all to date for structural reasons but it's important to not blur what a player offers with moving parts. The problem is reverse engineering and manipulating to produce a certain result. It's perfectly reasonable that the equation isn't good enough for your side, 23 points improvement is good but it's not great and it certainly wouldn't be the biggest improvement, there will almost certainly be a dozen rookies who beat that improvement, there will probably be a couple of genuine premiums (season's end) who beat that, even more so if that 23 points is the high end of your projections and you expect more like 15.
At the end of the day, I would bet good money that if Hewett averages 95 there will be multiple teams inside the top 100 that have him because that would be a good pick providing excellent value. I'd bet the same for Sicily as well and he'd be a worse pick at that outcome.
