Strategy 2023: Round 3 Trades
- Thread starter Tamuhawk
- Start date
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 8,560
- Likes
- 11,561
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
If one is lucky enough to have no issues, fair enough. They will come soon enough. I have Gawn. For me that represents an opportunity to go Gawn to Cameron, Ridley now has a crap role, to Daicos. Bit of cash, Allen to Zeibell. Whatever a player feels to do for the week. Never a guarantee whomever you trade in or out.
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,890
- Likes
- 11,150
- AFL Club
- West Coast
No right or wrong answer, always a balance. Question is does the numbers stack up, are you forcing it from FOMO or money making. Does the fixtures in next few weeks play a role if money making.
Latter is critical for me. FOMO can cause you to do things that in hindsight., doesn't look great, such as those who traded Laird out.
Last two years I have done this move.
2021 - Neale to Tex. At this stage Neale had two poor scores, no awareness of back injury. Tex to two tonnes and good fixture to come. Amount of people against it was unbelievable. Yet based on BE's, I thought you would make 150k risk free and potentially $300k. Was the latter.
2022 - Gawn two poor scores, I wanted Heeney and brought in Hall as well. FOMO drove it partly, also replicating prior trade. Heeney did ok and then a couple of poor scores and he was traded. Hall injured with two weeks, lost $60k. Gawn went 140 for 5 games.
To me the best of these trades are when going for money making. Daicos somewhat represents this, if he continues to deliver. Bit like Heeney, but looks better. The positive is everyone has Daicos whereas Heeney and Hall were PODs. Joining the masses does reduce the risk of the trade.
Last years winner traded Gawn, he went to Witts. That fits the make dollar trade. This is lower risk as you know the breakevens already and doesn't rely on scoring level for next 20 games, just next 3-4 and an assessment of the draw may play a part. Witts just happened to be amazing there for a while and became a quasi keeper.
Latter is critical for me. FOMO can cause you to do things that in hindsight., doesn't look great, such as those who traded Laird out.
Last two years I have done this move.
2021 - Neale to Tex. At this stage Neale had two poor scores, no awareness of back injury. Tex to two tonnes and good fixture to come. Amount of people against it was unbelievable. Yet based on BE's, I thought you would make 150k risk free and potentially $300k. Was the latter.
2022 - Gawn two poor scores, I wanted Heeney and brought in Hall as well. FOMO drove it partly, also replicating prior trade. Heeney did ok and then a couple of poor scores and he was traded. Hall injured with two weeks, lost $60k. Gawn went 140 for 5 games.
To me the best of these trades are when going for money making. Daicos somewhat represents this, if he continues to deliver. Bit like Heeney, but looks better. The positive is everyone has Daicos whereas Heeney and Hall were PODs. Joining the masses does reduce the risk of the trade.
Last years winner traded Gawn, he went to Witts. That fits the make dollar trade. This is lower risk as you know the breakevens already and doesn't rely on scoring level for next 20 games, just next 3-4 and an assessment of the draw may play a part. Witts just happened to be amazing there for a while and became a quasi keeper.
His value (in the ruck I assum you mean) during the byes probably depends who you bring in when you swing him forward. With a big chunk of people having Marshall already Witts or English are the perfect targets. Gawn and Cameron share the same bye so if you were targeting Gawn after his injury. And Darcy and Marshall have the same bye.
Quality posting. And yeah there's that safety element that I probably didn't give enough thought to. It's a good point that a disastrous score is less likely to actually lose you money from a rookie base score than an MP's
But I think I gave the wrong impression with saying that it doesn't matter if it's a rookie or an MP.
If the choice is between a rookie who might get you from 123k to 300k and an MP that might get you from 350k to 500k then of course you take the rookie. He's making you an extra 27k for starters. Providing he isn't directly costing you on field points of course and you can use that 200k saved maybe on an early upgrade.
But note that most rookies don't actually make it to 300k. Consistent 65s will get you there in 6 or 7 price rises without any poor scores or spikes. I'll have to ask a Rowsus or someone for how many we get per year but it wouldn't be more than 7 or 8 at my guess. And many that do will take 10 or more price rises to do it.
So 36 trades less 10 upgrades less a supersub upgrade less 6 injury trades leaves 19 trades for cash generation. 7 or 8 might eventually take you to 300k. That's around 11 suboptimal rookies and that is the giant risk that I think you maybe arent appreciating. Sure we all remember those well performing rookies but the majority of them let us down.
And in all of that we need those rookies to peak at the right times when down or upgrade options are available and they all need to be done by round 14 or something.
That is why it "doesn't matter who you get your 130k from." Beggars can't be choosers.
Also, I think you are underestimating Setterfield a bit. 90 against the Saints at the G is very doable. Likewise 100 against Gws at Marvel isn't a stretch. 90s then against the Pies and Geelong as his teams primary inside mid? I don't think that's 'best case'. It seems quite reasonable.
Even if he spits out 2 80s after everyone jumps on he still gets to 430k which is around 1 down 1 up to most of the premium backs and forwards and you might even be able to snaffle a fallen mid. Yes, the 80k gain is a loss but not crippling. A pair of hundreds or more and he's that early season boat you missed.
The rumours here about him having a sore quad are a bit of a worry though.
But I think I gave the wrong impression with saying that it doesn't matter if it's a rookie or an MP.
If the choice is between a rookie who might get you from 123k to 300k and an MP that might get you from 350k to 500k then of course you take the rookie. He's making you an extra 27k for starters. Providing he isn't directly costing you on field points of course and you can use that 200k saved maybe on an early upgrade.
But note that most rookies don't actually make it to 300k. Consistent 65s will get you there in 6 or 7 price rises without any poor scores or spikes. I'll have to ask a Rowsus or someone for how many we get per year but it wouldn't be more than 7 or 8 at my guess. And many that do will take 10 or more price rises to do it.
So 36 trades less 10 upgrades less a supersub upgrade less 6 injury trades leaves 19 trades for cash generation. 7 or 8 might eventually take you to 300k. That's around 11 suboptimal rookies and that is the giant risk that I think you maybe arent appreciating. Sure we all remember those well performing rookies but the majority of them let us down.
And in all of that we need those rookies to peak at the right times when down or upgrade options are available and they all need to be done by round 14 or something.
That is why it "doesn't matter who you get your 130k from." Beggars can't be choosers.
Also, I think you are underestimating Setterfield a bit. 90 against the Saints at the G is very doable. Likewise 100 against Gws at Marvel isn't a stretch. 90s then against the Pies and Geelong as his teams primary inside mid? I don't think that's 'best case'. It seems quite reasonable.
Even if he spits out 2 80s after everyone jumps on he still gets to 430k which is around 1 down 1 up to most of the premium backs and forwards and you might even be able to snaffle a fallen mid. Yes, the 80k gain is a loss but not crippling. A pair of hundreds or more and he's that early season boat you missed.
The rumours here about him having a sore quad are a bit of a worry though.
Yep well said. Completely understand your perspective and definitely agree that the risk of spud rookies is also real!
This feels like one of those classic philosophical differences. Do you focus on maximising rookies to ensure you have the best chance at getting the $300k ones or do you go for a. Iced approach via MP’s that make less cash but have more scoring potential in the short term. Or go all in on MP’s and pray the make keeper level.
I reckon if you ran the simulations 1000 times, the rookies would work our best most times. But that doesn’t mean the right MP in the right role doesn’t exceed that.
But you’re bang on that he is a cash grab with handy scoring and not getting seduced into thinking he’s a keeper. And I was absolutely underrating him.. as a long suffering bombers supporter it’s hard to be bullish if they’re wearing red and black 😂
I’m actually warming to him though. Definitely has some upside in cash and points!
This feels like one of those classic philosophical differences. Do you focus on maximising rookies to ensure you have the best chance at getting the $300k ones or do you go for a. Iced approach via MP’s that make less cash but have more scoring potential in the short term. Or go all in on MP’s and pray the make keeper level.
I reckon if you ran the simulations 1000 times, the rookies would work our best most times. But that doesn’t mean the right MP in the right role doesn’t exceed that.
But you’re bang on that he is a cash grab with handy scoring and not getting seduced into thinking he’s a keeper. And I was absolutely underrating him.. as a long suffering bombers supporter it’s hard to be bullish if they’re wearing red and black 😂
I’m actually warming to him though. Definitely has some upside in cash and points!
Thanks for the suggestion Shannon.
Ziebell has burnt me in the past and I just have this bad gut feeling he could be a trap. Marshall I have worries about as well. Nothing I can put my finger on, dont see him averaging anywhere near English or Witts. I know he is a fair bit cheaper. Swings and roundabouts I guess.
Ziebell has burnt me in the past and I just have this bad gut feeling he could be a trap. Marshall I have worries about as well. Nothing I can put my finger on, dont see him averaging anywhere near English or Witts. I know he is a fair bit cheaper. Swings and roundabouts I guess.
3 trades this week. Balancing the need to generate cash and improve scoring so going Cumming > N Daicos, F Greene > K Chandler, Callaghan > Setterfield, toss up between Setters and Ziebell but think I will get better short term gain with Setters and not convinced either is a keeper.
Wanted to go Hunter Clarke to Brennan Cox will have to sit on him for a week, and he shouldn’t drop much in price. Will also need to wait on trading Sean Darcy and hope he turns it around against WCE.
Doch and Macrae are concerning but given lesser priority atm, I appreciated the incisive comments on Doch in this forum.
Comments very welcome
Wanted to go Hunter Clarke to Brennan Cox will have to sit on him for a week, and he shouldn’t drop much in price. Will also need to wait on trading Sean Darcy and hope he turns it around against WCE.
Doch and Macrae are concerning but given lesser priority atm, I appreciated the incisive comments on Doch in this forum.
Comments very welcome
I reckon I’d look at English and Chandler. Ruck is not really the line to go for the value replacement as I see it, and English has scored well against good opposition
Chandler looks to be the #1 cash cow that some people are missing, and could make cash quickly to help kick off upgrade season early, which helps a lot.
I suspect this gives you a bit of spare cash, which could be useful to further improve your cash cows next round with something like Bowes, Phillips and/or Bytel.
Chandler looks to be the #1 cash cow that some people are missing, and could make cash quickly to help kick off upgrade season early, which helps a lot.
I suspect this gives you a bit of spare cash, which could be useful to further improve your cash cows next round with something like Bowes, Phillips and/or Bytel.