Strategy 2023: Round 3 Trades
- Thread starter Tamuhawk
- Start date
That is true, however 400 points equates to 20 points per round to make up. With shrewd captain choices and getting the right rookie scores it can be made up for. Plus it only takes an injury to one popular player that you don't have that can help swing things back in your favour. I'm about 560 points from the leader, but haven't given it away just yet. 
Stick with your Keepers (Docherty) and prioritise what's more urgent to correct for the round.
Here's my take...
Trade 1 (priority): Gawn to DCameron leaving $323,000 ITB
Potential OUTS:
Fyfe $313,600
Flanders $256,300
Comben $123,900 / Chesser $123,900***
Potential INs:
N Daicos $502,500
Setterfield $348,200
Ziebell $356,400
Chandler $123,900***
***If choosing to trade out Comben/Chesser then Chandler has to be strongly considered as one of the INs
On-field position which needs strengthening: D6 and F5/6
I feel that Setterfield is an unnecessary luxury (feels great to have) doesn't address the current need of your team. Like you've alluded to, it would be great to be able to do an 'extra' correction trade for the round. We're all in that same predicament and have to make do within the confines of the allocated 3 trades allowable for the round.
Trade 2
N Daicos is a constant in all your options so that's your 2nd trade sorted. In order to do that, you'll have to use either Fyfe/Flanders.
Trade 3
You have a choice to make here.
Either boost to swap to a better immediate cash cow (Chesser/Comben to Chandler) or to a better MP player (Fyfe/Flanders to Ziebell*). *Setterfield is not available as an option as you won't have the required F/M player in the Mids to execute this
Here's my take...
Trade 1 (priority): Gawn to DCameron leaving $323,000 ITB
Potential OUTS:
Fyfe $313,600
Flanders $256,300
Comben $123,900 / Chesser $123,900***
Potential INs:
N Daicos $502,500
Setterfield $348,200
Ziebell $356,400
Chandler $123,900***
***If choosing to trade out Comben/Chesser then Chandler has to be strongly considered as one of the INs
On-field position which needs strengthening: D6 and F5/6
I feel that Setterfield is an unnecessary luxury (feels great to have) doesn't address the current need of your team. Like you've alluded to, it would be great to be able to do an 'extra' correction trade for the round. We're all in that same predicament and have to make do within the confines of the allocated 3 trades allowable for the round.
Trade 2
N Daicos is a constant in all your options so that's your 2nd trade sorted. In order to do that, you'll have to use either Fyfe/Flanders.
Trade 3
You have a choice to make here.
Either boost to swap to a better immediate cash cow (Chesser/Comben to Chandler) or to a better MP player (Fyfe/Flanders to Ziebell*). *Setterfield is not available as an option as you won't have the required F/M player in the Mids to execute this
Also, early form players can quite easily drop off after 1 or 2 out of the box performances. This weeks corrections can be more about who you choose not to bring in and consequently return to their 'norm' that can bring you back into the mix. With 36 trades, you can trade out and trade back in premos who drop off down to a value price and then get back in form. Can't do it every week, but now and again. Especially leading up to and during the byes.
Honestly if there was a way of crunching the numbers over the years my guess would be that in this situation (i.e round 3),
that the people who keep trading in and restructure for all the really popular players going well (mainly midpricers and rookies) end up having a much better year than those who worry about being behind early and purposely go for POD selections to try and be different for difference sakes.
Either you are betting that the leading teams by round 3 are fluking it with a bunch of ''fools gold'' players,
or you admit they are on the right track and concede your wrong decisions and hop aboard.
that the people who keep trading in and restructure for all the really popular players going well (mainly midpricers and rookies) end up having a much better year than those who worry about being behind early and purposely go for POD selections to try and be different for difference sakes.
Either you are betting that the leading teams by round 3 are fluking it with a bunch of ''fools gold'' players,
or you admit they are on the right track and concede your wrong decisions and hop aboard.
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 399
- Likes
- 1,625
- AFL Club
- GWS Giants
Over 4,000 coaches trading out JHF. I'm betting at least half of them only traded him in last week! I started with him, and will hold him for a while at least, as his role is excellent and he plays 3 out of the next 4 at home. Come the byes im willing to bet that both are fairly similar score and money wise (both around $450-460k).
My only trade advice for this week is, make sure you maximise cash generation.
My only trade advice for this week is, make sure you maximise cash generation.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2020
- Messages
- 1,192
- Likes
- 2,132
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 1,929
- Likes
- 6,564
Docherty to Daicos is not a good trade. Yes, Daicos most likey ends up a top 6 def, but no, not with an average of 130+. More likely he averages 100-110 and will be gettable for 530-560k for most of the season.
Jones probably makes 100-150k @70ppg, which is only slightly below where Cox's scoring is most likely to revert to, ie his career average.
Jones probably makes 100-150k @70ppg, which is only slightly below where Cox's scoring is most likely to revert to, ie his career average.
Is there any reason that Luke Ryan not getting spoken about more? I know everyone is Prioritising getting Daicos, but I feel like Ryan could be going under everyone radar, especially considering how fast he’s started this season
His last 8 games last year
128, 128, 110, 146, 65, 100, 126, 119
I know going against Daicos could be detrimental to my season, but very much considering grabbing Ryan instead
His last 8 games last year
128, 128, 110, 146, 65, 100, 126, 119
I know going against Daicos could be detrimental to my season, but very much considering grabbing Ryan instead
As someone who decided not to take Will Brodie last year, at any point, I can categorically state that the worst thing is for you to not take a player who turns out to be a gun. TBH if I am within 300-400 points of the leaders when the whips are cracking at about Rd 20 I will be rapt. Last year not having Brodie probably cost me 1000 points
The upside by having a POD vs the popular mid pricer who has started well is only as good as you have used that money. Do you have a premo/rookie combination that is going to get you the points you need and the cash you need to make taking the risk of letting the popular mid pricer go worthwhile.
If your, say, Setterfield and Ziebell is compared to say Daicos and Chandler the best you might do on a week by week basis might be 200 (130+70) vs a (80+80). So you might make 20pts per week up by fading the popular mid pricers. But even if the average 80 you're probably not making any additional cash (assuming you won't be trading a 130 averaging Daicos). The downside is if Daicos averages 110 and Chandler scores 50 and then is dropped for a returning Pickett, and Ziebell and Setterfield put out 105s, your down 50 the first week and then 100 for every other week. To _everyone_.
And if you already had Daicos, so you're looking at Ridley or Young or some other mid or forward at 500k, and you also have a worse 123k rookie, the chances of you spending your money for improved output even over a low end return from Ziebell and Setterfield (for example) might be worse.
Sure, it's _possible_ that fading the hot starting mid pricer might be the play. But if you get it wrong you basically can write off a high finish for the season.
Edit:200-160 = 40. The point still stands.
And...I was expecting Brodie to revert to a 70 average at some point last year, but instead it is his scores for 2023. You have to ride hot streaks when they're there. And get off them when they're done.
The upside by having a POD vs the popular mid pricer who has started well is only as good as you have used that money. Do you have a premo/rookie combination that is going to get you the points you need and the cash you need to make taking the risk of letting the popular mid pricer go worthwhile.
If your, say, Setterfield and Ziebell is compared to say Daicos and Chandler the best you might do on a week by week basis might be 200 (130+70) vs a (80+80). So you might make 20pts per week up by fading the popular mid pricers. But even if the average 80 you're probably not making any additional cash (assuming you won't be trading a 130 averaging Daicos). The downside is if Daicos averages 110 and Chandler scores 50 and then is dropped for a returning Pickett, and Ziebell and Setterfield put out 105s, your down 50 the first week and then 100 for every other week. To _everyone_.
And if you already had Daicos, so you're looking at Ridley or Young or some other mid or forward at 500k, and you also have a worse 123k rookie, the chances of you spending your money for improved output even over a low end return from Ziebell and Setterfield (for example) might be worse.
Sure, it's _possible_ that fading the hot starting mid pricer might be the play. But if you get it wrong you basically can write off a high finish for the season.
Edit:200-160 = 40. The point still stands.
And...I was expecting Brodie to revert to a 70 average at some point last year, but instead it is his scores for 2023. You have to ride hot streaks when they're there. And get off them when they're done.
The way i see it, there are 2 camps regarding Daicos.
Camp A: he will continue scoring at his current rate and end up a $600k+ player
Camp B: he will revert to a 100-110 pt range and end up around the $550k mark.
If you're in Camp A, you should grab him now, before his price gets out of reach.
If you're in Camp B, you can afford to wait and grab him as part of an upgrade cycle.
I'm starting to lean towards Camp B.
Camp A: he will continue scoring at his current rate and end up a $600k+ player
Camp B: he will revert to a 100-110 pt range and end up around the $550k mark.
If you're in Camp A, you should grab him now, before his price gets out of reach.
If you're in Camp B, you can afford to wait and grab him as part of an upgrade cycle.
I'm starting to lean towards Camp B.
Yeah I'm having doubts on Doc > Daicos. After all my boosting, Setterfield might be out of reach too. Only way I can get him, Daicos and ZB is to trade down Doc and Macrae. I'm ok with trading Macrae but have doubts on letting Doc go just yet. Can't afford Setters, ZB and Daicos by booting only Macrae so have to make a choice on who to trade in.
Not a whole lot demanding fixing in all that if you don't mind the mid price stuff. Cowan, Baker, Chesser and Flanders could do with corrections. I'm ok with keeping Cowan D8 and Baker (can score better than he is)
So if Macrae to Daicos is ok, I can move Constable to the mids, leaving Richards, Ginbey and McKenna as my D4-6. It means Pou, Constable or Flanders will be playing M8 which isn't ideal.
So I can fix M8 for a bit by adding either ZB or Setterfield (via Pou) for Flanders. I lean towards ZB because ZB is a fair chance of keeper status either forward or back and if not, a D/F supersub capable of hitting hundreds would be a pretty powerful piece of the puzzle. It also means I can leave my M/F link in place.
Chesser > Hollands is the rookie I'm most interested in at the moment. Noah Long has the lower entry price but a far worse draw and the Carlton kid has the slightly higher ceiling IMV if he has to fill in on field so he gets the nod.
So Macrae, Flanders and Chesser > Daicos, Ziebell and Hollands. Gives me potentially an extra keeper, strengthens my backs and really fixes my bench up
He's a fair POD at 8.6%.
Saves you from having to barrack for a Daicos too
TBH, I just figured I couldn't afford him, thinking he was 576k or something for some reason. He normally is and I completely never checked. Weird..... But 530k is probably value for him. I should probably have started him over Young
Saves you from having to barrack for a Daicos too
TBH, I just figured I couldn't afford him, thinking he was 576k or something for some reason. He normally is and I completely never checked. Weird..... But 530k is probably value for him. I should probably have started him over Young