Opinion Questions For Rowsus

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus, I am a poor suffering soul without any of Grundy, Gawn or Neale in my side. With these blokes consistency, I am running out of time/opportunity to bring them in, and each 150 score they put up sucks a little more enjoyment from my season (a little dramatic, but you get the idea)!

My question is, should I be making it a priority to get these blokes in where I can at their current prices, or just keep upgrading my team hoping for them to have one or two done games....or will I be waiting the entire season?

Thanks in advance

The simple answer is no, don't pay that high price.
There are only 9 players priced over $600k.
Neale $763,300 - 147
Gawn $742,500 - 143
Goldy $696,000 - 134
Grundy $681,700 - 131
Fyfe $670,500 - 129
Boak $628,700 - 121
Treloar $615,800 - 119
Dunkley $602,600 - 116
Duncan $600,100 - 116
You really need to look at it like you are buying points. If you stretch your dollar to trade in Neale, do you really think you are buying 147 points/game? Because that's what you need to be doing, or close to it, for it to be worthwhile.
Now let's look at the players that have dropped $60k+, but are still priced at $440k+.
Whitfield $441,200 (-$162,900) - 85
Yeo $478,900 (-$105,500) - 92
Macrae $589,800 (-$79,100) - 114
Kelly T $483,600 (-$78,200) - 93
Zorko $501,600 (-$77,500) - 97
Ross $454,500 (-$75,400) - 88
Williams $479,500 (-$72,200) - 92
Marshall R $526,900 (-$71,800) - 102
Dangerfield $556,600 (-$68,900) - 107
Hurn $499,900 (-$62,300) - 96
Ablett $458,500 (-$61,000) - 88

Currently, you could buy Yeo, Whitfield & Dangerfield for $1,446,700 which is 284/Round, but on their recent history, is more likely to produce (Whit 111, 100, 98. Yeo 108, 108, 102. Dangerfield 115, 122, 136.) 315/Round on their lowest numbers. Or you could buy Neale and Gawn for $1,505,800 which is 290/Round, but is more likely to produce (Neale 121, 112, 109. Gawn 128, 128, 92) 249 on their highest numbers, but also leaves an extra Rookie on the ground over the first option.
The first option is reached by generating $396,700 to upgrade 3 x $350k (very good) Rookies, the 2nd option requires you to find $805,800 to upgrade 2 x $350k Rookies. The first option is potentially reached by 3 up, 3 down trading. The 2nd option is potentially reached by 2 up, 4 down trading.
Whichever way you look at it, if you twist your team reach one of these guys, you are an upgrade and dollars behind the better managed teams. Buy a player that "costs" you 147, but produces 120 and you need to make up 27/Round somewhere, especially if you are playing someone who has bought 85 and 92, that produces a total of 200, so they have gotten 23 points more than they paid for, and you have 27 points less than you paid for. You are 50 points down on what your growth has the potential to realise, compared to the smart shopper.

I sort of feel I haven't explained it very well, so I hope it makes sense. Everytime you over spend to get a player, you need to make up those points somewhere else. When you start buying $600k+ players, you are near as dammit saying, it's ok if I have a Rookie/value pick left on the field, in my final team. The trick is, don't trick yourself into saying "But I can do that, Rowell will cover that role". Rowell will likely be doing that role for most teams (hopefully), so you haven't actually achieved anything. When you buy $700k+ players you are basically backing them to average 130+ from here to the end of the season, without a missed game. That just doesn't happen enough to confidently take that plunge. Also, while you do that, to catch up to the other Coaches who already have Mr. $700k+, those Coaches that already have him are making 2 upgrades to your one!

 

[TeeButOne]

Hi Rowsus, I am a poor suffering soul without any of Grundy, Gawn or Neale in my side. With these blokes consistency, I am running out of time/opportunity to bring them in, and each 150 score they put up sucks a little more enjoyment from my season (a little dramatic, but you get the idea)!

My question is, should I be making it a priority to get these blokes in where I can at their current prices, or just keep upgrading my team hoping for them to have one or two done games....or will I be waiting the entire season?

Thanks in advance

The simple answer is no, don't pay that high price.
There are only 9 players priced over $600k.
Neale $763,300 - 147
Gawn $742,500 - 143
Goldy $696,000 - 134
Grundy $681,700 - 131
Fyfe $670,500 - 129
Boak $628,700 - 121
Treloar $615,800 - 119
Dunkley $602,600 - 116
Duncan $600,100 - 116
You really need to look at it like you are buying points. If you stretch your dollar to trade in Neale, do you really think you are buying 147 points/game? Because that's what you need to be doing, or close to it, for it to be worthwhile.
Now let's look at the players that have dropped $60k+, but are still priced at $440k+.
Whitfield $441,200 (-$162,900) - 85
Yeo $478,900 (-$105,500) - 92
Macrae $589,800 (-$79,100) - 114
Kelly T $483,600 (-$78,200) - 93
Zorko $501,600 (-$77,500) - 97
Ross $454,500 (-$75,400) - 88
Williams $479,500 (-$72,200) - 92
Marshall R $526,900 (-$71,800) - 102
Dangerfield $556,600 (-$68,900) - 107
Hurn $499,900 (-$62,300) - 96
Ablett $458,500 (-$61,000) - 88

Currently, you could buy Yeo, Whitfield & Dangerfield for $1,446,700 which is 284/Round, but on their recent history, is more likely to produce (Whit 111, 100, 98. Yeo 108, 108, 102. Dangerfield 115, 122, 136.) 315/Round on their lowest numbers. Or you could buy Neale and Gawn for $1,505,800 which is 290/Round, but is more likely to produce (Neale 121, 112, 109. Gawn 128, 128, 92) 249 on their highest numbers, but also leaves an extra Rookie on the ground over the first option.
The first option is reached by generating $396,700 to upgrade 3 x $350k (very good) Rookies, the 2nd option requires you to find $805,800 to upgrade 2 x $350k Rookies. The first option is potentially reached by 3 up, 3 down trading. The 2nd option is potentially reached by 2 up, 4 down trading.
Whichever way you look at it, if you twist your team reach one of these guys, you are an upgrade and dollars behind the better managed teams. Buy a player that "costs" you 147, but produces 120 and you need to make up 27/Round somewhere, especially if you are playing someone who has bought 85 and 92, that produces a total of 200, so they have gotten 23 points more than they paid for, and you have 27 points less than you paid for. You are 50 points down on what your growth has the potential to realise, compared to the smart shopper.

I sort of feel I haven't explained it very well, so I hope it makes sense. Everytime you over spend to get a player, you need to make up those points somewhere else. When you start buying $600k+ players, you are near as dammit saying, it's ok if I have a Rookie/value pick left on the field, in my final team. The trick is, don't trick yourself into saying "But I can do that, Rowell will cover that role". Rowell will likely be doing that role for most teams (hopefully), so you haven't actually achieved anything. When you buy $700k+ players you are basically backing them to average 130+ from here to the end of the season, without a missed game. That just doesn't happen enough to confidently take that plunge. Also, while you do that, to catch up to the other Coaches who already have Mr. $700k+, the Coaches that already have him are making 2 upgrades to your one!

Rowsus, great response. The only exception I'd put would be that, in the case of "The Experiment", he doesn't have ANY of Grundy, Gawn or Neale. Not knowing what his team actually looks like, would it not be wise to consider bringing in at least ONE of these three, so as to at least have some reliability for C/VC options?

 

[Rowsus]

Rowsus, great response. The only exception I'd put would be that, in the case of "The Experiment", he doesn't have ANY of Grundy, Gawn or Neale. Not knowing what his team actually looks like, would it not be wise to consider bringing in at least ONE of these three, so as to at least have some reliability for C/VC options?

Thanks TBO,
The Experiment's best Captain options at the moment appear to be Jelly, Danger and Cripps. He also has Docherty, Fyfe and Simpkin.
I really don't think you should be spending $700k+ once the season has started, and that includes trying to buy Captain options. Firstly, when you picked your starting team, your first job was to pick your Captain strategy, and pick those 2 or 3 players, and hang the expense. If you don't do that, you are asking for trouble. Secondly, outside of Ablett type seasons, very few players consistently record 130+ scores. So chasing the players that have done it for the first 5 or 6 weeks will likely lead to regret, when they revert to doing it every 3rd or 4th week.
So far this season there have been 64 players record a total of 87 scores of 130+, and 28 players record a total of 33 scores of 150+.
In 2019 after 5 Rounds (1 game more than 2020) there had been 66 scores of 130+, and 18 scores of 150+. This demonstrates that finding Captain options/scores is a little easier this season, because of the scores getting stretched in both the higher and the lower directions.
Here are the players to have recorded 2+ scores of 130+ this season.

 

[Mudflap]

Hi Rowsus

I am having a fairly good season (218th for round 6 which moved me into 1368 overall) but figured that this is the year to let it all hang out.

I am trading Taylor to Rankine this week (that trade is as locked as a trade can be on a Sunday night)

My question is regarding a 2nd trade. I am considering trading out Josh Kelly as a way of generating cash. I think that I can trade him to a cheaper player and use the $$ elsewhere in a week.

At this stage I am targeting Whitfield. What are your thoughts on this trade?

It will allow me to trade Pittonet up to Gawn or Grundy next week

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus

I am having a fairly good season (218th for round 6 which moved me into 1368 overall) but figured that this is the year to let it all hang out.

I am trading Taylor to Rankine this week (that trade is as locked as a trade can be on a Sunday night)

My question is regarding a 2nd trade. I am considering trading out Josh Kelly as a way of generating cash. I think that I can trade him to a cheaper player and use the $$ elsewhere in a week.

At this stage I am targeting Whitfield. What are your thoughts on this trade?

It will allow me to trade Pittonet up to Gawn or Grundy next week

Hi Mudflap,
I'm really happy to hear you are going well!
I'm not sure I love the Kelly to Whitfield trade. While it generates $129,000, the only way you get out of it smelling like roses, is if Kelly gets injured (not entirely an unusual occurence), or starts scoring consistently below 105 (which would surprise, if it was consistent). Also, you'd need Whitfield to stay on the park, as if both he and Jelly go missing, it is still a wasted trade. From Rnd 8 2017, when Whitfield returned from his missed drug test suspension, until Rnd 6 2019 Whitfield did not miss a game. Since then he has missed 6 out of 25 games, and had 2 poor injury scores in another two games. It's not a pattern ....... yet! But it is still cause for concern.
The biggest problem is, that Kelly isn't grossly overpriced. At $584,200 he is priced at 113, he's averaging 105 (PIT60 ave 98), and BE 127. He gets to play Brisbane this week, who have been giving up some decent Mid scores (Rnd 6: 152, 146, 143. Rnd 5: 133, 124 & Houston 117. Rnd 4: Ade - no one scores well! Rnd 3: 117. Rnd 2: 148, 143. Rnd 1: 131, 127, 126, 119). That's a lot of good scores.
So your only win appears to be if Kelly gets injured, and Whitfield stays fit, otherwise you are really not getting enough out of this trade, imo.
Good luck, I hope your good season continues!

 

[TeeButOne]

Rowsus, RE: the plethora of rookie options available this week, I have a question about Job Security vs Cash Growth.

Considering there's only 11 rounds left to go, when choosing which rookie to get, would job security trump their scoring / dollar potential? Yes, there's still plenty of time for some of these new rookies to rise in price enough to on-sell again, but by that stage of the season, I would imagine reliable bench cover would be a premium.

Based on this, how would you rank the standard 4 rookie options this week (Rankine, Simpson, McPherson, Day)? And whether or not you believe any of them warrant exceptional preference, despite their position (i.e.: should you sacrifice a DPP link to get Player X)?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Rumbler]

Heya Rows !

Hope you've had a good week!

My question is somewhat of a follow-up to what @TeeButOne posted above. More so in terms of ranking the rookies available this week and whether it's better to go for 2 downgrades or the usual 1 upgrade/1 downgrade.
I understand it's probably different for each person considering what their team looks like but this is where a big indecisiveness comes in for me.

Currently I have 8 rookies on the field left to upgrade, assuming Houston (omg ) and D.Smith (hmm ) are "season long" keepers.
I only have 20 trades and 218k cash left.

One of the major problems I've encountered (alongside wasting sideways trades on injuries) each week is bench cover. Right now I have no one playing on the bench. All my players on the bench have been permanently omitted/highly unlikely to get a game again this shortened season.

With this in mind, is it better to prioritise getting rookies off the field no matter what (and risk no one in the starting 22 getting injured) or trading the omitted bench players for the new rookies that get a chance to play (not just this week but in the coming weeks too) so there is "some" bench cover? For example if I decide to double downgrade, is it wise to trade Starcevich and D.Cameron/B.Davis (from forwards bench) for two of the new rookies this week? Or is it better to go for Starcevich and C.Taylor instead and pocket that extra cash Taylor has made?

With the 1 upgrade/1 downgrade scenario there's more indecisiveness when considering who the better fit is for my team vs. who I actually feel like bringing in! In this case I think I'm kinda forced into a situation. For the first trade, if I trade out Starcevich (who's very likely to lose cash this weekend), it'll have to be for a defender otherwise I'll only have 5 defenders playing. No point moving Rivers from midfield to defense as he's been omitted, Brander may not be picked again and W.Gould has never been picked as of yet! Not sure who the better option out of W.Day and McPherson is!

If I use the other trade to upgrade an on-field rookie it means I miss out on getting Simpson, who I kinda wanted to get ahead of the others! Hence the question on who ranks better out of the 4 available rookies.

If I do go for an upgrade, I'm legit torn between the 4 players below and just got no idea who to go with!

1. Dangerfield (massive ceiling but has a tendency to play up forward randomly for long periods of time and last season he bottomed out to $480k or so? I feel paying $585k+ is expensive considering if he were to drop down in value again).

2. Yeo (cheap and likely to play at home for the majority of the remaining season. Only concern is consistent scoring output. Cuz once Shuey returns it may be different and Gaff won't be tagged each game. Kelly seems to have picked up a bit of form as well.

3. H.Greenwood (for some reason I really like this trade, predicting his midfield minutes will increase by a fair bit with Rowell out injured and he's only $515k).

4. Instead of downgrading Starcevich, upgrade him to N.Haynes. Trade out C.Taylor for Simpson (switch D.Smith/Budarick to forwards). Haynes looks on course to be a top 6 defender right now but $561k is a hefty price I feel for someone who I don't think has had a 100+ average in a season before!! Too late for a breakout year?

Thanks in advance



EDIT: Fyfe is injured....
There goes another trade

 

[Rowsus]

Rowsus, RE: the plethora of rookie options available this week, I have a question about Job Security vs Cash Growth.

Considering there's only 11 rounds left to go, when choosing which rookie to get, would job security trump their scoring / dollar potential? Yes, there's still plenty of time for some of these new rookies to rise in price enough to on-sell again, but by that stage of the season, I would imagine reliable bench cover would be a premium.

Based on this, how would you rank the standard 4 rookie options this week (Rankine, Simpson, McPherson, Day)? And whether or not you believe any of them warrant exceptional preference, despite their position (i.e.: should you sacrifice a DPP link to get Player X)?

Thanks in advance.

TBO,
you, I and a lot of SC Coaches have been pondering that exact question, even more than usual this week.
Given the current landscape, I think keeping your team stocked with as many warm bodies as possible is the best move.
We are all guessing, when it comes to JS of both new, and current Rookies.
Looking at the 4 in play this week, my order of priority is:
Rankine: has been talked about as one out of the box for a while. I really think he'll be more of 60/game player, than last week's stellar effort, but I do believe his JS should be rock solid.
McPherson: I believe Ade have to go into full rebuild mode, and get more games into the kids. They seem to have an opinion of McP, and most of their Rookies have had a good run it this year. I only see him as 55/game player, but if he has JS, that's better than a shaky 70/game player.
Simpson: Looks to have the best scoring potential of the 4, probably a 70-75/player. What worries me is Scott is famous for ditching well performing Rookies, in favour of players he sees as ones players. With Steven and Parson lurking, Simpson could easily be gone next week!
Day: I think he might be just a little safer, JS - wise, than Simpson, but I'm not entirely sold yet. I think he scores roughly the same, maybe just better than McP, but I think McP has better JS.

 

[Rowsus]

Heya Rows !

Hope you've had a good week!

My question is somewhat of a follow-up to what @TeeButOne posted above. More so in terms of ranking the rookies available this week and whether it's better to go for 2 downgrades or the usual 1 upgrade/1 downgrade.
I understand it's probably different for each person considering what their team looks like but this is where a big indecisiveness comes in for me.

Currently I have 8 rookies on the field left to upgrade, assuming Houston (omg ) and D.Smith (hmm ) are "season long" keepers.
I only have 20 trades and 218k cash left.

One of the major problems I've encountered (alongside wasting sideways trades on injuries) each week is bench cover. Right now I have no one playing on the bench. All my players on the bench have been permanently omitted/highly unlikely to get a game again this shortened season.

With this in mind, is it better to prioritise getting rookies off the field no matter what (and risk no one in the starting 22 getting injured) or trading the omitted bench players for the new rookies that get a chance to play (not just this week but in the coming weeks too) so there is "some" bench cover? For example if I decide to double downgrade, is it wise to trade Starcevich and D.Cameron/B.Davis (from forwards bench) for two of the new rookies this week? Or is it better to go for Starcevich and C.Taylor instead and pocket that extra cash Taylor has made?

With the 1 upgrade/1 downgrade scenario there's more indecisiveness when considering who the better fit is for my team vs. who I actually feel like bringing in! In this case I think I'm kinda forced into a situation. For the first trade, if I trade out Starcevich (who's very likely to lose cash this weekend), it'll have to be for a defender otherwise I'll only have 5 defenders playing. No point moving Rivers from midfield to defense as he's been omitted, Brander may not be picked again and W.Gould has never been picked as of yet! Not sure who the better option out of W.Day and McPherson is!

If I use the other trade to upgrade an on-field rookie it means I miss out on getting Simpson, who I kinda wanted to get ahead of the others! Hence the question on who ranks better out of the 4 available rookies.

If I do go for an upgrade, I'm legit torn between the 4 players below and just got no idea who to go with!

1. Dangerfield (massive ceiling but has a tendency to play up forward randomly for long periods of time and last season he bottomed out to $480k or so? I feel paying $585k+ is expensive considering if he were to drop down in value again).

2. Yeo (cheap and likely to play at home for the majority of the remaining season. Only concern is consistent scoring output. Cuz once Shuey returns it may be different and Gaff won't be tagged each game. Kelly seems to have picked up a bit of form as well.

3. H.Greenwood (for some reason I really like this trade, predicting his midfield minutes will increase by a fair bit with Rowell out injured and he's only $515k).

4. Instead of downgrading Starcevich, upgrade him to N.Haynes. Trade out C.Taylor for Simpson (switch D.Smith/Budarick to forwards). Haynes looks on course to be a top 6 defender right now but $561k is a hefty price I feel for someone who I don't think has had a 100+ average in a season before!! Too late for a breakout year?

Thanks in advance



EDIT: Fyfe is injured....
There goes another trade

Heya Rumb,
like I started with TBO, I think you need to have as many players of your 30 playing as possible. It might not be this week, or next, but I think we're coming to time, where those teams without depth of playing numbers, are going to be facing multiple donuts.
I think you need to get your playing numbers up, before you start getting more Rookies off the ground. Particularly as this week, and probably next week, may be the best 2 Rookie weeks of the season, barring Round 1.
With that in mind, depending on selection in a few hours, I'm even considering holding Starc, despite the fact he will likely drop $20-25k this week.

 

[TeeButOne]

TBO,
you, I and a lot of SC Coaches have been pondering that exact question, even more than usual this week.
Given the current landscape, I think keeping your team stocked with as many warm bodies as possible is the best move.
We are all guessing, when it comes to JS of both new, and current Rookies.
Looking at the 4 in play this week, my order of priority is:
Rankine: has been talked about as one out of the box for a while. I really think he'll be more of 60/game player, than last week's stellar effort, but I do believe his JS should be rock solid.
McPherson: I believe Ade have to go into full rebuild mode, and get more games into the kids. They seem to have an opinion of McP, and most of their Rookies have had a good run it this year. I only see him as 55/game player, but if he has JS, that's better than a shaky 70/game player.
Simpson: Looks to have the best scoring potential of the 4, probably a 70-75/player. What worries me is Scott is famous for ditching well performing Rookies, in favour of players he sees as ones players. With Steven and Parson lurking, Simpson could easily be gone next week!
Day: I think he might be just a little safer, JS - wise, than Simpson, but I'm not entirely sold yet. I think he scores roughly the same, maybe just better than McP, but I think McP has better JS.

Cheers Rowsus, I ended up coming to the conclusion that Rankine was the only one worth it (ditched Noble). Plus with Heeney on the sidelines, would've just been sticking too much money in the bank with a 2nd rookie, so brought in Greenwood.

 

[freowho]

Hej Rowsus

I've accepted that the damage of not having Neale or Gawn has already been done especially in a shortened season and it's time for me to look for others way to enjoy the year. Maybe a weekly prize. Pittonet has to go and I already have Grundy. Do you have any thoughts on the other ruckmen?

Skal




Cheers = Skal

 

[30BucketsofRo]

Hey Row,
Hope you and the family are safe and well.
Just wanted to hear your thoughts on trading Gawn now that he is close to hitting 800K? It’s something I am considering because I find it extremely unlikely he keeps averaging 153. I guess the dilemma is that I picked him as a keeper and even if he wasn’t averaging 153, he’d be very difficult to replace points-wise (especially as a ruck). I think the only viable selection would be Goldy (I have Grundy). For these reasons, I am more opposed to it than I am for it, but am keeping an open mind as it could be a good way to buy more points on field. There are also people who are attempting to buy Gawn now, which I would be hoping would work in my favour.
What do you think the logistics of the trade would be? I have 17 trades left, about 188K salary cap and about 7-8 upgrades left.

 

[Rowsus]

Hej Rowsus

I've accepted that the damage of not having Neale or Gawn has already been done especially in a shortened season and it's time for me to look for others way to enjoy the year. Maybe a weekly prize. Pittonet has to go and I already have Grundy. Do you have any thoughts on the other ruckmen?

Skal




Cheers = Skal

Hej freowho,
Du har ret, og vi burde finde på en måde at nøde sæsonen. Særligt fordi den kan ikke lykkes for os at prøve at vinde noget!
I'm in the same boat. No Neale, because I traded him out, no Gawn, because he's too expensive. I've ummed and aahed about turning Fyfe into Gawn this week, which would leave enough to do another upgrade. The other option is to use the money more wisely, and extend the Fyfe money into 2.5 - 3 upgrades.
So who are our Pittonet options?
If you want a Ruck that has none of Gawn, Grundy and Goldy left to play, it gives you Rich or Haw to choose from.
There's no Haw Ruck worth risking, and I'd be willing to take a punt on Soldo, but Richmond have shown they are willing to play Nank along side him. Nank is listed as 3-6 weeks. If you knew it was 6 weeks, you might punt on Soldo at $419,700. Soldo has averaged 86 without Nank in the team, but also has 3 x 100+ scores in 5 games. With none of the big boys left to play, and Richmond expected to improve, he might average 90-95 from here.
I'm not sure dodging the big 3 Rucks is that important, when we look at Rucks like Pittonet scoring 134 against Gawn. That opens the door for us. I'd exclude Goldy and English, if you are avoiding Gawn on price, especially English. Given we want strong JS, and reliability to get on the ground, we are left with: O'Brien and Witts. NicNat might get managed, Lycett has missed through injury already, and might have Ladham's cutting his lunch, and Marshall got Ryder'ed on the weekend.
Witts -WB, GWS, StK, Ess, Rich ($530,400 [-$10,900], Ave 99, BE 123) hasn't missed a game in 2.5 seasons, and has 2 x 140+ scores this season, against Ade and Freo. He has played Gawn, but still has Ess, WB and GWS to come, who are all giving up decent Ruck scores.
O'Brien - Ess, Nth, Melb, Coll, WB ($543,600 [+$26,200]), Ave 113, BE 77) Missed Rnd 21 & 23 last season, but has played every other game since coming into the side, in Rnd 3 last season. He has 140+ scores against WC and Port this season. He hasn't played any of the big 3 yet, which possibly flatters his average a little. He also has Ess, WB and GWS to come.
Neither have their bye announced yet. I think o'Brien has a bigger ceiling, but doesn't have Witts reliability to get on the field record. A missed game potentially drops their return by 10% from here, or maybe 5% in a best 18 week, so from that point of view, Witts is a better pick.
Against that, if you already have 2 x GC players, do you want a 3rd leading into byes? I'm guessing you don't have 2 x Ade Keepers, though you might have.
There is certainly an argument for either, but given the immediate Draw of GC being against 4 of the easier teams to score Ruck points against, I'm probably heading to Witts.
Held og lykke, uanset hvilken retning, du springer!
Skål
Rowsus

 

[Rowsus]

Hey Row,
Hope you and the family are safe and well.
Just wanted to hear your thoughts on trading Gawn now that he is close to hitting 800K? It’s something I am considering because I find it extremely unlikely he keeps averaging 153. I guess the dilemma is that I picked him as a keeper and even if he wasn’t averaging 153, he’d be very difficult to replace points-wise (especially as a ruck). I think the only viable selection would be Goldy (I have Grundy). For these reasons, I am more opposed to it than I am for it, but am keeping an open mind as it could be a good way to buy more points on field. There are also people who are attempting to buy Gawn now, which I would be hoping would work in my favour.
What do you think the logistics of the trade would be? I have 17 trades left, about 188K salary cap and about 7-8 upgrades left.

Hey 30BoR,
nice Rank jumping this week, well done, I hope it keeps going.
I don't think the gambit is going to work with Gawn. For it to be a good move you either need Gawn to start scoring sub 115's regularly, or for him to miss some games. While either are possible, I'm not sure they are worth betting on.
The biggest problem with doing it with Gawn, or Rucks in general, is you only have 2, and also there are no seemingly well underpriced options available, to help the gambit to succeed. When you do it with a Mid (or Fwd or Def), there are a lot more potential good picks to choose from, a lot more potentially underpriced options, and also the safety net of having more of them in your team. ie. Pick a semi-dud Mid to replace an overpriced Mid, and at least he can slide back to M7/M8 to lessen the damage. There's no such safety net in the Rucks.
To contemplate doing this on any line, I'd want to be getting at least something in $250k area in change back, so that I can make a straight upgrade with that change, and one trade. Basically turning one overpriced commodity + a Rookie into two (hopefully) solid Keepers. It sort of puts you one upgrade up on where you'd be + still having one of your good cows left, too.
The only option I could see you turning Gawn into is Witts (see the post directly above), giving you $246,300 in change, to upgrade a Rookie. While the points sum might potentially favour Witts + Upgraded player over Gawn + Rookie, you have to look at the potential Captain problems you are presented with. Do you have 2 or 3 players you are happy to reliably loop as Captain options, without Gawn?
All in all, I think the risk is much greater to do it with Gawn, over when I did it with Neale 2 weeks ago, for the reasons explained above. If you were sitting Ranked 500, and wondering what you could do, to separate yourself from the team above you, in a bid you could label "Well I may as well try and finish top 10, and end up finishing 15,000, than just grind my way to a top 350 finish". Given your current Ranking, I imagine you want to finish as high as you can, but also have an eye on your favourite League or two. No Gawn potentially finishes any League aspirations, right then and there.
Good luck, I hope you continue your climb.

 

[30BucketsofRo]

Hey 30BoR,
nice Rank jumping this week, well done, I hope it keeps going.
I don't think the gambit is going to work with Gawn. For it to be a good move you either need Gawn to start scoring sub 115's regularly, or for him to miss some games. While either are possible, I'm not sure they are worth betting on.
The biggest problem with doing it with Gawn, or Rucks in general, is you only have 2, and also there are no seemingly well underpriced options available, to help the gambit to succeed. When you do it with a Mid (or Fwd or Def), there are a lot more potential good picks to choose from, a lot more potentially underpriced options, and also the safety net of having more of them in your team. ie. Pick a semi-dud Mid to replace an overpriced Mid, and at least he can slide back to M7/M8 to lessen the damage. There's no such safety net in the Rucks.
To contemplate doing this on any line, I'd want to be getting at least something in $250k area in change back, so that I can make a straight upgrade with that change, and one trade. Basically turning one overpriced commodity + a Rookie into two (hopefully) solid Keepers. It sort of puts you one upgrade up on where you'd be + still having one of your good cows left, too.
The only option I could see you turning Gawn into is Witts (see the post directly above), giving you $246,300 in change, to upgrade a Rookie. While the points sum might potentially favour Witts + Upgraded player over Gawn + Rookie, you have to look at the potential Captain problems you are presented with. Do you have 2 or 3 players you are happy to reliably loop as Captain options, without Gawn?
All in all, I think the risk is much greater to do it with Gawn, over when I did it with Neale 2 weeks ago, for the reasons explained above. If you were sitting Ranked 500, and wondering what you could do, to separate yourself from the team above you, in a bid you could label "Well I may as well try and finish top 10, and end up finishing 15,000, than just grind my way to a top 350 finish". Given your current Ranking, I imagine you want to finish as high as you can, but also have an eye on your favourite League or two. No Gawn potentially finishes any League aspirations, right then and there.
Good luck, I hope you continue your climb.

Many thanks, Rowsus.
Good luck for the season ahead.

 

[freowho]

Hej freowho,
Du har ret, og vi burde finde på en måde at nøde sæsonen. Særligt fordi den kan ikke lykkes for os at prøve at vinde noget!
I'm in the same boat. No Neale, because I traded him out, no Gawn, because he's too expensive. I've ummed and aahed about turning Fyfe into Gawn this week, which would leave enough to do another upgrade. The other option is to use the money more wisely, and extend the Fyfe money into 2.5 - 3 upgrades.
So who are our Pittonet options?
If you want a Ruck that has none of Gawn, Grundy and Goldy left to play, it gives you Rich or Haw to choose from.
There's no Haw Ruck worth risking, and I'd be willing to take a punt on Soldo, but Richmond have shown they are willing to play Nank along side him. Nank is listed as 3-6 weeks. If you knew it was 6 weeks, you might punt on Soldo at $419,700. Soldo has averaged 86 without Nank in the team, but also has 3 x 100+ scores in 5 games. With none of the big boys left to play, and Richmond expected to improve, he might average 90-95 from here.
I'm not sure dodging the big 3 Rucks is that important, when we look at Rucks like Pittonet scoring 134 against Gawn. That opens the door for us. I'd exclude Goldy and English, if you are avoiding Gawn on price, especially English. Given we want strong JS, and reliability to get on the ground, we are left with: O'Brien and Witts. NicNat might get managed, Lycett has missed through injury already, and might have Ladham's cutting his lunch, and Marshall got Ryder'ed on the weekend.
Witts -WB, GWS, StK, Ess, Rich ($530,400 [-$10,900], Ave 99, BE 123) hasn't missed a game in 2.5 seasons, and has 2 x 140+ scores this season, against Ade and Freo. He has played Gawn, but still has Ess, WB and GWS to come, who are all giving up decent Ruck scores.
O'Brien - Ess, Nth, Melb, Coll, WB ($543,600 [+$26,200]), Ave 113, BE 77) Missed Rnd 21 & 23 last season, but has played every other game since coming into the side, in Rnd 3 last season. He has 140+ scores against WC and Port this season. He hasn't played any of the big 3 yet, which possibly flatters his average a little. He also has Ess, WB and GWS to come.
Neither have their bye announced yet. I think o'Brien has a bigger ceiling, but doesn't have Witts reliability to get on the field record. A missed game potentially drops their return by 10% from here, or maybe 5% in a best 18 week, so from that point of view, Witts is a better pick.
Against that, if you already have 2 x GC players, do you want a 3rd leading into byes? I'm guessing you don't have 2 x Ade Keepers, though you might have.
There is certainly an argument for either, but given the immediate Draw of GC being against 4 of the easier teams to score Ruck points against, I'm probably heading to Witts.
Held og lykke, uanset hvilken retning, du springer!
Skål
Rowsus

Thanks Rowsus
I enjoyed the Danish.



Are you fluent or do you have to look things up occasionally?

I agree that if I'm not bringing in the best because of price then I'm looking at value and Goldy and English are not the best value. I'd also like to leave the door ajar to bring Gawn in "just" in case he has a big price drop and Goldy and English pose the biggest risk for their own price drop if that happens. I was favouring O'Brien but after your post and seeing this,

Verdict: Nicks spoke about potentially adding another ruckman to support Reilly O'Brien, so Strachan is a chance. - Callum Twomey

I'll go with Witts.

Skal

 

[Rowsus]

Thanks Rowsus
I enjoyed the Danish.

View attachment 19024

Are you fluent or do you have to look things up occasionally?

I agree that if I'm not bringing in the best because of price then I'm looking at value and Goldy and English are not the best value. I'd also like to leave the door ajar to bring Gawn in "just" in case he has a big price drop and Goldy and English pose the biggest risk for their own price drop if that happens. I was favouring O'Brien but after your post and seeing this,

Verdict: Nicks spoke about potentially adding another ruckman to support Reilly O'Brien, so Strachan is a chance. - Callum Twomey

I'll go with Witts.

Skal

Thanks Rowsus
I enjoyed the Danish.

View attachment 19024

Are you fluent or do you have to look things up occasionally?

I agree that if I'm not bringing in the best because of price then I'm looking at value and Goldy and English are not the best value. I'd also like to leave the door ajar to bring Gawn in "just" in case he has a big price drop and Goldy and English pose the biggest risk for their own price drop if that happens. I was favouring O'Brien but after your post and seeing this,

Verdict: Nicks spoke about potentially adding another ruckman to support Reilly O'Brien, so Strachan is a chance. - Callum Twomey

I'll go with Witts.

Skal

I'll say I'm somewhere between fluent, and getting stuck on the occassional word and grammar.

 

[Bermi]

Hi Rowsus,
I would appreciate your thoughts on Houston, as I think he is on the rise, but I haven't got a crystal football to confirm that .
I think he is a safe selection, but there are many doubters out there, which is making me to be doubtful selecting him.

I'm not a stats person, but looking at the stats below, I see a pattern. Houston scored poorly when PTA won easily in Rds 1, 2, 3 & 4. and he scored well when PTA had close games and lost game, regadless if Houston played Mid or Def.
PTA next games are; STK, MEL, RIC and GEE, they don't look like easy games to me.

 

[Bermi]

For the first time I was able to have a look at Houston and I was pleased he played a mid role all game, but he is not a contested player, as @GrainFedBeef pointed out, so I'm not surprised he only scored 67.

I ended up trading Houston in, I needed to get McAsey out of my starting 22, who is averaging 39 and my other choice would have been Eggmoleese-Smith who scored 30. With the extra trades now, I went for it and my team has an extra 37 points this weekend. Houston will be an upgrade later.

 

[jel]

Is this a wild & crazy idea?
Trade Simpkin out....

Current BE is 201 and he's expected to lose approx $60k in the next 2 games.
Last weekend against Curnow he showed that he doesn't handle a tag well, and although they are only playing Adelaide next, Keays does a pretty good tagging job so it could see him struggle again.
Could turn him into a BSmith and pocket some change.