Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
That is an interesting comment Rowsus. I know some think Swan is on the way down but even so his numbers are still not too bad in my opinion (but I might be wrong). Last year he ave 117 his worst for long time. Before that he was a regular 120 plus ave. Even if he only returned to that 117 ave this season by my calcs he would ave 123 from now.
Murphy on the other hand has never ave over 120. He might this season but I am not so sure. He needs to ave 121.5 from now to hit 120 season ave and he needs to ave 118.75 from now just to equal his best season ave of 118 set in 2011.
I guess these kinds of calls come down to your gut instinct.
I have Murphy and have actually flirted with the idea of trading him during the byes.
Murphy on the other hand has never ave over 120. He might this season but I am not so sure. He needs to ave 121.5 from now to hit 120 season ave and he needs to ave 118.75 from now just to equal his best season ave of 118 set in 2011.
I guess these kinds of calls come down to your gut instinct.
I have Murphy and have actually flirted with the idea of trading him during the byes.
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 612
- Likes
- 757
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Hi ELR,
I would have to back Murphy to outscore Swan from here, and provided they both stay fit and on the park, I am pretty confident he will.
If you are sitting on the fence on Buddy, you are probably best to take this opportunity to dump him. If you had decided earlier in the week to keep him, I would stand by that decision, unless it's leaving your Forward line looking a mess this week.
Good luck
I would have to back Murphy to outscore Swan from here, and provided they both stay fit and on the park, I am pretty confident he will.
If you are sitting on the fence on Buddy, you are probably best to take this opportunity to dump him. If you had decided earlier in the week to keep him, I would stand by that decision, unless it's leaving your Forward line looking a mess this week.
Good luck
With $659k in the bank my thoeory has been id rather upgrade two players than sideways Hanley or Buddy. So instead of having the same premiums but lose two trades I gain two premiums when they return without using a trade. However I originally wanted enough money to bring Swallow and Selwood straight in at round 9. Doing a double upgrade means I can probably only bring one in. I still have M.Thomas who I was going to downgrade this week. But with Dunstan now out I dont want to trade a player that is playing who could get 80-100. So I wont really know which way I'm going until Sunday teams are final. For the sake of this question if Thomas plays insert dunstan, if he is dropped insert thomas. (ill then keep dunstan)
CASH: $659,200
IMMEDIATE ISSUES: Hanley, Langford, Buddy, Dunstan, Thomas.
CURRENTLY: Not in donut trouble but Cunningham, Taylor, Robertson, JKH, Geogiou on the field.
Original thought. Langford to Hibberd, Dunstan to Hallahan still leaving me $572,200.00. Then round 9 and 10 I could set off quite a few bangs.
With Hanley and Buddy out I'm not so sure with a downgrade, thinking to "cover them" via an upgrade.
I'm fairly sold on Langford to Hibberd.
Second trade I'm toying with Dunstan to Watson. No mucking about etc.
I'm also toying with getting a bit pretty and searching for a cheaper option. So Dunstan to Zorko or Rioli (VIA Taylor) Or maybe spend a bit extra and get Parker. Which raises my Swans Questions lol.
When Tippet, Buddy and Goodes are all ready to go does this affect Parker? Less goals? 100% Mid time? And when theyre all in do we think this helps Buddy as he has help? Or is buddy just buddy no matter who is there.
After some soul searching I now come to the final part of my questions within questions, questions lol. I'm now looking at backpeddling and maybe just nipping Buddy in the bud. Upgrade him to Parker/Rioli/Zorko and forget I ever had him. Example going to Rioli leaves me $310 change.
Hope you're awake lol.
CASH: $659,200
IMMEDIATE ISSUES: Hanley, Langford, Buddy, Dunstan, Thomas.
CURRENTLY: Not in donut trouble but Cunningham, Taylor, Robertson, JKH, Geogiou on the field.
Original thought. Langford to Hibberd, Dunstan to Hallahan still leaving me $572,200.00. Then round 9 and 10 I could set off quite a few bangs.
With Hanley and Buddy out I'm not so sure with a downgrade, thinking to "cover them" via an upgrade.
I'm fairly sold on Langford to Hibberd.
Second trade I'm toying with Dunstan to Watson. No mucking about etc.
I'm also toying with getting a bit pretty and searching for a cheaper option. So Dunstan to Zorko or Rioli (VIA Taylor) Or maybe spend a bit extra and get Parker. Which raises my Swans Questions lol.
When Tippet, Buddy and Goodes are all ready to go does this affect Parker? Less goals? 100% Mid time? And when theyre all in do we think this helps Buddy as he has help? Or is buddy just buddy no matter who is there.
After some soul searching I now come to the final part of my questions within questions, questions lol. I'm now looking at backpeddling and maybe just nipping Buddy in the bud. Upgrade him to Parker/Rioli/Zorko and forget I ever had him. Example going to Rioli leaves me $310 change.
Hope you're awake lol.
Hi Adrenaline,
you certainly seem keen to rid yourself of Hanley! I can understand that, but I'd be tempted to keep him. You've had him through his bad part of the draw, and his draw gets a little easier in the coming weeks. I think the decision comes down to your ability to have cash available for the important rounds 9 and 10 trading period. If you are confident you can have cash, go Hanley to Simpson, if not, go Hanley to Cutler.
Good luck
you certainly seem keen to rid yourself of Hanley! I can understand that, but I'd be tempted to keep him. You've had him through his bad part of the draw, and his draw gets a little easier in the coming weeks. I think the decision comes down to your ability to have cash available for the important rounds 9 and 10 trading period. If you are confident you can have cash, go Hanley to Simpson, if not, go Hanley to Cutler.
Good luck
Hey bloke,
if you meant M Murphy, his price is already over $500k. He is currently $529,300 wirh a B/E of 18, so 110 would see him rise to $569,800.
If you meant R Murphy, his price is $465,500 with a B/E of 124. If he scores 110 his price will drop to $459,300.
I am confident you didn't mean T Murphy (GC)
Good luck
if you meant M Murphy, his price is already over $500k. He is currently $529,300 wirh a B/E of 18, so 110 would see him rise to $569,800.
If you meant R Murphy, his price is $465,500 with a B/E of 124. If he scores 110 his price will drop to $459,300.
I am confident you didn't mean T Murphy (GC)
Good luck
I think Buddy is just Buddy, and isn't affected too much if Tippett and/or Goodes are there or not. This may sound strange, but I actually think Buddy is better when he is forced to go and get his own ball, rather than have his team mates focusing on him. It gives him more opportunity to run his direct opponent, and beat them one on one. No one can turn a player like Buddy can when he's in form! So, ok, Buddy might be positively affected by Tippett/Goodes being there, but not because of any change in opponent, but more from a change in role. I like Buddy the hunter more than I like Buddy the spoon fed Full Forward.
I like Langford to Hibberd.
The introduction of Goodes/Tippett doesn't actually equate to Parker having more on ball time, it equates to him (or a Cunningham type) having more bench time! The time spent up Forward is meant as a mini rest from so much Running. That rest has to come somewhere, so he either plays the small Forward role, or goes to the bench more.
I think the extra $50-$75k is justified in getting Watson over Zorko/Rioli. I expect his scoring to justify the difference over them.
I can understand you wanting to back peddle on Buddy. I really think you should stick with your decision, as your thinking was good. Buddy missing this game shouldn't affect what Buddy owners were thinking after last weeks game. Buddy misses games every season, so unless he is causing donut hardships, those that intended to keep him should still do so.
Good luck
I like Langford to Hibberd.
The introduction of Goodes/Tippett doesn't actually equate to Parker having more on ball time, it equates to him (or a Cunningham type) having more bench time! The time spent up Forward is meant as a mini rest from so much Running. That rest has to come somewhere, so he either plays the small Forward role, or goes to the bench more.
I think the extra $50-$75k is justified in getting Watson over Zorko/Rioli. I expect his scoring to justify the difference over them.
I can understand you wanting to back peddle on Buddy. I really think you should stick with your decision, as your thinking was good. Buddy missing this game shouldn't affect what Buddy owners were thinking after last weeks game. Buddy misses games every season, so unless he is causing donut hardships, those that intended to keep him should still do so.
Good luck
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 19,855
- Likes
- 929
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Hi Rowsus,
Trying to find a solution to do a trade I'd like to make next week.
I basically need someone to trade at just over $414 K next week to fund an upgrade I'm looking at doing.
It seems a massive long shot but dreaming the dream of KK somehow making a jump of $108 k this weekend but think it is unrealistic to happen.
My question is, what big score would KK have to score v North to be priced at around $414 K on Monday?
Trying to find a solution to do a trade I'd like to make next week.
I basically need someone to trade at just over $414 K next week to fund an upgrade I'm looking at doing.
It seems a massive long shot but dreaming the dream of KK somehow making a jump of $108 k this weekend but think it is unrealistic to happen.
My question is, what big score would KK have to score v North to be priced at around $414 K on Monday?
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 1,292
- Likes
- 268
Hi Adrenaline,
you certainly seem keen to rid yourself of Hanley! I can understand that, but I'd be tempted to keep him. You've had him through his bad part of the draw, and his draw gets a little easier in the coming weeks. I think the decision comes down to your ability to have cash available for the important rounds 9 and 10 trading period. If you are confident you can have cash, go Hanley to Simpson, if not, go Hanley to Cutler.
Good luck
you certainly seem keen to rid yourself of Hanley! I can understand that, but I'd be tempted to keep him. You've had him through his bad part of the draw, and his draw gets a little easier in the coming weeks. I think the decision comes down to your ability to have cash available for the important rounds 9 and 10 trading period. If you are confident you can have cash, go Hanley to Simpson, if not, go Hanley to Cutler.
Good luck
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 19,855
- Likes
- 929
- AFL Club
- Carlton
No!!! I'm not trading him....lol
Evil SC Gods with their twisted sick sense of humour.
I really dead against trading keepers unless I'm sure they are out for many many weeks.
Especially after losing value, that would be torture to feel that was the way to fund an upgrade, because it would not actually be an upgrade. It would be a sideways forced move with selling at lower price too.
I want to build my team up. Not plug leaking holes from it sinking. I'd rather just drown and get it over with..lol
Evil SC Gods with their twisted sick sense of humour.
I really dead against trading keepers unless I'm sure they are out for many many weeks.
Especially after losing value, that would be torture to feel that was the way to fund an upgrade, because it would not actually be an upgrade. It would be a sideways forced move with selling at lower price too.
I want to build my team up. Not plug leaking holes from it sinking. I'd rather just drown and get it over with..lol
- Status