Strategy Round 2: Trades

[Shannon]

Interesting to see how this effects Bergman.

 

[Ben's Beasts]

I'm open to trading both Grundy and Cripps but it certainly won't be this round.

The round 2 fixture is perfect for anybody else in the same boat as we get to look at both of them on Thurs night and then we can decide whether we need to do a Jordon correctional trade this round or the next depending on how Grundy and Cripps perform.

With already needing to trade Danger, I hope that Grundy and Cripps smash it out of the park on Thurs. Then it should just be Danger out this round and the Jordon rookie correction next round if all else goes to plan.

 

[Ben's Beasts]

View attachment 27513
Interesting to see how this effects Bergman.

Bonner hammy should save Bergman.

 

[pizza safety]

Timing and context is definitely important, but one of the key part is that someone who started the mid price player is much more likely to trade them out at a good moment because they are less invested. If you use a trade to bring them in and then a trade to upgrade them 2-3 weeks later there is a fair mental hurdle that's hard to overcome. Particularly when it's a guy who has scored well.. often by the time the writing is on the wall they've lost a bit of the cash they'd made and it becomes a bit of a nightmare scenario.

I think I remember seeing Rowsus say something to that effect with stepping stone players (and this is very much paraphrased so apologies to the great man in advance).. to make the cash they have to score well.. but if they're scoring that well, are you really going to trade them? Then if the bubble bursts.. the benefit you'd earned is gone and you're stuck in no man's land.

Yeah I agree it's very much context dependent, it's just that in my experience over the past two years these moves have allowed me to get Macrae in a lot quicker than I otherwise would have, and allowed me to get Macrae at a time when his price had dipped a little bit. There's a bit of luck there but I also didn't start Macrae both times in the hope that he would start a bit slow and with the aim of getting him in asap.

What I think is slightly underrated with these is the speed at which you can get an expensive player into your side. Not being invested is definitely a key part but when I got Libba and last year Viney, I was very aware that they were stepping stone players and didn't have plans to hold onto them for very long.

Last years price rise after Round 1 made Viney a very lucrative pick for me. I got rid of one premium I basically only had because I couldn't afford anyone else in Coniglio for Viney, making 110k after round 1. Then after round 4 I did Viney to Macrae for 83K, the move was delayed by one week because of the Dees/Dons game being cancelled. So for two trades where I made 27K I was able to get Macrae into my side very quickly and at a reduced cost.

 

[BomberArmy]

I think these post are a bit cruel - almost like shaming people for wanting to change their teams. News flash - trading after R1 of SuperCoach is not some colossal failure.

Some people didn’t get to watch any preseason games so R1 is the first time they’ve seen the players they’ve picked in action.

Also players get played out of position etc. in preseason games. You can be sure about role until teams are playing for premiership points.

Add to that the fact that some teams might need two trades for rookie corrections next week so there might be no opportunity for a primo or mid price correction before prices change.

Trust your eyes and your gut. If you’re 90% sure you’ve made a stuff up with your starting team - correct it - and don’t let these nay sayers put you off.

Not sure if cruel is the right word, definitely not trying to 'shame' anybody for their decisions.. I understand rookie corrections and LTIs or Suspensions, but getting rid of some you are bullish about after 1 game seems silly to me..

 

[Chumpion]

Yeah I agree it's very much context dependent, it's just that in my experience over the past two years these moves have allowed me to get Macrae in a lot quicker than I otherwise would have, and allowed me to get Macrae at a time when his price had dipped a little bit. There's a bit of luck there but I also didn't start Macrae both times in the hope that he would start a bit slow and with the aim of getting him in asap.

What I think is slightly underrated with these is the speed at which you can get an expensive player into your side. Not being invested is definitely a key part but when I got Libba and last year Viney, I was very aware that they were stepping stone players and didn't have plans to hold onto them for very long.

Last years price rise after Round 1 made Viney a very lucrative pick for me. I got rid of one premium I basically only had because I couldn't afford anyone else in Coniglio for Viney, making 110k after round 1. Then after round 4 I did Viney to Macrae for 83K, the move was delayed by one week because of the Dees/Dons game being cancelled. So for two trades where I made 27K I was able to get Macrae into my side very quickly and at a reduced cost.

Looking at your rankings its safe to say you play the game better than most! But you are spot on in the sense if you go in with clear goals and stick to the players purpose it can work. It is funny though cause the narrative is often "if you bring them in now they basically have to be keepers".. but that isn't necessarily the case in your example.

I will say though the risk is amplified if you don't nail the keeper premium you get in - Macrae is a fairly safe one but there are a lot of others that could burn you hard!

 

[Courtesans]

..mabye T. Mitchell and Heeney for Rowell and Dangerfield. Only 4% have Mitchell.

 

[dlanod]

I'm always weary of the early week trade stats.. most of the serious players are waiting for teams or news across the week. These are likely the "set & forget on a monday morning" types with a few "I'll reverse them later in the week" folk for good measure.

I read the first sentence and was about to object... then I saw you caught me out with the "reverse them later" subclause. Cunning.

 

[dlanod]

..mabye T. Mitchell and Heeney for Rowell and Dangerfield. Only 4% have Mitchell.

Titchell seems a no-brainer for Rowell if you've got the cash.

 

[Game of Sloanes]

I see lots of talk about Bowes but what about Bailey Williams for the dogs? Not as high of a score, but the way he scored 121 he appears to have more avenues of getting the ton, not just going at a high disposal efficiency.

 

[Johno9911]

Didn't end up starting Rowe (would've been on my bench most likely anyway) and McDonald so will have to factor them into my trades at some point. Will probably wait and see who of the likes of McNeil and Brockman get dropped and bring those two in before their price rise.

I also have Danger and will wait and see what his suspension is. I'd probably hold if he gets 2 weeks and hope the rookies can cover me.

 

[Ben's Beasts]

Didn't end up starting Rowe (would've been on my bench most likely anyway) and McDonald so will have to factor them into my trades at some point. Will probably wait and see who of the likes of McNeil and Brockman get dropped and bring those two in before their price rise.

I also have Danger and will wait and see what his suspension is. I'd probably hold if he gets 2 weeks and hope the rookies can cover me.

I don't think McDonald is a high priority. He won't kick 3 goals and score 88 every round. I think a 55-60 average from here is more likely which may not be worth his price.

 

[<actus]

Not sure if cruel is the right word, definitely not trying to 'shame' anybody for their decisions.. I understand rookie corrections and LTIs or Suspensions, but getting rid of some you are bullish about after 1 game seems silly to me..

Yeah. Fair call. Shame and cruel were a bit OTT.

I was still struggling with my last couple of decisions right up til kick off on Thursday. Work got busy at the wrong time for SuperCoach. And although I don’t think I’ve got any primos myself that need correction I managed to leave myself with 2K in the bank, so not enough dough to do a correction from McNeill to Berry. Dangerfield getting suspended and being a must trade has saved me from awful dilemma (and from feeling like a complete idiot).

 

[jaca]

Yeah. Fair call. Shame and cruel were a bit OTT.

I was still struggling with my last couple of decisions right up til kick off on Thursday. Work got busy at the wrong time for SuperCoach. And although I don’t think I’ve got any primos myself that need correction I managed to leave myself with 2K in the bank, so not enough dough to do a correction from McNeill to Berry. Dangerfield getting suspended and being a must trade has saved me from awful dilemma (and from feeling like a complete idiot).

I feel your pain, I only have 1k in the bank (and no Damger)...

 

[Gruffles]

I don't think McDonald is a high priority. He won't kick 3 goals and score 88 every round. I think a 55-60 average from here is more likely which may not be worth his price.

Agree but I just get the feeling he might be a good rookie to have. Think ill play it as you have called it but another 70+ would create a dilemma.

 

[pizza safety]

Looking at your rankings its safe to say you play the game better than most! But you are spot on in the sense if you go in with clear goals and stick to the players purpose it can work. It is funny though cause the narrative is often "if you bring them in now they basically have to be keepers".. but that isn't necessarily the case in your example.

I will say though the risk is amplified if you don't nail the keeper premium you get in - Macrae is a fairly safe one but there are a lot of others that could burn you hard!

Cheers mate, certainly have had clear plans in mind but also I've also had things fall my way on this particular type of early trade. Good point to make and for me to note that it doesn't always work so well !

 

[BomberArmy]

Yeah. Fair call. Shame and cruel were a bit OTT.

I was still struggling with my last couple of decisions right up til kick off on Thursday. Work got busy at the wrong time for SuperCoach. And although I don’t think I’ve got any primos myself that need correction I managed to leave myself with 2K in the bank, so not enough dough to do a correction from McNeill to Berry. Dangerfield getting suspended and being a must trade has saved me from awful dilemma (and from feeling like a complete idiot).

All good, I've been down many roads over the supercoach journey and none of them the right ones, so know exactly what its like..

 

[lappinitup]

Reckon it's a SC right of passage.. you never believe it's a thing until you actually get sucked in and burned by it!

(for the record, I also got stung by Libba which is why that example was clear in my mind!)

Interesting, everyone using hand picked examples to say you should never trade to a mid pricer with early season form. On percentages, this obviously works due to players have spike games.

However, this strategy means you effectively forgoes any breakout players for the season, even if they end up D2 or F2?

Last year you would have 100% ignored Maynard and Ridley in your backline, I think the best coaches will be a little bit more nuanced in their decision making when it comes to early season form. Every player has spike games, so can't be seduced by those, however improved role and responsibility can be a great sign for an improved season. I refused to pick Jack Steele due to the "mid pricer" rule last year, and it consistently cost me!

 

[Chumpion]

Interesting, everyone using hand picked examples to say you should never trade to a mid pricer with early season form. On percentages, this obviously works due to players have spike games.

However, this strategy means you effectively forgoes any breakout players for the season, even if they end up D2 or F2?

Last year you would have 100% ignored Maynard and Ridley in your backline, I think the best coaches will be a little bit more nuanced in their decision making when it comes to early season form. Every player has spike games, so can't be seduced by those, however improved role and responsibility can be a great sign for an improved season. I refused to pick Jack Steele due to the "mid pricer" rule last year, and it consistently cost me!

I don't think it's a case of never.. just that you need to be crystal clear what your plans and expectations are.

For every Ridley and Maynard there are countless Libbas and Zakas.. I don't think anyone would say there aren't success stories, but getting them right amidst a sea of options is never easy. It's also worth noting the good one's really end up at an unreachable price so you can still get them later (albeit at a premium on their starting price).

But take your point - SC isn't a game of hard and fast rules and circumstances are key, but I've found that history has a tendency to repeat itself so it's worth keeping it in mind!

 

[jel]

I'm open to trading both Grundy and Cripps but it certainly won't be this round.

The round 2 fixture is perfect for anybody else in the same boat as we get to look at both of them on Thurs night and then we can decide whether we need to do a Jordon correctional trade this round or the next depending on how Grundy and Cripps perform.

With already needing to trade Danger, I hope that Grundy and Cripps smash it out of the park on Thurs. Then it should just be Danger out this round and the Jordon rookie correction next round if all else goes to plan.

My plan exactly. Bonus is I get to see if O Henry is 1. named 2. plays better than last week.