Strategy Round 5: Trades
- Thread starter IDIG
- Start date
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 425
- Likes
- 358
Nah the extra trade isnt an issue. More so that I won't be able to do a 1 up 1 down next week to get Whitfield with option 2. Id have to do 2 downgrades next week and then get him the week after. If he scores high this week he will prob have a lowish break even so potentially missing out on his basement price.
- Joined
- 26 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 366
- Likes
- 415
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Not only are their prices wildly different, but some of their scoring as well.
Laird is averaging ~20ppg less than Ridley this season and has fallen 10ppg in his scoring again this season after a 10ppg drop in 2019.
Other than Jake Lloyd, no other defender has a sustained track record of excellence in scoring in defence (>100ppg for 2 seasons prior to this year) either.
So Ridley seems like a reasonable risk/reward at his current price given
- none of his peers are 'almost guaranteed' to score so much higher; and
- each is already priced $70-150k more expensive.
and with trades less of a premium this season, the price of error is even less.
Laird is averaging ~20ppg less than Ridley this season and has fallen 10ppg in his scoring again this season after a 10ppg drop in 2019.
Other than Jake Lloyd, no other defender has a sustained track record of excellence in scoring in defence (>100ppg for 2 seasons prior to this year) either.
So Ridley seems like a reasonable risk/reward at his current price given
- none of his peers are 'almost guaranteed' to score so much higher; and
- each is already priced $70-150k more expensive.
and with trades less of a premium this season, the price of error is even less.
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 36,702
- Likes
- 118,837
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
C Serong:
Q1: 14 SC
2 Disposals (1 Contested) and 1 Mark
Q2: 9 SC= 23 SC
1 Contested Possession and 1 Tackle
Plays Adel in RD5
Q3: 14 SC= 37 SC
4 Disposals, 1 Mark and 1 Tackle
Q4: 34 SC= 71 SC
6 Disposals, 1 Mark, 3 Tackles and 3 Contested Possesions
Plays Adel in RD5
Attended 10CBA in his debut match
8 players used in RD4 Fremantle centre bounces (6 with 10+ and 6 with 4+, Serong 6th with 10)
Q1: 14 SC
2 Disposals (1 Contested) and 1 Mark
Q2: 9 SC= 23 SC
1 Contested Possession and 1 Tackle
Plays Adel in RD5
Q3: 14 SC= 37 SC
4 Disposals, 1 Mark and 1 Tackle
Q4: 34 SC= 71 SC
6 Disposals, 1 Mark, 3 Tackles and 3 Contested Possesions
Plays Adel in RD5
Attended 10CBA in his debut match
8 players used in RD4 Fremantle centre bounces (6 with 10+ and 6 with 4+, Serong 6th with 10)
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,817
- Likes
- 10,818
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Exactly. I don't think we have the funds this year where we are easily upgrading week after week.
Logic looks fine if you can do 1-2 upgrades over next week, although, it will not be like for like with Fyfe I expect.
I just cannot easily get there. Is Fyfe 1-2 or really 3 weeks makes a difference. I could get to Simpkin in 2nd week (or this week if I delay Serong) or maybe Neale in week (would be a weak defence to get there).
Logic looks fine if you can do 1-2 upgrades over next week, although, it will not be like for like with Fyfe I expect.
I just cannot easily get there. Is Fyfe 1-2 or really 3 weeks makes a difference. I could get to Simpkin in 2nd week (or this week if I delay Serong) or maybe Neale in week (would be a weak defence to get there).
@Professor @The Experiment @GrainFedBeef
That's basically what I was thinking.
The key assumption seems to be that you're able to go one up, one down indefinitely, so the extra cash generated this week is therefore not used productively for many weeks. This may be the case if you have fat cows that allow you to get good quality premiums each week, but if you're a little short, or want to get a top priced name like Neale, arguably it breaks down a bit.
I really like the thinking though, and find his thoughts well worth following. There's nothing wrong with simplifying things in my view, even if sometimes you have to oversimplify a little to illustrate a point.
That's basically what I was thinking.
The key assumption seems to be that you're able to go one up, one down indefinitely, so the extra cash generated this week is therefore not used productively for many weeks. This may be the case if you have fat cows that allow you to get good quality premiums each week, but if you're a little short, or want to get a top priced name like Neale, arguably it breaks down a bit.
I really like the thinking though, and find his thoughts well worth following. There's nothing wrong with simplifying things in my view, even if sometimes you have to oversimplify a little to illustrate a point.
