Round 2 Trades

[buttox]

I'm not trading this week.

But I am worried that I'm going to fall too far behind by not having Danger.

+1

 

[blackshadow]

Will most likely sit tight (have been tinkering with a few) the most likely trade I'll make though is Dea for BenKen (using McDonald-T DPP status).

Other players I'm concerned about are Fyfe if injured and general shitness from Barlow and Steele. Everyone else I have reasonable confidence about.

 

[NSWCROW]

Milera will score better than Brown so your burning a trade and losing potential points just to gets Adams. Give Steele one mire week i reckon and then try to get Adams with a single trade. He will score well with the first 8 games at Etihad.

yeah fair call

 

[ROOINYOU]

could of had a better round but with a score over 2100 and under performing premos i'm happy.feel i nailed most of the rookies and don't need to trade,but with no money in the kitty am relying on rookies for cash.
Before round 1 lockout i had Petrecca in and wasn't sold on JS for Hewitt/Dunkley/Gresham so held Petrecca.now with cash generation in mind is it a sensible move to trade him for one of these guys?none of them have great JS but scored well for SC and did their bit for their teams also. looking at Hewitt as the swans should smash the blues this week and one would think no changes would be made pending injury so he'd play Rd3 = $$$.
If the doggies play like last week,the same thing could be said about Dunkley.
Think it could be a good move...however if i do this its only to bring Petrecca back in as a downgrade when he gets a run.wasted trade?
Need the dough and want to have 2 trades to play with next week if needed.

 

[Souup]

The stupidly levels on this forum go up tenfold once round 1 begins. It's incredible the amount of crap trades I've seen on here along with people celebrating selections by posting in the 'nailed it' thread.

Any sign of sound logic and reasoning on this forum seemingly disappears once round 1 begins

 

[Fyfetheknife]

could of had a better round but with a score over 2100 and under performing premos i'm happy.feel i nailed most of the rookies and don't need to trade,but with no money in the kitty am relying on rookies for cash.
Before round 1 lockout i had Petrecca in and wasn't sold on JS for Hewitt/Dunkley/Gresham so held Petrecca.now with cash generation in mind is it a sensible move to trade him for one of these guys?none of them have great JS but scored well for SC and did their bit for their teams also. looking at Hewitt as the swans should smash the blues this week and one would think no changes would be made pending injury so he'd play Rd3 = $$$.
If the doggies play like last week,the same thing could be said about Dunkley.
Think it could be a good move...however if i do this its only to bring Petrecca back in as a downgrade when he gets a run.wasted trade?
Need the dough and want to have 2 trades to play with next week if needed.

I wouldn't. You chose Petracca so you wouldn't have to waste a trade bringing him in down the track. Trading him out now means you're going to end up wasting 2. There's no guarantee the three guys you mentioned (Hewett/Dunk/Gresh) will score well next week or even get picked, anything can happen. Keep petracca and save the 2 trades. 2 trades will go further in the long run than one rookie will.

If you're really desperate to bring one in, wait until after next weekend and see who goes best.

 

[P_Cripps]

The stupidly levels on this forum go up tenfold once round 1 begins. It's incredible the amount of crap trades I've seen on here along with people celebrating selections by posting in the 'nailed it' thread.

Any sign of sound logic and reasoning on this forum seemingly disappears once round 1 begins

Is this sound logic? (I posted this earlier in the thread to no response):

"I understand trying to conserve trades but I have a real dilemma in Greene. He scored 50, was weak, bounced off tackles, missed set shots and hovered around packs. Looking through his career history he does tend to go 50,100,50,100 but I wasn't selecting him to average the same as last year. I feel that saving a trade would only cause me to lose points in the short and long term. There are a few candidates to trade him to but my favorite is Wingard. Scored 125 on the weekend and when watching the game it was obvious that it was not one of those 'fluke' games where a player scores way above their average (I'm not saying he will average 125 maybe 110). However, last year he went 120, 60, 70. The other thing to consider is Wingard will most likely be a top 6 forawrd while Greene will not.

Worth a trade?"

 

[karaoke]

Is this sound logic? (I posted this earlier in the thread to no response):

"I understand trying to conserve trades but I have a real dilemma in Greene. He scored 50, was weak, bounced off tackles, missed set shots and hovered around packs. Looking through his career history he does tend to go 50,100,50,100 but I wasn't selecting him to average the same as last year. I feel that saving a trade would only cause me to lose points in the short and long term. There are a few candidates to trade him to but my favorite is Wingard. Scored 125 on the weekend and when watching the game it was obvious that it was not one of those 'fluke' games where a player scores way above their average (I'm not saying he will average 125 maybe 110). However, last year he went 120, 60, 70. The other thing to consider is Wingard will most likely be a top 6 forawrd while Greene will not.

Worth a trade?"

Think back to prior to rd1 and why you originally selected Greene (& not Wingard).

Then, move on to now and ask what has 'substantially' changed to alter my view?

Shouldn't be based off one game.

 

[joop]

Is this sound logic? (I posted this earlier in the thread to no response):

"I understand trying to conserve trades but I have a real dilemma in Greene. He scored 50, was weak, bounced off tackles, missed set shots and hovered around packs. Looking through his career history he does tend to go 50,100,50,100 but I wasn't selecting him to average the same as last year. I feel that saving a trade would only cause me to lose points in the short and long term. There are a few candidates to trade him to but my favorite is Wingard. Scored 125 on the weekend and when watching the game it was obvious that it was not one of those 'fluke' games where a player scores way above their average (I'm not saying he will average 125 maybe 110). However, last year he went 120, 60, 70. The other thing to consider is Wingard will most likely be a top 6 forawrd while Greene will not.

Worth a trade?"

No, you can't judge players off 1 game. What happens if the next 3 weeks wingard doesn't score 100 and Greene scores over 100 3 times? Do you swap them again?
Back your players in at least for a few weeks.

 

[ROOINYOU]

I wouldn't. You chose Petracca so you wouldn't have to waste a trade bringing him in down the track. Trading him out now means you're going to end up wasting 2. There's no guarantee the three guys you mentioned (Hewett/Dunk/Gresh) will score well next week or even get picked, anything can happen. Keep petracca and save the 2 trades. 2 trades will go further in the long run than one rookie will.

If you're really desperate to bring one in, wait until after next weekend and see who goes best.

thanks mate.probably will hold off.thought it could pass as a rookie correction,but your right.trades will be used better later.

 

[Me Myself and I]

Is this sound logic? (I posted this earlier in the thread to no response):

"I understand trying to conserve trades but I have a real dilemma in Greene. He scored 50, was weak, bounced off tackles, missed set shots and hovered around packs. Looking through his career history he does tend to go 50,100,50,100 but I wasn't selecting him to average the same as last year. I feel that saving a trade would only cause me to lose points in the short and long term. There are a few candidates to trade him to but my favorite is Wingard. Scored 125 on the weekend and when watching the game it was obvious that it was not one of those 'fluke' games where a player scores way above their average (I'm not saying he will average 125 maybe 110). However, last year he went 120, 60, 70. The other thing to consider is Wingard will most likely be a top 6 forawrd while Greene will not.

Worth a trade?"

Main point. Do you have 80K or so in the kitty? Would only consider this if you only use one trade.
Greene is DPP for what it's worth.
Consider Port's draw in the first eight rounds which should help Wingard's scoring.
I also expect Wingard to be a top six forward come season's end.

Saying that, it's only round one so I'd be inclined to give Greene another chance.

Have you got the rookies who are on the money or will you have to make corrective trades?
If above answer is no and Greene bombs out this round, then I'd seriously consider a trade.

PS. I do have Wingard.

 

[Souup]

Is this sound logic? (I posted this earlier in the thread to no response):

"I understand trying to conserve trades but I have a real dilemma in Greene. He scored 50, was weak, bounced off tackles, missed set shots and hovered around packs. Looking through his career history he does tend to go 50,100,50,100 but I wasn't selecting him to average the same as last year. I feel that saving a trade would only cause me to lose points in the short and long term. There are a few candidates to trade him to but my favorite is Wingard. Scored 125 on the weekend and when watching the game it was obvious that it was not one of those 'fluke' games where a player scores way above their average (I'm not saying he will average 125 maybe 110). However, last year he went 120, 60, 70. The other thing to consider is Wingard will most likely be a top 6 forawrd while Greene will not.

Worth a trade?"

I think there's merit to this one - but why pick him in the first place if you didn't consider him a keeper at that price? If you can back it up with some decent reasoning then fair enough. It's the ones I've seen where people are already genuinely considering getting rid of guys like Rockliff, Pendlebury and Fyfe that are stupidly insane.

 

[Monika72]

I agree not to trade premo players, Fyfe is a premo but for Barlow If I was him I would start looking at Seek for a new job next year.

 

[leng jai]

Basically 95% of everyone's trade reasoning is trumped by the question "why did you pick them before round 1 then?".

 

[Ingy]

I would rather not be trading but I think I need to.

I wound up with Jed Anderson in my team after Daniel Menzel failed to be named in his final 22 after the rest of my team had been locked away pretty much (including BenKen on the bench without the E I'd already used with Menadue and taken with Petracca. Grrrrrr.)

If I go Anderson>Papley, I have the cash to go Sidebottom(suspended for two weeks) to Danger (who I should have already, I was just mildly concerned how he'd go with his new team and whether it would all work. Seems to work fine.)

Am I justified?

 

[superfraser]

I think there's merit to this one - but why pick him in the first place if you didn't consider him a keeper at that price? If you can back it up with some decent reasoning then fair enough. It's the ones I've seen where people are already genuinely considering getting rid of guys like Rockliff, Pendlebury and Fyfe that are stupidly insane.

I understand that it goes against Group Think -which I'm not accusing you of here, there are multiple ways to reach the conclusion you've come to.

But to discard these considerations completely is also wrong.

You only need to look back to Fyfe's year last year to see this.

Without picking random starting points to suit my argument, consider his form pre-Bye, verse post-Bye.

Pre-Bye Fyfe had an average of 134.3 whilst post-Bye Fyfe had an average of 108.6 (not including his finals as they weren't part of his SC season)

If you believe Fyfe to be hampered, and expect him to drop from legit SuperPremo to regular Premo, and you're missing Dangerfield, I think it's justified. It may prove to be the wrong decision, but it's justified.

....now, you can go back and query the decision of picking Fyfe to begin with, and that's fine.

But Supercoach isn't only about getting things right, it's also about responding to things that are wrong.

For what it's worth, I'll probably hold Fyfe. But I'm definitely considering trading him to Dangerfield, who looks like he could potentially eclipse even Fyfe at his best.

 

[karaoke]

I agree not to trade premo players, Fyfe is a premo but for Barlow If I was him I would start looking at Seek for a new job next year.

Twas but 1 round.

Was Freo's highest scorer/TOG in NAB. - 131, 92, 117

Back to playing midfield minutes, I'm backing him in.

All of Freo, apart from Neale & perhaps Sheridan, were below par.

 

[j0rdy1]

If I go Anderson>Papley, I have the cash to go Sidebottom(suspended for two weeks) to Danger (who I should have already, I was just mildly concerned how he'd go with his new team and whether it would all work. Seems to work fine.)

Am I justified?

I would really want to wait another week to get Papley but if its the only way to get Danger I can see your reasoning, although I think Sidebottom will be a midfield keeper come years end, he looked a class above the rest of Collingwood with the exception of Treloar.

 

[dmc333]

Any thoughts on these trades?

Trading out Fyfe for Oliver - rising star nom trumps an old Brownlow. Oliver crushed him last week points wise.

Trading out Goldstein for Hickey - Hickey's just proven he can go big. I think Goldy's cooked, missed his average by two points - on the decline for sure.

The cash I've saved means I'll be able to upgrade Oliver to a premo easy at a later date. Same with Hickey.

 

[Ingy]

I would really want to wait another week to get Papley but if its the only way to get Danger I can see your reasoning, although I think Sidebottom will be a midfield keeper come years end, he looked a class above the rest of Collingwood with the exception of Treloar.

Yeah agreed, the grown up option is to wait a week and see how the rookies go for a second time. It will cost me the difference between Danger's and Oliver's scores, which at this stage of the year is why I might not do it.

Also agree on Sidey, that's why I picked him (I also have Treloar). But last year I carried him for a month, along with Deledio and Wines and I just had too much cash on the pine. Without overcorrecting the other way I do want to be a little more aggressive this year. Steele is a potential top ten mid, but Danger's probably one guy where it can be considered an upgrade because he's looking top two or three, isn't he?

Unfortunately I can see myself doing 4 trades in the first two weeks, it isn't ideal but IMO if you do manage to improve your squad with a trade, the earlier you do it, the more good you get from it over the season. That said I will have to take my anti-trade medication for a month from Round 3 lol

 

[ManWithNoName]

None this week but Fyfe/Pendles to Danger could be on the cards if Danger goes big again and they have another shocker. I'm backing them in though.

Also Mitch Robinson could be iffy, but WC in Perth will be the hardest trip they make this year.

Might do a rookie correction next week to one of the Sydney boys.

 

[TheBeardAmigos]

Any thoughts on these trades?

Trading out Fyfe for Oliver - rising star nom trumps an old Brownlow. Oliver crushed him last week points wise.

Trading out Goldstein for Hickey - Hickey's just proven he can go big. I think Goldy's cooked, missed his average by two points - on the decline for sure.

The cash I've saved means I'll be able to upgrade Oliver to a premo easy at a later date. Same with Hickey.

cant tell if serious or not........

 

[The_Steadier]

Any thoughts on these trades?

Trading out Fyfe for Oliver - rising star nom trumps an old Brownlow. Oliver crushed him last week points wise.

Trading out Goldstein for Hickey - Hickey's just proven he can go big. I think Goldy's cooked, missed his average by two points - on the decline for sure.

The cash I've saved means I'll be able to upgrade Oliver to a premo easy at a later date. Same with Hickey.

Madness

 

[Daniel McL]

Happy with my rookies (just wish I had Papley & Hewett on field!) & premos were okay so can't see me doing any trades this week after getting 2148.

If Robinson is out with that calf for two weeks or more then I'll trade him for probably a Wingard otherwise no trades for me

 

[ManWithNoName]

Happy with my rookies (just wish I had Papley & Hewett on field!) & premos were okay so can't see me doing any trades this week after getting 2148.

If Robinson is out with that calf for two weeks or more then I'll trade him for probably a Wingard otherwise no trades for me

Wait, Robinson's injured?

**** sake.