LIVE: Sydney v Port Adelaide - 7:40 / 7:10 Fri
Squiggle tips Swans at 57% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
1) We now have use it or lose it trades, so it no longer matters whether you want to stick fast or rashly react - both are acceptable options. They may not be successful, but they now do exist as potential options over the whole season.
...
Now I'm not saying I'm going to do any of this, just explaining a contrary view... I'm a bit like that.....
While I agree with you for the most part Gingy, there are a few potential complicating factors to the conventional wisdom.
1) We now have use it or lose it trades, so it no longer matters whether you want to stick fast or rashly react - both are acceptable options. They may not be successful, but they now do exist as potential options over the whole season.
2) Ideally you want to use the 2 available at the end of Round 2 to bring in cash cow rookies prior to Round 3, which means that if you want to change underperforming premiums, now is the time to do it.
3) Along the same lines, if you wait until after Round 3 - to see if Danger can learn to cope with a tag, he will have either risen, held or decreased in value. Based upon a very small sample, you'd suggest he could lose a lot of money. Who wants to do that ?
4) Combining points 2 and 3 together, you run the risk of cancelling out your gains if you hold Danger and he doesn't lift.
5) Using Danger as an example, opposition coaches will have spent a lot of time working out how best to combat him, it may now require Danger/Adelaide to work out how to get him free again. This may take some time.
In my circumstances, I have had the following players underperform: Goddard, Heppell, Danger, Lucas, Stevens, Whitfield (all 3 to a lesser extent), Z Smith and Bolton. Out of these the worst performing of the worst performing are: Danger, Smith and Bolton.
I can either swap Cox into the Rucks, which leaves me 300K to spend in the forwards - not sure on real value there at that price. Cloke, Schulz and Monfries all look good at sub 400K, but again on the one sample for the year. I could upgrade Smith, but even a simple upgrade to Jamar (76 pts compared to 47) would cost me 30K. To do that I either need to downgrade someone like Whitfield/Stevens/Lucas (ie. Whitfield will increase in value even if he gets 3 * 47 scores), or a premium. The premium is likely to drop in value, so not only do I retain the price rise for these rookies/rookie priced players, but I also prevent a drop in price from a premium.
Based upon the limited data, good midfield choices are: Swallow, Jack, ROK, Murphy, Barlow (only looking around Dangers price). Only ROK and Barlow would free up enough funds to upgrade Smith to Jamar. Up front, swapping Bolton to Cloke or Schulz would net me another 50K - 70K. Combined with Danger to Barlow (for example), this would allow me to upgrade Smith in Round 3 to either Kruezer or Goldstein (dependent on how they go in Round 2), as well as pick up a bubble rookie (if required).
To do such a large upgrade in a single week would require (for example) me to drop Goddard for Pearce (Freo) and then upgrade Smith to Kreuzer. If this happens after Week 2, I won't be able to change any rookies if I miss them. So there is risk involved.
Now I'm not saying I'm going to do any of this, just explaining a contrary view... I'm a bit like that.....
What did emberly do wrong?
Round 3
