Round 3 trades

[CaptainChardonnay]

Well suggestions then, god it's my first year Jesus. What's the point is slagging me off, let's face it's it's a game to be enjoyed not obsessed with. So tell me what to do then. Give me a actually suggestion. Yiu do realise if you come say twelfth or last it actually matters little, unless you win the rest means nothing

You came to the wrong place to make that statement.......

Get rid of Murphy for Rich.

Turn Clancee into a Premo Defender.

Next week, get in Krakeour (If named) for Westhoff.

Swing Zorko Fwd. Krakeour Midfield.

Upgrade Adams to Best premium you can afford.

 

[TheBuzz]

Anyone holding on to the Burger? Or cutting losses.

Likely doing
Burger > Goldstein
Hurn > Oxley

 

[stevebbb]

My team looks like this:

D: Shaw, Gibson, Hibberd, Newnes, Saad, McIntosh (Oxley, Brown)
M: Fyfe, Pendles, Selwood, SMitch, Wells, Cripps, Heeney, CEY (Vandenberg, Miller, Lambert)
R: Golstein, Naitanui
F: Gray, Bartel, Martin, Swan, Clark, Hogan (Salem, Lamb)

30 trades, 30K

Concerns: Pendles and Wells in doubt (after losing Cripps, Mitchell (and Wells for a half) last week) and a couple of poorly performing rookies (Miller, Lambert). Otherwise Hibberd and Newnes have not looked great and Gibbo will now have to play more as a KPD.

Like everyone, really wanted Bontempelli this week.

Ideas for trades?

Was thinking Bartel -> Bontempelli
and either Cripps -> Rich or Lambert/Miller -> NVB?

Trade rationale:
Never usually sideways a premium (Bartel) but don't have pressing changes and am now satisfied Bontempelli will be a top 8 forward and will never be cheaper, getting a underpriced premium at their lowest and saving me 130K.
Rich usually averages around 85-90 but scored 126 in round 1 and top scored with 100 in round 2 - he is priced to average 62. Playing weak teams over the next few, even if he averages 90, he will go up 100K over the next 4 weeks and be a good stepping stone to a fallen premium (offering more points than someone like Cripps in the meantime).
Lambert and MIller are not making much cash on the bench, Van Berlo (82 & 103 pts) (while an expensive 'rookie' and played in a team that beat up their opponenents so far) plays Melb, WB, GC, StK and GWS in 5 of the next 6 weeks and if he averages 75 (approx consistent with his history) will go up $140K in 6.

Still, pretty sideways. What do others think? Other concerns? No trades? (obviously selection tonight will make a difference)

I wouldn't trade Bartel, especially considering you have Sam Mitchell and Wells sitting in yours mids

could do Wells to Van Berlo, Mitchell to Bont (move him forward when Clark/Hogan/Salem/Lamb max out)

 

[Hoges64]

Nic Nat **** he killed the blues last week

He did. For a half. Then was barely sighted after that. 67 at half time then finished on 103 was a fair score for him.

Goldstein & Jacobs scored well so Rd 1 ruck scores were an anomally. Hell, Zac Smith scored better than Nic Nat.

 

[illusionis real]

You came to the wrong place to make that statement.......

Get rid of Murphy for Rich.

Turn Clancee into a Premo Defender.

Next week, get in Krakeour (If named) for Westhoff.

Swing Zorko Fwd. Krakeour Midfield.

Upgrade Adams to Best premium you can afford.

Rich no way he's as soft as butter against good teams, nope not a chance hes to inconsistent always has been during his career. I mean good teams just stop him wheeling on his left and its game over. I will keep murphy yes he will initially lose cash but he'll get back to getting 110's soon enough once fully fit. Give am another suggestion, look my gut is telling me to flick Adams of for Mitch Clarke and Clancy Pearce for Burgoyne. Tell me would this be wise?

 

[Keg on legs]

same

Me too, just posted about the same thing

 

[WeAreGeelong]

I just punched some numbers for the Bont that I found interesting. If he goes on to play all 22 games (probably unlikely) and manages to average 100 for the year, those bringing him in this week will get 20 games at an average of 96.7. If he averages 95, it's 20 @ 91.1 and at 90 its 20 @ 85.6. So he probably needs to average 95+ for it to be worthwhile I guess. And even then, 91.1 is probably only F6/M8 material at best.

Food for thought for those contemplating bringing him in this week if he plays.

 

[Hoges64]

I just punched some numbers for the Bont that I found interesting. If he goes on to play all 22 games (probably unlikely) and manages to average 100 for the year, those bringing him in this week will get 20 games at an average of 96.7. If he averages 95, it's 20 @ 91.1 and at 90 its 20 @ 85.6. So he probably needs to average 95+ for it to be worthwhile I guess. And even then, 91.1 is probably only F6/M8 material at best.

Food for thought for those contemplating bringing him in this week if he plays.

Good thing he'll get those numbers and more, and those coaches that had him from the start will be even more happy!

 

[pincrusher]

I just punched some numbers for the Bont that I found interesting. If he goes on to play all 22 games (probably unlikely) and manages to average 100 for the year, those bringing him in this week will get 20 games at an average of 96.7. If he averages 95, it's 20 @ 91.1 and at 90 its 20 @ 85.6. So he probably needs to average 95+ for it to be worthwhile I guess. And even then, 91.1 is probably only F6/M8 material at best.

Food for thought for those contemplating bringing him in this week if he plays.

But if he averages 108, like Fyfe did in his second year............

 

[karaoke]

Also how much can one expect to make on players, like say a player is 130 grand and averages 80 first three weeks what will that make him? Also so does this mean if my team value goes up by say 200 grand does that mean in essence I can spend all that cash, like al, that profit?

Here is link to website that can help you with price rises, averages etc.-

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pu-sydney-swans--isaac-heeney

Will give you an idea of what to expect.

200k would represent the overall 'value' of your team, so no you cant 'spend it'

But you can trade players for cheaper players and use cash to purchase better performing (more expensive) players.

 

[CaptainChardonnay]

Rich no way he's as soft as butter against good teams, nope not a chance hes to inconsistent always has been during his career. I mean good teams just stop him wheeling on his left and its game over. I will keep murphy yes he will initially lose cash but he'll get back to getting 110's soon enough once fully fit. Give am another suggestion, look my gut is telling me to flick Adams of for Mitch Clarke and Clancy Pearce for Burgoyne. Tell me would this be wise?

No sh^t sherlock. But he's going to make you $150k and the same points as Murphy plus the extra $200k you get from dumping Murphy will stiffen up your deplorable back line.

Then again.. you just do what you want. It seems to be going well enough so far.

 

[FAILTOSUCCEED]

My team looks like this:

D: Shaw, Gibson, Hibberd, Newnes, Saad, McIntosh (Oxley, Brown)
M: Fyfe, Pendles, Selwood, SMitch, Wells, Cripps, Heeney, CEY (Vandenberg, Miller, Lambert)
R: Golstein, Naitanui
F: Gray, Bartel, Martin, Swan, Clark, Hogan (Salem, Lamb)

30 trades, 30K

Concerns: Pendles and Wells in doubt (after losing Cripps, Mitchell (and Wells for a half) last week) and a couple of poorly performing rookies (Miller, Lambert). Otherwise Hibberd and Newnes have not looked great and Gibbo will now have to play more as a KPD.

Like everyone, really wanted Bontempelli this week.

Ideas for trades?

Was thinking Bartel -> Bontempelli
and either Cripps -> Rich or Lambert/Miller -> NVB?

Trade rationale:
Never usually sideways a premium (Bartel) but don't have pressing changes and am now satisfied Bontempelli will be a top 8 forward and will never be cheaper, getting a underpriced premium at their lowest and saving me 130K.
Rich usually averages around 85-90 but scored 126 in round 1 and top scored with 100 in round 2 - he is priced to average 62. Playing weak teams over the next few, even if he averages 90, he will go up 100K over the next 4 weeks and be a good stepping stone to a fallen premium (offering more points than someone like Cripps in the meantime).
Lambert and MIller are not making much cash on the bench, Van Berlo (82 & 103 pts) (while an expensive 'rookie' and played in a team that beat up their opponenents so far) plays Melb, WB, GC, StK and GWS in 5 of the next 6 weeks and if he averages 75 (approx consistent with his history) will go up $140K in 6.

Still, pretty sideways. What do others think? Other concerns? No trades? (obviously selection tonight will make a difference)

Wells > NVB

 

[Feerits Elf]

Same old story in this thread.

"ohai guyz here's my team, what do?"
"Here's what you should do."
"lol r u crazy, those trades stink i think il just do my own thing kthx"

 

[WeAreGeelong]

Good thing he'll get those numbers and more, and those coaches that had him from the start will be even more happy!

But if he averages 108, like Fyfe did in his second year............

Yeah you could well be right. Good to see both sides of the coin I guess

 

[tonayz]

He did. For a half. Then was barely sighted after that. 67 at half time then finished on 103 was a fair score for him.

Goldstein & Jacobs scored well so Rd 1 ruck scores were an anomally. Hell, Zac Smith scored better than Nic Nat.

NicNat scores will always be quite volatile but think there's good reason to be optimistic treating the last two games as a baseline. He's averaging 100 despite drifting in and out of games, not taking a single mark and without winning a whole lot of the ball (but has been rucking magnificently).

Once he gets back into a groove, starts taking 3-4 marks a game (1-2 contested), and adds in a few blinders with 13-20 CPs, the upside is clear. Risk reward in the end..

 

[FAILTOSUCCEED]

NicNat scores will always be quite volatile but think there's good reason to be optimistic treating the last two games as a baseline. He's averaging 100 despite drifting in and out of games, not taking a single mark and without winning a whole lot of the ball (but has been rucking magnificently).

Once he gets back into a groove, starts taking 3-4 marks a game (1-2 contested), and adds in a few blinders with 13-20 CPs, the upside is clear. Risk reward in the end..

Could not agree more.

 

[CaptainChardonnay]

Everyone needs to remember that if they're not playing this week, or aren't on the bubble, no hurry to trade them out. Keep it for next week or when they are. Fix up where ur losing cash and points now.

 

[illusionis real]

No sh^t sherlock. But he's going to make you $150k and the same points as Murphy plus the extra $200k you get from dumping Murphy will stiffen up your deplorable back line.

Then again.. you just do what you want. It seems to be going well enough so far.

So if rich say gets 100 this week next round his value goes up roughly 150 grand, is there a guide on price increases?

 

[FAILTOSUCCEED]

So if rich say gets 100 this week next round his value goes up roughly 150 grand, is there a guide on price increases?

TooSerious.net

 

[Feerits Elf]

So if rich say gets 100 this week next round his value goes up roughly 150 grand

He means $150k over the time you have him, e.g. until his bye.

 

[CaptainChardonnay]

So if rich say gets 100 this week next round his value goes up roughly 150 grand, is there a guide on price increases?

fanfooty.com.au

footywire.com.au

tooserious.net

supercoachscores.com

jockreynolds.com.au

 

[Guardian Hawk]

I wouldn't trade Bartel, especially considering you have Sam Mitchell and Wells sitting in yours mids

could do Wells to Van Berlo, Mitchell to Bont (move him forward when Clark/Hogan/Salem/Lamb max out)

Thanks! Originally mentioned those two as well but thought the post was too long and ppl may avoid reading it.

Basically, loathe to trade them out as S.Mitchell and Wells are my only real POD's. The pre-season rationale for having them was:

Started with Beams and Anderson but was too light in the mids and so downgraded Beams to Mitchell and upgraded Anderson (sub risk) to Wells (consistent with advice on here) because:

Sam Mitchell has averaged 110, 106, 101, 103, 108, 99 (inj), 113, 107 and 104 the 9 seasons prior to last year. Last season he averaged 105 until he did his hammy in round 7. He then had a dip following his injury (av approx 80) before cranking back up to scores of 103, 127 and then being Hawthorn's 'player of the finals'. Basically, for a decade he has averaged around 105 every year and is priced to average 90 due to his hammy last year. Good stepping stone who should go up in price and is a useful M8 if the rest of my team needs attention first. On the other hand, he scored 86 first up (against one of his favourite opponents) and was late exclusion last week, making me cop a donut.

Similarly Daniel Wells averaged 104, 99 and 96 prior to injury last year (more if you remove injury affected scores). He is priced to average just 64. He should make a lot of money and was chosen over Rich (similar price) as Rich usually averages 85 whilst Wells averages 95 - 100. His first round (50) was terrible but so was the rest of his team and I don't expect North to be flogged by 80 points again. Last week he scored 63 in 43% game time and was No 1 on the ground before he went off. Achilles soreness is a worry though?

What do you think? Is this enough reason to keep them or should these still be the first traded?

 

[Hoges64]

NicNat scores will always be quite volatile but think there's good reason to be optimistic treating the last two games as a baseline. He's averaging 100 despite drifting in and out of games, not taking a single mark and without winning a whole lot of the ball (but has been rucking magnificently).

Once he gets back into a groove, starts taking 3-4 marks a game (1-2 contested), and adds in a few blinders with 13-20 CPs, the upside is clear. Risk reward in the end..

Yeah, I don't think anyone can question that he's got one of (if not the) highest ceiling of any ruckman, but he just doesn't do it for me. There's definite potential there, but I see the drift in, drift out far too often from him to ever pick him. Maybe this year is the one that he gets it right and I'll eat my words, but I just don't see it happening. IN saying that, my R2 this year is Maric, so maybe my judgement isn't the best either! :-D

 

[FAILTOSUCCEED]

Thanks! Originally mentioned those two as well but thought the post was too long and ppl may avoid reading it.

Basically, loathe to trade them out as S.Mitchell and Wells are my only real POD's. The pre-season rationale for having them was:

Started with Beams and Anderson but was too light in the mids and so downgraded Beams to Mitchell and upgraded Anderson (sub risk) to Wells (consistent with advice on here) because:

Sam Mitchell has averaged 110, 106, 101, 103, 108, 99 (inj), 113, 107 and 104 the 9 seasons prior to last year. Last season he averaged 105 until he did his hammy in round 7. He then had a dip following his injury (av approx 80) before cranking back up to scores of 103, 127 and then being Hawthorn's 'player of the finals'. Basically, for a decade he has averaged around 105 every year and is priced to average 90 due to his hammy last year. Good stepping stone who should go up in price and is a useful M8 if the rest of my team needs attention first. On the other hand, he scored 86 first up (against one of his favourite opponents) and was late exclusion last week, making me cop a donut.

Similarly Daniel Wells averaged 104, 99 and 96 prior to injury last year (more if you remove injury affected scores). He is priced to average just 64. He should make a lot of money and was chosen over Rich (similar price) as Rich usually averages 85 whilst Wells averages 95 - 100. His first round (50) was terrible but so was the rest of his team and I don't expect North to be flogged by 80 points again. Last week he scored 63 in 43% game time and was No 1 on the ground before he went off. Achilles soreness is a worry though?

What do you think? Is this enough reason to keep them or should these still be the first traded?

Wells could be a great option but looks like we're managing him which will bring down his average and money making potential.

EDIT: he will be subbed off a bit in the early stages me thinks...

Mitchell might miss a few games as well due to age and body.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Wells could be a great option but looks like we're managing him which will bring down his average and money making potential.

Mitchell might miss a few games as well due to age and body.

Thanks heaps mate. What's the story with Wells being managed? Carrying something? Making sure he is fit for finals?

Such a shame because when he is on he is the cream and cuts teams to ribbons.