I've been giving some thought to the Bewick>Curnow trade and have tried to work out the potential cash value of making it. If Curnow continues to belt out 115ppg, he'll be priced at $442k after round 7 (before Carlton's bye) while if Bewick continues to score at 47ppg, he'll get to $174k by the same point. The profit on Curnow over his $107k starting price would be $335k. Holding on to Bewick, though, would have resulted in a $64k profit over the same period ($174k minus his $110k starting price). The 'additional' profit from having Curnow instead of Bewick, therefore, would be $271k (Curnow's $335k minus Bewick's $64k). The only problem is that to get that cash you'd need to use another trade, making the profit $271k over two trades (i.e. $135.5k per trade). Similarly, if Curnow's scores drop to 80ppg from round 3, he'll be at $326k after round 7 while if Bewick raises his game to 60ppg from round 3, his price will hit $224k after round 7. Using the same calculation as before, that would mean an 'additional' $105k profit from trading in Curnow (or $52.5k when the sell-on trade is taken into account). Extending that to post-round 11, if both kept to their current averages there would be and 'additional' profit of $290k on Curnow ($145k per trade for the two trades required to get the cash). Using the second scoring scenario, the additional profit on Curnow would be $92k (or $46k after trading him out). Whether to make the trade is a tricky decision and depends on whether you think they will continue to score at their current levels. Assuming there are no JS issues, if the scoring gap between them narrows then the cash gain from trading in Curnow for Bewick may not actually be as great as might seem because of the second trade needed to free up the money. I suppose it depends on how much you value a trade.
Sounds like you have had a long night Rickiepee. In my opinon, all of the rookie in your team at Rd 3 should be cows who you are looking to move on between Rds 7 and 12 (or so). Meaning if you kept Bewick you would be doing so expecting to downgrade him later to free up cash. Therefore I dont agree with your theory that it will take an extra 2 trades if you bring in Curnow now. In actual fact it will only be ther= 1 trade as you will either be downgrading Curnow at a later stage or Bewick if you kept him.
oh how we all wish we could predict the future scores, js and subs for the next 7 weeks...alas we can't and hence, any trade let alone curnow for bewick is a risk. I say it depends. Look at your current rookies. If you plan on doing an early upgrade by say round 6/7, see if you have any rookies in your team that could rise enough by then. If you got one, I'd hold off and keep bewick as a slow burner. If you don't, and you need that fast riser, curnow is the one.
richiepee - have a balance in your rookies. Certainly have some which allow for an early/aggressive trade around Rounds 7-8, but also have some which are slow burners that you can hold onto until Round 12. Some of the backline rookies (and perhaps the forward line ones too) look like being a bit slow burnerish. If you are happy with your balance - Curnow/Libba might be great trade ins to get a quick cash boost and help you with an early trade as part of your strategy. But if there are better options than trading out Bewick, say, a non-playing rookie for eg - do it. Bewick might just be a very handy slow burner.
I'm reliably informed that Curnow didn't pick himself in his "own" SC as he found out he was playing Rd 1 when too late to change his team. Interesting so far as JS goes. He wasn't confident he was in the best 22. Agree with the two previous posts. The decision on Curnow and others should be based on rookie balance, JS etc. as much as (or more than) cash value.
I agree with the above posts except I can't help but think what if curnow becomes the next barlow and can become a keeper? Will this be a possibility - if so the upside is huge! I think I will be pulling the trigger and taking the risk.
The other part of the equation which is also important is the extra points during these rounds. On your first assumption (current outputs) you are looking at an extra 68 points a round (if starting Bewick) which after round 7 is 340 extra points and after round 11 is 544 points. Even if comparing to Conca its an extra 61 points a game. So two trades that net you $271k + 272 points is definitely a goer based on the rule of thumb that a trade should be worth $200k or 200 points. On your second assumption (probably worse case) there is an extra 20 points per round which after round 7 is 100 points and after round 11 180 points. Plus $105K is probably not a trade worth doing. Ultimately the reality is somewhere between the two assumptions. If Curnow averages 35 more than Bewick (based on Bewick’s ave that is only 82) then after round 7 there is 175 extra points and after round 11 is 280 points. The additional profit is $161K after round 7 and $183K after round 11. This is then line ball 175 points + $161K is a bit short of the rule. Of course all of this is based on you starting Curnow and if you are planning to then you need to run this comparison against who he would be replacing. Let alone wondering if he can become the next Barlow.
@ whips That is very interesting, but I don't personally read much into it. To be honest if he'd rated himself in Carltons best 22 in his first year at the club and without having played a game, I'd be thinking he had some attitude problems
<blockquote>Quote from Nick on April 7, 2011, 10:41 I would advise against Bewick to Curnow. Atley/Hibberd to Curnow is much more feasible. </blockquote> ^^ This If you have Bewick hold him - he has started slowly but is finding more and more of the footy each week. His JS is one of the best of the rookie bunch. If you have Atley trade him for Curnow - being honest, the Roos are going to get flogged every week and Atley isn't good enough to find his own footy. I wouldnt be surprised if he is dropped after their bye this week. Curnow is your better replacement than Libba as he has enough time to mature in value before his first bye. I can see a nice Duigan-down/Curnow-up trade before Carlton's first bye
Fair call BlueBeliever and it's what you make of it. I won't be trading Curnow in, my informant will be. Aaahhh! The curio of SuperCoach!!! Cheers.
I have midfield rookies of Swallow, Harris, Heppell, and Bewick. So no Curnow or Libba but I feel I need to get one or both in. So Bewick is the obvious choice, but for which one? Second to that, would anyone consider Swallow to Curnow/Libba? An easy $80k.
@LiQuiD_SiX-x agree re: Atley. It was an error to pick him when there were reports he was a bit lost during the pre-season. I expect there will be a bit of panic at North after the bye and more experienced players will get spots over him. Hope the same doesn't happen to Richardson...
Rev I'd keep Swallow personally, but meh that's just my opinion. I think people are going a bit hard on the Roos. Really close to an improved West Coast side, and got the usual treatment from Collingwood. Nothing to suggest they won't win 10 games this year. Therefore if Atley is still staying in the team, then I think he is just as legitimate a pick as Bewick, maybe more so. The issue we see with Atley is the bye this week, but in some ways Bewick's would be potentially more annoying if you have Dogs or Saints in the midfield. For mine, I have Hibberd who is gone, and probably Coad so Bewick is there to stay. Hoping Voss keeps the faith and instructs him how to improve efficiency percentages.
Think Richardson has perhaps done enough. But Atley is a worry - if he isn't dropped for Rd 4 he will be when injured players return. Rev - not to Swallow to Curnow/Libba. A few of us have advised against a Conca-Curnow/Libba trade because Conca looks to have a place in RFC's best 22. By the same logic - Swallow is more secure at GC. He'll earn his way for sure. Better to keep him. Of those four rookies, Bewick is the one Rev. Thing is, in that context, you can probably trade a Bewick for Curnow/Libba because you already have some cash cows that will either moo slowly, not-so-slowly, or will score well enough to put them on the field (Harris anyone?) Its about the mix of rookies you have. Get a fast rising one if you already have a few slower rising ones. If you have 2 of the three standout early rookies (Curnow, Libba, Tapscott) you could almost get away without getting the third (unless its Tapscott up forward for a non-performer)
@hippy Well done for having 2 of the 3 gun rookies. For mine, don't waste a trade. Irons should mature nicely over time. I'm sure there'll be a major calamity somewhere and you'll want that trade back.