Asking from a DT point of view, but the same principles apply. right in the mix early for the big prize ranking 5th overall. Trades do need to be conserved for later in the year, but are they wasted when trying to keep points coming? Only used 1 so far. There seems to be a theory of thought that it is not a bad idea to trade around the byes if you are looking at overall rankings as the end goal. My Dt will this week have Goddard (Duigan), Adcock (Toy?), Boyd (Curnow), Libba (Krak), Higgins (Darling) and Riewoldt (Richardson/Matera) missing with their respective cover in brackets. I think most teams will be missing Goddard and Riewoldt this week, but how many more? Is it simply enough to have cover, with a 20-30 point reduction per player, or do people think you should trade hard and keep right in the mix. The problem with trading is I think it needs to be limited to those that have had a bye already or a fast-rising rookie/mid-price downgrade that can simply be upgraded with any cash remaining. I do not have the same problem with supercoach this week!
It's a tough one definitely, particularly with the uneven fixtures- trading to cover a bye- particularly into a player that already has played a bye, should still be thought of as any other trade- how many points it makes your team. If you're looking to make 30 points from the trade, then I think it's a total waste of trade, however, if it looks like you're going to duck-egg, or you've got poor 80-point-less coverage sitting there, then you're in for a decision. Particularly if it's a rookie-into-a-high-rising rookie. For mine, trading into someone who hasn't had a bye shouldn't be considered as you're just delaying the hit for a couple of rounds. I dunno, it's late and I can't quite think straight, but I'm pretty certain that some trades over the next few weeks that seem sideways will be worth it- I've been thinking of late on how the value of trades is thrown out a little by the extra 4 (plus coverage) that we have this year, in that the usual 200 points per trade will be hard to find with the last few trades, particularly if we are able to carry decent coverage, but it's a bit of a crapshoot. I think, if you can find decent value from a trade- and you're able to justify that value in a tangible way, go for it. Just don't sell your team short for 70 points though!
bfish im assuming that dt has 24 trades also this year? leaving u with 23 assuming your rookies are all mooing and dont need fixing up ? dawes av 110 next round + 19,274 richardon av 58 matera 54 saint nick av 89 next round (r5 ) -12,789 providing all averages pan out .... if you traded in dawes for nick is 63 points (average over matera and richards) + 20k worth your while ? the team in first place will be missing .. adcock , obrien , goddard libba montagna higgins and saint nick thats providing all the averages pan out but we all know murphys law lol im playing a cash league sc have burnt 3 trades ,,2 lti and one rookie fix , ive planned my season around the non league rounds and ive found myself under 400 points of the current leader and looking at 2 doughnuts in r5... if i chase the 400 points i destroy my league strategy ... if i dont do it , ill die wondering if i could make up the 400 points odd arghhhh gl with what ever you do ... top 5 is fantastic ;-)
Thanks having a look guys. I think it has to be clarified that I am not looking at trading into someone that has not had a bye. This leaves Goddard > Rawlings, Boyd > A.Swallow / Thompson or Riewoldt > Boomer as the only 3 real options. I don't think that any of these actually justify a trade with the cover that I have, but it is a strategy that may be looked at with open eyes. I don't think it can be just ignored. It may have more merit in the Round 6 bye when there are more options available. Having used only the 1 trade I am looking at Batchelor > B.Smith as the second "fix-up" trade. Batchelor appears to be sound in SC, but I'm not as convinced in DT. B.Smith would then start as cover for Adcock instead of Toy / Batchelor.