@NTS Nah, not strictly true. A basic rule of thumb is that a trade should net you 200k or 200 points over the season. Now obviously an upgrade in the midfield R8 could earn you roughly 600 points (15 x 40ppg), but for every trade after that you get diminished returns as there's less games to be played. That being said, in a 14 premium team, you only need to use 16 of your 24 trades to have a premium laden side. What do you do with the other 8 trades? In the main you'd probably use them to trade to avoid a donut because of injury, or if it's a long injury, to avoid playing a non-premium for weeks in a row. The byes are essentially the same as an injury donut, or a 4 week injury having to play a bench player instead. In conclusion, trading around byes doesn't get you as many points as an upgrade, but 100-120 points isn't not worthwhile.
<blockquote>Quote from SuperCoachSuperStar on February 13, 2012, 18:31 When a player increase price by 100k and does the same as a premium and saves you a donut.</blockquote> If he's doing the same as a premium, why would you trade him? Should be able to cover mid doughnuts with bench players.
There is a player who can average 5-10 more and they'll save you a donut, I reckon that trade will be worth about 200 points.
They would have to average closer to 10 than 5 for it to be worthwhile if you are making the trade in the bye rounds and it would also need to cost you no extra money or else you have to factor that in also. It can definitely be done and to good effect as Impromptu showed us last year, however I think last year was the year for sideways moves and bolder trades. I would rather start my midfield with premiums and take my risks in areas like the back or forward line where the player doesn't have to average anywhere near as much to be successful. Especially the back line as most of the premiums there are garbage anyway and barely any are reliable so why not take a few risks there?
I could see Hayes being a viable option to sideways (or small upgrade) to say a Collingwood gun during the Round 13 BYE
@Lethaldons I thinking we are on the same page. I might prefer a player with a history of scores close to his average rather than widely dispersed. That's my algorithm for want of a better word. That's different from the approach of "believing" that x will average 105 this year without being able to explain why. regards chels
Good debate here. While its all well and good to say that you want your mid premiums to be in the top 10 or top 6 of the comp, I think unique players are still very important. Every man and his dog can pick Pendles, Selwood, Ablett etc. If you want to score above average picking an outside option such as Hayes may be the difference if one of the popular premiums goes down (like Selwood last year) and you can find yourselves saving trades and scoring more points. As an example my unique pick of Dal Santo over Selwood gave me a big jump on other teams. That's just my opinion, I don't think people should be talked out of unique mids because it can create significant reward.
I also got stung last year with JPK. I am going 4 premiums and the rest rookies. I've gone super top heavy with Ablett, Pendles, Selwood and Priddis. Rookies are Horsley, Wingard, Mitchell and Can't remember the last off the top of my head to be honest haha. Out of curiosity, I was thinking about Mitch Duncan if he was a Mid/Fwd but alas he is only a mid.He is in his 3rd year I believe and has real potential to hit some high scores.
I think I'm going 3-0-3 GNR as i did last year, I still have 500k in bank so can make it 4-2 or 3-1-2 not sure yet, it depends on how lenny hayes goes during the NAB. I have Swan, Ablett and Selwood locked so far.
3-0-3 for mine.. Depending on how the rookies perform preseason may even take a punt in the middle and go 2-0-4
I'm looking at 4 premiums right now- and at the moment, can't see how I would cut any of them as I see excellent value (or at least massive points) from all 4 of them. So it's 404 for me so far, however, if I was to go a mid-pricer, gosh Barlow looks good value- doesn't he!
On Hornsy's comments on trades, I found that sometimes your rookie appreciation doesn't quite cut it, and you can't get into the cheap underpriced mid, and you have to do a 3 trade upgrade on a few occasions. I also think 14 premiums is probably unlikely given the wide pool of players and inflated early prices. I could see 13, a few in the midrange area, the rest rookies. This would leave probably 3 x 2 trade upgrades for midrange, 3 x 2 trade upgrades for the good rookies that go the way you want, and 3 x 3 trade upgrades for the ones that flubber a bit. 21 trades, means you can probably afford to make 3 errors. Like trading Sandilands in and out a few times.
yep Lucas, I think your split as about right. The big question - any mid-prices in the mid-field? regards chels
The split would be 13 prems, 3 mid price, 14 rookies. And because I haven't even done a side (won't even start until the NAB is in full swing), I'm not sure that you can afford even that. Might need a few slightly sub premiums to be part of it - but the sort of premiums that need to be top 10 defender/forward material. I'm being very honest when I say that you can put them wherever you like and it probably won't make a huge difference, so long as your midpricers improve, your prems hold their ground (and more importantly put a score on the board) and the rookies appreciate so you can cash cow them up into the prem zone. 3 mid price is the hard area to work out, it's probably where the whole thing is won and lost. Everyone needs to gamble somewhere. Most will spread their losses probably in the forward and back divisions. Forward looks the spot where people will place 2 and defence 1. I'm still considering rucks for one midrange, and personally not really considering midfield for any. That said a player such as Coniglio could be considered a low-end midrange (rather than pure rookie) who will be held as the final upgrade target. Also you might want to classify rookies as a few different grades, because from true rookie upgrades (90k or thereabouts) and the Marty Clarke/Coniglio/Porplyzia (180k) there's a heckuva difference. Certainly not something too many people have been analysing when they put so much energy in working out who out of Selwood or Pendlebury will score better. Who cares? They are set and forget prems. The rookies will find you out if you don't get them bang on.
4*4 for me, unless Barlow and Freo look dominant in the NAB. In that case you could assume that he may return to his 2010 form (therefore a true premium)
Thanks for the analysis, Lucas. I'll give my take on it, but it's early days yet so things may change. You can afford 14 premiums and 16 rookies. My team currently has the 3 highest-priced midfielders and 4 highest-priced forwards, plus Goddard and Sandilands, so I'm very top-end. I've currently got 13 premiums, 1 mid-range and 15 rookies, but I have 61K sitting in the bank. By moving it around a little bit I can have 14 premiums, still with 3 of the top 4 fwds and top 3 mids. Slight sacrifice in the backline with a couple of players just under 500K. The premiums would look like this: B: Broughton, Newman, Suckling, Adcock M: Pendles, Ablett, Swan, Priddis R: Sandilands, Jacobs F: Franklin, Goodes, S Johnson, Chapman That's not my team, by the way, not exactly - it's a sample unit with 14 premiums. It's also got a couple of speculative earniers like Marty Clarke and Koby Stevens. If you don't regard Jacobs as a premium, then you can move Swan to Swallow, and Jacobs to Leuenberger, for instance. The point is it can be done, while still allowing you to target the rookies you want. I'm going to try to start with 14 players I expect to still be there at the end. It might mean a gamble on a Barlow or Hayes. Break-out midfield premiums are rare, and those very few usually already start with a price tag over 400K anyway.
I think the interesting thing is looking at the difference per position of elite, premium, midrange, value, draftee and rookie. For each position you will find different options at varying price points. MPP certainly is worth a look but mainly to work out which defenders or forwards could score huge, not necessarily so you can mix/match.
@ Lucas and McCrabb many thanks for your thoughts. As a second year player I had reached a similar, albeit tentative, conclusion. I am bemused by the people who seem to have a "complete team" already. Especially as I suspect most of the 18 real coaches have not yet settled on their final set ups. The DPP change is interesting me right now. I follow the basic rule of swapping (say) a DPP defender with a DPP midfielder. For example, last year a DPP like J Tippett did not score a point but he was extremely useful. However, the new rule seems more complex and open to "abuse": DUAL POSITION PLAYER TRADES - You'll now have more flexibility with how you trade, by being able to move dual position players within your team during the trading process - without having to have a 'matching' dual position player in the other position. For example, you may: For example, you may: a) elect to trade out a Forward who is not a dual position player. b) If you have a Defender who is also a Forward, you may substitute them into the Forward spot left vacant by the player you elected to trade out. c) You'll now have a vacant Defender spot on your team. d) In effect, you are therefore trading out a Forward for trading in a Defender. Consider S Rowe; tactically, it seems to make more sense to hold him initially as a forward rather than a ruck? Say I decide to trade out the big O or the J Giles Band, I can slip in Rowe and get another forward. It might not matter whether Rowe is actually playing regularly. There are less substitutes this year and the option on whether to replace my former ruck with a ruck or a forward may be valuable. Any thoughts? regards chels