I'm thinking Cox to Mumford is it too sideways and would it be sensible. He's already 100 pts up ? Thoughts
gday mick. I am feeling the pain after cox's result too. something for you to work with; cox has a breakeven of 144 cox is projected to score 111 this week. if he scores his projected, he will lose$14,800 in value before his following game. imo - if you think that cox is a correctional trade, I would then do it. mumford seems a half decent gamble. I personally will give him another 1-2 weeks to prove his worth
He played Melb who have a third string ruck and only got 60 - he's a big worry I may change to Hickey and pocket the change for Zorko or similar !
Take a look at Minson (I have him). Round 1 he scored 62. R2 he got 120.Cox scored 115 in R1 and 63 in R2. Fairly similar just swapped. Would you be trading Cox if he had his R1 score in R2 and vice versa? Don't trade someone out because of 1 bad game. You'll be out of trades before you know it.
I don't think it is worth burning a trade if you have Cox in your team Cox is a proven scorer and he is durable, I think in the last few seasons Cox only missed a few games and he has average 110+ every year! Mumford on the other hand, he has injury problems, I don't think he has ever played a full season without missing games, even if Mummy averages 115+ this season and plays 20 games a season and Cox averages 100 to 105 and play every game, Cox will be up in total points by the end of the season. I would probably only get Mummy in if I have Goldy or Paddy, massive price drop for Goldy BE this week is 201 even if he gets a ton still looking at a 40,000 price drop, Paddy injuries maybe serious and might sideline him for a few weeks and his last week 38 didn't help his prices as well!
The worrying thing about Cox is that WCE seem to be happy to play Sinclair, Nicnat and Cox in the same team, meaning Cox will spend a lot of time resting up forward and not being the extra midfielder we know he can be. I've got Paddy so am waiting for the injury report, but will be looking at going sideways to Mumford. Bloody injuries already.
With one exception (2009) Cox has played 22 games per year for since 2008. Mummy has NEVER played 22 games in a season. 19 is the most he has ever managed. This means that for this proposed 'correction trade' to make any sense at all, Mummy has to average at least 15 PPG more than Cox for the entire season, if Mummy manages to play to his maximum potential (i.e. 19 games). Admittedly, he is far more than 15 PPG ahead of Cox at this point. But it is early days yet, me thinks. YMMV, my 2 cents.
May hold on the Paddy > Mummy trade this week. Got bigger fish to fry to get in Swallow and Tyson to secure all mooing avenues. Paddy may come good next week and become an ultra POD, if not he can become Mummy, or Hickey if I can't afford the former.