so what are peoples thoughts around giving last years rookies another run through in SC 2011. Guys like: Pods Rockliff Barlow TDL Martin Are they worth considering, or do you feel there are better 'mid-range' players at the same or better price...
pods...tapered off toward the end and showed he couldn't handle pressure of finals footy. His real bargain was you got a keeper at 83K last year Rockliff...same as above Barlow...could be, but i keep thinking of nathan brown's break and will wait and see with barlow TDL...didn't follow him at all Martin...could be a good get. And would continue to improve one would think.
But they present the same problem as most mid-pricers. Are they good enough to be a premium in your team, or make you enough money as a cash cow?
2nd year players a generally a no go. they're usually still developing, and have lost there value as a cash cow without having made the step to premium. If he hadn't broken his leg, Barlow may have been the exception to the rule, but it'd be a brave man to pick him up now.
What about Watts & Gumby who were rookie priced last year? Id consider Trengove & Martin from last years rookies.
Too many bargains to bother with 2nd year mature age players. Look at Bradd Dalziell and Liam Anthony's second years in previous seasons.
Trengove: $363k Martin: $379k The problem thunda, is what do you want from them? it's possible they'll improve into keepers, but unlikely they'll be premiums. maybe they'll avg 90-100 and make you a $100k profit, but your better off with a $100k rookie who only averages 50-60 if you're looking to make money. They can leave you with a spot on your team you don't really know what to do with. If you plan to upgrade them at some stage anyway, I think your better off using the money at the beging to turn one of them into a premium and one into a cash cow.
Break out rookies from their first year are almost never a good pick the second year. Sure there is some exception to this rule, I think Joel Selwood would probably be a good example (from memory). If you're looking for mid pricers who are going to take the next step and average 15 to 20 more points than the year before, it's nearly always players in their 3 and 4th years that make this step. Bernie Vince is a good example, and I'm sure someone else can provide some more.
<blockquote>Quote from Ruddy on February 2, 2011, 15:31 But they present the same problem as most mid-pricers. Are they good enough to be a premium in your team, or make you enough money as a cash cow?</blockquote> I reckon Ruddy is on the money here. Ideally you want premiums who will score your points, and players that will accumulate cash so you can sell them off at a profit and use that to bring in more premiums. Mid-pricers are okay if you feel they have the potential to become premiums (ie. injury riddled season the previous year + price discount) or if you believe they can make enough money to justify being brought in for cashing purposes. I try to steer clear of midpricers who, for example, are priced at an average of 50, If see them as only likely to average, say, 70 as they then fail to fall into either category - they won't appreciate enough to justify their selection, nor will they score enough to become a keeper.
TDL has too much competition for a forwards spot Gumbleton has had an interrupted preseason and a patchy career fitness wise Watts is I think another year away from showing the goods, big men take time. Certainly worth a look and could average 80 this season from a 54 base Rocky and Martin represent some sort of value. Only thing about Rocky is he may get targeted by opposition now that Rischitelli and Brennan are gone. Martin could average 90 I can see, but from a base of 78 is that a good enough return on investment. Considering you can get a rookie and churn 30 point increases fairly easily, with Harris being a likely example.
@bonesy Yea true, im not planning on starting either, was more of a if I was going to start one statement I think the rookies this year are too good to pass up and at this stage are planning to exploit them (hopefully)
Lots of risk (2nd year blues anyone?) and unless they turn into a Goddard or Ablett over the off-season there is much more reward to be had in genuine rookies. I considered Shuey on this basis and have decided against including him in my team. I think (as do a lot of WA people I've talked to) that he will be a good player in 2011. But I don't think he has the potential to improve much on his start price to actually fit into my starting team.
What about a player like Daniel Kerr very cheap for a player of his ability or has his ability to ave 100+ passed him?
Kerr has a lot of risk involved though. And when he does play, he seems to get tagged pretty well. He isn't worth it for mine.
Don't even go there Doc. That pick has about a 1% chance of coming off in any way, shape or form. Picking Kerr is SC suicide.
I must admit I flirted with picking Kerr. Then I remembered one of my rules in picking SC teams. Remember durability
If Kerr plays the first 10-12 games he'll be a good pick cause he always scores well, be thats a very big IF. Scully is the one that interests me the most. With Bruce and McDonald gone, someone has to improve in D's midfield and I think he has the most potential. Makes me wonder if people would have picked Jack last year if they knew he was gonna increase his average from 70ish ppg to 100ppg. 100ppg isnt really a premium keeper in mids but surely thats too good value to pass up.
I considered Kerr but think he is too big a risk and for that price I think id rather take a punt on Richard Tambling. New club, new attitude....
Durability, Morko is the big concern with Foley He has real ability though and if he gets through the NAB unscathed certainly people will go for him. I just think on balance you are taking a real risk and not necessarily certain to get the return on investment.