We all know the value of a non-playing rookie Fwd-Ruc. (And if you don't, you'll have to read my upcoming article on the value of a rookie Fwd-Ruc. Spoiler: Captains loophole)



And the cheapest one available is McBean.



So why have I chosen Sinclair?



Sinclair vs Mcbean

$112,200 vs $109,500



Seems an easy decision doesn't it. Mcbean is a $3k cheaper. badda bing badda boom. Done.



No.



Why are we selecting a non-playing rookie Fwd-Ruc? Well, yes, the extra cash is nice, and the potential extra coverage from having Cox/Ryder in the forwardline is nice as well, but what I'm talking about here, is the spoiler.



The Captains/Bench Loophole.



And how does that loophole work again? You need a none-playing player, who plays late in the weekend.



So lets take a look here.



Richmond (McBean) have the following fixture



Round 1: Thursday

Round 2: Friday

Round 3: Sunday

Round 4: Saturday

Round 5: Friday



Meanwhile West Coast (Sinclair) roll the following:



Round 1: Saturday

Round 2: Sunday

Round 3: Saturday

Round 4: Saturday

Round 5: Saturday



That's 3 weeks over the first 5 that McBean is actually useless as a Captains loophole donut, while Sinclair offers the double chance every single week.



Now, after round 5, McBean doesn't ever play on Friday again (and would be a suggested downgrade if you rolled that way), but for mine, I'd expect to have at least 1 none playing (see: injured) player in your squad from round 6 onwards anyways.



Now, the million dollar question, is that level of flexibility over the first 5 weeks worth it? 3 cracks at a double captain? yeah, I'd take that over $3k (or what, roughly .7ppg)