DT Defenders 2010

[Lakey91]

On the assumption that he is a must-have defender and you will have to get him at some stage, why not just start with him and save a trade?

Just because you will want him in your final team, doesnt mean that starting with him is saving you a trade.

For example, if he downgraded goddard to a 350k player (ie still a keeper) and used the extra 100k or so to go from a Dangerfield to a Gray (another keeper) or a McVeigh to Ball/Mclean (another keeper) then he has effectively 2 keepers there, when you would only have one with the alternative combo that includes goddard.

Another example:

(Mid pricer + Mid pricer) v (Premium + Rookie)

By your logic, I should go option 2, as starting with the premium will "save me a trade". However, it will take 2 trades to upgrade the rookie, and thus 2 trades to get two premiums/keepers for option 2. Alternatively, the mid pricers in option 1 will only need one trade each, meaning that two keepers/premiums can again be gained through 2 trades. Thus, no trade is saved.

Food for thought.

 

[The Cotch]

agree with jjsc, you don't need Goddard, save the money somewhere else, like a harbrow? keep cash in the bank, upgrade later, goddard will probably start slow anyway without fisher. won't be able to play loose, he'll be more accountable.

 

[Walesy]

[strike]It's not so much that you use an extra trade, it's that you're resigning one trade to get Goddard in at some stage from the start.[/strike]

What if Goddard averages 80? [strike]You're labouring with him trying to figure out how to trade Goddard in, while those with Goddard can take their pick of the best defenders of 2010.[/strike]
[strike]
It's all hypothetical of course, but I'm pretty sure Goddard will comfortably outscore Gram. I think it's just a safer bet to start with Goddard.[/strike]

Just while we're looking into our crystal balls?

 

[PAFCsince1870]

Just because you will want him in your final team, doesnt mean that starting with him is saving you a trade.

For example, if he downgraded goddard to a 350k player (ie still a keeper) and used the extra 100k or so to go from a Dangerfield to a Gray (another keeper) or a McVeigh to Ball/Mclean (another keeper) then he has effectively 2 keepers there, when you would only have one with the alternative combo that includes goddard.

Another example:

(Mid pricer + Mid pricer) v (Premium + Rookie)

By your logic, I should go option 2, as starting with the premium will "save me a trade". However, it will take 2 trades to upgrade the rookie, and thus 2 trades to get two premiums/keepers for option 2. Alternatively, the mid pricers in option 1 will only need one trade each, meaning that two keepers/premiums can again be gained through 2 trades. Thus, no trade is saved.

Food for thought.

As I stated, it's not so much about saving a trade, as resigning yourself to using one on Goddard at some stage during the season. It's really the equivalent of not starting with Riewoldt in forwards if you think about it, and who honestly is considering that?

If you don't think you'll need to have Goddard in at some stage then power to you.

 

[Dr Awkward]

(Mid pricer + Mid pricer) v (Premium + Rookie)

By your logic, I should go option 2, as starting with the premium will "save me a trade". However, it will take 2 trades to upgrade the rookie, and thus 2 trades to get two premiums/keepers for option 2. Alternatively, the mid pricers in option 1 will only need one trade each, meaning that two keepers/premiums can again be gained through 2 trades. Thus, no trade is saved.

Food for thought.

Can you expand on this, I dont think I agree.

If you pick Masten and Armitage as your midpricers then how are you going to trade them to 2 elite keepers with only 2 trades? It will take at least 3 trades because you will need a cash trade. To only use two trades it means that one of the midpricers will have to become a worthwhile keeper.

 

[PAFCsince1870]

agree with jjsc, you don't need Goddard, save the money somewhere else, like a harbrow? keep cash in the bank, upgrade later, goddard will probably start slow anyway without fisher. won't be able to play loose, he'll be more accountable.

Like Saturday night? Oh..

Just while we're looking into our crystal balls?

I'm happy to place any amount of money on Goddard outscoring Gram barring injury. Those trying to justify not having him is rather laughable, he is clearly in a league of his own in backs.

 

[caddyhawk]

(Mid pricer + Mid pricer) v (Premium + Rookie)

Hence the mid-pricer v Gun/rookie strategies.
They both work. They both have their risk and rewards.
There is no right or wrong.

Or be like me and used both.

Edit: Actually, a lot of people are using both since NicNat in the ruck is essentially a mid price strategy.

 

[spence]

Can you expand on this, I dont think I agree.

If you pick Masten and Armitage as your midpricers then how are you going to trade them to 2 elite keepers with only 2 trades? It will take at least 3 trades because you will need a cash trade. To only use two trades it means that one of the midpricers will have to become a worthwhile keeper.

If Masten averages 85-90 he will rise to around 350-400. So reallyb you only need someone like selwood/boyd/dal santo/mitchell to fall to around 400 to be able to make the trade. you may need a little bit of cash that you will most likely already have in your bank.

There are always premiums who drop considerably....didak got to 340k last year.

 

[jjcs]

As I stated, it's not so much about saving a trade, as resigning yourself to using one on Goddard at some stage during the season. It's really the equivalent of not starting with Riewoldt in forwards if you think about it, and who honestly is considering that?

If you don't think you'll need to have Goddard in at some stage then power to you.

Dunno if you missed it, but I gave an example which shows you do not need Goddard: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17134784&postcount=950

Feel free to point me towards the flaw in that logic, or give an example (keeping all assumptions) that shows me why you "need" Goddard.

 

[PAFCsince1870]

Dunno if you missed it, but I gave an example which shows you do not need Goddard: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17134784&postcount=950

Feel free to point me towards the flaw in that logic, or give an example (keeping all assumptions) that shows me why you "need" Goddard.

So you don't have Riewoldt or Ablett or Swan or any premium player?

Good luck with that.

 

[jjcs]

So you don't have Riewoldt or Ablett or Swan or any premium player?

Good luck with that.

Just going to dodge the question by asking an irrelevant question?

My question is simple. Mathematically, why do you "need" Goddard? What basis do you have for this conclusion?

 

[PAFCsince1870]

Just going to dodge the question by asking an irrelevant question?

My question is simple. Mathematically, why do you "need" Goddard? What basis do you have for this conclusion?

It's basic fantasy judgement. It's like not picking Ablett in Supercoach, or Riewoldt in forwards, or Cox in rucks in years gone by. I nearly guarantee the winners of the comps all started with these guys in the past.

I don't have time or the energy to mathematically prove anything. The less people starting with Goddard the better from my point of view.

 

[jjcs]

It's basic fantasy judgement. It's like not picking Ablett in Supercoach, or Riewoldt in forwards, or Cox in rucks in years gone by. I guarantee the winners of the comps all started with these guys.

I don't have time or the energy to mathematically prove anything. The less people starting with Goddard the better from my point of view.

Team directors starting Squad:
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16886833&postcount=18

Only got Riewoldt in round 18.

 

[PAFCsince1870]

Team directors starting Squad:
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16886833&postcount=18

Only got Riewoldt in round 18.

I refer to the Riewoldt of 2010.

And also check out all those max priced players who don't represent value!

 

[Dr Awkward]

If Masten averages 85-90 he will rise to around 350-400. So reallyb you only need someone like selwood/boyd/dal santo/mitchell to fall to around 400 to be able to make the trade. you may need a little bit of cash that you will most likely already have in your bank.

There are always premiums who drop considerably....didak got to 340k last year.

Yeah I don't like that strategy. It doesnt seem as clear cut or as lucrative to me. Doesn't allow you to have the best players once you have used your supposed 2 trades (I still think it take more than 2 trades as well).

Swan + Trengove = end product of 2 trades used and Swan and other premium in team.

Masten + Armitage = end product is usually 2 and a bit trades used and 2 fallen premiums obtained. Thus you can never get a player like Swan unless you use a 3rd trade. Also there is less flexibility and it is a lot easier said than done to trade a midpricer at their peak for a fallen premium at their lowest.

 

[Walesy]

Yeah I don't like that strategy. It doesnt seem as clear cut or as lucrative to me. Doesn't allow you to have the best players once you have used your supposed 2 trades (I still think it take more than 2 trades as well).

Swan + Trengove = end product of 2 trades used and Swan and other premium in team.

Masten + Armitage = end product is usually 2 and a bit trades used and 2 fallen premiums obtained. Thus you can never get a player like Swan unless you use a 3rd trade. Also there is less flexibility and it is a lot easier said than done to trade a midpricer at their peak for a fallen premium at their lowest.

You realise that a "swan like midfielder" is going to cost you $523,000ish ?

Which means with Rookies, you'll need two of them to be worth over 300k to make that swap in two trades.

Last year Rich peaked at 311800 in round 12, Beams broke 300k in round 18.

There's no way you can pick up your Swan like midfielders with rookies and only 2 trades.

On the other hand, last year Swan could be picked up for 433700 in round 9. A Fallen Premium.

 

[jjcs]

You realise that a "swan like midfielder" is going to cost you $523,000ish ?

Which means with Rookies, you'll need two of them to be worth over 300k to make that swap in two trades.

Last year Rich peaked at 311800 in round 12, Beams broke 300k in round 18.

There's no way you can pick up your Swan like midfielders with rookies and only 2 trades.

On the other hand, last year Swan could be picked up for 433700 in round 9. A Fallen Premium.

Don't understand this.

Why aren't you using the 433,700 figure for the rookies example?

 

[jjcs]

Yeah I don't like that strategy. It doesnt seem as clear cut or as lucrative to me. Doesn't allow you to have the best players once you have used your supposed 2 trades (I still think it take more than 2 trades as well).

Swan + Trengove = end product of 2 trades used and Swan and other premium in team.

Masten + Armitage = end product is usually 2 and a bit trades used and 2 fallen premiums obtained. Thus you can never get a player like Swan unless you use a 3rd trade. Also there is less flexibility and it is a lot easier said than done to trade a midpricer at their peak for a fallen premium at their lowest.

I agree it's harder to get two Swan-like players in using the midpriced strategy (and only two trades).

But there's another factor - the bench rookie that you need to trade to finance the rookie --> premium trade, is mutual to both strategies. If you use the bench rookie to finance the midpriced upgrades (i.e 3 trades), it's likely you'll have some leftover cash, and which could possibly be used to finance another upgrade. There's obviously some sort of point where the leftover cash is not worth the extra trade.

 

[Galacticos]

Let's say Team X has Masten(80avg-350k), Armitage(90avg-380k) and Barlow(60avg-220k) while Team Y has Swan(110avg-500k), Trengove(60avg-220k) and Barlow(60avg-220k) with potential averages and prices. Both combinations would require a similar amount of money at the start of the season. In Team Y, by downgrading Barlow to fund the upgrade of Trengove, you would have approximately 360k to fund an upgrade,ie someone like Armitage. While in Team X, downgrading Barlow would allow you to trade Masten to a premium of about 500k or get a lower end keeper at 450k, who will score as much as Swan in the second half of the season, and spend the money elsewhere.

As you can see, both of these combinations will score you the same amount of points and you will also receive about the same amount of money during the season without the risks that comes with selecting rookies. Imo, the chances for a rookie like Trengove to play 22 games and average 80 is about the same as Masten and Armitage playing 22 and averaging over 100.

 

[catsdynasty]

sorry guys was wondering if you could help...who do you think:

H. Shaw or A. Carrazzo

Thanks heaps

 

[Tippaz]

sorry guys was wondering if you could help...who do you think:

H. Shaw or A. Carrazzo

Thanks heaps

got em both

 

[noffle]

In the example above you need to remember that Swan is going to be your captain week in week out so he effectively becomes 2X. Obviously you're not going to have Masten captain, but if your captain is averaging five ppg less than Swan, then that is five ppg that you are losing by not picking him (all money spent elsewhere things considered).

 

[Galacticos]

In the example above you need to remember that Swan is going to be your captain week in week out so he effectively becomes 2X. Obviously you're not going to have Masten captain, but if your captain is averaging five ppg less than Swan, then that is five ppg that you are losing by not picking him (all money spent elsewhere things considered).

Sorry forgot about that, should of mentioned someone else as a control captain eg, Ablett. I was under the impression that Masten and Armitage wont be the captain choices so i forgot to mention it.

 

[Dr Awkward]

Another strength of the gun rookie strategy:

You have more rookies that can be traded. If you start with 5 mids in your team then you are maximising your chances of one of those being a Rich/Palmer or great cash trade. If you have Masten Armitage and Barlow taking up your last 3 spots then you have less opportunity to trade out a rookie because you only have 3 of them and thus there is also less flexibility.

 

[Snakes Alive]

Anyone keen on Jordan Russell??

Averaged mid 70's thus far and think he can average similar to Mackie whilst being 50k cheaper.