The Chad is Back!

[Drummond]

And he's playing Sydney, so his price will go down $30k...

Chad hates playing the Swans because he actually has to WORK for his possessions. When that happens he's shot.

 

[Cat for Life]

However, Goodes is in good form now, so hopefully he wont tag Chad. Or if he plays on him, they go head to head.

 

[sharpie]

However, Goodes is in good form now, so hopefully he wont tag Chad. Or if he plays on him, they go head to head.

I have both - so that would be a DT wet dream

two unaccountable self serving midfielders longing to run forward and kick goals

 

[Bollox]

I have both - so that would be a DT wet dream

two unaccountable self serving midfielders longing to run forward and kick goals

jealous much ?

You oughta be

 

[Cat for Life]

I have both - so that would be a DT wet dream

two unaccountable self serving midfielders longing to run forward and kick goals

Ditto with me, I think Kane will go to Goodes though, he tagged Kenneally last time.

 

[Athomas]

Ditto with me, I think Kane will go to Goodes though, he tagged Kenneally last time.

Bingo.

Can't see him tagging Malceski or Mattner haha.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

so is he really back this week how sure is this comment?

 

[BartBart]

We will see if he is named tomorrow - although that doesn't necessarily mean he will play though.

 

[54Dogs]

Yup only 2 weeks, but i'm pretty sure he doesn't plan on bringing him back in this week due mainly to Port playing Sydney. Having a b/e of 149 and playing Sydney you would assume a pretty big drop in the coming weeks, at least 40k. In about 2-3 weeks would be the perfect time to get the Chad back in as he would have bottomed out, making it about 4-5 weeks total. Thus gaining alot more points, making/saving a fair load of cash whilst not suffering a couple of 0's works out pretty well in this case.

In saying all this i must state that i haven't actually traded Chad, copped two 0's last week and another 1 this week, but i think if you're league is your current priority then saving the trades is probably better, but if you're looking for an overall ranking then the agressive trading works.

Great to see some healthy debate on this rather than just "this is crap or good move". I'm not by any means saying this is the move that should have been made, I'm saying it was an aggressive option that could have been taken. There are absolutely arguments both ways.

Against
--------
2 trades burnt (precious) for the same (net) player being in the team. This alone is a strong argument and holds firm for the negative.

For
-----
Value of trades. Assuming trade value = 100K.
If Chad scores 80 (swans), 100,100 he drops to 385K. If Ibbo scores 75,75,75 he goes to 280K.

Trade out = 290K, Trade in = 105K, PROFIT = $185K

Plus points as follows. 290K allowed early trade of Hill>Chappy and Gilmore > Cox, plus Ibbo's points in place of a nil.

Bonus Points scored = 72 (net Chappy / Hill) + 109 (Cox, would have been Nil) + 88 + 77 during period Chad is out. 346 / 22 weeks = 15 ppw which in dollar terms = $60,000

Total trade value = 185k + 60K = $245K for 2 trades.

This makes assumptions on Ibbo's / Chad's scores but the logic is there.

In this situation I can accept making 245K for 2 trades. In essence it's the same value as 2 x Josh Hill's going from 100K to 220K (120K each) making 240K for 2 trades and nobody would complain about that.

Certainly a risky move which has probably paid off (???) but was a rare situation because of the circumstances. I have never done it before and probably won't again but it does illustrate that rules can be broken to still add value if all the stars align.

 

[sante]

Great to see some healthy debate on this rather than just "this is crap or good move". I'm not by any means saying this is the move that should have been made, I'm saying it was an aggressive option that could have been taken. There are absolutely arguments both ways.

Against
--------
2 trades burnt (precious) for the same (net) player being in the team. This alone is a strong argument and holds firm for the negative.

For
-----
Value of trades. Assuming trade value = 100K.
If Chad scores 80 (swans), 100,100 he drops to 385K. If Ibbo scores 75,75,75 he goes to 280K.

Trade out = 290K, Trade in = 105K, PROFIT = $185K

Plus points as follows. 290K allowed early trade of Hill>Chappy and Gilmore > Cox, plus Ibbo's points in place of a nil.

Bonus Points scored = 72 (net Chappy / Hill) + 109 (Cox, would have been Nil) + 88 + 77 during period Chad is out. 346 / 22 weeks = 15 ppw which in dollar terms = $60,000

Total trade value = 185k + 60K = $245K for 2 trades.

This makes assumptions on Ibbo's / Chad's scores but the logic is there.

In this situation I can accept making 245K for 2 trades. In essence it's the same value as 2 x Josh Hill's going from 100K to 220K (120K each) making 240K for 2 trades and nobody would complain about that.

Certainly a risky move which has probably paid off (???) but was a rare situation because of the circumstances. I have never done it before and probably won't again but it does illustrate that rules can be broken to still add value if all the stars align.

Both cases have a strong arugument and there probably isn't a right or wrong way to have done it.

I do believe that you have hit the once in a blue moon chance and it looks to have paid off. I think I read earlier that you've jumped over 4000 spots in ranking since trading C Cornes while most other teams copped the 0 (myself included). It was an extenuating circumstance with so many backmen getting injured/dropped at the same time. If I had my time over again I would have gone through with it too.

I think you've done it brilliantly and it's going to hold you in good shape for the rest of the year

 

[big_slick]

This makes assumptions on Ibbo's / Chad's scores but the logic is there.

Just extending this point into general discussion, one thing i have learned is to not rely on players getting you the score you need. I had a plan to get Chappy in this week but have fallen 7k short. You need to plan according to what you know what will happen (which is very little). So having said that plan for the worst case scenario. What happens if Chad scores 150 this week? The trade you set up last week becomes wasted and it leaves you stuck in the middle.

Just be wary of predicting scores and value changes that will effect your trading strategies. Anything can happen and probably usually will.

 

[sante]

Just extending this point into general discussion, one thing i have learned is to not rely on players getting you the score you need. I had a plan to get Chappy in this week but have fallen 7k short. You need to plan according to what you know what will happen (which is very little). So having said that plan for the worst case scenario. What happens if Chad scores 150 this week? The trade you set up last week becomes wasted and it leaves you stuck in the middle.

Just be wary of predicting scores and value changes that will effect your trading strategies. Anything can happen and probably usually will.

You are right but in this instance, Chad will be up against Sydney who are well known for screwing over the DT scores and Chad had a poor record against them compared to his usual scores.

 

[54Dogs]

Just extending this point into general discussion, one thing i have learned is to not rely on players getting you the score you need. I had a plan to get Chappy in this week but have fallen 7k short. You need to plan according to what you know what will happen (which is very little). So having said that plan for the worst case scenario. What happens if Chad scores 150 this week? The trade you set up last week becomes wasted and it leaves you stuck in the middle.

Just be wary of predicting scores and value changes that will effect your trading strategies. Anything can happen and probably usually will.

Nice point Slick and absolutely is valid. Whilst heading in the right direction I am by no means out of the woods with this. Ibbo scores poorly, Chad dominates and it goes sour. I've got 40K set aside as coverage but it would move the net profit down to 200K if this happened.

Extremely solid observation though.

 

[Cat for Life]

Great to see some healthy debate on this rather than just "this is crap or good move". I'm not by any means saying this is the move that should have been made, I'm saying it was an aggressive option that could have been taken. There are absolutely arguments both ways.

Against
--------
2 trades burnt (precious) for the same (net) player being in the team. This alone is a strong argument and holds firm for the negative.

For
-----
Value of trades. Assuming trade value = 100K.
If Chad scores 80 (swans), 100,100 he drops to 385K. If Ibbo scores 75,75,75 he goes to 280K.

Trade out = 290K, Trade in = 105K, PROFIT = $185K

Plus points as follows. 290K allowed early trade of Hill>Chappy and Gilmore > Cox, plus Ibbo's points in place of a nil.

Bonus Points scored = 72 (net Chappy / Hill) + 109 (Cox, would have been Nil) + 88 + 77 during period Chad is out. 346 / 22 weeks = 15 ppw which in dollar terms = $60,000

Total trade value = 185k + 60K = $245K for 2 trades.

This makes assumptions on Ibbo's / Chad's scores but the logic is there.

In this situation I can accept making 245K for 2 trades. In essence it's the same value as 2 x Josh Hill's going from 100K to 220K (120K each) making 240K for 2 trades and nobody would complain about that.

Certainly a risky move which has probably paid off (???) but was a rare situation because of the circumstances. I have never done it before and probably won't again but it does illustrate that rules can be broken to still add value if all the stars align.

Good analysis, however I think you've overlooked a couple of points.

Going on Chad scoring 80, 100, 100 and Ibo getting 75,75,75 then you have lost 55 points in that time.
Also you need to take into account the trades used for getting Chapman/Cox into the equation if you are claiming the value from them.

I can see where you are coming from, but personally I would have kept him and used a cash cow to fund the upgrades.

 

[54Dogs]

Good analysis, however I think you've overlooked a couple of points.

Going on Chad scoring 80, 100, 100 and Ibo getting 75,75,75 then you have lost 55 points in that time.
Also you need to take into account the trades used for getting Chapman/Cox into the equation if you are claiming the value from them.

I can see where you are coming from, but personally I would have kept him and used a cash cow to fund the upgrades.

Nice point on the Ibbo - Chad price differential Cats, had not considered that and it cuts the value a little. I disagree on the other point though as those upgrades would be required either way so the trades are not burnt.

The other issue would be how many cash cows would you need to trade out to fund the 290K required to bring in Cox and Chappy.