The 'I'm not starting with Ablett' thread

[ozzyoslo]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

All your analysis is quite good, but a bit complicated for me...however remember EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE....

Therefore, if you have Ablett and I have say Bartel...

You need to look at the price difference ($150K) versus the average difference (20ppg) and the benefit of the savings on Bartel with another position (Hall to Duddy)... [note I haven't checked the exact numbers just giving you an example=

The issue is not only whether you think Ablett will average 150ppg, but it's the player you pick in his place...

FWIW I don't have Ablett..


I won't predict on Ablett,but I'm hoping the player I pick scores in ball park to Ablett..

Agreed Promps,
Swan, Montagne are the next closest to him.....yeah?

Swan :- Ball into the centre what effect does this have on swan?? good or bad??
Montagna:- 2008 he got dropped, came back in 2009 great year, what happens in 2010 can he improve anymore?

I wont lie here Im spectulating these 3 to drop I cant see increases in price and average per game....


Thomas18:- I see your thoughts based on averages..but chances are one of those 3 will score a 120 lifting the score a fraction yeah ??

 

[thomas_m18]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

Agreed Promps,
Swan, Montagne are the next closest to him.....yeah?

Swan :- Ball into the centre what effect does this have on swan?? good or bad??
Montagna:- 2008 he got dropped, came back in 2009 great year, what happens in 2010 can he improve anymore?

I wont lie here Im spectulating these 3 to drop I cant see increases in price and average per game....


Thomas18:- I see your thoughts based on averages..but chances are one of those 3 will score a 120 lifting the score a fraction yeah ??

Yeah, there's also the chance one can score 70, and Ablett could score anywhere from 81 to over 200, so I used averages as a guide.

 

[borrat]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

Agreed Promps,
Swan, Montagne are the next closest to him.....yeah?

Swan :- Ball into the centre what effect does this have on swan?? good or bad??
Montagna:- 2008 he got dropped, came back in 2009 great year, what happens in 2010 can he improve anymore?

I wont lie here Im spectulating these 3 to drop I cant see increases in price and average per game....


Thomas18:- I see your thoughts based on averages..but chances are one of those 3 will score a 120 lifting the score a fraction yeah ??

if anything getting ball has made swan even more tempting in my opinion because he wont have to do as much hard work as he currently does and could get even more possesions and is even less likely to cop a tag now than had ball not been at collingwood

 

[thomas_m18]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

if anything getting ball has made swan even more tempting in my opinion because he wont have to do as much hard work as he currently does and could get even more possesions and is even less likely to cop a tag now than had ball not been at collingwood

As some guy on SEN said on Saturday "Luke Ball could not possibly win the Collingwood B&F, because if he's good, then Dane Swan will be better"

Update: I now have Ablett, Montagna and Swan in the same midfield (dunno how I managed to do that), so I don't really need to worry about the captain dilemma anymore.

 

[Impromptu]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

.......

There are just so many factors that could cause Ablett to drop 100k in the first 4-8 weeks.
1. Premiership Fatigue
2. Brownlow Fatigue
3. Gold Coast Rumour Fatigue
4. Actual Physical Fatigue / Bad Concussion in the first quarter
5. Mercury transiting Venus/Mayan Calendar/Bird flu mutation, etc.....
.....

Decent reasons, but this is not the reason I'm not getting Ablett..

Agreed Promps,
Swan, Montagne are the next closest to him.....yeah?

Yes, but if you want more value refer below..

Don't get Swan and Montagne simply to save $90K, only do it if you will use the $90K for another reason,.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a stockbroker nor an Economics major, but just to clarify, I'll give you an example...

Ablett shares = $744K - Ablett dividends = 140ppg (2009)
Bartel shares = $578K - Bartel dividends = 108ppg (2009)

If I buy Bartel then I have $166K saving...

All things being equal:-

- Ablett has to average 140 to maintain price
- Bartel has to average 108 to maintain price

If they both maintain their average, then there is no benefit in terms of saving or making money, bearing in mind I believe Bartel shares are underpriced....

Now with the $166K, I save if that means I can upgrade say a Hille to a Sandilands, then all Sandilands has to do is get 32more pts than Hille to be equal..then the equation is the same..

Now imagine that $166K you save changes a non-keeper to a keeper, that means you've saved a trade. For example, you have R,Warnock (a non-keeper) and you use the $166K to upgrade to Hille (a keeper), then you've saved the trade. However, you are up a trade due to the $166K

Now the critics will say that you have to use a trade to get Ablett (therefore negates the trade you've saved due to the $166K)? Well not necessarily. It just means you get Ablett later.

For example:

Me - Bartel ---->1 trade to make ---> starting Bartel then getting Ablett
You - Ablett --->1 trade to make ---> starting Ablett then getting Bartel

In addition, arguably there is a higher chance that Ablett drops in value than Bartel...Now if Bartel averages say 120ppg then his value will increase, which means that those with Ablett will have to pay more to get Bartel....Whereas it is unlikely that Ablett will increase in value, and if he does it won't be much...

Now - I understand there Ablett is the Captain every week and you get double points etc...

Therefore, I'm betting on the following

- Ablett dropping in value and even if he doesn't there is little risk that price will increase a lot as he has to average higher 140
- Bartel increasing in value and even if he doesn't there is little risk that price will drop as he has to average below 108
- the trade I save with the $166K (ie Hille instead of Warnock) or the extra points (ie Sandilands instead of Hille)

There is another reason I'm not getting Ablett, but too tired to write..LOL

AT THE END OF THE DAY THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER.

 

[TheProwler]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

There is another reason I'm not getting Ablett, but too tired to write..LOL

Does it have anything to do with the moon?

You can't ignore his stats and scores for the last two years. He is a professional football player and he will be just that, "Professional" ignore the hypothesizing about his future and get him in your side.

You can thank me at the end of the year

 

[Impromptu]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

Does it have anything to do with the moon?

You can't ignore his stats and scores for the last two years. He is a professional football player and he will be just that, "Professional" ignore the hypothesizing about his future and get him in your side.

You can thank me at the end of the year

LOL I'm not sure you understood my last post

My explanation ignores external factors such as breaking up with his GF, brownlow medal, premiership etc..and it does take into account stats for the last 2 years....

I'm just saying that you need to look at where the saving of $166K goes to.

 

[Muse]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

Impromptu, I've actually gone with your theory and turned two maybe-keepers/mid-pricers into keepers. You convinced me lol

 

[Spider Eater]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

I don't really understand some peoples logic;

1. Ablett will go down in value, maybe by as much as 150k to a value of 620k
2. to get Ablett into your team mid season you will have to cash in 2 rookies to uprgarde a mid-priced midfielder... thats 3 trades!
3. or - 2 trades if you cash in one rookie and upgrade a 450k-520k player (so your going to buy a premium player scoring 90+ with the intention of upgrading to Ablett while less scoring players continue to play for you... doesn't make much sense).
4. So... you'd be burning at least 2 trades to save 150k, I value my trades a little higher than 75k a pop.
5. The "won't maintain his value" line is BS, who buys a player 500k+ with the intention of cashing in for a profit? exactly who will you be upgrading Ablett too if his price rises and your pleased with yourself? The only players that matter in regards to price increases/decreases are your rookies and the players you've earmarked for upgrading.

My advice, if you think Ablett will continue to be the elite midfield scorer then get him in at the start... or never get him in at all.

 

[Impromptu]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

My response below..

I am not saying I'm right or wrong in not getting Ablett, but I'm just raising a few extra ideas

I don't really understand some peoples logic;
1.Ablett will go down in value, maybe by as much as 150k to a value of 620k

Response - [Noone said Ablett will drop in value, what I said is Ablett needs to average 140 to maintain salary, whereas (for example) Bartels needs to average 108 to maintain salary, therefore even Ablett increasing average to 150 is the same as Bartel increasing average to 118]

2. to get Ablett into your team mid season you will have to cash in 2 rookies to uprgarde a mid-priced midfielder... thats 3 trades!

Response - [You say that it takes 3 trades to get Ablett, which is the same as you using 3 trades to get Bartel]

You - Ablett m2 m3 m4 m5 m6 (2-3 trades for m2=Bartel)
Me - Bartel m2 m3 m4 m5 m6 (2-3 trades for m2=Ablett)

It's not like the non-Ablett people are doing 3 extra trades (maybe 1), everyone has to do trades to get premiums

3.or - 2 trades if you cash in one rookie and upgrade a 450k-520k player (so your going to buy a premium player scoring 90+ with the intention of upgrading to Ablett while less scoring players continue to play for you... doesn't make much sense).

Response - [Refer to Item 2]

4.So... you'd be burning at least 2 trades to save 150k, I value my trades a little higher than 75k a pop.

Response - [Refer to Item 2, as you are not saving 2-3 trades for 150K, you keep forgetting that non-Ablett people use trades to bring in Ablett and Ablett-people will use trades to bring in another premium (such as Bartel) therefore both will have 2 premiums]

5.The "won't maintain his value" line is BS, who buys a player 500k+ with the intention of cashing in for a profit? exactly who will you be upgrading Ablett too if his price rises and your pleased with yourself? The only players that matter in regards to price increases/decreases are your rookies and the players you've earmarked for upgrading.

Response - [Refer to Item 1..]

The risk of Ablett increasing (for me) and paying more if he averages more than 140 is exactly the same as the risk of Bartel increasing (for you) and paying more if he averages more than 108...

Furthemore, you don't mention the benefit of the extra say 166K for.. If you had say Hille/Hall and with the 166K you've upgrade to Sandilands/Duddy you may get the points back for the Ablett over Bartel advantage.. Furthermore, if that $166K is used wisely, and you change what would normally be a non-keeper or mid-ranger to a keepert then effectively, you've saved a trade

To say it will take 3 trades to get Ablett without looking at the fact that those with Ablett will take 3 trades (or maybe 2) to get their next premium (say Bartel) is just wrong..

Refer to my example:

You - Ablett m2 m3 m4 m5 m6 (2-3 trades for midfield2=Bartel)
Me - Bartel m2 m3 m4 m5 m6 (2-3 trades for midfield2=Ablett)

It's not like the non-Ablett people are doing 3 extra trades (maybe 1), everyone has to do trades to get premiums
.

In relation to your comment 'The only players that matter in regards to price increases/decreases are your rookies and the players you've earmarked for upgrading. '

That's correct but incomplete...

It's the issue of 'comparative advantage'....You don't want your players to drop in price as (even if it doesn't impact you due to you having him for the year) the person who gets him cheaper will have an advantage..

Okay that's enough for me on this topic...

Again, I highlight I'm not saying by me NOT getting Ablett is the best move, but for those who keep saying it will take 3 extra trades to get Ablett, that's just simply wrong..yes it will take 3 trades, but it will take 2-3 trades to get Bartel or the equivalent (all things being equal)

 

[Spider Eater]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

Actually you could of got Bartel mid season for less then 480k the last 2 years... not a first half of season performer, does all his scoring in the last 10 & all 550k players are more likely to drop in value than not.

The point is your burning your trades before the season has started planning to get Ablett in when it suits you, while people with Ablett are snapping up the in form premium mids before their price gets out of reach.
If Ablett drops by enough where you can get him with 2 trades then his not playing well enough to trade in anyway.
Someone with Ablett will use a cash trade from a rookie to upgrade a 80- scoring midfielder to a 100+ scoring midfielder compared to someone trying to work in Ablett cashing in a rookie to upgrade a 90+ scoring player whilst still having their underperforming 80- starter still playing for them.
Also you keep comparing Ablett to Bartel... unlike most people without Ablett I am not limiting my trade-in options to one player. With Ablett I have the freedom to use my trade to select the best performing mid for the best price.

So to me it's all about whether you think he will be the best scoring mid or not if you think he will be then start with him.

& that's it for me on this topic... is just my opinion anyway, haven't started with Ablett the last 2 years and it has cost me.

 

[Impromptu]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

Actually you could of got Bartel mid season for less then 480k the last 2 years... not a first half of season performer, does all his scoring in the last 10 & all 550k players are more likely to drop in value than not.

The point is your burning your trades before the season has started planning to get Ablett in when it suits you, while people with Ablett are snapping up the in form premium mids before their price gets out of reach.
If Ablett drops by enough where you can get him with 2 trades then his not playing well enough to trade in anyway.
Someone with Ablett will use a cash trade from a rookie to upgrade a 80- scoring midfielder to a 100+ scoring midfielder compared to someone trying to work in Ablett cashing in a rookie to upgrade a 90+ scoring player whilst still having their underperforming 80- starter still playing for them.
Also you keep comparing Ablett to Bartel... unlike most people without Ablett I am not limiting my trade-in options to one player. With Ablett I have the freedom to use my trade to select the best performing mid for the best price. Impromptu - Very Good Point

So to me it's all about whether you think he will be the best scoring mid or not if you think he will be then start with him.

& that's it for me on this topic... is just my opinion anyway, haven't started with Ablett the last 2 years and it has cost me.

Whilst I disagree in some parts, you make valid points. A very good post!!

However, don't forget Ablett getting 100,100,100 is considered as him not performing.

 

[Judd_Magic]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

There is no way I am starting the season without Ablett, its like drivng a car with no brakes = SUICIDE!

Yes I am crazy and a bit nuts but I'm not crazy enough to not start with Ablett.

I will be watching your team Impromtu with great interest.

 

[Walesy]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

AT THE END OF THE DAY THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER.

Sure there is mate, we just don't know it yet.

Now, when you say that all things are relational, that's almost true.

It's true in all cases *except* for when the captaincy is at stake.

Your above example.
Ablett. 140
Bartel. 108 + 166k.

Now, with all things being relational, it's easy to turn around and say 166k into a better forward will score me the extra 32 points.

However, with the big C, that's not the numbers we are looking at.

Ablett. 280
Bartel. 216 + 166k.

So now, you are needing that 166k to make up for 64 points, which is a huge ask.

The only reason to not take Ablett is if you believe he will not perform to a 140 average.

 

[golazo]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

I don't care, I've got em both.

 

[Ingall]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

Walesy's not just a pretty face.


As someone else mentioned somewhere (can't find the post so I'm paraphrasing), 'you can't put the C on the money saved'

 

[Walesy]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

You can put a C next to Ablett and double his score.

You can put a C next to Bartel and double his score.

You can't put a C next to the extra 90k that you've shipped off.

That's were the difference lies.

someone.

 

[Parasite]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

someone.

Toot toot - is that a trumpet I hear?

 

[Walesy]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

Toot toot - is that a trumpet I hear?

Every damn chance I get mate.

 

[Un_OC]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

Sure there is mate, we just don't know it yet.

Now, when you say that all things are relational, that's almost true.

It's true in all cases *except* for when the captaincy is at stake.

Your above example.
Ablett. 140
Bartel. 108 + 166k.

Now, with all things being relational, it's easy to turn around and say 166k into a better forward will score me the extra 32 points.

However, with the big C, that's not the numbers we are looking at.

Ablett. 280
Bartel. 216 + 166k.

So now, you are needing that 166k to make up for 64 points, which is a huge ask.

The only reason to not take Ablett is if you believe he will not perform to a 140 average.

Your picking on bartell. If last year, you had picked montagna or pendles or someone who averaged 120 or so instead of ablett and you had the 160k extra then with the big C

280 VS 240 +160k
or
40points V 160k.

That isn't much of a tall ask, and by having that axtra you can make a 400k player into a 560k. and hence have an extra chance of picking the 120av player of this year

 

[Walesy]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

Your picking on bartell. If last year, you had picked montagna or pendles or someone who averaged 120 or so instead of ablett and you had the 160k extra then with the big C

280 VS 240 +160k
or
40points V 160k.

That isn't much of a tall ask, and by having that axtra you can make a 400k player into a 560k. and hence have an extra chance of picking the 120av player of this year

You mean Swan yeah?

So your Ablett beating technique revolves around finding the 2 midfielders that will breakout into the Super Elite category?

Man, do that WITH Ablett in your team and you'll be 50k richer.

 

[4#Didak#4]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

I still haven't decided! Having Ablett will either make you or break you. If he does what he did last year then of course it has been well worth it. However if there are hiccups it will hurt and take a bit to catch those who spread the risk. Eggs in one basket comes to mind & that worries me from past experience.

Having played for a couple of years now I do remember BA (Before Ablett). Before Ablett the was a chap called Judd who BA was considered the God of SC & I agreed. He was a long way in front of all players at the end of 2006. He played well in 2007 averaging 106 but that was 25points down on his average due to some injury niggles & offield distractions (yes looking at you Ben & the Carlton poachers). I had a good year that year, but Juddy hamstrung my team as I had so much invested in him & it meant I lacked flexibilty in other areas. With some foresight I could have easily had both Bartel & Ablett from the start and smashed it, instead had neither.

I am not saying don't have him its not like Ablett has to worry about drug involved players or poachers from other clubs... - forget that bit - just do not believe its a risk free selection, as most seem to - far from it.

 

[borrat]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

As some guy on SEN said on Saturday "Luke Ball could not possibly win the Collingwood B&F, because if he's good, then Dane Swan will be better"

Update: I now have Ablett, Montagna and Swan in the same midfield (dunno how I managed to do that), so I don't really need to worry about the captain dilemma anymore.

seeing your a saints man dont you think montagna is overpriced????

 

[IDIG]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

Out of curiosity how many games does he have to miss for him not to be worth it? 19 and 18 the last 2 seasons.

 

[Impromptu]

Re: the 'im not starting with ablett' thread

Out of curiosity how many games does he have to miss for him not to be worth it? 19 and 18 the last 2 seasons.

Not sure, but if it's near the end then it should be okay for those with Trades left as effectively you could trade to anyone.. by then those without Ablett (such as me) would have been punished with this 150+ scores

If he misses the 3 games early then it's bad as those who don't have Ablett will use cashcows to trade him in will benefit as they won't be punished as much with his 150+ scores..

I like punishment and that is why I had Ablett all year last year and picked others as captain under a rotation system... LOL