Pendles

[shaker]

Fair dinkum I have been watching this argument for a while now and it is going nowhere , everyone makes there own decisions of who and when to trade and everyone has no idea what will happen with these players in the future because it is the future , a good player that is going cheap is cheap because he has been under performing and we all hope they will turn it around but we don't know if they will unless you can see the future ..... Pendles is a gun the rest is just all rubbish  :P

[LF]

This will be the only warning posted in this thread.
There will be no more sniping remarks,name calling or anything like that again or the thread will be permanently locked and warnings will be issued to those involved.
There is no need for this discussion to continue unless there are some new points bought up as all this is now is repetitive posts about the same thing and like Shaker said it is going absolutely nowhere.

[enzedder]

Wato is correct in saying that Pendles doesn't throw up stinkers. He's gone under 80 a grand total of ONCE in the past 6 years. Under 100 roughly twice per year over that same duration. He's a machine.

I also agree with Robbo though in that Supercoach is more akin to the stock-market than most seem to understand. Buying low, selling high is the most consistent method for success. Many players pick up that 'under-priced' premo when they bottom out, though very few operate in reverse, selling a player when they peak in price. Parker is a prime example from this season, same goes with Shaw of a few weeks ago and Dangerfield now.

Parker peaked at 602k, with many scrambling to get him in. He's since averaged around 90 and dropped over 150k. At the time, a trade to Joel Selwood would have netted you 100k and close to 200 points since.
Shaw peaked at 665k a few weeks back. He's since averaged 95 and will drop over 100k. (A few people I know traded him to McVeigh, netting 200k+ and the same average.
Dangerfield this week is 744k, meaning you gain 200k+ by trading him to most other premiums, possibly resulting in the same average for the remainder of the season for those players (and the bonus of 200k+ to improve another spot).

Insightful post MC.
I'm one who buys low and never operate in reverse. Once I've got a premium I tend to hang on and enjoy the ride. There's merit in what you say but I couldn't imagine wanting to trade out Danger for the cash when he's scoring so well...same for Shaw. 

[RaisyDaisy]

I'm sorry but selling a player at peak price just won't work

Unless you've got a crystal ball telling you that they are all of a sudden going to drop off (keeping in mind they've had to consistently score very well to get to that price) or have unlimited trades, it's just not going to work long term

Hindsight is a wonderful thing

[Grazz]

I'm sorry but selling a player at peak price just won't work

Unless you've got a crystal ball telling you that they are all of a sudden going to drop off (keeping in mind they've had to consistently score very well to get to that price) or have unlimited trades, it's just not going to work long term

Hindsight is a wonderful thing

Agree mate, would work for AF with unlimited trades but for the 30 trade comps where buying them back once they've bottomed out eats into trades to much it's a flawed move.

[King_Robbo]

I'm sorry but selling a player at peak price just won't work

Unless you've got a crystal ball telling you that they are all of a sudden going to drop off (keeping in mind they've had to consistently score very well to get to that price) or have unlimited trades, it's just not going to work long term

Hindsight is a wonderful thing

Agree mate, would work for AF with unlimited trades but for the 30 trade comps where buying them back once they've bottomed out eats into trades to much it's a flawed move.

Just to clarify the 'sell high' is in regards to rookies. Obviously I'm not suggesting to go cash in on Danger right now lol

[PICCOLLO]

I'm sorry but selling a player at peak price just won't work

Unless you've got a crystal ball telling you that they are all of a sudden going to drop off (keeping in mind they've had to consistently score very well to get to that price) or have unlimited trades, it's just not going to work long term

Hindsight is a wonderful thing

There is merit in a sideways trade for cash with similar output. the cash has to be significant though. 200k is worth it. A goldy trade to stef martin 2 weeks ago would have netted 230k maybe? Its a ballsy move but if it led to some upgrades elsewhere and saved you getting in risky rookies it wouldve been worth consideration. (Goldy not at his best and Stef has a reasonable run home. So far the trade would be paying off)


Its not a common practice and a genuine trade like this doesnt occur all too often.

[RaisyDaisy]

Yeah my comments were in response to MC's comment

Parker peaked at 602k, with many scrambling to get him in. He's since averaged around 90 and dropped over 150k. At the time, a trade to Joel Selwood would have netted you 100k and close to 200 points since.
Shaw peaked at 665k a few weeks back. He's since averaged 95 and will drop over 100k. (A few people I know traded him to McVeigh, netting 200k+ and the same average.
Dangerfield this week is 744k, meaning you gain 200k+ by trading him to most other premiums, possibly resulting in the same average for the remainder of the season for those players (and the bonus of 200k+ to improve another spot).

In these instances for example, Parker would have been averaging 115+ and crushing it, whilst Jelwood was stinking it up

To suggest that at that very moment you would trade Parker to Jelwood to make 100k is ridiculous

I understand the theory, and using the 3rd example of trading Danger to say Treloar for example - pocketing over 200k and expecting similar output has merit, but just isn't practical with limited trades. Danger is at his highest value, and it's only natural that his price will come back down, but I can't see how trading out a guy who is averaging 170 in the last 3 and is the number one scoring player in the comp for 200k is beneficial

Rookies are there to generate our cash

[fanTCfool]

The real question is, if you dump one of these guys at a high price such as Danger right now, could you live with yourself if he pulls out another double ton after his bye?

[MC]

Yeah my comments were in response to MC's comment

Parker peaked at 602k, with many scrambling to get him in. He's since averaged around 90 and dropped over 150k. At the time, a trade to Joel Selwood would have netted you 100k and close to 200 points since.
Shaw peaked at 665k a few weeks back. He's since averaged 95 and will drop over 100k. (A few people I know traded him to McVeigh, netting 200k+ and the same average.
Dangerfield this week is 744k, meaning you gain 200k+ by trading him to most other premiums, possibly resulting in the same average for the remainder of the season for those players (and the bonus of 200k+ to improve another spot).

In these instances for example, Parker would have been averaging 115+ and crushing it, whilst Jelwood was stinking it up

To suggest that at that very moment you would trade Parker to Jelwood to make 100k is ridiculous

I understand the theory, and using the 3rd example of trading Danger to say Treloar for example - pocketing over 200k and expecting similar output has merit, but just isn't practical with limited trades. Danger is at his highest value, and it's only natural that his price will come back down, but I can't see how trading out a guy who is averaging 170 in the last 3 and is the number one scoring player in the comp for 200k is beneficial

Rookies are there to generate our cash

It's of course a risk, though astute traders did in fact make those same trades. This week i'm strongly considering Danger to Hannebery/Sloane. I predict both to score similarly for the remainder of the season, i'll make close to 200k and will avoid a donut for this round, as well as finishing off my defense with the cash.
Parker was crushing it, though my pre-season expectations of him were nowhere near the 120s that he was pulling. It happens every year, players start on fire and revert to the mean. Danger in this case will struggle to maintain 135s. It's not unprecedented though.

Pre-season I would have picked Danger to go for around 115, though have adjusted to 120-125 at max, or 22 games for a total of 2640-2750
So far he's gone 14 of 134.5 or 1883 total.
To achieve a season 125-average from here, he would need 8/108.375 or a further 867 total.
A season of 130 means he needs 8/122

I feel like a season average of 125 is more realistic, meaning he flits around 110s from here, and a player like Hannebery/Sloane could match him for a profit of 150-200k

[RaisyDaisy]

Fair enough MC, and like I said I understand the merit in what you're doing, I just don't think it's winning enough long term. You'd want a nice stash of trades remaining

As for Danger, 120-125 sounds about right, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him maintain 130+

[DaveElNacho]

Fair enough MC, and like I said I understand the merit in what you're doing, I just don't think it's winning enough long term. You'd want a nice stash of trades remaining

As for Danger, 120-125 sounds about right, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him maintain 130+

Makes me want to try DT. Could really try and play the stocks in the way MC described.

[Judd Magic]

Fair enough MC, and like I said I understand the merit in what you're doing, I just don't think it's winning enough long term. You'd want a nice stash of trades remaining

As for Danger, 120-125 sounds about right, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him maintain 130+

Makes me want to try DT. Could really try and play the stocks in the way MC described.

Real DT has 30 trades like Supercoach.

Your better trying it with AFL Fantasy which you can trade twice a week every round in.

[Huttabito]

Playing devils advocate here. But Pendles or Steven??

[jumbo]

Pulled in Pendles yesterday afternoon b4 his match, made him captain and has now won me the almost impossible league match to win and place me top of the table. Cheers for your 161 Pendles!

Steven.. where has he gone the last couple of weeks?? Having a long Shower...

Easy answer Huttabito