Malceski

[AaronKirk]

I am still undecided about Malceski.

Has the runs on the board previously but his season last year was terrible.

Sure he was injured most of the season but he also looked like he couldn't give a flower about his performances on occasions and only cared about the Superannuation top-up he is receiving at the suns.

In 4 seasons previously he has gone 90+ and twice 100+. If he gets back to those sort of averages he is a good pick.

If he can average 85 until the bye (as per calculation on tooserious BE and price calculator) he will rise to approximately $420k

It depends what you think he can average.

90+ he is a keeper and a good pick. 80-90 he is not a good pick as he isn't a keeper and won't make good enough cash.

[RaisyDaisy]

At 383k (oddly enough the exact same starting price Tmac was last year and we know what happened there) you only pick him if you expect him to be a keeper

This isn't a cash generation exercise

[Holz]

Is Malceski at D3 too weak, along with Bartel and Smith?

Eski at D3 is fine, but you'd want D2 to be more reliable than Smith

Agree. Need Shaw/McVeigh/Simpson, Bartel and Eski.

I wont be touching Malceski myself though. Wont make enough money. I would have to think he'd average 95 to pick him, and in my opinion he wont. 80-90 range for me tops.

this is completely unrealistic.

95 is a premium number, I pick a guy for 500k if i think he can go 95. A 95 average would put you the 7th best back in the competition. If you think he can go close to 90 then you pick him.

If you think he can go 85+ then you should pick him. A 85 puts him in the top 20 defenders and thats good enough for D6.

the 20th best mid is 105 and people seem happy to have that at M8 even M7.

just a reminder he did score 108 120 in the last two rounds.

[Ringo]

Malceski can go 90+ without much effort and injury free

just a question of if u think he will or not or want to take a RISK

Rich has never averaged higher than 90.  Although he can score big it is his low scores when tagged are the issue.  If you look at 2012 his scores below 80 were when tagged or when having a run with role.  Personally I think Rich has lost a fair bit as a result of his ACL in 2014 as he appears to have lost pace and also some distance with his kicks.
Would make the play if he was durable, this is the main stumbling block for me. I'm backing Daniel Rich this year, think he will go 85+ and play most of the season, quite possibly a breakout year being 25 and with Rocky, Hanley & Beams all playing together. The tagging factor is a slight concern but as a defender the downside is minimal. D6 at a minimum, hopefully a return to the nineties.

Have been really tempted by Rich lately too. Surely he's moved down the pecking order for players that will be tagged first?

Hanley first, Rich second. I'm firmly of the belief his floor is 85 and I will take that given his DPP status, at the very worst he becomes my mid/defence swingman who can sit on the bench. I still think this is the year he finally lives up to his immense talent, have been waiting a long time but I'm a closet fan. Maybe the fact he's a defender this year could bring him some relevance as a SC selection.

Beams and Rocky untaggable?

The funny thing is he averaged that in his first season! So much promise early and has been so underwealming in his career so far.  I just don't know who to go with down back this year. Only guy I have locked is simmo and one of Shaw or McVeigh

Rich is easier to tag, Hanley more damaging with his run and carry. Beams wouldn't be affected by a tag that much at all, and Rocky is a pig :P

If Rich is playing through the mids, he may get the #1 tag. But pretty close between him and Hanley.

[LordSneeze]

Realistically you only want to have 1 risky pick in defence. Smith, Eski, William's, Harwood.

This will allow you to upgrade him if need be, or downgrade to rookie if he spuds. 30 trades is more than enough to cover that.
Right now my defence is standing as Simmo, Birchall, Bartel, Eski - Rookies

Smith is a risk based on having no real knowledge of the Adelaide Defence Setup and how it will impact scoring. I see him running through Midfield at some points in games and he isn't really a ball winner.
Williams, I think will play, but his JS is a lot less than Eski's, Upside is a lot less.
Harwood I wouldn't mind as D5 if I can afford, but he is a risk. Def watch in NAB cup

[dmac07]

Is Malceski at D3 too weak, along with Bartel and Smith?

Eski at D3 is fine, but you'd want D2 to be more reliable than Smith

Agree. Need Shaw/McVeigh/Simpson, Bartel and Eski.

I wont be touching Malceski myself though. Wont make enough money. I would have to think he'd average 95 to pick him, and in my opinion he wont. 80-90 range for me tops.

this is completely unrealistic.

95 is a premium number, I pick a guy for 500k if i think he can go 95. A 95 average would put you the 7th best back in the competition. If you think he can go close to 90 then you pick him.

If you think he can go 85+ then you should pick him. A 85 puts him in the top 20 defenders and thats good enough for D6.

the 20th best mid is 105 and people seem happy to have that at M8 even M7.

just a reminder he did score 108 120 in the last two rounds.

See at 85 i think he doesnt make much cash and Im not happy to have him in my final team. Id take it if the injuries pile up, bit if i can avoid it then no. 95 is the best 7 defenders, well thats who i want for my spots, that and mid pricers who can generate a lot of cash, Eski may only generate 50-80k. Even as a stepping stone i want someone to generate a 100k cash. Like Libba and Crouch could in mids can do or Wells up forward. So in my view i would have to think he is a potential top 10 defender to pick him, and i dont think he is, thats why hed have to average 90 at least for me to take him.

[LordSneeze]

Is Malceski at D3 too weak, along with Bartel and Smith?

Eski at D3 is fine, but you'd want D2 to be more reliable than Smith

Agree. Need Shaw/McVeigh/Simpson, Bartel and Eski.

I wont be touching Malceski myself though. Wont make enough money. I would have to think he'd average 95 to pick him, and in my opinion he wont. 80-90 range for me tops.

this is completely unrealistic.

95 is a premium number, I pick a guy for 500k if i think he can go 95. A 95 average would put you the 7th best back in the competition. If you think he can go close to 90 then you pick him.

If you think he can go 85+ then you should pick him. A 85 puts him in the top 20 defenders and thats good enough for D6.

the 20th best mid is 105 and people seem happy to have that at M8 even M7.

just a reminder he did score 108 120 in the last two rounds.

See at 85 i think he doesnt make much cash and Im not happy to have him in my final team. Id take it if the injuries pile up, bit if i can avoid it then no. 95 is the best 7 defenders, well thats who i want for my spots, that and mid pricers who can generate a lot of cash, Eski may only generate 50-80k. Even as a stepping stone i want someone to generate a 100k cash. Like Libba and Crouch could in mids can do or Wells up forward. So in my view i would have to think he is a potential top 10 defender to pick him, and i dont think he is, thats why hed have to average 90 at least for me to take him.

You don't pick Eski as a stepping stone. You pick him as a possible Keeper.

The thing with him is he has the potential to average 100, not many defenders have this potential, especially not at his price.
If you don't select him and he comes out and averages 100 you will need to pick him up and likely have to pay top $ for him plus be behind in points. If he fails you have the option to upgrade to a premium, or downgrade to a rookie.

If you are going to pick a mid pricer he is the one to go for in defence. If not GnR is a more than valid strategy.

[RaisyDaisy]

Dmac, Eski is 383k, and most premium defenders will be in the 475-500k during the season. Eski is not picked to make cash or be a stepping stone. Only pick him if you believe he can be a keeper for your team

I reckon Eski at D6 at worst is fine, which is why I am starting him for now

*EDIT* Didn't see LS reply as I hit reply but then got distracted for 10 mins before posting lol

[Holz]

Dmac, Eski is 383k, and most premium defenders will be in the 475-500k during the season. Eski is not picked to make cash or be a stepping stone. Only pick him if you believe he can be a keeper for your team

I reckon Eski at D6 at worst is fine, which is why I am starting him for now

*EDIT* Didn't see LS reply as I hit reply but then got distracted for 10 mins before posting lol

for the record he can be used as a stepping stone. If he goes 85 and you have a free 70k at some stage then you can always upgrade him to a shaw mcviegh boyd if you want too.

85 is not bad for a D6, people who think they will have a better D6 either are unrealistic or go for league.

by the way when i finished 3rd my D6 was Mckenzie at 88 . who coincidentally started the season a similar price to eski.

[RaisyDaisy]

Not sure if I would call that upgrading via a stepping stone

For that to happens, he hasnt produced the goods so it's a corrective trade

All symmantics, but you pick him hoping he becomes a keeper, which 85+ at D6 would be

[enzedder]

I'm looking at starting Yeo and Smith...can't fit him in, prefer them to him atm.

[Money Shot]

Bartel, Yeo, Smith, Ceski

That's my starting 4 at the moment I know it's risky but they could all go 90+

It also allows me too spend money on proven picks else where.

[PICCOLLO]

Not sure about him. Proven scorer at a much better club. Getting older.  Better choices such as Yeo, KK, Docherty, Bartel. Anyone running with Brodie and Eski both is a braver man than me.

[Grufflez]

Not sure about him. Proven scorer at a much better club. Getting older.  Better choices such as Yeo, KK, Docherty, Bartel. Anyone running with Brodie and Eski both is a braver man than me.

+1 but will watch nab to see how kk and eski work it.

[Hawker_08]

Remember this time last year we were having this same debate. Whether to start him or not. Do you also remember that he was 200k more than he is now, starting a new club and had a massive question mark over his head. Now, he is just 390k, he has had a full preseason, he finished last year very strong and has now taken up a leadership role (I believe). He ave 105 2 seasons ago, some of the 'less risky people' that some are picking have never age 95 before yet they are safer? He is a bargain and has the potential to be anything. The potential reward is much higher than the risk in this situation.