Petracca as a loophole option.

[GCSkiwi]

Each to their own, but anyone picking a guy who isn't playing for any reason other than a loophole option is nuts imo.

So you're gonna run with 2 donuts?
What if something happens to Petrecca  during the time you're waiting for him to start.

Then you would use a corrective trade..

What's more likely?

A) he doesn't play for an extended period

B) he is named round 2-4 and others are getting him in by trading out other rookies on their bench with bad JS that were dropped and didn't make much or any cash (Hewitt, Dunkley etc.).

I'm backing B so hoping by having him now, I'm saving a trade!

Ok that reasoning can be followed, but still isn't great imo. If Petracca doesn't play for 2-4 weeks that's 2-4 price rises you're missing on someone who is. Literally no-one knows what will happen next week, so maybe you're right and maybe someone who starts this week will never play again (looking at you Tom Lamb WCE). But there are enough forward and mid rooks who have decent job security that people don't need to be taking Dunkley's or Hewett's. I have one rook I'm not confident in, and it's in defense :P

Staring Petracca and not starting Petracca are both risks. If you start him and he doesn't play for a while, you're losing money.
If you don't start him and he comes in next week and kills it, you lose a trade.
Those are the two options you've considered. But, what if one of these happens:

you start him, he plays VFL next week and blows an ACL (sincerely hope it doesn't happen!) - you lose a trade
you start him, he comes in next week and scores 20s - that's not a slow burn rookie, he's burning you straight away :P - you lose a trade
you start him, and he comes in next week and scores no better than rookies who've been playing from round 1, you lose money (if only one price rise)

you don't start him, he plays VFL next week and blows an ACL, you're sweet.
you don't start him , he comes in next week and scores 20s, you're sweet.
you don't start him, he comes in next week and scores no better than rookies who've been playing from round 1, you're sweet.

Literally the only scenario in which not starting him backfires is if he's in next week and kills it, and even then it only costs me a corrective trade which I'm already prepared for, so I really don't care. I still potentially make a couple of grand on the trade, and it gives me time to see how he goes playing in the big time.

[Marstar]

Each to their own, but anyone picking a guy who isn't playing for any reason other than a loophole option is nuts imo.

So you're gonna run with 2 donuts?
What if something happens to Petrecca  during the time you're waiting for him to start.

Then you would use a corrective trade..

What's more likely?

A) he doesn't play for an extended period

B) he is named round 2-4 and others are getting him in by trading out other rookies on their bench with bad JS that were dropped and didn't make much or any cash (Hewitt, Dunkley etc.).

I'm backing B so hoping by having him now, I'm saving a trade!

Ok that reasoning can be followed, but still isn't great imo. If Petracca doesn't play for 2-4 weeks that's 2-4 price rises you're missing on someone who is. Literally no-one knows what will happen next week, so maybe you're right and maybe someone who starts this week will never play again (looking at you Tom Lamb WCE). But there are enough forward and mid rooks who have decent job security that people don't need to be taking Dunkley's or Hewett's. I have one rook I'm not confident in, and it's in defense :P

Staring Petracca and not starting Petracca are both risks. If you start him and he doesn't play for a while, you're losing money.
If you don't start him and he comes in next week and kills it, you lose a trade.
Those are the two options you've considered. But, what if one of these happens:

you start him, he plays VFL next week and blows an ACL (sincerely hope it doesn't happen!) - you lose a trade
you start him, he comes in next week and scores 20s - that's not a slow burn rookie, he's burning you straight away :P - you lose a trade
you start him, and he comes in next week and scores no better than rookies who've been playing from round 1, you lose money (if only one price rise)

you don't start him, he plays VFL next week and blows an ACL, you're sweet.
you don't start him , he comes in next week and scores 20s, you're sweet.
you don't start him, he comes in next week and scores no better than rookies who've been playing from round 1, you're sweet.

Literally the only scenario in which not starting him backfires is if he's in next week and kills it, and even then it only costs me a corrective trade which I'm already prepared for, so I really don't care. I still potentially make a couple of grand on the trade, and it gives me time to see how he goes playing in the big time.

You start him and Papley / McGovern get dropped after 2 price rises and you're sweet. The saved trade is worth 100k .. 2 price risers don't cover the cost.

3 price rises and it's probably even.

Will they make it to round 5?

[Bones Bombers]

Who else do we think we will have to downgrade to?
Hopper? Kommer? Grimley?

[Wanderer]

Each to their own, but anyone picking a guy who isn't playing for any reason other than a loophole option is nuts imo.

So you're gonna run with 2 donuts?
What if something happens to Petrecca  during the time you're waiting for him to start.

Then you would use a corrective trade..

What's more likely?

A) he doesn't play for an extended period

B) he is named round 2-4 and others are getting him in by trading out other rookies on their bench with bad JS that were dropped and didn't make much or any cash (Hewitt, Dunkley etc.).

I'm backing B so hoping by having him now, I'm saving a trade!

Ok that reasoning can be followed, but still isn't great imo. If Petracca doesn't play for 2-4 weeks that's 2-4 price rises you're missing on someone who is. Literally no-one knows what will happen next week, so maybe you're right and maybe someone who starts this week will never play again (looking at you Tom Lamb WCE). But there are enough forward and mid rooks who have decent job security that people don't need to be taking Dunkley's or Hewett's. I have one rook I'm not confident in, and it's in defense :P

Staring Petracca and not starting Petracca are both risks. If you start him and he doesn't play for a while, you're losing money.
If you don't start him and he comes in next week and kills it, you lose a trade.
Those are the two options you've considered. But, what if one of these happens:

you start him, he plays VFL next week and blows an ACL (sincerely hope it doesn't happen!) - you lose a trade
you start him, he comes in next week and scores 20s - that's not a slow burn rookie, he's burning you straight away :P - you lose a trade
you start him, and he comes in next week and scores no better than rookies who've been playing from round 1, you lose money (if only one price rise)

you don't start him, he plays VFL next week and blows an ACL, you're sweet.
you don't start him , he comes in next week and scores 20s, you're sweet.
you don't start him, he comes in next week and scores no better than rookies who've been playing from round 1, you're sweet.

Literally the only scenario in which not starting him backfires is if he's in next week and kills it, and even then it only costs me a corrective trade which I'm already prepared for, so I really don't care. I still potentially make a couple of grand on the trade, and it gives me time to see how he goes playing in the big time.

You start him and Papley / McGovern get dropped after 2 price rises and you're sweet. The saved trade is worth 100k .. 2 price risers don't cover the cost.

3 price rises and it's probably even.

Will they make it to round 5?

I guess it all depends on the strength of the rookies you have.  If you are relying on Papley and McGovern, then Petracca becomes a more attractive prospect, especially if you make good use of Petracca as a loophole.

On the other hand if you have to give up a rookie such as McCarthy, Tip, Davis, Gresham, Bennedy, then I would probably pass on Petracca.

[Marstar]

Who else do we think we will have to downgrade to?
Hopper? Kommer? Grimley?

Heartly? :p

Cox when Witts gets toweled against Tippclair? :p

[Marstar]

Each to their own, but anyone picking a guy who isn't playing for any reason other than a loophole option is nuts imo.

So you're gonna run with 2 donuts?
What if something happens to Petrecca  during the time you're waiting for him to start.

Then you would use a corrective trade..

What's more likely?

A) he doesn't play for an extended period

B) he is named round 2-4 and others are getting him in by trading out other rookies on their bench with bad JS that were dropped and didn't make much or any cash (Hewitt, Dunkley etc.).

I'm backing B so hoping by having him now, I'm saving a trade!

Ok that reasoning can be followed, but still isn't great imo. If Petracca doesn't play for 2-4 weeks that's 2-4 price rises you're missing on someone who is. Literally no-one knows what will happen next week, so maybe you're right and maybe someone who starts this week will never play again (looking at you Tom Lamb WCE). But there are enough forward and mid rooks who have decent job security that people don't need to be taking Dunkley's or Hewett's. I have one rook I'm not confident in, and it's in defense :P

Staring Petracca and not starting Petracca are both risks. If you start him and he doesn't play for a while, you're losing money.
If you don't start him and he comes in next week and kills it, you lose a trade.
Those are the two options you've considered. But, what if one of these happens:

you start him, he plays VFL next week and blows an ACL (sincerely hope it doesn't happen!) - you lose a trade
you start him, he comes in next week and scores 20s - that's not a slow burn rookie, he's burning you straight away :P - you lose a trade
you start him, and he comes in next week and scores no better than rookies who've been playing from round 1, you lose money (if only one price rise)

you don't start him, he plays VFL next week and blows an ACL, you're sweet.
you don't start him , he comes in next week and scores 20s, you're sweet.
you don't start him, he comes in next week and scores no better than rookies who've been playing from round 1, you're sweet.

Literally the only scenario in which not starting him backfires is if he's in next week and kills it, and even then it only costs me a corrective trade which I'm already prepared for, so I really don't care. I still potentially make a couple of grand on the trade, and it gives me time to see how he goes playing in the big time.

You start him and Papley / McGovern get dropped after 2 price rises and you're sweet. The saved trade is worth 100k .. 2 price risers don't cover the cost.

3 price rises and it's probably even.

Will they make it to round 5?

I guess it all depends on the strength of the rookies you have.  If you are relying on Papley and McGovern, then Petracca becomes a more attractive prospect, especially if you make good use of Petracca as a loophole.

On the other hand if you have to give up a rookie such as McCarthy, Tip, Davis, Gresham, Bennedy, then I would probably pass on Petracca.

Passing on Bennedy. Even with a 3 week headstart ... he won't make more money when I'm ready to cull.

Rather put the 50k to better use now and take the loophole.

Punting McG over Papley as one can correct to the other.

[Keeper27]

Each to their own, but anyone picking a guy who isn't playing for any reason other than a loophole option is nuts imo.

So you're gonna run with 2 donuts?
What if something happens to Petrecca  during the time you're waiting for him to start.

Then you would use a corrective trade..

What's more likely?

A) he doesn't play for an extended period

B) he is named round 2-4 and others are getting him in by trading out other rookies on their bench with bad JS that were dropped and didn't make much or any cash (Hewitt, Dunkley etc.).

I'm backing B so hoping by having him now, I'm saving a trade!

Ok that reasoning can be followed, but still isn't great imo. If Petracca doesn't play for 2-4 weeks that's 2-4 price rises you're missing on someone who is. Literally no-one knows what will happen next week, so maybe you're right and maybe someone who starts this week will never play again (looking at you Tom Lamb WCE). But there are enough forward and mid rooks who have decent job security that people don't need to be taking Dunkley's or Hewett's. I have one rook I'm not confident in, and it's in defense :P

Staring Petracca and not starting Petracca are both risks. If you start him and he doesn't play for a while, you're losing money.
If you don't start him and he comes in next week and kills it, you lose a trade.
Those are the two options you've considered. But, what if one of these happens:

you start him, he plays VFL next week and blows an ACL (sincerely hope it doesn't happen!) - you lose a trade
you start him, he comes in next week and scores 20s - that's not a slow burn rookie, he's burning you straight away :P - you lose a trade
you start him, and he comes in next week and scores no better than rookies who've been playing from round 1, you lose money (if only one price rise)

you don't start him, he plays VFL next week and blows an ACL, you're sweet.
you don't start him , he comes in next week and scores 20s, you're sweet.
you don't start him, he comes in next week and scores no better than rookies who've been playing from round 1, you're sweet.

Literally the only scenario in which not starting him backfires is if he's in next week and kills it, and even then it only costs me a corrective trade which I'm already prepared for, so I really don't care. I still potentially make a couple of grand on the trade, and it gives me time to see how he goes playing in the big time.

You start him and Papley / McGovern get dropped after 2 price rises and you're sweet. The saved trade is worth 100k .. 2 price risers don't cover the cost.

um... dunno about that.
lets take ryan davis for example. he's 102K, and avg 65 during NAB, so lets use that as his avg.
65 over 5 rounds (2 price rises) the lad gets up to a little over 210K.
thats 100K profit and if he's the one to get the boot and Petracca is killing it, a corrective trade later and you've made 100k and brang in petracca.

Menadue the same, 75 over 5 games = 110K+ profit.
Gresham by round 5 he'll be 210K,  60-70K profit

[tkringle]

um... dunno about that.
lets take ryan davis for example. he's 102K, and avg 65 during NAB, so lets use that as his avg.
65 over 5 rounds (2 price rises) the lad gets up to a little over 210K.
thats 100K profit and if he's the one to get the boot and Petracca is killing it, a corrective trade later and you've made 100k and brang in petracca.

Menadue the same, 75 over 5 games = 110K+ profit.
Gresham by round 5 he'll be 210K,  60-70K profit

But what if you already have Davis, Menadue, McCarthy and Gresham? Who else would you feel confident would play the first 5 games!

[timmyparso]

Come round 19 or 20, how many of those planning corrective trades on petracca will wish they had their trade back?

[Marstar]

Each to their own, but anyone picking a guy who isn't playing for any reason other than a loophole option is nuts imo.

So you're gonna run with 2 donuts?
What if something happens to Petrecca  during the time you're waiting for him to start.

Then you would use a corrective trade..

What's more likely?

A) he doesn't play for an extended period

B) he is named round 2-4 and others are getting him in by trading out other rookies on their bench with bad JS that were dropped and didn't make much or any cash (Hewitt, Dunkley etc.).

I'm backing B so hoping by having him now, I'm saving a trade!

Ok that reasoning can be followed, but still isn't great imo. If Petracca doesn't play for 2-4 weeks that's 2-4 price rises you're missing on someone who is. Literally no-one knows what will happen next week, so maybe you're right and maybe someone who starts this week will never play again (looking at you Tom Lamb WCE). But there are enough forward and mid rooks who have decent job security that people don't need to be taking Dunkley's or Hewett's. I have one rook I'm not confident in, and it's in defense :P

Staring Petracca and not starting Petracca are both risks. If you start him and he doesn't play for a while, you're losing money.
If you don't start him and he comes in next week and kills it, you lose a trade.
Those are the two options you've considered. But, what if one of these happens:

you start him, he plays VFL next week and blows an ACL (sincerely hope it doesn't happen!) - you lose a trade
you start him, he comes in next week and scores 20s - that's not a slow burn rookie, he's burning you straight away :P - you lose a trade
you start him, and he comes in next week and scores no better than rookies who've been playing from round 1, you lose money (if only one price rise)

you don't start him, he plays VFL next week and blows an ACL, you're sweet.
you don't start him , he comes in next week and scores 20s, you're sweet.
you don't start him, he comes in next week and scores no better than rookies who've been playing from round 1, you're sweet.

Literally the only scenario in which not starting him backfires is if he's in next week and kills it, and even then it only costs me a corrective trade which I'm already prepared for, so I really don't care. I still potentially make a couple of grand on the trade, and it gives me time to see how he goes playing in the big time.

You start him and Papley / McGovern get dropped after 2 price rises and you're sweet. The saved trade is worth 100k .. 2 price risers don't cover the cost.

um... dunno about that.
lets take ryan davis for example. he's 102K, and avg 65 during NAB, so lets use that as his avg.
65 over 5 rounds (2 price rises) the lad gets up to a little over 210K.
thats 100K profit and if he's the one to get the boot and Petracca is killing it, a corrective trade later and you've made 100k and brang in petracca.

Menadue the same, 75 over 5 games = 110K+ profit.
Gresham by round 5 he'll be 210K,  60-70K profit

Gross Profit not taking into account the value of the trade.

I value each trade at a minimun of 100k.

[eaglesman]

I'm sick of reading all this rubbish about wasting a trade for a guy who has only had 2 price rises. Yet if u allocate 3 corrective trades for the year it's seemingly all fine and dandy.

Newsflash!

If papley or McGovern have 2 price risers and u trade them to petracca that is a win! Not only could it be considered a corrective trade but you pocket maybe 80-100k in the process.

[Samsturmfels]

I'm sick of reading all this rubbish about wasting a trade for a guy who has only had 2 price rises. Yet if u allocate 3 corrective trades for the year it's seemingly all fine and dandy.

Newsflash!

If papley or McGovern have 2 price risers and u trade them to petracca that is a win! Not only could it be considered a corrective trade but you pocket maybe 80-100k in the process.

is 80k really worth it though?

[Keeper27]

I'm sick of reading all this rubbish about wasting a trade for a guy who has only had 2 price rises. Yet if u allocate 3 corrective trades for the year it's seemingly all fine and dandy.

Newsflash!

If papley or McGovern have 2 price risers and u trade them to petracca that is a win! Not only could it be considered a corrective trade but you pocket maybe 80-100k in the process.

is 80k really worth it though?

its 80-110k you didnt have

[Raiden]

What would McGov & Papley need to average to earn $40K per price rise? I can't see either with an average of 50 or more.

[Samsturmfels]

I'm sick of reading all this rubbish about wasting a trade for a guy who has only had 2 price rises. Yet if u allocate 3 corrective trades for the year it's seemingly all fine and dandy.

Newsflash!

If papley or McGovern have 2 price risers and u trade them to petracca that is a win! Not only could it be considered a corrective trade but you pocket maybe 80-100k in the process.

is 80k really worth it though?

its 80-110k you didnt have

id usually agree with this strategy however every year i always end up running out of trades too early