Do you spend all of your money for round 1?

[Junktimer]

imagine this, if you will.

Joe Bloggs- 87,500

160k in the kitty.

I could turn him into Andy Otten, a much better option rather than keep my cash and have a spud

What about last season (Example) then M Barlow >  $87,500 (I Think) & after 3 games & until injury $^^^^^^^$  vs your theory? Right cash cow vs say Otten?

yeah but its hard to pick the perfect cash cow.

and its not hard to pick a perfect rookie?

picking a cheapie over a rookie can give a coach a lot less worries than vice versa

it is as well but a cheapie can go either way while a rookie is guaranteed to rise barring a complete fail in which case u deserve it for picking him.

what if they just don't play?  many people got sucked into relton roberts and mitchell banner this year.  banner only 6 games or so after round 1.

[Boomz]

I don't think about saving money when I make my team once it's made if I have money left over well that's good if not then I just hope I spent it well...

[Luigi197]

I don't think about saving money when I make my team once it's made if I have money left over well that's good if not then I just hope I spent it well...

yea thats a good way to think of it

[LiveTheDream]

imagine this, if you will.

Joe Bloggs- 87,500

160k in the kitty.

I could turn him into Andy Otten, a much better option rather than keep my cash and have a spud

Well that makes no sense at all. Why would you pick him when there are better options out there? Just stupid.
Look at this-
(example)
Playing rookie makes 100k and I have 200k in the bank. I so I can get a cheap prem with 1 trade. 1 trade. Trades are worth more than anything. Period.

(example 3)
Otten dominates and becomes the 2011 Malceski. The coaches who picked him instead of 'playing rookie' have got themselves a cheap premium with 0 trades. 0 trades. The coaches who picked 'playing rookie' are now not so happy, and to add to their woes, 'playing rookie' gets dropped after a few mediocre games and becomes 'non-playing rookie'.

[bomberboy0618]

mmm... 2011 malceski *drools*
i think that cash, while having some left over is ideal, its not worth sacrificing points over.

[hawk_88]

I think people have gotten to focused on the merits of picking a rookie vs a cheapy which is really a case by case basis. You can come up with examples of success and failures for players in both categories.

A good team structure has some of each anyway so the argument is almost mute. In terms of saving any serious amount of money at the start you really have to look at picking less premium players and buying both more cheapies and rookies.

Last year people loaded up on midfield rookies given the sheer amount of quality with some people even starting with 3 rookies on the field and just 2 premiums. The was less variety in rookies back and forward last year but a few cheapies so people went that way there.

This year I think will probably go the other way. I think there is quite a bit of talent both in back and forward which means there is opportunity to save quite a bit of money.

Considering the extra trades, yet extra bench places, there will be more rookies/cheapies in people's sides and probably not as many new trades to cover upgrading them all if double trades are required. I think having money in the bank could be more useful than ever.

That being said, if there aren't the players available to support this tactic/structure, then you don't use it. Horses for courses....

mmm... 2011 malceski *drools*
i think that cash, while having some left over is ideal, its not worth sacrificing points over.

I think it is about a balance, sacrificing some early points for cash and trades with the hope that that will produce more points later on than you initially lost.

[Alex7089]

mmm... 2011 malceski *drools*
i think that cash, while having some left over is ideal, its not worth sacrificing points over.

But in the end, going for a league win, how valuable are points early? You want to peak at the end of the season which IMO is much more achievable with money in hand.

imagine this, if you will.

Joe Bloggs- 87,500

160k in the kitty.

I could turn him into Andy Otten, a much better option rather than keep my cash and have a spud

Well that makes no sense at all. Why would you pick him when there are better options out there? Just stupid.
Look at this-
(example)
Playing rookie makes 100k and I have 200k in the bank. I so I can get a cheap prem with 1 trade. 1 trade. Trades are worth more than anything. Period.

(example 3)
Otten dominates and becomes the 2011 Malceski. The coaches who picked him instead of 'playing rookie' have got themselves a cheap premium with 0 trades. 0 trades. The coaches who picked 'playing rookie' are now not so happy, and to add to their woes, 'playing rookie' gets dropped after a few mediocre games and becomes 'non-playing rookie'.

Why can't you go the other way and get Otten over a premium? He is a cheap prem anyway in the end (in this scenario) and this way you save more money, you get a trade, and you can then easily take your rookie to a prem and have your cheap prem instead of just the cheap prem and starting prem >> less cash= more double trades and eventually more trades made.

-------------
Come and vote for the Personality of the Year!
FF is a big place, show your support to some of the big names.
Every vote counts!

[BoredSaint]

i usually spend it all.. maybe thats why im not winning leagues..
I DID LOSE THE GRAND FINAL BY A POINT THOUGH..  >:(

[hawk_88]

mmm... 2011 malceski *drools*
i think that cash, while having some left over is ideal, its not worth sacrificing points over.

But in the end, going for a league win, how valuable are points early? You want to peak at the end of the season which IMO is much more achievable with money in hand.

imagine this, if you will.

Joe Bloggs- 87,500

160k in the kitty.

I could turn him into Andy Otten, a much better option rather than keep my cash and have a spud

Well that makes no sense at all. Why would you pick him when there are better options out there? Just stupid.
Look at this-
(example)
Playing rookie makes 100k and I have 200k in the bank. I so I can get a cheap prem with 1 trade. 1 trade. Trades are worth more than anything. Period.

(example 3)
Otten dominates and becomes the 2011 Malceski. The coaches who picked him instead of 'playing rookie' have got themselves a cheap premium with 0 trades. 0 trades. The coaches who picked 'playing rookie' are now not so happy, and to add to their woes, 'playing rookie' gets dropped after a few mediocre games and becomes 'non-playing rookie'.

Why can't you go the other way and get Otten over a premium? He is a cheap prem anyway in the end (in this scenario) and this way you save more money, you get a trade, and you can then easily take your rookie to a prem and have your cheap prem instead of just the cheap prem and starting prem >> less cash= more double trades and eventually more trades made.

Spot on in my opinion.

[Hondo71]

I think saying that cash in the bank saves trades is the wrong way to look at it.

To spend the money you need to use a trade.  If you had just spent the money before round 1 you wouldn't need to use the trade.  $500K in the bank commits you to at least 2 trades to spend it before you even start.  And that will just catch you up to the people who spent all their cap to start.  So you've matched their team but you are 2 trades down.

Also, you don't win by having the highest value team.  It's all about the points and I reckon for every $100K you leave in your bank you are letting 20 points go.

Note, this is all based around a ranking goal.  For a league strategy maybe you leave more money in the bank but remember this year league games start from round 1 so the better on field team will get a head start on those with the better bank account.

[Prospector_1]

I think saying that cash in the bank saves trades is the wrong way to look at it.

To spend the money you need to use a trade.  If you had just spent the money before round 1 you wouldn't need to use the trade.

Why not just get the better player right off?  I think the more keepers you can get into your starting team the better off you'll be and the less trades you'll need in the long run.

Also, you don't win by having the highest value team.  It's all about the points and I reckon for every $100K you leave in your bank you are letting 20 points go.

Note, this is all based around a ranking goal.  For a league strategy maybe you leave more money in the bank but remember this year league games start from round 1 so the better on field team will get a head start on those with the better bank account.

Cannot disagree with that!

[hawk_88]

I think saying that cash in the bank saves trades is the wrong way to look at it.

To spend the money you need to use a trade.  If you had just spent the money before round 1 you wouldn't need to use the trade.  $500K in the bank commits you to at least 2 trades to spend it before you even start.  And that will just catch you up to the people who spent all their cap to start.  So you've matched their team but you are 2 trades down.

I see where you are coming from but you haven't accounted for changes in value. You are committing to trades from the get go anyway. The entire purpose of the cash cow is to spend 100K and end up with a premium in its place.

Lets look at the midfield:

You could play 2/1/5 which using round numbers to keep the math neat is: 2 x 500K + 300K + 5 x 100K = 1.8 million.

Or on the other hand you could play 3/2/3 which is 3 x 500K + 2 x 300K + 3 x 100K = 2.4 million

So 600K difference.

8 rounds into the season later your most of the rookies have made 200K (which is fairly conservative). Lets assume that 2 of the first rookies and 1 of the second set of rookies have made little to no money.

The first team has 600K in the bank, so it can upgrade all 3 rookies with 200K onto their price which is now 300K so you end up with 5/1/2 and 3 trades burnt.

The second team has two rookies at 300K as well, but no money in the bank so both need to be trades, one downgraded to a rookie yet to play (but hopefully will play soon) so the player gains 200K which is can use to upgrade the remaining rookies to a premium. Leaves the player with a 4/2/2 and 2 trades burnt but only 1 upgrade which still leaves the second team behind the first team.

I know I rambled a bit, but you can see the scenario from where I am coming. That being said the simplified maths probably favours the second team a little as well, the money in the bank would probably be higher than 600K with those structures.

Also, you don't win by having the highest value team.  It's all about the points and I reckon for every $100K you leave in your bank you are letting 20 points go.

20 points is fairly substantial and valid if the price is based off past performance of a player - a player at 500K would average 100 points. However you have a series of rookies who haven't played a game so apart form those picked early in the draft, they are 87K each. Even if they only average 50, you are looking at about 12 points per 100K.

However that is nit picking. Your point is very valid. Highest value doesn't win and you can and given the law of averages will probably initially have a lower score. The idea is that early sacrifice yields those lost points and then some when the season is view cumulative.

Note, this is all based around a ranking goal.  For a league strategy maybe you leave more money in the bank but remember this year league games start from round 1 so the better on field team will get a head start on those with the better bank account.

Yes, again very true. This is much more of a league strategy but can still be a good overall strategy but it does carry more risk.

The league season beginning round 1 was the main reason I posted this discussion in the first place as it does present more risk than in previous years. I think the risk is reduced a bit by the 3 consecutive non league rounds from round 4 - 6 which is still clearly in the initial cash cow period.

The strength of preserving trades and peaking later in the season in league is the major advantage as you can make the finals yet so easily fall apart if you have no trades.

[Prospector_1]

20 points is fairly substantial and valid if the price is based off past performance of a player - a player at 500K would average 100 points. However you have a series of rookies who haven't played a game so apart form those picked early in the draft, they are 87K each. Even if they only average 50, you are looking at about 12 points per 100K.

Those points are every week, for the 8 weeks you speak of. That can be very significant in overall ranking.

[Knowall]

i generally have between 30-100k to start with in the bank

[hawk_88]

Those points are every week, for the 8 weeks you speak of. That can be very significant in overall ranking.

Without a doubt. It carries a lot of risk as a strategy for overall. You have to pick good rookies and hope that you can pick up some premiums who had a slow start for the year.

I play for league so the same risk isn't there however it doesn't mean that it won't work for overall. You just have to back the talent of the rookies you select. I scored over 2200 for the first 3 rounds last year with 900K in the bank so it can work early for overall with the right team.

The fact that I was soon crippled by injuries didn't help me, but the extra trades I had help me recover to win one league and drop out in the prelims in the other.