| 0 |
Subject: Would you rather have trades or roster value?
Posted by: Richard
- Leader [5410352713] Sat, Jan 18, 2003, 11:59
At this stage of the season, I usually make the swap from concentrating on growing roster value to thinking about points first. I find myself near the top of the of the very competitive Eat, Sleep, Drink NHL Division. I'm a mere 130 points out of first but the manager currently in first has 18 trades while I just have 1 trade. Conversely, I'm working with a total roster value of $68,200K while he is working with only $58,010K.
Any thoughts on who might have the advantage? Another way to put it would you like to have a 10 million dollar roster value advantage over a competitor or have the advantage of 18 more trades to use. It's hard to have both but some outstanding managers look to be doing a better job of building roster value while conserving trades. What are trades worth at this time of the season? Would you give up 10 million in roster value for 18 trades?
Richard |
| 1 | smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 17152614
Sat, Jan 18, 2003, 12:16
|
Personally, I'd take the roster value. Out of the 3 major smallworld games, hockey trades probably have the lowest probability of being successful, IMHO. I think even more so than a pitcher trade in baseball.
It takes one huge game by the guy you traded...or a string of a couple pointless nights by a new player to get you furious.
I think it's just a crapshoot, and you've got a better shot at more points if you can throw out a Naslund in a slot where another guy can only afford a Stillman.
I'm pretty new to the hockey format, and trade hoarding seems to work in the other sports...but it seems like a real tough call to tell when a goalie is going to get a SO, or when an offensive player is going to go off.
That Gothenberg Crusaders team is amazing though with those trades.
smallwhirled
|
| 2 | Puckprophet
ID: 1210541114
Sat, Jan 18, 2003, 13:10
|
gimme the trades...
|
| 3 | Will the Thrill
ID: 580491810
Sat, Jan 18, 2003, 14:01
|
I would say the same as the Prophet. Now is the time to worry about points not value of roster. Those 18 trades are invaluable to use on improving games played by using the scedule to you're advantage. There are still good enough players out there under 5 mil to allow a couple studs on W,C,D, AND G.
|
| 4 | bookie
ID: 26051814
Sat, Jan 18, 2003, 15:07
|
18 trades is a lot, but so is the 10 million roster value difference.... Personally I'd prefer the money
|
| 5 | simbot
ID: 1597246
Sat, Jan 18, 2003, 16:45
|
In past years I would say money, but it seems the higher-priced players are not performing as they should. Cheaper options like Smyth and Havlat are doing as well, if not better than Bertuzzi and Naslund, and recently there have been no dependable 7+ mill centers that have consistently put up the points. I'm hoping Modano and Thornton can change that for my team in the near future, as my team is stuggling big time with oints and can't seem to gain any ground on teams that have roster values as much as 12 million less than mine.
|
| 6 | The Left Wings
ID: 1668298
Sat, Jan 18, 2003, 17:25
|
I think in the first half of the season, RV should be more important than trades. But in the second half of the season, which has just started, we should begin concentrating on points instead of money. Hopefully you've saved enough from the last 3.5 months...
|
| 7 | Rogue Nine
ID: 330561714
Sat, Jan 18, 2003, 20:12
|
I'd take the money. Simbot says that there are some good cheaper options at wing, like Havlat and Smyth, but for the year Naslund is outpointing both my a large margin. From now until the end of the season, I'd bet on a Naslund/Smyth combo beating a Havlat/Smyth combo by a good margin.
I also agree with Smallwhirled. Trades in hockey aren't nearly as effective as, say, pitcher trades in baseball. The 18 trade team can trade for schedules... but so can Richard. He's still getting 5 trades a week to use for just that purpose. Which means that the 18 trade team can just trade for schedule more, and imho, thats not enough to convince me to take Stillman over Naslund, and another position with 5 mil to spend on. (MacInnis and Gonchar instead of Redden and Hamrlik for example.)
So I'd take the money.
|
| 8 | Chestergreat
Sustainer
ID: 40104856
Sat, Jan 18, 2003, 20:42
|
Very good question. It's a close call, but I think I would go for the $10M RV. That's $10M you can use in your lineup every day for the next 40 games, that your opponent can't.
So you could, for example, have three $7M players on your team for 40 games as opposed to three $3.5M players. In the long run, I think that would be best.
|
| 9 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 09:55
|
Give me the money. If you have $10M less roster value, then you NEED the trades because you're going to be doing the "cheapie swap" more as cheapie players are almost always less consistent than the more expensive players. If you have $10M more roster value, you can hold more expensive players who might not be as efficient, but will produce a larger amount of points overall and will usually be more consistent, and avoid trying to find/ride the next hot cheapie that comes along. In the end, the winner is not the person who was more efficient, but the one with the most points. While the manager in 1st might end up being more efficient than you at the end of the season, it doesn't matter as long as you have more points than that person.
|
| 10 | El Niño
ID: 71135282
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 15:15
|
Think it’s my team you are referring to in this thread.
Normally I find it very easy get a high RV in both hockey and baseball games. Current hockey game is the exception. I simply can’t see the money this year. That’s why I decided to play for point right from the start. I also found this high RV strategy to be somewhat boring in later stages of the game. Since value is harder to get, there is a good chance (I’m afraid) that roster value will play a more important role this year.
Great job by you Richard and a few others in building roster value. For you it’s just a matter of investing in the right studs… I hope that I can also do some damage when starting the final hunt for points.
Keep up the good competition!
|
| 11 | walk
Leader
ID: 3411442716
Sun, Jan 19, 2003, 17:23
|
Show me the money, Richard! We think alike. The following reasons for the thinking:
- you can start banking trades later and use the all-star break as a starting point.
- it's easier to start banking trades later on in the season, but harder to build roster value later in the season.
- roster value affords one more flexibility in obtaining elite players when you need them to have a competitive advantage.
- building roster value is inherently more fun than banking trades.
:-)
walk
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|