| 0 |
Subject: Questioning the existance of long term $$ trains
Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall
- [1832399] Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 12:26
Speaking specifically about the Ultimate game here.
The topic of many, maybe most of my posts in the basketball frum of late have been in regard to the idea that widely held players should be sold at the first sign of fallout, lest the owner will be left holding a money sieve. Here is something I posted in the Week 3 Trade thread earlier this morning (edited slightly):
Arenas is currently up $540k. Early in the season I believe trade priority between two players entering thin parts of their respective schedules should be based on which player is more widely owned. I'm currently holding Arenas, Troy Murphy and Jason Richardson, all Warriors. From a financial standpoint, Murphy and Richardson are not concerns for me to move any time soon since neither of them is widely held and thus pose no threat to my franchise value.
I've come to the conclusion that when choosing a player to move into for the purpose of financial gain (be it someone you expect to begin to make money or someone who has already started gaining), looking for a schedule that stays heavy for a long period of time is largely pointless. The number of consecutive 4 game trade weeks is often irrelevant because after 7 to 10 days of heavy gains, it is apparent that there will usually be a selloff at the first consecutive days off, or at least at the start of the first 1-in-4. I posted the following into the Price Movers thread yesterday:
Surprised Kidd only gained 20k, but I think I find it encouraging. I picked him up today for his great short-term sched, but keeping in mind that if he does not get widely picked up, he can be held through his 3 games off starting 11/24. After that he's got a rare 4 in 5.
If Kidd had gone up $120k yesterday and gone on to become a big price gainer for the next few days, I'd have no choice but to move him the morning of the 24th or lose much of the money he made while on my roster (and any money he might have made before I picked him up).
Another thing to consider, which might make much of this somewhat less important than I initially assumed;
Is there a cap on the amount of cash a player can lose in a day? We know that Kwame was up $810 from his lowest price when he leveled off last weekend. He lost $120k yesterday and another $110k today. Given that a far greater ratio of the Ultimate managers this year seem to know what they are doing and thus should recognize who most of the widely held players are and know to sell them at first sign of major fallout, should we assume that Kwame will not fall much further than he has? If so, one could argue that holding him is a viable strategy, as you would still retain the majority of the profits he has yielded, assuming you got in early, and also conserve a trade you might not have wanted to make in the first place. My initial tendency is to assume that players like Brown will continue to drop, as this theory places too much faith in the masses.
I'm really interested in the insight of others on this. |
| 1 | FootWedge
ID: 31782819
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 12:37
|
I'm not sure exactly how it works, but I did have one of the early disasters in Palacio. I held him on one team watched gravity (I assume) pull him down $30K a day after his initial selloff. Even when he started a 4 in 5 he still dropped. Giricek also did the same thing. I'm guessing gravity kicks in as soon as the selloff stops.
|
| 2 | Hamid Toliyat
ID: 509533010
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 12:47
|
I think players sell off a little more gradually due to the masses who look at their teams every few days and realize they need to get out.
I expect Kwame to keep falling, there will be some people who burned all their trades early and will sell him next week.
Seems to me almost every Wednesday there is a guy heavily sold that makes me wonder who the heck still had him.
Also, the trades are on some type of exponential scale, so the most a player can lose is capped.
|
| 3 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 12:55
|
I'd tend to agree. So, the main point of this is that when choosing between two players that you expect might be the next cash trains, it seems silly to take one for his 4-4-4 over another who might have a 4-4-3. With regard to these widely held (or soon to be widely held) players, I believe the greatest factor in figuring out when they will be sold off is probably the first thinning of the the schedule after a week or so removed from their initial big gains, even if that thin spot comes in the middle of what is an overall strong sched.
|
| 4 | KnicksFan
Donor
ID: 3974252
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 13:10
|
Another variable to factor in is how the player is producing. For example, Dallas players are expected to drop soon with their 3 in 9 beginning on 11/17 (followed by a strong schedule). Today Nowitzki began his drop while Shawn Bradley continued to be a top gainer. Over the past two weeks, Nowitzki has been disappointing and Bradley has been phenominal (with a couple bad ones mixed in). Shawn Bradley has gained over 600K so far, but if in his next two games he gets over 30, I don't expect him to take a bad price hit.
Kwame Brown is an example of the opposite. He was playing poorly, so even a 3 in 4 coming up could not prevent his losses.
Even though Arenas is playing really well, he probably won't be able to sustain his price because his schedule doesn't pick up in the foreseeable future.
So I guess what I am trying to say is that a thin schedule does not matter as much for a big gainer if he is playing well and if his schedule rebounds soon after the weak part.
|
| 5 | Jazz Dreamers
Sustainer
ID: 429533017
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 14:44
|
I think a key part of the game is to distinguish between mass selloffs that make sense and mass selloffs that are done primarily by managers afraid of losing their cash gains on a player (with no other rational reason for dumping the player).
If Arenas had a good schedule coming up after a short lull in his schedule, the only reason managers would be selling him would be to protect their cash gains. And they would save some money, but they would either lose out later on Arenas points or have to use a second trade to get back into him. In that case, holding Arenas through the lull would probably be a better strategy than that of the managers who dumped him to save their cash. You would get your money back once his schedule picks up again and his points, while saving trades for other roster spots.
On the other hand, the actual Arenas selling seems to be a case of his schedule turning real sour, so that you can better points *and* save money by going elsewhere. Inevitably, some managers have moves that work better if they sell him a few days before his schedule turns awful. That's how bleeding results, and the question for other managers is whether they should sell Arenas sooner to avoid losing the "bleeding" gains. My opinion is that sometimes that's the right move, but if you find you're trading 50 points away to save $100K that you will be in danger of trailing by so many points that your RV may not be much help later on. After all, if you use your trade to save $100K on another player without losing 50 points, that's a much better trade than saving $100K by giving up 50 points.
|
| 6 | Rand al'Thor
ID: 83231216
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 15:27
|
Great points. And while I appreciate why some managers may move Arenas early, to help with other moves and avoid the pain of 'bleeding', I think it's premature in Arenas' case. He's playing too well to dump early, imo, and it is best to max out his schedule as long as you can. Regardless of some minor profit loss. You could actually be moving into a guy who might slump or dnp for some reason. And then your really screwed. Ride the hot hand until you can't stand the burn. Plus, I don't think there will be a great early sell-off of Arenas anyway (given that people are actually still buying him and I would bet that most managers will have more pressing concerns and probably limited trades to deal with them).
|
| 7 | smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 17152614
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 18:03
|
Someone tell me how to use my trades on stud swaps instead of going on the cheapie merry-go-round. ;) I suck!
|
| 8 | rockfish
ID: 43105722
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 18:31
|
sw,you had the problem in baseball---you'll learn. :/
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|