2016 NRL.com Fantasy pre-thread

Big Kev wrote:Think Sue won't get a whole lot more than the 50 odd mins(?) he was getting last year, and by the sounds of what's being bandied round the place he'll be likely starting up front. That being the case he'd be subbing out before woods.

Could've seen Seumanufagai getting a big bump in minutes, but the signing of Grant has all but extinguished that line of thinking

Respect for taking the path less travelled and not writing Ava!

Last years most expensive

Farah - $588k
Cam Smith - $582k
Gallen $554k
Fifita - $535k
McCullough - $523k
Fensom - $519k
Hunt - $511k
SJ - $485k
Parker - $484k
Thurston - $484k

Makes me wonder if farah might be worth taking a punt on with ballin out for the start of the year.

Milchcow wrote:
Lone Scout has said on twitter that the cap will be going up to $6.8million.

if that is true and prices are correct it will be easier to stack a team than last year.

Making the game easier at the start is never a good thing imo. If they are going to do that they should make the game harder in some other facet, ie a few less trades.

Scouter wrote:

Making the game easier at the start is never a good thing imo. If they are going to do that they should make the game harder in some other facet, ie a few less trades.

Why?

Disruptive Trolling wrote:

Why?

2014 had an increased cap and it wasn't as much fun. Everybody had stacked/similar teams from the start.

I remember when everyone started with surgess and fulton plus some other players i cant remember it sucked. When you can start with 2 season keepers for less then 135k each if sucks.

Scouter wrote:

2014 had an increased cap and it wasn't as much fun. Everybody had stacked/similar teams from the start.

It makes it less fun having one extra gun in your side.

Interesting.

Disruptive Trolling wrote:

It makes it less fun having one extra gun in your side.

Interesting.

I like the challenge of a tougher cap. It seems to spread the field.

Disruptive Trolling wrote:

It makes it less fun having one extra gun in your side.

Interesting.

The way i look at it instead of 1 extra gun, its the prospect of turning a handful of risky mid range/awkwardly priced options into guaranteed solid scorers or fringe guns. The extra cap means your risk is decreased..

Krump wrote:
I like the challenge of a tougher cap. It seems to spread the field.

Really?

I like it when you have to start delving into the numbers of elite players. There seems to always be the same mid price players names going around the Internet most years.

Milchcow wrote:
Cap was $6.5m last year

Cap has gone up about 4.6%
Prices have only risen 1.1%

How'd you get that the Player prices have only gone up 1.1% - I had the magic number at 8640 at the START of the year last year, now is 8940 = 3.5% increase so will not be much different to last year?

in one sense it doesn't matter what the cap is because its the same for everyone so teams start off equal

If the salary cap is too high then it becomes less about finding undervalued players and just picking the guys who score the highest.
Taken to the extreme if there was no salary cap, then everyone would have pretty much the same team and it would just come down to luck with injuries and captain choice.

Floor Pie wrote:

Milchcow wrote:
Cap was $6.5m last year

Cap has gone up about 4.6%
Prices have only risen 1.1%

How'd you get that the Player prices have only gone up 1.1% - I had the magic number at 8640 at the START of the year last year, now is 8940 = 3.5% increase so will not be much different to last year?

Who were you on Sportal mate?

Floor Pie wrote:

How'd you get that the Player prices have only gone up 1.1% - I had the magic number at 8640 at the START of the year last year, now is 8940 = 3.5% increase so will not be much different to last year?

Was 8835 to start last year

Looks like 8940 to start this year

Disruptive Trolling wrote:

Really?

I like it when you have to start delving into the numbers of elite players. There seems to always be the same mid price players names going around the Internet most years.

The similarity of teams to start the year is always overstated.

There is a certain pool of players that most people will restrict their team selections from but this is large enough to allow for team variety.

But it doesn't matter what the cap is (unless its effectively unlimited), everyone is going to have Hastings and Taylor to start the year. That has got nothing to do with how big the cap/magic number is, but just how the pricing system works for guys who spent last year injured/on the bench.

Its not inconceivable that across the NRL there might be 10-15 players with guaranteed first team positions who would be priced at or near bottom dollar, in which case it won't be a generous salary cap that causes everyone to have the same team.
Imagine palying fantasy in 1995 when they suddeely whacked in 4 new teams. The amount of rookies suddenly given first grade spots would have made almost any cap basically irrelevant

Aww yeah. Almost feels like Christmas has come again.

One possibility for pricing is that they might have raised the rookie price up to $150k+ to go with the increased cap.

Just have to wait a couple of weeks or so to find out. Maybe Lone Scout will drip feed us a bit of info soon if we are lucky.
They did something similar last year releasing prices 1 team at a time in the weeks leading up just to get the keen players salivating (and generating website clicks)

Milchcow wrote:
One possibility for pricing is that they might have raised the rookie price up to $150k+ to go with the increased cap.

Just have to wait a couple of weeks or so to find out. Maybe Lone Scout will drip feed us a bit of info soon if we are lucky.
They did something similar last year releasing prices 1 team at  a time in the weeks leading up just to get the keen players salivating (and generating website clicks)

Yeah sorry Milch - lost most of my spreadsheets from last year and was using a real early 2015 spready - right you are.

I'd say rookies will be more like $130k based on last year.

I'm with you but, I'd rather the magic number be something like 10,000, it would make the final 17 have a lot more POD's.

[quote="Floor Pie"]

Either that or they'd all have the same cheapies