Sorry, this just isn't working. Despite 18milliion in advance scouting and 18 million in HS Scouting, in my last draft each of my top two draft picks were at least 6 rating points lower than shown. The amount of variance between scouted and signed is often just ridiculous. It is impossible to make intelligent draft choices. And the variance never seems to be upward. I might as well just put all my money in player payroll and sign FA's because drafting has turned into a complete crap shoot. Getting tired of these changes that hurt the game and make it harder to field teams. I think HBD is going to end up losing more people then it brings in.

Projections don't mean a whole lot.    Once a player is done developing is when the complaints should fly.     We just had an owner pass on a IFA because his projected DUR was 12.   His current was 20(I think).    It goes both ways.  

I, for one, have had a good bit of luck at the end of round 1/supplemental rounds using 16m.

I havent played much since the update, having say 18m in HS and 0 in advanced.  That is now just saying that the HS is going to be fuzzier than it was in the past, the advance being 0 wont have any effect on the scouting until the player is signed correct?

Advance has nothing to do with what you see with unsigned players.   HS/Coll/IFA budgets show those projections. 

There was a demand for fuzzier scouting??? They wanted more false projections???

I've gotten some high 70's and a couple low 80's OVA players in the draft in later rounds (past 15) using $20M in scouting, and I've been slowly raising my Adv Scouting.  I think the higher scouting you see more, and have a deeper class than someone that doesn't.  It hasn't been uncommon that after a draft I'll have drafted a couple out of my Top 10, and a bunch from my Top 100 drafting in the middle of the pack.  Do they always stay the same rating wise?  No, but the majors are littered with picks like that.  A star in the making when drafted, but a turd in the toilet when they get to camp.  It's a crap shoot, makes it interesting.  Not supposed to be easy, it's supposed to be realistic.

Realistic? in real life you can get all sorts of info on upcoming players in the draft. GM's know who the best players are in college and HS. Here we have to rely solely on scouting. If I get the same crappy info as a GM who had half the scouting budget and paying for maximum scouting gets me bad info then what is the purpose of paying for the scouting?

What really hams my biscuits is that I just took over a new team. The team isn't terrible and has he 5th overall pick. Best I can do with a reset budget is 14HS 14COL. It's going to be a total crapshoot and there is nothing I can do about it.

Draft an unlikely to sign guy and get the 6th pick next year. 

That's a good idea. Thanks!

I don't like doing it because it delays winning another season but I did it in Mantle.    I just didn't see anyone I liked(I think I had 6th pick) so I drafted an unlikely to sign guy.   I liked my next season pick much better.

It's just tough with a low budget. Last season in Riley I saw a guy I really liked and picked him up 9th. He still has great stuff as a pitcher but going from a 22 durability to a 15 was a disaster. Moves the guy from a starter to either spot or a bullpen guy. Certian ratings are just to dangerous to play guesswork with.

Since I started playing this I saw many veteran owners advising that even 20 mil doesn't give you perfect projections. So I decided to play by never believing fully in projections anyway. The new system doesn't bug me so much, and I'm not even sure it changed as much as people think, perhaps we're just paying attention more because we can't compare to currents anymore.

The big danger zone I find is exactly what hockey1984 says... Pitchers with borderline DUR/STA. I've already seen many owners get burned on that in both the draft and IFA. But again, real life... Major league teams draft guys all the time thinking they'll be stud starters and they turn out to be middle relievers.