Posted by MikeT23 on 9/1/2015 7:07:00 AM (view original):
Didn't the Astros fail to sign the #1 overall pick a few seasons ago?

Yes.  Brady Aiken.

So there goes the whole "It's not like MLB because all MLB first rounder sign" argument.

FWIW, if a player isn't willing to sign for slot, he should be head and shoulders better than the next guy.   Just using simple numbers:

85 S
84 S
84 S
83 S
81 S
88 Other demands
80 S

Maybe you think 88 is H&S better than 84 but you get the point.   You can't miss in the first round unless you're comfortabe waiting another season to get the BL help you need.

The Astros also offered $6.5 million when his slot value was $7.9 million, and then discovered Brady Aiken was injured so discontinued negotiations. There was a lot of additional context in that situation. Aiken then failed a physical because he need Tommy John. It's also the only time in over 30 years an MLB has not signed the #1 overall pick. Aiken was redrafted by the Indians and still has not yet thrown a professional pitch.

Also, at no point, did the Astros actually meet the demand of the kid, the slot, or the agent. If you're going to use an example to prove a point, that is a terrible example to use because it doesn't apply to the point I'm making, because the Astros weren't doing the things that we do in this game.

I may know nothing about this game (I don't), but I do follow baseball pretty religiously (I am the worlds youngest dinosaur).

My complaint isn't that I'm trying to sign unsignable players and they aren't signing, my complaint is I am trying to sign completely signable players (per the player and his demands) and they aren't signing. If they aren't "signable", why have their signability and demands, because it's false advertising.

Has the player not signed yet?   OK.   Is your season over?   No.   So are you sure "they aren't signing"?    No.

The game gives you all the information you need.    Will sign for slot money.   Considering college.    May go into a finger painting career.   You ignored it.  

Have you ever thought that some MLB teams KNOW a player might not sign and just don't draft him in the first round?  I bet they do.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2015/7/17/8996381/unsigned-mlb-draft-picks-first-20-rounds-2015

98% in the first ten rounds.   #35 overall.   Not everyone signs.   I don't really care why but they don't.

My first rounder in Cooperstown:  Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Clarence Lucroy

May sign if the deal is right. Has been offered several scholarships to play college baseball at a DI school.

Draft was 8/15.   He didn't sign until 8/21.   No increase in demands, he just waited 17-18 cycles.

Jason Esposito was drafted by the Royals in the 7th round in 2008. He fell that far because of his demands, this was back before the slotting system. The Royals found out his demands, and took him there because they were willing to meet his demands. He changed his mind, and decided he wanted to go to Vanderbilt.

Those players exist in HBD, but a cost of $2M in HBD terms is nothing because talent is way more projectable than in real life. So they don't fall/go undrafted.

Most guys in HBD will sign eventually for what they are asking. You just need to wait.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that, when you see something "different", ask yourself "Why?" before you do something.    "Willing to sign for slot money" seems like a very good indication that he will, indeed, sign for slot money.    "May sign if the deal is right" leads one to believe he'll ask for more money.   "Considering a D1 scholarship offer" should make one believe that he'll bypass the pro contract and attend college.    These are hints.    You ignored the hint and complained that the system was broken.    That's annoying.

Mike - my beef is "Looking to be drafted in the First Round". I drafted him 10th. 10th is in the first round. It was not ignored. As a matter of fact, I did exactly what the prospect indicated. I offered the amount he demanded. Please explain to me error.

Not to mention, as we discussed, while may not be 100%, it is certainly over 90% that First Round picks sign in MLB. I challenge anyone to find more than 3 prospects per year...wait, how about 3 prospects IN ANY year that were drafted in the first round and didn't sign. Further, EVERY EXAMPLE MENTIONED, articulates a situation where a team did not meet the financial demands requested. I'm sure if you search long enough, you can find AN example which is different. But that level of research makes my point, it rarely if ever happens, and that's what makes the circumstances notables But that is neither here nor there, realistic or not, I recognize it is a video game that is supposed to simulate reality, but doesn't.

So, please explain to me the problem. I'm not mad the my 2nd round pick in Aaron didn't sign because he also indicated he wanted to be drafted in the First Round. I didn't, thus I'm not upset.

So before calling people annoying, how about addressing the actual context of the question being asked prior to pontificating. No disrespect intended, simply saying you're trying to say I did something wrong. Please indicate where my failure was other than reading the exact syntax the game projected an doing the exact thing the syntax projected EXACTLY.

The signability issues can be broken down into 3 groups: signable, questionable and doubtful. A "Very Conservative" approach will draft only players that are openly signable. A "Conservative" approach will allow up to 1 questionable selection. A "Balanced" approach will allow up to 1 doubtful selection and up to 2 questionable selections. An "Aggressive" approach will allow up to 2 doubtful selections and unlimited questionable selections. A "very aggressive" approach will not impose any limits.

Are these the same?
Looking to sign. Will sign for slot money.

Probably won't sign. He's determined to finish out his college career.

Undecided. He is also being scouted to play professional basketball.

May sign if the deal is right. If not, he'll head back to college for his senior season.

Looking to be drafted in the first round. If not, he'll probably head back to college for his senior season.


Assuming you say "no", which one do you think will DEFINITELY sign?   Do you think there is ANY risk with the other five?

Well, I should say "other four" because I left one off. 

At the end of the day, I think your guy signs.   You just can't wait to explain how broken the system is because you don't fully uinderstand it.

Hee hee. This happens sometimes when you try to "simulate" "real life."

Game: "Johnny might go to college instead. He's gonna think about this for awhile and we'll get back to you."
Owner: "OK, real life."

Suppose they just told us straight up:
Game: "Johnny's not gonna sign now, but in seven days you'll be allowed to sign him for an extra four million."
Owner: "The **** for?!?!?"
Game: "We're simulating a real life scenario."
Owner: "The **** FOR?!?! "

Well, there's that too.   That was the first attempt to prevent 1st rounders from being sure things.   The 2nd thing was injuries.  Now they've fuzzied up the ratings. 

But the point remains.   When there is something that looks different, find out why.  Don't just plunge headfirst and then gripe about how broken the system is when it doesn't work for you.   New owners have a full week to ask "Hey, what do these things mean?" before the draft.

The only thing that the charts Mike's cited doesn't show is when any of the prospects signed. Do you think all of them signed instantly, the minute the contract was put in front of them? Or did maybe a few of them wait a few days, or even a week. Hell, even people who win the lottery sometimes wait awhile before they claim their checks. That's all that's happening here--a pick is just screwing around for a few days before he signs. Not a big deal.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/1/2015 7:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bbqjason on 8/31/2015 8:39:00 PM (view original):
Ignore the draft because this game is stupid and it should die.

You don't have to be fun when you look as good as I do.