Posted by dcbove on 5/7/2015 6:56:00 PM (view original):
Not sure how it'll turn out, but with an ADV of 10 I would rather see good information in 50% of cases and nothing in the others as opposed to suspect information in 100% of the cases.  

I guess the RL analog would be that with ADV of 20 my good scouts can cover the whole country but with an ADV of 10 I can only afford to send good scouts to half the country.  In no case do I want to spend $10M on ADV to send crappy scouts to the entire country.

Posted by mchales_army on 5/7/2015 6:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcbove on 5/7/2015 6:46:00 PM (view original):
I only read the first few pages so forgive me if this is a duplicate.

Here's the scenario:

• Two teams, one with ADV of 0 and one with ADV of 20, are considering signing a 33 year old FA position player to a three-year deal.
• Each can only see the current and projected rankings for the current season (which, unless there is a change I"m missing, will be the same).

So, is it true that the team with good ADV has no advantage over the the other team with regards to whether the player has already begun declining?

---

TL;DR:  ADV only applies to projecting prospect development.  Everyone is equally in the dark about veteran decline.  Correct?

I think this is all correct.

I can't think of a scenario where this wouldn't be true pre or post update.

Posted by dcbove on 5/7/2015 6:56:00 PM (view original):
Not sure how it'll turn out, but with an ADV of 10 I would rather see good information in 50% of cases and nothing in the others as opposed to suspect information in 100% of the cases.  

I guess the RL analog would be that with ADV of 20 my good scouts can cover the whole country but with an ADV of 10 I can only afford to send good scouts to half the country.  In no case do I want to spend $10M on ADV to send crappy scouts to the entire country.

Posted by toddcommish on 5/7/2015 6:11:00 PM (view original):
Actually, this is going to result in a big blitz of people downloading entire rosters in every league before the change.  A smart commissioner would work a quid pro quo with commissioners in other leagues or have the rosters posted somewhere, so n00bs aren't at a total disadvantage entering a new league.

Posted by rwings1927 on 5/7/2015 6:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rwings1927 on 5/7/2015 6:03:00 PM (view original):
My feelings are if they're going to try and coerce you into putting more money into scouting then they should include fixing the injury issue's so we don't have to keep dumping 20M into training and medical and free up some budget space.

No one is forced to put $ into training or medical.   There are a lot of 0 medical owners out there.    Not so many 0 training because it affects development.

True but if they're making the $ put into scouting more indicative of a players numbers then the same should be done to medical, it's ridiculous to have a 90 health player get long term injuries in back to back seasons while a 20 health player can go years without a scratch.

Posted by dcbove on 5/7/2015 6:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchales_army on 5/7/2015 6:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcbove on 5/7/2015 6:46:00 PM (view original):
I only read the first few pages so forgive me if this is a duplicate.

Here's the scenario:

• Two teams, one with ADV of 0 and one with ADV of 20, are considering signing a 33 year old FA position player to a three-year deal.
• Each can only see the current and projected rankings for the current season (which, unless there is a change I"m missing, will be the same).

So, is it true that the team with good ADV has no advantage over the the other team with regards to whether the player has already begun declining?

---

TL;DR:  ADV only applies to projecting prospect development.  Everyone is equally in the dark about veteran decline.  Correct?

I think this is all correct.

I can't think of a scenario where this wouldn't be true pre or post update.

I was hoping (maybe?) that ADV would apply to helping view the decline of players as opposed to leaving everyone equally in the dark regarding potential decline.  (i.e., if you pay in ADV, you get the services of a scout that says:  Joey Ballplayer's bat speed is slower this year than last year).

Posted by jrnyfan01 on 5/7/2015 6:24:00 PM (view original):
Seems like 5 seasons to bring your ADV or INT/HS/COLL scouting from zero to 20. Without 20, who will trade with you? Players you have drafted/acquired prior to that number are suspect at best once the update is incorporated.
Then, 3.5 or 4 seasons to see those better projected draft picks progress through the minors and play for your ML team (if lucky because you still could draft someone crappy). At least 2 calendar years and $200+ to adjust to the new world order for each team owned. I think they might be overestimating my love of the game...

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 7:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rwings1927 on 5/7/2015 6:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rwings1927 on 5/7/2015 6:03:00 PM (view original):
My feelings are if they're going to try and coerce you into putting more money into scouting then they should include fixing the injury issue's so we don't have to keep dumping 20M into training and medical and free up some budget space.

No one is forced to put $ into training or medical.   There are a lot of 0 medical owners out there.    Not so many 0 training because it affects development.

True but if they're making the $ put into scouting more indicative of a players numbers then the same should be done to medical, it's ridiculous to have a 90 health player get long term injuries in back to back seasons while a 20 health player can go years without a scratch.

But that's how life works.  Jason Kendall was one of the most durable C in baseball until he broke his leg running to first.

Posted by mchales_army on 5/7/2015 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcbove on 5/7/2015 6:56:00 PM (view original):
Not sure how it'll turn out, but with an ADV of 10 I would rather see good information in 50% of cases and nothing in the others as opposed to suspect information in 100% of the cases.  

I guess the RL analog would be that with ADV of 20 my good scouts can cover the whole country but with an ADV of 10 I can only afford to send good scouts to half the country.  In no case do I want to spend $10M on ADV to send crappy scouts to the entire country.

And truth be told that was the real reason I went to 0 ADV. 
There was no reason for it. I had tried 20 and the projections weren't really all that accurate IMO. 
I could run a formula and get just as close and sometimes closer.

In your scenario, how would you know which half of your projections were valid?

Posted by mchales_army on 5/7/2015 7:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcbove on 5/7/2015 6:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchales_army on 5/7/2015 6:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcbove on 5/7/2015 6:46:00 PM (view original):
I only read the first few pages so forgive me if this is a duplicate.

Here's the scenario:

• Two teams, one with ADV of 0 and one with ADV of 20, are considering signing a 33 year old FA position player to a three-year deal.
• Each can only see the current and projected rankings for the current season (which, unless there is a change I"m missing, will be the same).

So, is it true that the team with good ADV has no advantage over the the other team with regards to whether the player has already begun declining?

---

TL;DR:  ADV only applies to projecting prospect development.  Everyone is equally in the dark about veteran decline.  Correct?

I think this is all correct.

I can't think of a scenario where this wouldn't be true pre or post update.

I was hoping (maybe?) that ADV would apply to helping view the decline of players as opposed to leaving everyone equally in the dark regarding potential decline.  (i.e., if you pay in ADV, you get the services of a scout that says:  Joey Ballplayer's bat speed is slower this year than last year).

Everyone declines. It's just a question of how fast from season to season. In real life you don't know this about any player and I think that's fair. In fact with a high MU and a high training budget you can do better than real life in that regard.

Posted by arcticlegend on 5/7/2015 7:10:00 PM (view original):
Here are my predictions about what effect this will have (with the obvious caveat that we don't know exactly how the changes will work yet):

1. IFA budgets will decrease. We'll see a lot fewer people spending $20 million on payroll and $40 million on prospects, since IFAs will be riskier and money will be tighter.

2. Free agency will be more competitive, but the number of huge contracts won't necessarily increase. First because without player history, it will be risky to sign a possibly declining player. Second, because some people will be incentivized to spend more on adv and less on payroll.

3. A slight decrease in tanking. There's less incentive to tank for the #1 pick if the guy might be a bust.


Honestly, I think all three would be good for the game.

Posted by hockey1984 on 5/7/2015 7:19:00 PM (view original):
So here is my thought then. My budget will be 20 million High school, 0 college. 10 for IFA and wait for others to outbid me. Roll the dice in every draft.