Posted by jtrinsey on 9/28/2010 2:12:00 PM (view original):
I think it really depends on the world. I think a3morey is going to screw himself over with that strategy in Happy Jack. He seems to have the ability to get to about 31M in prospect budget. This is good except for the fact that Pittsburgh and Salt Lake seem to have the ability to get to 30 and 32M respectively. That wouldn't be so bad, but Columbus, St. Louis, and Oklahoma City all appear to be able to go over 40M. There's 6 or 7 more teams with 20M in prospects who could conceivably get to 25M or so. This makes the odds of a3morey landing a stud IFA almost 0 as they would have to miss the three teams with much more prospect budget completely and beat Pitt and SLC in a crapshoot where they will all likely be offering about the same contract. Add the fact that the teams with 20ish in prospects will be vulturing the mid-tier prospects and it doesn't seem like the value is there in IFA.
I had a similar plan and budgeted 20M in prospects, but after seeing what everybody else budgeted, I used up the cap space I had to pick up 3 Type A's and trade for a 20M "albatross" of a guy that is still very productive, but just isn't worth the contract anymore. I think that was a better use of budget then trying to roll the dice and hope I can outbid the tankers.
On the other hand, in No Quitters (which I think is a bit more of a balanced league, with less turnover, and thus, less tanking, then Happy Jack), I employed that strategy and was able to get to 29M in prospects, which is 2nd-most in the league. I lost the bidding on the first stud IFA, but I'm pretty sure that nobody can outbid me, so as long as I'm able to see one more stud IFA (probably about a 50/50 shot) it will turn out to be a good strategy.
I think it's like poker: if everybody else at the table is chasing straight and flush draws, it pays to play tighter and more conservatively. If everybody else is really tight, you can play loose and bully people. Generally, doing the opposite of everybody else is fairly effective game theory.
I see your point as it relates to happy jack. however, I think happy jack is the exact type of world this strategy would work in (at least the procuring top international talent every year part). it has very low turnover (just a couple guys leave a year) so im not sure where you got that idea...and only 2 people had under 65 wins last year (so im not sure where you got the tanking idea from either)
and anyways, back to your point of a lot of people having money to spend. over the last 7 years in happy jack there has been exactly 1 international free agent go for over 25 million....yeah only ONE in SEVEN seasons Now, that figure may very well change in the future depending on new owners, new strategies, etc etc but until more people are willing to drop big bucks on internationals im going to try this and then I will adjust my strategy as needed.
I know a lot of experienced owners feel it is not efficient use of your money to spend 15 on INT scouting and another 20-30 to bring in a top international....that may be why there is a lack of big signings in happy jack. I just feel the complete opposite.