Signing INTL prospects 101 Topic

opie100
Posts: 1673 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 68
Prospect
Maybe.  Maybe not.  I think it would be pretty sweet to see an 8th or 11th or whatever rounder start developing into a real ML stud.  But more to the topic, less guaranteed performance would make people think twice about spending $40MM on an IFA.
7/15/2010 9:47 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Yeah, it would also suck to have 5 consecutive drafts be complete failures.   How much fun would it be to know you have no future in your world?

7/15/2010 10:38 PM
opie100
Posts: 1673 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 68
Prospect
Decreasing the guarantee of top prospects while increasing the odds of a lower prospect being better shouldn't result in net worse drafts.  It should decrease willingness to overspend on non-slotted players (IFAs) while slightly increase interest in lower-tier IFAs.
7/15/2010 11:29 PM
Crump123
Posts: 361 (0)
Hall of Famer
238 132
Prospect
More luck = less skill = less fun.
Less luck = More skill = More fun.
7/16/2010 3:56 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by opie100 on 7/15/2010 11:30:00 PM (view original):
Decreasing the guarantee of top prospects while increasing the odds of a lower prospect being better shouldn't result in net worse drafts.  It should decrease willingness to overspend on non-slotted players (IFAs) while slightly increase interest in lower-tier IFAs.
Overall, no.  But if you're randomizing the results even a little bit, say 5 of the top 100 are busts and 5 of picks 300-400 turn out to be legit BL, there's no way to say one owner doesn't consistently get the busts.   So, if that's the case, and I don't know how you can say it's not possible, it's entirely possible for an owner to have 5 consecutive crap drafts and no future.    Fun?
7/16/2010 7:02 AM
opie100
Posts: 1673 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 68
Prospect
Sure it's possible, but with draft picks spread out among 32 teams, the odds are against that happening to a single team.  It should only disproportionately affect those who constantly bid super high for IFAs, likely driving prices down out of the stratosphere and closer to reality.
7/16/2010 8:02 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

So, since we agree it's possible, isn't it also possible that this randomness could lead to nomad owners?   Owners looking to hit it big in the late rounds and others saying "Damn.  Three straight top 10 picks and nothing.  Time to move on"?

Is that somehow good for HBD?

7/16/2010 8:13 AM
opie100
Posts: 1673 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 68
Prospect
It should increase interest in later rounds, which would also be more realistic.  I think realism increases enjoyment when you are successful.  Owning a string of $20MM+ IFAs on your team doesn't feel like an emulation of MLB to me.  IMHO, you shouldn't magically know if your player is an automatic boom or bust once a player hits your roster - it should take more time.  One way would be to eliminate some projections altogether for Veteran leagues, so that player evaluation involves current ratings and a combination of makeup/temperament, and perhaps a 6-star prospect system to suggest "classes" of prospects. 
7/16/2010 9:58 AM (edited)
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Would you agree that a lack of success causes some owners to seek greener pastures?  For every realism plus, there's a negative.  Owners want to be rewarded when they do something right.   If you just missed the playoffs, you're probably picking 16th-20th.  While you're not getting a stud, you should be getting a useful BL player.  If he's one of your "bust" picks, you just missed the playoffs AND your future is damaged.  Do that 3-4 seasons in a row and you've got a big pile of nothing.   That's not good for the game.   If for no other reason than you can just leave that team behind and find another one.   Nonetheless, you really didn't answer my questions.  I assume that's because the answers don't help your cause.

I've suggested, for about three years, that projected ratings be either letters(A-F) or single digit numbers(1-6).   It hasn't happened yet, I don't expect it will happen.  Even if it did, an A or 1 is still very good and a F or 6 is still the worst. 
7/16/2010 10:09 AM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/15/2010 4:03:00 PM (view original):
Checking all levels and jumping thru the necessary hoops to remove someone for failing to meet the LoA win requirements is more work than most commishes want to do.    I HATE checking minor league teams.    Mostly because I don't care if you want to let my leadoff guy get 33 AB in a three game set.  Good for me.
20 wins.
27 player minimum.

You could let AI run it and you'd get it. But try to do it after signing a ridiculous IFA.
7/16/2010 10:11 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
While I tend to agree, someone has to check it.  As a commish who spends an assload of time making sure things are on the up and up, I don't want to do that.   I don't care what you do in your minors as long as you have enough players active to sim the game.
7/16/2010 10:13 AM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Franchise rankings
League all
Status info

Lazy bastard. I do it in Happy Jack to call people out for fun.
7/16/2010 10:18 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'm well aware of how to do it.  I'm just not interested in actually doing it.
7/16/2010 11:42 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
◂ Prev 123456
Signing INTL prospects 101 Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.