Eliminate Prospect Budget - Page 10 - Hardball Dynasty

Posts: 323 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 81

Prospect

Don't know if this would work, but is there any merit to making the top draft picks less of a sure thing? Assuming proper scouting budgets and smart drafting, it seems like the reward for getting one of those first six picks is way too enticing. Where are the Luke Hochevars? For every real life Rays there are also the Royals and Pirates and Nationals who never gain any traction despite constantly drafting high. Why should it be different in HBD?

Also, where are the Albert Pujolses? Why aren't high scouting budgets rewarded by allowing us access to scouting reports for possible ML talent in rounds four and beyond? DITR just don't make enough impact. If you draft a guy with solid projected splits and a great work ethic (but little else to recommend him -- or great contact skills but little else, whatever), there should be more of a chance that they mature into productive players.

Maybe divide the scouting into regions, or make scouts one of the coaches we hire so that both scout ratings and budgeting affect the prospects we see.

I don't know, but it seems to me that both the current IFA system and the current draft system both encourage tanking. And, as has been mentioned, there is absolutely no penalty for tanking in terms of lost fan support, decreased revenue, etc (nor do I think there should be -- I like that we all start with $185 million). So maybe there should be some structural penalties, or at least landmines, that make tanking less attractive.

1/11/2010 11:02 PM

yanks21

Posts: 47 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 36 39 449

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By shobob on 1/11/2010Here's an idea floated on our world chat in Cobb by Yanks21: "Personally I think they should remove the transfer feature and up the CAP on prospect payroll to the $30M. But I think there are other ways to improve the IFA. They should set it up like the real IFA. Have all the IFA's come out around the All-star break, have a real life 7 day bidding period and then have an IFA sign date (like July 2nd in real life). Rather then get feed back on whether or not your bid is good enough you don't hear anything, you make your bid and that's it. It opens it up for owners to try and figure out do they go all in on 1 IFA, do they bid on 2? Etc. And IFA budget is still relevant as the amount you spent limits who you see and how good the ratings are. I think that would be more fun, IMO."

What do you all think of that? I like it

To kind of piggy back on this. My thought process is simple, the biggest benefit to tanking is the ability to get a high draft pick but also dominate the IFA market. You'll never fix it completely, but we can make the IFA more competitive.

The reason I think the above idea would work is that the market will be flooded with IFA's. First you may have 5-7 legit big time IFA's. Now there may be only 4 teams with say the max cap (30M in this case), but if they all bid on the same 1 - 2 IFA's and it is a "blind" bid (meaining no feedback), then of the 7 big IFA's in this market only 2 go to the "big" spenders, opening up the opporunity for the other IFA's to go to other teams.

The way it is now, IFA are introduced into the market a little at a time. When the first big IFA comes out, basically he's a lock to go to the largest big spender, the next big one goes to the 2nd and so on and so forth (I know not all IFA's are visible, but it typically goes this way). There is no competition, or bidding strategy. It basically comes down to offerring the max you can and cornering the market.

By "flooding" the market all at once and creating it a blind bid, there is a chance those big spenders get shut out on a couple of them. Especially if they get greedy and try to sign more than 1.

It's not perfect but I think it would help.

1/11/2010 11:41 PM

greeny9

Posts: 1444 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 37 11

Prospect

I like where Tedwmoore was going with his thoughts on the DITR. I think that some major tweaking to that process could deflate the advantage of tanking. Say if every team got an amount of DITRs that is dependent on a few factors say coll and hs scouting, and win%. Those factors would affect the amount of DITRs you get, and how big of an improvement those DITRs would get too. And maybe win% should be more heavily weighted to discourage tanking the most. Or if it doesnt quite discourage tanking at least it allows the better ran teams to have more good surprises allowing them to stay competitive in the long run with the tankers.

1/11/2010 11:58 PM

tedwmoore

Posts: 323 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 81

Prospect

And maybe top coaches should almost never sign with clubs that have been in the crapper for several seasons, or at least they should demand a premium for slumming.

1/12/2010 12:38 AM

kemosabe11

Posts: 2 (0)

Hall of Famer

3 2 64

Prospect

I think the IFA's work pretty well now for the distribution of talent.I'm not saying that the process is perfect, but I'm not sure what the prospect cap is supposed to alleviate either. Is it tankers or people who run their teams on a low payroll or something else entirely?

The best surefire way to add an impact player will still be through early draft picks, will it not? If so then I fail to see the deterrent for true tankers.

Quote: Originally Posted By shobob on 1/11/2010

When you've got people dropping their IFA scouting to zero, because they know (correctly) that there is no use even trying to sign an IFA if they don't have at least $20 million to spare, it's not working properly IMO. I think it would be good to devise a system that would make it so that all owners feel that they have at least a shot at getting some talent out of the process, and also be able to afford to put some money towards ML FAs as well.

I like the money management aspect of the game. Anything that dillutes that is not good IMO. Acquiring talent in game is fairly fluid and is built upon how you decide to invest your budget season to season. I don't see how the aquisition of FA's and IFA's are mutually exclusive as it is. Your just more than likely not going to get the best each has to offer.

1/12/2010 5:50 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Jeez. We go thru this about 5 times a year.

Randomizing the draft(MORE FIRST ROUND BUSTS AND MORE 16TH ROUND STUDS!!!!) and player development(MO' BETTER DITRS!!!!) is NOT improving the game. We can't control a 51/58/65/73/58 hitter having a better season than a 62/78/83/81/84 hitter but we can control acquiring players. Randomizing who gets the better rated players is illogical and stupid.

1/12/2010 7:03 AM

aginor

Posts: 8807 (0)

Hall of Famer

291 1 604 260

Rookie

Yep the 'Randomizing" of the Draft... is pretty much the dumbest idea there is.....

As for the IFA thing, IMO the simple and basic solution....remove the ability to transfer $. Go back the way it was when HBD first came out, 20 mill max for all prospects. Now there is no benefit to having a low Major League Payroll.... Either that OR separate the Draft Budget & IFA Budgets but again remove the TRANSFER!! Once your $$ for IFA is gone it's gone. Separating it, actually makes sure a team has some money to sign their picks.

Transfering was originally put in to help owners correct mistakes or make little changes. It was not intended for this MASS transfer from the one to another. So if you don't eliminate the ability to transfer, at least limit it. Say a max of 4 mill (no penalty); this way an owner can deal with arbritrations etc or other mistakes. Take away the benefit of having a low payroll that simple...if you don't there will ALWAYS be owners who will tank.

By removing the 'budget' and letting an owner draw the money for an IFA from his regular payroll, doesn't stop a thing. Actually it would make it worse.

1/12/2010 7:33 AM

tedwmoore

Posts: 323 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 81

Prospect

Wow. I get what you are saying, and that makes sense. But you don't have to call me illogical and stupid.

And I don't think it is illogical. You might not like it because it makes the game more difficult, but there was at least some rational thought behind my post. I am new to HBD, and I admit that I haven't thought through all the potential consequences, but that it why I asked questions in my post instead of making assertions.

I understand that forum posters enjoy being mean, but I don't understand why people feel the need to go straight to the insults. We didn't even have an argument before you got in my face. So unnecessary.

1/12/2010 7:33 AM

tedwmoore

Posts: 323 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 81

Prospect

And there is already randomness in your draft. Health ratings and injuries have a large impact on whether draftees get close to their projections, so many will not use a high draft pick on someone with low health or low makeup ratings. So, what if more top draft selections had poor health ratings and/or poor makeup? Then you would be forced to choose between the absolute best prospects and the safest ones.

Right now, there just isn't enough chance built into the draft. I get why it would not be popular -- my god, can you imagine playing a game where you cannot be 95% certain that a guy will play in the bigs the day you draft him? -- but I think that making things more random would encourage more fair play. If you had a 25% chance that your second overall pick would be a failure in the bigs, then your motivation for tanking is reduced. I think there should be more risk associated with the top 5-10 picks in the draft (and, no, I don't know how to determine the top picks -- maybe those who are projected to be in the top 15% of players at their positions, by OVR).

Anyway, recommence with calling me stupid.

1/12/2010 7:57 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

A) I didn't call you illogical and stupid. I called the idea illogical and stupid.

B) It is illogical. It doesn't make the game more difficult. It makes the game random. If my pick, at 13th, becomes a complete turd and your 18th and 22nd round picks(you won the WS) become superstasr, nothing became more difficult for you. You were just given a gift. More difficult should work for everyone not just randomly bestow good fortune on a few while while destroying the "work" of others.

C) If you want to throw out ideas, think 'em out. And grow a thicker skin because it's entirely possible that they'll be shot down as illogical and stupid.

1/12/2010 7:58 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Uh, you control your pick. If you pick a guy with low health, durability and make-up, it's kind of on you if he gets hurt, can't play full-time or develops poorly. It's not random at all.

1/12/2010 7:59 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

I'd also recommend looking up the definition of "random". It doesn't mean "top 5 picks may not develop", it means "any pick may not develop".

Once it become apparent that 1 in 4(or whatever percentage you choose) will never become a BL player, ranking players becomes much, much less important. Then the draft becomes less important. When the draft becomes less important, you do other things with Coll/HS scouting.

1/12/2010 8:14 AM

njohnson78

Posts: 295 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 1 21 34 249 2 11

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By tedwmoore on 1/12/2010

If you had a 25% chance that your second overall pick would be a failure in the bigs, then your motivation for tanking is reduced. I think there should be more risk associated with the top 5-10 picks in the draft (and, no, I don't know how to determine the top picks -- maybe those who are projected to be in the top 15% of players at their positions, by OVR).

I'm in a world where last season, the worst team (first overall pick) lost 100 games. The best team won 101 games. The difference between the 1st pick and the 10th pick is 7 games. The difference between the 10th and 20th picks is 14 games. And then there's a gap of 18 games between the 20th and final picks of the first round.

Having a top 10 pick is not a product of tanking, but of getting your butt kicked by better owners in some games, and getting unlucky in others. A couple of games here and there, and instead of the 10th pick, you have the 20th. Everyone puts 100% pitchers on the mound, and position players in the correct spots. I have the 5th overall pick. If the player I select in that slot is brought up through the ranks properly, and never gets injured, but "randomly" doesn't progress the way he's supposed to.....

Your problem is that you are assuming every world has a tanking problem, and that WIS needs to do something about it.

1/12/2010 9:07 AM

schedule1

Posts: 83 (0)

Hall of Famer

109 1 96

Prospect

Quote: Originally posted by cjlancaster on 1/11/2010Preventing tanking in your World1) Be a private world.You have no authority in a public world. If you arr playing there for anything more than experience to work your way into a private world, you get what you get.

cj, i expect this throw-away from some people, but not from you.

plenty of public worlds have a great core of long-term owners. those owners care about the integrity of their leagues, too.

i've played the vast majority of my seasons in private leagues (including 6 seasons as a commish), and i understand the need to keep things under control. i also hear the concern that correcting "problems" may impact leagues that don't have those problems. but owners should be accountable for their behavior within public leagues, and the game engine and rules shouldn't ignore them. owners in those leagues have just as much a right to fair play as owners in private leagues do.

1/12/2010 9:22 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Well, he may have been a bit "harsh" but what he says it pretty much true. You know, coming in, that public worlds are exactly that. You get what you get when new owners are required. You shouldn't necessarily be "punished" for it but, if they're trying out a "new strategy"(which might be tanking for 4 seasons to see how well it works), that definitely falls under the "you get what you get" category.

And, according to WifS rules of fair play, winning 41 games a season is fair.

1/12/2010 9:26 AM

Forums

Eliminate Prospect Budget Topic

Search Criteria