Training Camp position players Topic

plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 200 602 203
Prospect
Who needs Tryout Camp position players when you can have 9 LF/1B/DH types in your lineup!
10/1/2009 12:00 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
My threads are no-troll zones.

plague, that's sort of my point. Owners will demand that tryout camp players need to have "acceptable" fielding ratings. Once that happens, the only reason to sign draftees would be if they could hit at the BL level. So those of us who draft/sign the 4/23/31/18/41 hitters who can field in the 14th round will stop. Why give him 60k in bonus money when you can go to the tryout camp and get a similar player?
10/1/2009 12:06 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
I think people are sort of missing Mike's point

not to speak for him, but I think his point isn't that, with TC PPs of even marginal quality, shortening the draft will make things "better," just that it would be something that *should* have no effect

he's saying that if you can get something much better than a 14th rounder from the TC pool, why bother with those rounds of the draft? ... obviously, having those extra rounds of the draft help the lazy and those that don't care about their minors ... Mike is just saying that he (and anybody who is paying attention) will quickly realize that the TC offers better talent than the late rounds of the draft and is also cheaper (no bonuses), and they won't bother to sign those guys drafted in the later rounds

I suppose the only "better" part about shortening the draft is that it will force the lazy and those that don't care about the minors to get the better quality TC players rather than draft 9 more LF/1B and have them play in the RL each season
10/1/2009 12:30 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
If anyone says "Oh, now I see", I'm going to be ******. That is my point. I feel like I've repeated it over and over again.

Except it doesn't have to be something "better" than a 14th round pick. Just equivalent. Why fork out 250k in bonus money when you don't have to? As evidenced by spudpicker's draft/signings, he's doing the same thing I do. Sign all the position players, leave the pitchers with no BL future alone. I assume he's filling out his pitching staffs with training camp pitchers(like I do).
10/1/2009 12:46 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
The only upside I see to Mike's suggestion is that it may save owners a couple of hundred thousand in prospect budget for not signing the round 11-25 guys.

The downside is that it makes the process of filling your rookie league rosters MUCH more cumbersome. Rather than making things better, it has potential to make things much worse.

As to green's point that it may force the "lazy and those that don't care about the minors" to get better players . . . I disagree. If you make the process much harder, the lazy will just get lazier. They'll go out and just sign the first 10-15 guys they find in the pool. So rather than getting a distribution of round 11-25 guys on their rookie league roster, they could get a cluster of 25th round guys on their roster. And they still won't care.
10/1/2009 12:47 PM
ea162
Posts: 20 (0)
Hall of Famer
29 8 8 47
Prospect
green expressed the point so much better though
10/1/2009 12:47 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
An upside is the extra prospect money could be used to sign borderline IFA. As it stands, there are usually dozens of unsigned IFA at the end of each season(I bet CAPB doesn't sign them to lessen their player shortages). Signing those guys will help with minor league rosters.
10/1/2009 12:49 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 10/01/2009As to green's point that it may force the "lazy and those that don't care about the minors" to get better players . . . I disagree. If you make the process much harder, the lazy will just get lazier. They'll go out and just sign the first 10-15 guys they find in the pool. So rather than getting a distribution of round 11-25 guys on their rookie league roster, they could get a cluster of 25th round guys on their roster. And they still won't care
well, maye we all get lucky and a few of those 10-15 will own a glove ... I know the guys drafted in the late rounds won't
10/1/2009 12:53 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Do you REALLY think that the "upside" of borderline IFA's is worth the burden of the downside that I described.

Do you REALLY think that this will have an overall positive net effect on HBD?
10/1/2009 12:54 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
how about this as an "upside":

Mike has already noted the "correct" strategy with TC PPs is to sign them rather than late round draft picks ... and all the "smart" owners will do this ... and all the HAK owners will waste $250K on useless draft picks ... which is a structural disadvantage for the stupid (albeit a small one) ... so "forcing" the stupid to make the "correct" move helps the stupid not lose more ground
10/1/2009 12:58 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I don't see a downside to shortening the draft.

I don't really see a change in the overall game under my suggestion. I just think it would be EASIER for those who care about their minors to field minor league teams with "legit" fielders. Those who don't care about their minors aren't going to suddenly flood the minor league FA market with offers. They weren't signing their draftees, they aren't going to worry with FA.
10/1/2009 1:00 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 10/01/2009
how about this as an "upside":

Mike has already noted the "correct" strategy with TC PPs is to sign them rather than late round draft picks ... and all the "smart" owners will do this ... and all the HAK owners will waste $250K on useless draft picks ... which is a structural disadvantage for the stupid (albeit a small one) ... so "forcing" the stupid to make the "correct" move helps the stupid not lose more ground



Nothing here in this idea is "forcing" the stupid HAK owners to do anything.

If anything, it may cause a number of borderline HAK owners to fall below the HAK line because they don't want to deal with the burden of the new process.
10/1/2009 1:03 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
"Burden"? Going to the FA board instead of the draft board?

WOW! That does sound quite burdensome.
10/1/2009 1:06 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 10/01/2009

"Burden"? Going to the FA board instead of the draft board?

WOW! That does sound quite burdensome.

"Free agent signing period". Your idea.

Instead of going to the FA page and signing guys, now you're bidding against other owners for the same resources. Just like the regular FA period at the beginning of the season. Or coach hiring. The stakes are admittedly much lower, but it's still more of a process than just clicking a button and you've got your player. If you miss out on a guy, you've got to come back and look for somebody else. Perhaps multiple times. Just to fill your rookie league roster. Which can be done today in around 30 button clicks.
10/1/2009 1:26 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Do it once. You get the guy or you don't. If you don't, simmy will ensure that you fill your rookie league team from the available pool.
10/1/2009 1:31 PM
◂ Prev 1...9|10|11|12 Next ▸
Training Camp position players Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.