Death, you spend $2m/$2m, and you draft guys in Rounds 1-8 who you think have projected OVRs of 80, but actually have projected OVRs of 68, and of those, maybe 1 or 2 will make the majors. If you had spent $20M/$20M, you'd have drafted guys who really had projected OVRs of 80, and 2 or 3 maybe make the majors. But you'd rather have 2 or 3 guys who top out at 77 (projected 80) vs. 1 or 2 who top out at 64 (proj. 68), right?

Mike, my idea does increase draft busts in Round 1. It also increases the chance of getting quality guys in Round 5-8. It seems like a reasonable trade-off. It also would make good owners want to rank a slew of guys, rather than just 25 or 50.

And some lucky owners may wind up with five or six major leaguers out of one draft. That might be a good reason to stay in a league, even if a past draft went poorly.

Early round busts with late round studs will present a problem.    How many times do I have to repeat it?

3 or 4 bad drafts due to the marvelous early round busts will leave teams with no future.   Owners of teams with no future can easily dump their futureless team and try somewhere else.   Not everyone is so attached to their team that they can't bear the thought of moving on.

The draft does not translate well to real life.  It just doesn't.

You must be missing my point, mike.

A team that spends the money on the draft will wind up with 6-8 guys with major-league potential, rather than the usual 1-3. It's possible that their 1st rounder will be a star, or their 5th rounder, or both, or neither. An owner who goes through three drafts might wind up, after those drafts, with nine true major league prospects, but only two of the nine might be from the first round.

The result: a) more randomness to the draft, b) the need for owners to rank more players, c) the potential for more trades of minor leaguers, and/or owners needing to pay attention to minor leaguers.

With regard to C, it would be possible that Team A drafts a guy who isn't panning out, trades him to Team B, and because Team B spends more on training or minor league coaching, the guy's ratings start to pick up more quickly. Maybe he doesn't become the stud Team A thought, but he isn't a bust either. Had he stayed in Team A's system, he would have wound up as a bust.

To me, the above scenarios are more realistic, and would make the game more interesting/fun.

The 12 teams that swing and miss are probably the ones spending $2M/$2M, and they were more likely to swing and miss on the 1st round under the current draft scenario.

It's also possible, under the best-case scenario, that a team that is rebuilding with $20M/$20M is going to wind up with 8 legit major-leaguers in one draft.

You're not telling me what I've misunderstood.   Or how a dozen teams not getting even a back-up BL player from the draft is somehow "fun".    I already know destroying a team's future by randomizing the draft isn't good for HBD but I'm just looking for the "fun" part.   Is the "fun" part when the world rolls and the commish says "Only need 8.   None of them have ANY prospects and the BL team is old but GET 'EM WHILE THEY'RE HOT!!!!"?

Quote post by MikeT23 on 7/20/2010 3:42:00 PM:

You're right.  I will keep repeating it as long as the next guy comes along and say "Yeah, but under my scenario......."   You know why?  Because their scenario is the same as the previous guy's scenario.   It's as if they didn't read the first part of the thread or they just don't understand that owners aren't going to stick around with an old team and no future because the "random" draft idea left them with crap. 

Seriously, I usually pick in the bottom half of the draft.   I'd love to get a top 5 talent with the 26th pick.  But, in order for me to do that, someone with a legitimately bad team or 20 owners with a worse record than me have to miss on that guy.    It's just not good for HBD if the strong teams stay strong and the weak teams flounder year in and year out.

It's just not good for HBD if the strong teams stay strong and the weak teams flounder year in and year out.

>>

You have to spend money on the draft. You have to take the time to rank a lot of players. I usually have $20M college/$10M HS and through the 6th round, I'm finding guys who have potential to be major leaguers.

The randomness thing doesn't change that. And I don't think you make policies thinking that the worst-case scenario is commonplace. I think you make policies to try to improve the quality and reality of the game.

You can spend all you want and still get nailed with randomness under your plan.  Or any random plan.  As you said, some guys will have very little ratings growth.  I'm assuming, if you want "random", that there is no way to tell, by looking at the ratings, which players these will be.  Because, if there is a way to tell, those guys don't get drafted early.   The players with the accelerated growth gene will get drafted high.   Random 8th round studs are out the window.

Right, which prospects have accelerated growth, vs. normal growth, vs. slow growth, would be random. And it could change if a minor leaguer is traded.

Consider this possibility, and answer this. If this were a typical draft, would owners get more excited about the draft?

1st round pick. SS/3B. Current (on draft day) 55/Projected 82. Two years after draft, he's at 61 OVR and looks like a bust. You trade him in a package, because while his glove hasn't developed, his bat might still be solid enough for the majors. With new team, he gets accelerated bump, and while he may never be a major-league SS or 3B, after third year he looks like he could handle COF with above-average bat.

supplemental 1st round pick. SP. Current (on draft day) 55/Projected 79. Two years after draft, has seen accelerated growth to 77 OVR. Projects to be in major-league rotation coming out of spring training in third pro season.

2rd round pick. RP. Current (on draft day) 49/Projected 74. Two years after draft, he's a bust. Hasn't grown much, and other teams don't want him via trade because he's way off his projected splits and pitch quality.

3th round pick. RP. Current (on draft day) 47/Projected 73. Two years after draft, growth is solid except vL. He looked like a possible CL or Setup A on draft day, but now he looks like a real nice RHS. Could be in majors sometime in third pro year.

4th round pick. SS. Current (on draft day) 49/Projected 73. Two years after draft, his D is solid, but his bat hasn't developed. Looks more like a 25th man/defensive replacement than an everyday player. Could eventually make majors, but could top out at AAA. 

5th round pick, RP. Current (on draft day) 51/Projected 68. Two years after draft, has seen accelerated growth to 64 OVR. Should be in majors as solid setup man in 3rd pro year.

6th round pick, 1B/LF. Current (on draft day) 44/Projected 71. Two years after draft, he's a bust. Never had much D, and bat hasn't developed much at all.

7th round pick, SP. Current (on draft day) 43/Projected 70. Two years after draft, has shown solid growth. At worst will be spot starter/long reliever, but probably would be good trade bait to a rebuilding team in need of a young #4/#5 SP. Should be in majors after 4th or 5th pro year.

8th round pick, RF. Current (on draft day) 48/Projected 68. Two years after draft, has shown solid growth. At worst, he's a very good 4th OF, but could be a starter on many teams. Should be in majors after 4th pro year.

Overall, 9 draft picks. Two accelerated growth, three growing as scheduled, one who is a borderline prospect and three busts.

But it's not just that the 1st rounder is a stud, the supplemental and 2nd rounders are ok major league prospects, and everyone else looks to be minor leaguers. To me, the above scenario would make for a better drafting experience. It would benefit owners who spend the money on scouting, who take the time to rank a lot of players, who put money into training and minor-league coaching, and who have some savvy with regard to trading minor leaguers -- either for other minor leaguers or in packages for major leaguers.

I already get pretty excited about the draft. Is there a widespread problem of owners not getting excited "enough" by the current setup? Is that what this suggestion is intended to fix?