Eliminate Prospect Budget - Page 29 - Hardball Dynasty

Posts: 18997 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 166 32 129

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 1/25/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 1/25/2010
The $30m cap is a good change. It would be better if it was $25m. It would be best if it was $20m.
The cap is a good change for the best teams, probably not for the worst teams.

A better change would have been to ratchet the quality of IFA's down a bit, and ratchet the quality of draftees up a corresponding bit, but I honestly believe that is beyond the capability of the programmers.

There is absolutely zero need to change the quality of IFAs or draft prospects. Zero.

1/25/2010 10:00 AM

jc44

Posts: 21 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 311 10 322

Prospect

Does it have to be the same team doing it every year for it to be a problem?

The cap will bring a set figure that an owner with the last pick knows in advance will give them a shot at the best IFA if they hold that back because they will have more money than teams ahead of them..

Not having a cap means there is a chance other teams will save more money so it might not work.

This cap insures that it will work for anybody who wants to do it.

Thats why i think it will cause a bigger problem down the road.

1/25/2010 10:02 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

It won't cause a bigger problem down the road with IFA. There will be less incentive to run a 15m payroll as you won't be able to transfer an additional 30m to prospects.

It will cause a bigger problem with the draft. Owners will be more likely to spend their money on IFA and be unable to sign picks.

None of this will stop tanking. But it will remove one tanking tool from the toolbox.

1/25/2010 10:07 AM

gjello10

Posts: 164 (0)

All Star

6 26

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/25/2010
gjello, you're not listening or understanding. I'll try one more time.

You have a high pick, say 7th. You don't see anyone you think is a difference-maker. The top 5 you see have warts of some kind. You punt this draft, get 8th pick plus your normal pick next season. And blow your wad on one IFA this season. Then you jack up your HS scouting next season and sign your two picks(or at least the compensation pick) and blow the rest on another high-priced IFA.

No, Mike. This is the part you're missing. In season 2 in this scenario, having signed your 2 high draft picks, with a prospect budget limit you now can't sign another high priced IFA. Or, to be more accurate, you can blow your wad on a single IFA if you want, regardless of his quality, but you won't get one of the top 6-7 IFAs because signing your 2 high #1s have you outside of the top 6-7 in available prospect cash. This is because there is a cap, and, having spent more on draft picks than other maxed-out teams, you now have less cash for IFAs, by definition. That means that, to me, the best strategy for getting 2 #1 picks signed and signing 2 All Star quality IFAs in a 2 year span is to draft and sign a "slot" guy both seasons and go after 1 IFA each year.

Now, punting 1 season's draft into the next season is still a viable option, provided you accept not getting a top IFA the next season. But this isn't going to upset the ballance of a World because it's a 1-season strategy, not a long-term strategy.

Which means, I think, that you will see some better values in signability issue type guys later in round one and into the sandwich round.

1/25/2010 10:07 AM

snake_p

Posts: 0 (0)

Hall of Famer

3 60 2

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 1/25/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 1/25/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 1/25/2010
The $30m cap is a good change. It would be better if it was $25m. It would be best if it was $20m.
The cap is a good change for the best teams, probably not for the worst teams.

A better change would have been to ratchet the quality of IFA's down a bit, and ratchet the quality of draftees up a corresponding bit, but I honestly believe that is beyond the capability of the programmers.

There is absolutely zero need to change the quality of IFAs or draft prospects. Zero.

Yeah, it would just benefit the game as a whole, good and poor teams equally. Better for the good teams to get this IFA cap instead, we understand.

1/25/2010 10:09 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Actually you can. Maybe you don't get the top guy but, if you budget 30m for prospects, you're going to have about 24m after signing your first 4 picks.

24m is a high priced IFA.

1/25/2010 10:09 AM

gjello10

Posts: 164 (0)

All Star

6 26

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By jc44 on 1/25/2010Does it have to be the same team doing it every year for it to be a problem?

The cap will bring a set figure that an owner with the last pick knows in advance will give them a shot at the best IFA if they hold that back because they will have more money than teams ahead of them..

Not having a cap means there is a chance other teams will save more money so it might not work.

This cap insures that it will work for anybody who wants to do it.

Thats why i think it will cause a bigger problem down the road

As it stands, I believe, record is only one tiebreaking factor. Ballpark and coaching also play in. Could be wrong though.

1/25/2010 10:09 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

And, again, I'm going to point out that not everyone chases IFA. And, of those who do, they don't see every IFA.

1/25/2010 10:10 AM

phillyfan009

Posts: 8 (0)

Rookie

1 2 5

Prospect

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 1/25/2010And, again, I'm going to point out that not everyone chases IFA. And, of those who do, they don't see every IFA.

Again excellent point MikeT23. I have 14 mil in international budget....and thus far, I have seen only 3 of 7 big signings that have occurred.

1/25/2010 10:12 AM

tecwrg

Posts: 18997 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 166 32 129

Prospect

I have a $100m+ payroll with one of my teams. It stands to get bigger next season when my two best players hit Arb-2. My IFA budget was the first thing to get scaled back when my payroll started to increase.

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, which a few select people conveniently continue to ignore, is that to perpetuate a good winning team, there is much more value per dollar spent in the draft as opposed to IFA.

The "rich" (i.e. successful, high payroll teams) are not going to get richer via a prospect cap as some are suggesting. It will be the low and mid-range payroll teams that will see the benefit. Rather than one or two bottom feeders sucking up all the high-end IFA talent, there will be more owners with an opportunity to compete for that talent. And with a cap in place, there's less of a chance that any one team will be getting more than one of the stud IFAs. That spreads the talent around the lower end. Which helps to build parity in the world.

1/25/2010 10:23 AM

gjello10

Posts: 164 (0)

All Star

6 26

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/25/2010
Actually you can. Maybe you don't get the top guy but, if you budget 30m for prospects, you're going to have about 24m after signing your first 4 picks.

24m is a high priced IFA.

In this scenario, the issue isn't really rolling picks into the next year, then. It's not signing the rest of your draft picks in an attempte to save $3 mil/year or so. THAT could be a very big problem. But it's not the issue I was talking about (over-slot draft guys).

But, assuming you are signing your picks or having them auto-signed for you, if you punted, say, your #1 and 2 picks ffrom the year before, and so had a pair of top-10 picks in both rounds, you'd end up spending $9-10 mil on your draft, leaving $20-21m for IFA. Now, under the current system, that's a lot. But I suspect that the cap will encourage more teams to put more resources into IFA, knowing that other teams are limited in their ability to compete for IFAs. More teams may be willing to engage in bidding wars as other teams' unused player payroll no longer acts as a deterring factor to their getting involved in the bidding.

At the end of the day, the cap will almost certainly cause teams who are heavily prioritizing IFAs to avoid going over-slot for draft picks.

1/25/2010 10:25 AM

gjello10

Posts: 164 (0)

All Star

6 26

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 1/25/2010
I have a $100m+ payroll with one of my teams. It stands to get bigger next season when my two best players hit Arb-2. My IFA budget was the first thing to get scaled back when my payroll started to increase.

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, which a few select people conveniently continue to ignore, is that to perpetuate a good winning team, there is much more value per dollar spent in the draft as opposed to IFA. (agree- and as I've been saying, perhaps even more value available if you're willing to spend over-slot or gamble on signability guys)

The "rich" (i.e. successful, high payroll teams) are not going to get richer via a prospect cap as some are suggesting. It will be the low and mid-range payroll teams (agree- this will help teams in the .500 range with corresponding payrolls get back in the IFA game) that will see the benefit. Rather than one or two bottom feeders sucking up all the high-end IFA talent, there will be more owners with an opportunity to compete for that talent. And with a cap in place, there's less of a chance that any one team will be getting more than one of the stud IFAs. That spreads the talent around the lower end. Which helps to build parity in the world. (and that's a good thing)

1/25/2010 10:29 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By gjello10 on 1/25/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/25/2010

Actually you can. Maybe you don't get the top guy but, if you budget 30m for prospects, you're going to have about 24m after signing your first 4 picks.

24m is a high priced IFA.

In this scenario, the issue isn't really rolling picks into the next year, then. It's not signing the rest of your draft picks in an attempte to save $3 mil/year or so. THAT could be a very big problem. But it's not the issue I was talking about (over-slot draft guys).

But, assuming you are signing your picks or having them auto-signed for you, if you punted, say, your #1 and 2 picks ffrom the year before, and so had a pair of top-10 picks in both rounds, you'd end up spending $9-10 mil on your draft, leaving $20-21m for IFA. Now, under the current system, that's a lot. But I suspect that the cap will encourage more teams to put more resources into IFA, knowing that other teams are limited in their ability to compete for IFAs. More teams may be willing to engage in bidding wars as other teams' unused player payroll no longer acts as a deterring factor to their getting involved in the bidding.

At the end of the day, the cap will almost certainly cause teams who are heavily prioritizing IFAs to avoid going over-slot for draft picks.

In what world at two top 10 picks 9-10m? As for auto-signing, a smart man would sign a bunch of bonus-free training camp pitchers to fill out his rookie roster minimums and use the 24m for his one big IFA.

1/25/2010 10:39 AM

gjello10

Posts: 164 (0)

All Star

6 26

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/25/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By gjello10 on 1/25/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/25/2010

Actually you can. Maybe you don't get the top guy but, if you budget 30m for prospects, you're going to have about 24m after signing your first 4 picks.

24m is a high priced IFA.

In this scenario, the issue isn't really rolling picks into the next year, then. It's not signing the rest of your draft picks in an attempte to save $3 mil/year or so. THAT could be a very big problem. But it's not the issue I was talking about (over-slot draft guys).

But, assuming you are signing your picks or having them auto-signed for you, if you punted, say, your #1 and 2 picks ffrom the year before, and so had a pair of top-10 picks in both rounds, you'd end up spending $9-10 mil on your draft, leaving $20-21m for IFA. Now, under the current system, that's a lot. But I suspect that the cap will encourage more teams to put more resources into IFA, knowing that other teams are limited in their ability to compete for IFAs. More teams may be willing to engage in bidding wars as other teams' unused player payroll no longer acts as a deterring factor to their getting involved in the bidding.

At the end of the day, the cap will almost certainly cause teams who are heavily prioritizing IFAs to avoid going over-slot for draft picks.

In what world at two top 10 picks 9-10m? As for auto-signing, a smart man would sign a bunch of bonus-free training camp pitchers to fill out his rookie roster minimums and use the 24m for his one big IFA.

Now you're just ignoring what I wrote. I said, with a pair of #1s and a pair of #2s, top 10 in both rounds, and signing most of your picks, it would cost $9-10mil.

I also said (highlighted above) that people not signing picks could be a big problem. But that has nothing to do with the strategy of punting picks from 1 year to another. In other words, if you're going to have enough prospect cash to sign 2 top-10 draft picks AND a top-5 IFA, then there was really no benefit gained by punting the pick to hold on to extra IFA cash in the first place. The only reason to punt a pick would be because you didn't like this year's class (which good and bad teams do and should be allowed to do in HBD and in real life). There would be no real IFA-related reason to do this.

And that of course, was where this discussion started. I said there would be more value in "over-slot" guys later in Round 1 because of the cap (which I think is indisputable, given that, from an economic perspective, the marginal value of the last few IFA dollars has been increased by the cap). You strongly disagreed and said that you knew that there would be an increase in people punting picks to focus on IFA.

I think that's a pretty accurate summary of the discussion so far.

What to do with the issue of non-signing draft picks is a different discussion. I think Simmy should sign all your guys asking for slot no matter what. But that's not the original point I was trying to make, at all.

1/25/2010 10:52 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Well, to be fair, you're getting awful long-winded. Brevity is your friend.

The benefit of punting early picks is obvious. You get compensation for them. If you don't sign them, you have more money for other things. Like IFA. So you load your draft board with "wants to go to college" players. Play comp pick roulette until you hit a draft that shows you some players you really want.

Can't be more clear than that.

1/25/2010 10:57 AM

Forums

Eliminate Prospect Budget Topic

Search Criteria