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

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

You seem to be implying that passing on signing picks shouldn't happen. I'm telling you it's a legit "strategy" that can be employed by anyone hoping to hit it big in the IFA market.

I'm not saying I have ANY idea on who my competitors rank or how they rank them. I'm saying all you can see are the results. Without knowing the options/thought process, you don't know a whole hell of a lot.

Opinion on draft-quality denied due to lack of experience and knowledge.

I'm not implying that at all. It's a perfectly good and legit strategy for that rare draft class that's so bad that you can almost ensure youself a much better player in the same Type D slot next year. I also think it's a great gambit in the second round in years where there are a ton of sandwich picks, as you stand a pretty good chance of actually seeing your pick move up next year if the sandwich pick total is lower.

What I'm saying is that the cap makes this a trade-off. If you intend to sign both #1s next year, AND you're signing your draft picks (again- for those who aren't that's a seperate issue), then you make it much tougher to have IFA success next year. So, from an IFA standpoint, you're really trading next year's success for this year's. Punting picks is a one-year strategy based on draft quality, not a long-term strategy for cornering the IFA market.

Surely you can see that if it is your intention (over time) to sign all your #1s (either this year or as a Type D in future years), and also sign the highest quality IFAs you can find each year, then your best bet is to always sign players for slot money only, which will maximize your average available IFA cash.

This will, almost certainly, push over-slot guys father down in the draft (maybe just a little, maybe more than that). And it isn't just "signability" types either. The "will sign if deal is right" types may slide also, as IFA hunters push them down their draft boards a few slots.

And that's all economics. Not learned game lessons.



Again, with 4 whole drafts under your belt, I'm not sure how you can claim "rare". I didn't read the rest so I hope it wasn't important.

I think an interesting side-effect of this will be how it changes the way draft prospects with signability issues are viewed. On the one hand, paying an over-slot bonus can now put you at a major disadvantage with regards to signing IFAs. Will that create more opportunites to find a superior value by paying over-slot down in the later 1st round? This is an interesting aspect of the MLB draft whose HBD version lacks the richness of its real life couterpart. On the other hand, now if you gamble on an over-slot bonus baby and he doesn't sign with you, you can make up for this by having an advantage in the IFA market, and then get your Type-D pick next year. I'm very interested to see how this part plays out. Making prospect budgets zero-sum in this way certainly creates a more interesting trade-off between draft bonus demands and IFA spending.

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

You seem to be implying that passing on signing picks shouldn't happen. I'm telling you it's a legit "strategy" that can be employed by anyone hoping to hit it big in the IFA market.

I'm not saying I have ANY idea on who my competitors rank or how they rank them. I'm saying all you can see are the results. Without knowing the options/thought process, you don't know a whole hell of a lot.

Opinion on draft-quality denied due to lack of experience and knowledge.

I'm not implying that at all. It's a perfectly good and legit strategy for that rare draft class that's so bad that you can almost ensure youself a much better player in the same Type D slot next year. I also think it's a great gambit in the second round in years where there are a ton of sandwich picks, as you stand a pretty good chance of actually seeing your pick move up next year if the sandwich pick total is lower.

What I'm saying is that the cap makes this a trade-off. If you intend to sign both #1s next year, AND you're signing your draft picks (again- for those who aren't that's a seperate issue), then you make it much tougher to have IFA success next year. So, from an IFA standpoint, you're really trading next year's success for this year's. Punting picks is a one-year strategy based on draft quality, not a long-term strategy for cornering the IFA market.

Surely you can see that if it is your intention (over time) to sign all your #1s (either this year or as a Type D in future years), and also sign the highest quality IFAs you can find each year, then your best bet is to always sign players for slot money only, which will maximize your average available IFA cash.

This will, almost certainly, push over-slot guys father down in the draft (maybe just a little, maybe more than that). And it isn't just "signability" types either. The "will sign if deal is right" types may slide also, as IFA hunters push them down their draft boards a few slots.

And that's all economics. Not learned game lessons.




Again, with 4 whole drafts under your belt, I'm not sure how you can claim "rare". I didn't read the rest so I hope it wasn't important.

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

'TARD FIGHT!!!

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/25/2010
I'm saying when you strip your team of BL talent and don't replace it, you're not trying to win. You may be doing the best with what you have but winning is not your priority.

Quote: Originally Posted By schuyler101 on 1/25/2010
you're fine, it's a perfectly viable strategy to trade ML players from an aging team on the decline

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 1/25/2010
Is it fine to make little to no attempt to field a competitive team at the major league level?

Quote: Originally Posted By jc44 on 1/25/2010
If i believe that building a strong farm system is the most important part of building a strong team for the long run why is that wrong?

It is a opinion shared by some baseball people.

If i have what i feel are bad contracts and i can get rid of them in 1-2 seasons and start building a farm system instead of waiting 3-5 years for them to expire and get nothing in return is that wrong?

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/25/2010
I'm denying your opinion based on lack of reading comprehension.

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

The way I set it up, it's definitionally rare. If it was a common draft class quality, you couldn't be confident of seeing a better one next year.


This is key. As I've been trying to tell you, you have no idea how anyone but you "sets it up". Once you get past that, you'll understand what I've been saying for 4 pages.

Quote: Originally Posted By jc44 on 1/25/2010Well MikeT i`m denying your opinion because it`s wrong!

As gjello has tried to explain it is a simple math/ecnomics
issue whether you get it or not.

There is no way to take away all the ways owners can tank.

If somebody wants to tank they will find away.

But based in simple math the cap gives better teams a advantage that they don`t deserve to have over teams that are trying to use IFA as a PART of rebuilding.

If a team at the top signs all his picks he will not be able to have money for the top IFA unless virtually none of the teams behind him max out which they are going to do more than ever now because it is now to their advantage.



I've been saying this for about 3 years.

I've been explaining this for about 4 pages. You don't have to sign your picks. You have to set it up so you get comp picks next season.