Would any of you support the idea of changing our scouting budget, so that instead of having money for HS and College, it was split among HS, JC and College?

I could see the merit in wanting to see additional 22-yo college guys, vs. 20-yo JC guys, or vice versa, depending on whether you were in rebuilidng mode or in need of one or two guys who are almost MLB-ready. It would allow for more diversity in draft strategy -- in other words, teams may have more diversity in how they rank players, or what players they see heading into the draft.

Owners could continue to have $40M overall to allocate, but just split among the three categories. In terms of transitioning, owners could re-allocate whatever amount they had the previous season, +/- $4M. (If they had $15M for college and $10M for HS, for example, they could allocate between $11M and $19M for college, and $6M to $14M for HS, and $0M to $8M for JC).

It's never gonna happen. I don't see the point. If you want a 22 yo over a 20 yo just rank him higher.

Yes, but if it was split up three ways, you could allocate more money for the more specific age group. You'd see more players in that group.

I would rather see a regional scouting/super scouting budget split rather than a HS scouting/college scouting budget split. I think that would feel more true to life and would add a different and more realistic element of draft resolution/fuzziness.

It could work something like this. Baseball America breaks up the USA and Canada in 44 scouting regions. We could use that number of regions. The amount that you budget for your lower level regional scouts determines mainly the quantity of prospects that you can see with generic or flawed projection ratings (not the accurate current ratings as we currently see). The amount that you budget for your super scout determines how many regions that you can choose to visit with the super scout in the one week scouting period before the draft. The super scout would provide much more accurate and specific valuations but only for the pool that the regional scout identified and only in the regions where the super scout was sent.

You could even throw in a free super scout visit to whatever region that your MLB team plays in.

I think that this could create some all star picks beyond the first round and some real busts in the first round. Kind of like MLB.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Thanks Mike, what was their reply?

The original suggestion seems a bit unnecessary.

I don't think we would ever see the 2nd suggestion because WIFS would not want to add additional complexity to the game which could lead to people further reducing their number of teams.

I don't see Mike's option as adding any more complexity to the game. It just provides the illusion of having more control over scouting as a way of reducing the "I didn't see the top pick of the draft" complaints form the game.

With his proposal, you still might not see the top couple of picks, but now you would have a reason why. Which could in turn lead to a different kind of frustration as it may be a crapshoot in trying to guess from which region the cream of the current years crop is going to come from.

OK, check off the "monthly bitchfest about the draft" thread.

Next up, "coach hiring sucks" or "not enough SS"...

I wasn't looking for a "bitchfest." I was asking for opinions on an idea regarding scouting budget, and the effect it would have on draft strategy.

ttnorm and mike then took the thread their own direction.

I'd still be interested in what people thought of the idea in the thread's original post.

honestly dont really like it...

i like the way things are now regarding draft scouting..

the only change i want to see regarding the draft and scouting is more busts at the top and more mike piazza's in the later rounds

but there is only one mike piazza more than one would be unrealistic.

Quote: Originally Posted By sanderbear on 9/29/2009
I wasn't looking for a "bitchfest." I was asking for opinions on an idea regarding scouting budget, and the effect it would have on draft strategy.

ttnorm and mike then took the thread their own direction.

I'd still be interested in what people thought of the idea in the thread's original post.

I don't see the point. I guess you're looking for a way to easily identify the middle ground between the 18 year old HS guys and the 22 year old college guys, and figure that JC scouting is the answer. But how does that help identify the college undergraduates who would fall into that same grouping?

I don't see the point. I guess you're looking for a way to easily identify the middle ground between the 18 year old HS guys and the 22 year old college guys, and figure that JC scouting is the answer. But how does that help identify the college undergraduates who would fall into that same grouping

My main goal would be to allow owners to better fine tune their drafts. If there are more than 500 players in the draft pool, then you should have a little more control over who you see.

Someone who wanted to max out on 20-yos who are closer to MLB-ready would spend $40M on college and JC, and $0 on HS. This would give you a wider range of players then just spending $20M on college and $0 on HS.