Somebody in one of my leagues just signed a IFA that I wasn't able to see but we both budgeted the same amount for international scouting...is that common?

Yes.

yea, the worst is when you have a $20m budget and a coach with a $14m budget signs a super-stud that you couldn't even see

it gives a puncher's chance to find a stud for those who don't have $30M of prospect payroll

That seems to happen all the time. It steams me even more when the draft list comes out and you don't even see some of the top 10 picks in the draft. No matter how low your budget is, there should be no way any organization would not be aware of prospects of that caliber. All they would have to do is read a newspaper, fer crissakes.

I agree w/ torrone about the top 10 of the draft...a top 10 prospect should be on everyone's list.

Is it any different than one organization listing a guy as a Top 10 pick and another organization listing him as a late 1stt-rounder? Then when said player gets to majors proves to be a Top 10 and thereby shows the other team was wrong about him. Happens all of the time in real life. MLB draft is one of the biggest crap shoots in sports. Especially when Rnd 13 picks end up being better than Top 10 (see Albert Pujols, 13th Rnd pick 1999). Albert Pujols is one of the best players in all of baseball and 6 of the top 10 picks are no longer in baseball

Quote: Originally Posted By firemanrob on 2/15/2010Is it any different than one organization listing a guy as a Top 10 pick and another organization listing him as a late 1stt-rounder? Then when said player gets to majors proves to be a Top 10 and thereby shows the other team was wrong about him. Happens all of the time in real life. MLB draft is one of the biggest crap shoots in sports

Sure it's different. Do you really think there are teams in MLB who have never heard of a guy drafted in the top 10? Happens all the time here. There's a big difference between choosing not to do something and being unable to do something.

Quote: Originally Posted By torrone on 2/14/2010That seems to happen all the time. It steams me even more when the draft list comes out and you don't even see some of the top 10 picks in the draft. No matter how low your budget is, there should be no way any organization would not be aware of prospects of that caliber. All they would have to do is read a newspaper, fer crissakes

Its been at least a week since someone complained about this. That might be a WIS record.

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

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

Ok so would you rather have a system where a team sees a guy with projections far different than your own? For instance, in your next draft, owner A (1st overall pick) and owner B (30th overall pick) have 20 HS/COL scouting and both see a player that projects him to be a career minor leaguer at best for owner A while owner B projects him to be a HOFer. Post draft, both owner A and owner B's advanced scouting reveals he will indeed be a HOFer.

Now lets assume you were owner A and your predictions were completely wrong (see RL MLB scouting). Wouldn't you be a little ****** that owner B with the 30th pick scouted a guy better than you? Whether its not seeing him at all or seeing projections that are completely inaccurate seem to result in the same end game. That player going to another team and if you wanting to acquire said player, having to trade for him.

Or is this the beginning of "same scouting results for everyone?" Thus completely eliminating the need to budget for scouting and not allowing top 10 picks to maybe slip to the 15th or 20th pick because of teams not seeing a certain player.

Quote: Originally Posted By firemanrob on 2/15/2010Ok so would you rather have a system where a team sees a guy with projections far different than your own? For instance, in your next draft, owner A (1st overall pick) and owner B (30th overall pick) have 20 HS/COL scouting and both see a player that projects him to be a career minor leaguer at best for owner A while owner B projects him to be a HOFer. Post draft, both owner A and owner B's advanced scouting reveals he will indeed be a HOFer.

Now lets assume you were owner A and your predictions were completely wrong (see RL MLB scouting). Wouldn't you be a little ****** that owner B with the 30th pick scouted a guy better than you? Whether its not seeing him at all or seeing projections that are completely inaccurate seem to result in the same end game. That player going to another team and if you wanting to acquire said player, having to trade for him.

Or is this the beginning of "same scouting results for everyone?" Thus completely eliminating the need to budget for scouting and not allowing top 10 picks to maybe slip to the 15th or 20th pick because of teams not seeing a certain player.

I like the idea of everyone being able to see all the top players (first few rounds) with the souting being very vague. Hell, they could give ranges where maybe undrafted players have a floor and ceiling number so under glove it would say curent 54, floor 72, ceiling 89. The more oney you spend on scouting the more accurate those numbers get but there is still a range. Or they could go to a scout report system where you have to interpet "a 3 pitch strike out machine. Has a hard time placing his pitches and tends to significantly fare better against LHB." Something like that.

Ok thats exactly where I thought you were going. You want scouting to be devalued.

There are 3 options:

#1 - Keep the current system

#2 - You see everyone, but with vastly different scouting results meaning the amateur draft becomes an absolute crap shoot and your Rnd 15 pick might turn out to be better than most people's Rnd 1. (Now this might happen with DitRs, but that is so random and rare)

#3 - Everyone sees all available prospects. Minor variation in projections based on scouting budget. This would effectively render scouting obsolete. A budget of 0 gives you the floor and 20 gives you ceiling. An experienced owner that pays attention to player improvement will be able to read a players ceiling (or somewhat close) based on current ratings, age, proposed "floor" rating, makeup, etc... This is the same option that produced overstocking of fielding coaches effectively meaning you can sign a 60 FI for the minimum market value may have dictated 2.5M before the fix

why are there only 3 options?