So the thought behind this is to provide some variation to the whole internation / us scouting engine in the game and give owners a little more strategic control over their franchise.

Provide further options for scounting beyond the current US college / US highschool / International options.  My suggestion is this, for new areas use: US hs / US col / South America / Asia / Rest of world (ie: Europe / Middle East / Africa / Austraila)

Monies spent by each franchise would of course work the same way as now, the more money spent in a particular area the more chances a prospect is found.  Total budget for all areas would still cap at 60 million (same as current) only you would have 5 areas and a max of 20 in any particular area to spend.

This would allow teams to try to determine were other teams might be spending money and if guessing correctly may have the best opportunity to find prospects in any given area because they are spending the most money on scounting in that particular area.

(Example NY spends 10 million on US college, 8 million on US highschool, 8 million on South American and 4 Million each on Asia and Rest of World.  34 million spent total.  LA spends the same amounts in the US except they spend 6 million in South America, 10 million in Asia and nothing in the Rest of the World 34 million spent.  Same budget but by spending more than triple whay NY spent in Asia, they will find more prospects and have a higher chance of finding a potential ML level talent before NY.  While they wont see anyone from the Rest of the World and have a 25% lower chance of seeing equal prospects in South America)

Additionally, the system would create potential prospects for each region based on the overall money spent in each region for the following season.  (example: In season 1 if no money is spent in the rest of the world, season 2 would yield very few prospects and greatly lower the odds of producing a quality prospect.)   Also teams that funnel more money into regions in season 1 would have a benefit in season 2 over teams that 'jumped on the bandwagon' and invested heavily in season 2.

Kind of like establishing your scounting network, setting up baseball academies and camps etc, then having another team blow in with no infrastructure.  You would have the advantage of being there longer.

This would allow teams more flexibility in international free agents, and draft choices for the amature draft, and would only add a small amount of complexity to the budget set up.

Please provide thoughts and questions.

Thanks.

Note the dates:

7/25/2007 4:19 PM	MikeT23
This is just a "wish" item. I stumbled upon the idea in a thread griping about coach hiring when someone sarcastically mentioned "scout hiring". Anyway, I'm not sure if it's practical to program but I think it would be pretty nice and add a handful of options/strategy to scouting(which is pretty much hands off except for budgeting). Thanks in advance for taking the time to read the following. The concept: Each 1m you allot "buys" you one scout. This applies to Int'l, HS and college. Scouts are of equal ability(for the most part). Each country will be a seperate entity for international scouts. The US will be split up into regions(15 is what I'm thinking. Probably by state). The regions will not be equal nor will they produce the same quality/quantity of players. The same applies to countries. The owner assigns a scout to a region(for HS or college) or a country(for internationals). Domestically, a scout in a region will find the top 5 players and 25(or whatever) other players of varying ability. If two scouts are placed in the same region, the numbers will double. Obviously college scouts will only report on college players. Internationally, each scout will find up to 8 players(or whatever # is chosen). These will be random and there will be no guarantee that you see the best 8. You will simply see the first 8 he finds. Doubling up scouting will double the number of prospect found. Regions/Countries: At the beginning of the season, before scouts are assigned, the owners will be sent a report giving the number of colleges in each region, the number of high school seniors playing ball in each region and the number of international prospects in each country. Again, the only constant from season to season would be the number of colleges playing baseball from each region. I'd recommend varying the number of colleges per region during set-up as opposed to making each region the same "size" to add to strategy. During the arbitration process, the owner will assign scouts based upon these reports/personal strategy. If an owner fails to assign scouts, they will default to previous season settings and/or one scout to the most populated region on down until scouting budget runs out. Overall scouting For each 2m spent domestically, the owner will see the top overall player regardless of region. This will not "add" a player to scouted regions but simply ensures he sees the top player(s).
7/25/2007 4:58 PM	Customer Support
Mike, We have some ideas and we are currently discussing how to expand the role of Scouts in HBD. We will take these thoughts into consideration when we cross that bridge. Thanks!.

I didn't post it to devalue your suggestion.   I was really just trying to show the dates for "We have some ideas and we are currently discussing how to expand the role of Scouts in HBD."   I'm not convinced they really discussed anything since 7/25/07.

Thats likely true.  While it seems like a simple suggestion, the actual execution to program it might be a cast iron *****.  Not to mention the randon name generator would have to be altered to be more region specific.  No more Jose Wang's and Tofuro Rodriguez. 

I did catch the date on the top of the post.  I figure the more posts on here talking about this the increased likelyhood it 'might' get seen and 'maybe' the powers that program 'may' decide there is enough players wanting it that its 'possible' that it would be implimented.

I'm not holding my breath though.  I figure if we get enough people contributing ideas to it, we could flesh it out sufficently that a complete set of guidelines could be in place for the guys on the keyboards.

So to firm it up:  Break down the regions further form the current US college / US highschool / International to the following:
United States 1 each for college and highschool
North East (ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, PA, NJ, DE, MD)
South East (NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, FL, WV, VA)
Central  (MN, WI, IL, IN, MI, OH, IA)
South Cental (KS, MO, AR, LA, OK, TX)
Mountain (NM, CO, UT, WY, ND, SD, MT)
West (AK, HI, WA, ID, CA, NV, AZ)

South America / Central America and Caribbean
Asia
Europe and Rest of the World

That would be 15 potential regions allowing a team to cover all equally for 15 million total, and most teams spend more, or all equally for a max of 4 million per region (maxing the 60 million currently available for scouting.)  You don't have to change the cap of 20 million for a single area, to allow for the owner who thinks they want the best prospect coverage out of area X and forget the others. (A bad idea, but hey someone would be dumb enough to try it).  The overall quality of players would not have to be adjusted in season, however the following season, the volume (not necessarily quality) of players found would be based on the total amount of money spent in that region by all teams combined. (That alone would have the significance of increasing the odds of better players just due to the law of averages.)

We could further break down Central America and the Caribbean but then it doesn't allow for an even distribution. (Although that is not necessarily a bad thing.)

Provide better, or at least more readily apparent advantages to spending more money in one region than other teams, but still leave in the element of chance to find the rose in the pile of manure that everyone else missed.

I thought of another factor last night, potential FA's would also be more inclined to join a team that has a presence (ie spending money on scouts getting in the face of coaches and players in that region), over a team that doesn't.  Now this also might be balanced by a team that is a perrenial playoff team, vs. a bottom dweller, but in the case of a couple of teams that are fairly comparable, I would think the prospect would lean towards familiarity.

For purposes of the amatuer draft, Canadian players are not IFAs, they are draft eligible, so Canada would have to be a region for HS and Col.

As for the prospect leaning towards familiarity suggestion, I don't believe WIS will ever do that.  The prospect will sign with whatever team offers the most money and I think that will always be the case.  

Didn't know that.  In theory then the provences could be added to the NE, Central, Mountain and Western regions, based on geography.  Or if half a million dollar amounts (even quarter million divisions), individual provences could be listed.  I wouldn't want the scouting to end up being a game unto itself, but just to add a little more strategy to the whole event.  Currently, the team that reduces its payroll to the extream, and transfers the most money to the IFA list, gets at least 2 of the top 6 IFA's in the game, as well as high draft picks due to not having a strong record.  It isn't fair to the league as a whole and if scouting were more diverse it would remove that line of 'semi' tanking for IFA's and draft picks, because you would also have to scout properly (which eats up money) to insure you would see the best IFA's.

Puerto Ricans are also eligible for the MLB draft.

Add that one to the list of US (SE region) regions.

You can see MikeT's posts on how to tank, to see why a better system of scouting (IFA's and Draft picks), can help make it more difficult for teams to effectively 'non-tank' for only IFA's and mediocre records.  We have all seen the teams that do just enough to be semi competitive for a few seasons then they are monsters (due to IFA's and drafts) then are monsters for season after season.

The best way to prevent tanking isn't thru scouting.    Don't let owners with a history of tanking join your world and have a good, enforcable set of minimum win rules based on a series of consecutive seasons. 

More diverse scouting, as discussed in this thread, would just make the game more fun and realistic, IMO.

I agree, and to follow the point you made in another forum post, this type of scouting wouldn't overly complicate the game nor would it make it that much more time consuming.  You would spend about 5 to 10 more minutes setting your budget and the its off to the races.  I do think your idea of a letter grade system is right on the money.  How may teams passed over Albet Puhols because he was a chubby third basemen.

Your money spent in regions would effect not only who you saw but how close they came to accurately assessing talent.  Maybe your scout thinks player A is a B+ player while the scout for another team not spending as much money doesn't have the time and resources to fully evaluate the kid and he's a C- to them.  Grades could be:

A+  Can play now, good bet for a 15 year career and Hall of Fame 5 tool guy (Mantle / Ruth / Ryan / Maddux)
A    Ready to contribute on an ML level, Franchise type player (Jeter / Rypken / Johnson)
A-   Top tier ML talent, would be an A or B FA in most worlds. ( Reyes / Fielder / Glavine)
B+  Sold roster guy, can have strong seasons, but not necessarily a HOF guy (Tim Raines)
B    ML player, guy you can count on, not exceptional but proven (Kevin McReynolds / Jason Bay)
B -  ML player with a hole somewhere (k's, range, glove) something that keeps him from being a HOFer (Ozzie Smith)
C+  Limited help to a ML squad like a defensive SS or C, or platoon player. (Most 70's and 80's shortstops, Brad Ausmus)
C    Might make the roster of a poorer team because he's cheap or because of an injury maybe a RH/LH specialist. (A lot of guys on the early rays / marlins teams)
C-  AAA guy
D+ Career minor leaguer  AAA / Strong AA
D   Double A at best (Crash Davis)
D-  HiA
F-  Lo A or Rookie league (MVP of the local beer league softball team)

I think I spelled Alberts name wrong.  No offense StL fans.

One change to your suggestion, eliminate the US vs college distinctions. All MLB teams scout regionally with regional scouts and cross-checkers handling all amateur scouting for their regions (college & HS). This would simplify bidgeting as well. Maybe you even get a local boost, with say $2 M free added to your home region.