Vote: Type A draft pick priority Topic

schedule1
Posts: 83 (0)
Hall of Famer
109 1 96
Prospect
maybe you don't draft well. big difference for the owner that gets the ABs. plus, it can also be the difference between, say, the 17th picks and the 100th. that's obviously rare / unlikely, but given that the current system is just wrong, why not fix it?
4/26/2010 4:33 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
They aren't my draft picks. Maybe no one in Cooperstown drafts well. Well, someone must because no one is getting crap at 81, 113 and 147.

Do you walk around your home fixing things that aren't broken in the unlikely event that a rare occurance may happen?
4/26/2010 4:41 PM
coldfoot
Posts: 2769 (0)
Hall of Famer
144 4 50
Rookie
maybe slot 81 has poor results in coop. can you find ML worth talent available after that slot? not saying you'll find all-stars but most years you can still find ML role player value around that pick.
4/26/2010 4:46 PM
schedule1
Posts: 83 (0)
Hall of Famer
109 1 96
Prospect
it is broken, though, and it was broken intentionally. we all know there are some cases where "realism" isn't optimal (e.g., seeing all prospects in the draft), but in other cases, realism is important.
4/26/2010 5:07 PM
raidersfan
Posts: 130 (0)
Hall of Famer
54 10 49 70 9 232
Prospect
I will say I was pretty upset in Fisk when my star pitcher walked after our WS win last season, got 5 years 85 mil+ and I got a 4th round, #155 pick because of the WS win and the 84th pick goes to a "worse" team that had a decent player who was signed for 5 years 43 mil and the #120 pick went for another decent guy who signed for 4 years just under 17 mil:( Just didn't seem right to me...
4/26/2010 6:21 PM
Braziman
Posts: 551 (0)
Hall of Famer
298 9 7 9 50 5 40
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By toddcommish on 2/11/2010
Yah, but my voting order doesn't change, but the gap between my first two choices might lessen.

MONEY is the unifying value since we all have the same budget, so it should be the measuring stick. If you sign two Type-A's and one makes $20M/yr, and one makes $8M/yr, whoever lost the $20M guy should get your earliest pick because he lost the most value.



By the way, are you talking about their new contract values, or the value of last season's contracts?

What you say makes sense to me if you mean new contracts for the coming season.
4/26/2010 6:36 PM
travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 4/26/2010
There are all sorts of unsigned Type A at the end of FA.  You can get a really good player for nothing but a pick and a couple million dollars.   Anything based on salary is nothing short of retarded.

Those players are treated equally by the current setup as the studs who sign max contracts. They shouldn't be, because the players you've described have demonstrably less value.
4/26/2010 7:38 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
How do you define most valuable contract? Is a player who gets 3 mil a season for 4 season more or less valuable than a player who gets 3.4 mil a season for 2 seasons?

I will vote after I hear the definition of most valuable.
4/26/2010 7:47 PM
travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
$12 million > $6.8 million
4/26/2010 7:50 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By travisg on 4/26/2010
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 4/26/2010
There are all sorts of unsigned Type A at the end of FA. You can get a really good player for nothing but a pick and a couple million dollars. Anything based on salary is nothing short of retarded

Those players are treated equally by the current setup as the studs who sign max contracts. They shouldn't be, because the players you've described have demonstrably less value


This isn't really true as we have a budget cap. If the guy I want surpasses "my limit", I can often find a similar player for next to nothing. Usually 3-4 which might actually make my team better as I'll upgrade my bench/bullpen for the same price.
4/26/2010 8:57 PM
nymetman
Posts: 20 (0)
All Star
15 29
Prospect
Let's say I forfeit my 25th overall pick to land my division rivals CY Young winner. A week before the draft I decide to sign 2 more fringe type A's from teams that had a worse record than my rival for the sole purpose of dropping the value of his type A from 25th to say 120th (assume I have 0/0 scouting and all my picks are pretty much worthless)

Although a strategic move, it reeks of manipulating a broken process. Leave the supplemental round as is, but the forfeited picks should be awarded to the team that loses the best player. Not sure I like the overall/weighted overall or contract ideas as perfect, but how to determine "best" would open up its own debate.
4/27/2010 1:47 AM
gomiami1972
Posts: 4541 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 1 554 49 141
Pro
put me down as a "C" I think that gives "C" 8 votes now, not the 3 as listed in the opening post.
4/27/2010 5:49 AM
travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
4/27/2010 7:45 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Usually they're passed over because owners aren't interested in losing a pick for anything but an over the top stud. I probably wouldn't do it to sign just one. But, once you've lost that one pick, there's no reason not to go all out. And, as nymetman pointed out, by signing more than one, I've moving the better teams further back in the draft for their Type A. Seems like a perfect system to distribute talent.
4/27/2010 9:02 AM
schedule1
Posts: 83 (0)
Hall of Famer
109 1 96
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by raidersfan on 4/26/2010I will say I was pretty upset in Fisk when my star pitcher walked after our WS win last season, got 5 years 85 mil+ and I got a 4th round, #155 pick because of the WS win and the 84th pick goes to a "worse" team that had a decent player who was signed for 5 years 43 mil and the #120 pick went for another decent guy who signed for 4 years just under 17 mil:( Just didn't seem right to me...

it's not that it doesn't seem right. it's flat-out wrong. i really don't see the debate here. if OVR isn't a great way to determine the order, some combination of ratings and park-adjusted stats could. but losing a better player should lead to a higher pick.
4/27/2010 10:27 AM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7|8 Next ▸
Vote: Type A draft pick priority Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.