Vote: Type A draft pick priority Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Because it makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things. You used "unlikely" and "rare" to describe your concerns. That's like buying new shoestrings on Monday when you're going shoe shopping on Thursday. It's just unnecessary.
4/27/2010 10:45 AM
gman981981
Posts: 387 (0)
Hall of Famer
47 1 140
Prospect
A,B,C
4/27/2010 11:18 AM
nymetman
Posts: 20 (0)
All Star
15 29
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 4/27/2010Usually 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
You went the opposite way with my argument though. The draft itself is a perfect system to distribute talent, the supplemental round also distributes the talent to the lower ranked teams. The compensation pick isn't in place to distribute talent (since the draft order itself does that) but to compensate teams for lost players. Why wouldn't the best player warrant the better pick?

It only becomes an issue when a team signs multiple type-A's and awading it to the worse team is certainly better than the old way of whoever signed first. But with studs opting for FA more frequently, this will only become more and more of a pressing issue.
4/27/2010 2:12 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Yeah, I did. But I'm doing it for strategic purposes. Not only am I making my team better, I'm helping ensure the top teams aren't getting high comp picks to maintain their dynasty. I really don't see the problem. Other owners could do the same to me if I ever give up a Type A.
4/27/2010 3:24 PM
tufft
Posts: 959 (0)
Hall of Famer
65
Prospect
From reading all the posts, it seems that (B) would cause more disagreements, problems, arguments, forum wars, etc. than it would ever solve.

Between (A) and (C), for most worlds, I think (A) is better for the few owners who figured the game out faster than others or made trades and drafted in ways that resulted in them getting more future Type A and B players on their team than most of the other owners.

If those owners keep trading those players in for high draft picks, they maintain that advantage forever.

(C) seems better for long-term competitiveness. (C) may toss a small bone to the new owner who takes over a team that might not have a lot going for it.

(A) is measurable, fair, and it also benefits the established rich. (C) spreads the wealth a little and sometimes may not be fair to an owner who loses a really good FA.

If you're a republican/conservative, you're probably going to prefer (A). If you're liberal/progressive, you're probably going to prefer (C).
4/29/2010 5:05 PM
travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
I'm liberal/progressive, and I strongly favor (A).
4/29/2010 5:37 PM
tufft
Posts: 959 (0)
Hall of Famer
65
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by travisg on 4/29/2010I'm liberal/progressive, and I strongly favor (A).

Hardball Dynasty
Total Seasons: 51
Record: 4524-3738
Playoff Record: 142-120
Division Titles: 21
Championships: 6

You stand to benefit from (A).

I'm new and took over teams that have had about 2 winning seasons out of 15. I'm more likely to benefit from (C).

It's not fair if you lose a $100M FA and get a 3rd round pick.

It's not fair that my next Type A FA is probably playing in HiA. So I'm not going to be getting any bonus draft picks until sometime in 2013. Maybe.

Is WIS better off making it easier for players like you to keep winning? Or to put a system in place that might give a new player a slightly better chance of building a competitive team?
4/30/2010 1:22 AM
nymetman
Posts: 20 (0)
All Star
15 29
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tufft on 4/30/2010Is WIS better off making it easier for players like you to keep winning? Or to put a system in place that might give a new player a slightly better chance of building a competitive team
If you have the 5th pick and he has the 25th, that is the league's redistribution of talent.
4/30/2010 3:03 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'm sure I lean conservative and I favor (C).

I'm also sure (A) would benefit me more. But, as I said earlier, it doesn't benefit anyone very much. So it really should be a non-issue.
4/30/2010 6:38 AM
nymetman
Posts: 20 (0)
All Star
15 29
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 4/26/2010
OK, checked the first seven drafts(we've had 13).

81st pick = 52 IP, 152 AB, 2 players still active in minors
113th pick = 0 IP, o AB, 2 players active in minors, 1 just made the big club
147 picks = 0 IP, 0 AB, 1 player active in the minors

An average of 7 innings and 22 AB. Not much difference if you ask me. Certainly not worth worrying over.





What's the difference between the 20th and that teams 2nd rounder?
4/30/2010 12:04 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'm sure you can figure that out in your world. I figured it out as it applied to my exact situation(I signed three Type A).
4/30/2010 12:16 PM
travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by tufft on 4/30/2010
Quote: Originally posted by travisg on 4/29/2010I'm liberal/progressive, and I strongly favor (A).
Hardball Dynasty
Total Seasons: 51
Record: 4524-3738
Playoff Record: 142-120
Division Titles: 21
Championships: 6

You stand to benefit from (A).

I'm new and took over teams that have had about 2 winning seasons out of 15. I'm more likely to benefit from (C).

It's not fair if you lose a $100M FA and get a 3rd round pick.

It's not fair that my next Type A FA is probably playing in HiA. So I'm not going to be getting any bonus draft picks until sometime in 2013. Maybe.

Is WIS better off making it easier for players like you to keep winning? Or to put a system in place that might give a new player a slightly better chance of building a competitive team?

Plenty of bad teams have good players; they just don't have enough of them.

Draft picks are intended to compensate teams who've lost good players to free agency. That's it. Tying the compensation to market value best achieves that, which is the basis of my support. Sometimes it'll benefit me, and other times it won't.

I just think the teams that lose the best players should get the best picks in return.
4/30/2010 2:33 PM
schedule1
Posts: 83 (0)
Hall of Famer
109 1 96
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
4/30/2010 4:14 PM
tufft
Posts: 959 (0)
Hall of Famer
65
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
4/30/2010 8:12 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
The game itself needs to move away from reality sometimes. We have hard ratings that predict success/failure. It's not that way in reality.
4/30/2010 8:29 PM
◂ Prev 1...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.