Not a suggestion thread, not a complaint thread, just a thread to make an observation and initiate discussion.

In one of my worlds today, somebody pointed out the number of comp picks that are already queueing up for the supplemental round of the draft, and we haven't even started spring training yet.  So this got me to wondering how many supplemental round picks a typical HBD world has compared to real-life.  The results were a bit startling.

Over the past 10 MLB drafts, there have been an average of 16.0 picks in the supplemental round, with a high of 34 (in 2007) and a low of 11 (in both 2004 and 2001).

In my three worlds (the only ones I've looked at), here are the numbers I've found for the last 10 drafts in each world:

Mantle:                       average of 23.1 picks, high of 40, low of 9
Moonlight Graham: average of 28.9 picks; high of 43, low of 19
Cooperstown:          average of 28.8 picks, high of 41, low of 15

I would guess that these numbers are typical of a typical HBD world.

Two things immediately jump out to me from these numbers:

1)  The number of supplemental round picks is significantly higher in HBD than in real-life.

2)  The number of picks in both MG and Coop, which are considered "elite" worlds that tend to slant towards more realism, are noticably higher than Mantle, which has never been considered to be "elite" (though, as commish, I believe it to be a very strong and solid world).

Granted, we're talking about 32 team HBD worlds against 30 team MLB worlds, so you can roughly increase the MLB numbers by 6.7% to get an average of 17.1 picks, high of 36 and low of 12 to make it an equal comparison.

So, my questions for discussion are:

1)  Why is there such a discrepancy between HBD and MLB?  Are MLB teams more likely to resign their comp-eligible FA's rather than let them walk and take a chance with the draft picks?

2)  Do we, as HBD owners, tend to over-value draft picks and do what we can to accumulate as many as we can?

3)  Is this evidence that perhaps the draft is indeed perceived as too much of a "sure thing", particular for the early rounds (first and supplemental).

4)  Does anybody see this as a problem?

Not every type A/B player gets offered arbitration in real life, so their signings don't yield picks.  If a "fix" is needed, it should be making us offer arbitration to outgoing Free Agents in order to obtain picks.  I don't really have a problem with the way it works now, and putting in an Arbitration clause would probably result in problems of its own.  You'd need it to run before budgets are set, so more than likely the previous season.  So you'd essentially be giving a departing owner control over a team he no longer will be running.  Players already don't understand the market anyway, so some teams would get the players back cheaper than market value and others players would decline even though they won't get an offers because of their Type A status.

In MLB, a team may choose to offer arbitration a player who files for FA. In fact, they can only receive a draft pick if they offer arb. Sometimes a player will accept the arb offer, and then may later negotiate an LTC. In HBD, we don't have the option of offering arb to a potential FA. It's like they treat it like we've already offered arb, and the player turned it down to pursue FA.

Posted by cbriese on 12/6/2010 7:13:00 PM (view original):
In MLB, a team may choose to offer arbitration a player who files for FA. In fact, they can only receive a draft pick if they offer arb. Sometimes a player will accept the arb offer, and then may later negotiate an LTC. In HBD, we don't have the option of offering arb to a potential FA. It's like they treat it like we've already offered arb, and the player turned it down to pursue FA.

They said in the past they assume that we always offer arb and the player always declines and heads to FA. I think you see much higher numbers because you automatically offer arb to low level FA you have no intention of resigning, whereas, if you were forced to consider the fact they may accept arbitration, you may not offer it, same goes for players on the back end of their career, would you offer arb to a declining FA SP if you knew he may accept and then you're on the hook for 10M? It would seem realistically, the only way they could reduce teh number is to raise the compensation threshold, unless they open up arb for FA, but the problem becomes where do you put it in the cycles?

It's simple yet complex problem. 

Part of it is the sure thing of the draft.
Part of it is the decline/development patterns of players. 
Part of it is the "rebuild" mentality.
Part of it is the designation of Type A/B.

In short, you have some owners who always want the comp pick.  It's because they're playing the low payroll and/or "constant rebuild" game.   Others who insist one "maximuming projections" or "delaying arb" often bring players up at 25/26.   Done properly, you have these guys until they're 32/33 under controlled salaries.  Knowing that they've seen their best days, they're cut loose(in part because they ask for 4/5 years).   If/when their demands decrease, they might be signed by someone else for two seasons.  Finally, and this ties it all together, when the "constant rebuild" owner signs one Type A(and gives up his 2nd round pick), he'll go after more Type A.  May as well give up 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th round picks.  Especially if you can get some of them for cheap, short-term deals late in FA.

It's the arb thing.  It's that simple.

EDIT--  I engaged my brain after submitting that.  Arb is a big piece of it, but so is the fact that most type A's hit the market without re-signing, which is a simplistic workaround for the fact that players read the market poorly in HBD.

Too simplistic.  But, quite frankly, if one is forced to offer arb to departing FA in order to get compensation, the comp picks dry up.

Too many owners put stock in the draft, and they cut Type A/Bs loose.  What they fail to realize is that their Type A ends up returning a 3rd or 4th round pick and then complain about how the system sucks and is unfair in the WC. 

1. Draft/player value is predictable.
2. There's no reason to get attatched to players in the way franchises do in real life.

I dare say we do get attached to players.   I brought an old turd back just so he could get 400 homers.

Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Jamey Cambridge

And it's a lot harder to trade for a "homegrown" player so I think others get attached to them also.