What are ideal scouting budgets - I have seen several international superstars sign elsewhere that I never saw

is it random or does the budget impact the quality of player you find

Same for HS/Coll for the draft - what are ideal $ amnts

Thank you

20m in HS or College, zero in the other
20m in IFA with a ton a payroll to transfer to prospects

1) The more you spend in scouting budgets, the more prospects you see.
2) The more you spend in scouting budgets, the more accurate the projected ratings are.
3) Even with a max budget of $20M, you will not see every prospect.
4) Even with a max budget of $20M, the projected ratings will still be a little bit off.

No offense ok but your draft methodoly is inefficient and a waste of cash.

I don't believe in a strict 20/0 amateur split because 0 on one side severely limits the number of prospects you see from that side. I'm typically 20/4 to 20/6 or 4/20 to 6/20 depending on whether I can spare the extra money. The difference between 0M and 6M is at least a hundred prospects seen. Even if the off-side projections are super fuzzy at that level, I think there's value to be able to have a deeper draft board.

Posted by saintonan on 8/17/2017 2:07:00 PM (view original):
I don't believe in a strict 20/0 amateur split because 0 on one side severely limits the number of prospects you see from that side. I'm typically 20/4 to 20/6 or 4/20 to 6/20 depending on whether I can spare the extra money. The difference between 0M and 6M is at least a hundred prospects seen. Even if the off-side projections are super fuzzy at that level, I think there's value to be able to have a deeper draft board.

Just using round numbers.

With 4/20 is there any circumstance where you'd pick an 88 with 4m over an 83 with 20m and the 4th pick? The correct answer is "of course not". Now, if we're talking about 18th round, don't you think anyone of value with be taken teams with 15-20m before your 4m kicks in?

If I'm picking in my typical 22-30 overall position, having 8 quality choices is better than having 5 in guaranteeing I'll get at least something out of the 1st round. If I have supplemental picks, then having more guys with major league possibilities is even more useful. By pick 50 to 60 in the draft I'm a lot more inclined to take the guy my $6M crayon wielders say could be a solid ML guy over the guy my $20M scouts are sure will be marginal at best.

Just out of curiousity. How often have the crayon wielders been close enough on projections that it has been more beneficial to grab that guy and skip the "marginal" bench warmer?

It's my belief you can't miss in the first 3 rounds if you're not playing the IFA market. Otherwise, you end up with zero depth. 4-6m will not give you good info to do that.

Posted by pjfoster13 on 8/17/2017 2:08:00 PM (view original):
Different schools of thought, just giving one perspective. I have it when I need it, don't have it when I don't need it. In that respect it's highly efficient, it's the maximum amount of efficient.

If they let us go from 20-20 to 0-0 season by season then I could do things differently, but alas there's +4/-4 limitations for each category. Scouting is organizational philosophy so you need to decide up front whether you're a 10-10 person or a 20-0/0-20 person. 10-10 gives me more flexibility and over time as you gain more experience (o.p. has 2 seasons) you can do as well with only 14 as other people can do with the full 20

Any way you stack it you are paying for resources you don't need. That's not efficient.

Not to derail the thread -- does zero in college or HS scouting mean you won't see any of those players at all? Or could you see a top prospect but with wildly inaccurate projections?

Posted by mattyjim on 8/20/2017 12:45:00 PM (view original):
Not to derail the thread -- does zero in college or HS scouting mean you won't see any of those players at all? Or could you see a top prospect but with wildly inaccurate projections?

Draft a few days ago... with zero HS scouting I saw 11 HS players out of 500 projected prospects. Yes, with wildly inaccurate projections. The best one was projected to 91 Overall, a potential power-hitting CF/2B. Drafted 23rd, he's currently 48 Overall, projected to 75 (and that's with 0 Advance, which is IMO usually overly optimistic), a potential light-hitting 3B.

Posted by damag on 8/20/2017 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mattyjim on 8/20/2017 12:45:00 PM (view original):
Not to derail the thread -- does zero in college or HS scouting mean you won't see any of those players at all? Or could you see a top prospect but with wildly inaccurate projections?

Draft a few days ago... with zero HS scouting I saw 11 HS players out of 500 projected prospects. Yes, with wildly inaccurate projections. The best one was projected to 91 Overall, a potential power-hitting CF/2B. Drafted 23rd, he's currently 48 Overall, projected to 75 (and that's with 0 Advance, which is IMO usually overly optimistic), a potential light-hitting 3B.

Oh shoot. Is that my guy that won't sign?

Edit: it is not. But with 20 mill HS scouting I had that guy ranked 11 with an 84 overall rating. How is that fair?!?!