Broken Bat - Suggestions: Draft & Stash

Forum >> Suggestions >> Draft & Stash

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function

#34440	05/24/2016 1:13:01 pm
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	Well, I doubt we'll come to any sort of agreement about it on here. If Steve decides to change the pool and that the buyout is to be part of it, he can set the range to amounts he feels are appropriate. To my knowledge, no exact amounts have been discussed along the way, but as a real-world example, Dragan Bender, the top European prospect in the upcoming NBA draft, has a 1.3 million dollar buyout. As a prospect, I'd put him somewhere in the 14 or 15 POT range in BB terms. Another loose detail is the number of stashed prospects a team can have at any one time. To me, three seems reasonable. What do you guys think?

#34441	05/24/2016 1:45:48 pm
newtman Joined: 11/02/2013 Posts: 3343 Inactive	I think the original idea of the buyouts only possibly being tied to the potential maybe 50% chance, with a 25% chance of paying less or 25% chance of paying more keeps the ambiguity. No numbers had been discussed yet, and I was thinking that so as not to penalize the financially constrained teams they shouldn't be too high, maybe tiered at 100k increments with tied to the "never make it out of the minors"-"very good potential" scale (so 100k-500k buyout). That isn't out of anyone's range of possibility. True, it isn't the money sink that some rich clubs need, but I don't think anything performance related should ever be the money sink some of us are looking for. Actually I realized after typing my message, that the original proposal was having the buyout tied to potential, but maybe having it tied to the scouting message would be better. Edit: As to how many, since the pool will likely stay fairly small, I would say three stashed prospects max. Since it is likely people will keep a player stashed for about three seasons on average, that will give us about one per season, which should be more than enough to be honest. Updated Tuesday, May 24 2016 @ 1:50:12 pm PDT

#34442	05/24/2016 1:48:04 pm
buffmckagan Joined: 12/22/2013 Posts: 651 Scranton Bears Legends	To my knowledge, no exact amounts have been discussed along the way, but as a real-world example, Dragan Bender, the top European prospect in the upcoming NBA draft, has a 1.3 million dollar buyout. As a prospect, I'd put him somewhere in the 14 or 15 POT range in BB terms. That's because it's 2x the maximum buyout for an NBA team. His future team will pay half and the other half will be taken out of his rookie-scale contract at a later date. Just for context!

#34443	05/24/2016 2:52:35 pm
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	Ah, nice point, buffmckagan If my math is right, at 500k, keeping a prospect overseas for three full season would actually save a team 100k in salary. I just don't understand the objection regarding poorer teams. If anything, it should probably be a little higher as that feels a little like stealing to me. If it's as we've discussed to this point, we already have the full scouting report from the beginning. If that's the case, pegging the buyout to that wouldn't give us any new information. You'd like to have the scouting report (Great hitter, Prolific Slugger etc.) without the overall potential at the end and then peg the buyout that Newt? I could see that, but it likely makes a little more work for Steve if he has to change the draft card setup for these guys. SI could also be an option, though I like that less than number of potential blocks. Could even go by minor league rating. [EDIT] The thing I like about POT is that it's relatively stable. In a vast majority of cases using POT, the buyout on the day you draft a prospect would be the same as three years down the road. SI and minor league rating would both rise as time goes by. Might be one of those things we should present a range of options and let Steve decide how he wants to do it and we never really know what it's actually pegged to. Updated Tuesday, May 24 2016 @ 2:56:47 pm PDT

#34445	05/24/2016 3:25:40 pm
newtman Joined: 11/02/2013 Posts: 3343 Inactive	No, my suggestion of using the scouting report potential, doesn't mean that I don't think we should see it. I suggested it for two pragmatic reasons, 1) the scale is small enough that the buyout doesn't get too large for poor teams, and 2) the buyout is attached to information we already see. Admittedly this wouldn't allow us to even guess the potential before buying out, which could result in disappointment, but I think a 500k disappointment is better than a 1.4 mil disappointment for those who don't have cash flows that make the finances irrelevant.

#34447	05/24/2016 3:58:42 pm
Carcharoth Joined: 07/16/2015 Posts: 149 Inactive	With regards to the buyout, I think it should be based on a combination of SI and POT. I think it's realistic to assume that a player's value is a combination of both their current skill and future potential...perhaps there would be a sliding scale of their respective weighting based on their age. In order to prevent teams from stashing forever and encourage these players to move, we could also try limiting the total value of buyouts a team can do in a year (just like with international signings in the MLB). The ceiling would be based on the average buyout value, but should probably be kept quite low; we could also argue about whether to allow teams to go over and pay penalties etc., but again this could favour richer teams too much... This plus Mike's thought of releasing players at a fixed age would prevent teams from actually getting to use too many of these players. Or perhaps teams would own the rights to the player they drafted for a set number of years (sorry I'm just writing whatever ideas come to mind). Updated Tuesday, May 24 2016 @ 4:11:34 pm PDT

#34450	05/24/2016 4:49:33 pm
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	Admittedly this wouldn't allow us to even guess the potential before buying out, which could result in disappointment, but I think a 500k disappointment is better than a 1.4 mil disappointment for those who don't have cash flows that make the finances irrelevant. It would be time wasted that would disappoint more than money lost if a I stashed a 9 POT for five seasons I'm more interested in the mystery than the money myself. That's why I described the buyout as I did. As a piece of the puzzle to figure out if a prospect is a good player or just hype. One of the best things about Broken Bat is the transparency we enjoy here. You can see my players, my minors, my line-up and I can see yours. One small, hidden thing to puzzle out seems like it would be fun as a contrast. With regards to the buyout, I think it should be based on a combination of SI and POT. I think they're are more right answers than wrong answers on this. There are at least three or four ways to go here that would fit the bill. Seems like your suggestion would work fine as well, Carcharoth. In order to prevent teams from stashing forever and encourage these players to move, we could also try limiting the total value of buyouts a team can do in a year (just like with international signings in the MLB). I'm partial to realism myself in most things here, but I think in this case the age limit would likely get the job done by itself and be easier to implement. Adding the buyout ceiling would be a nice touch if it's doable, but I doubt it would be an easy add. If, in the end, it worked like this: a stashed prospect turns a certain age (I think Mike suggested 24) and his rights are rescinded and he goes on waivers. That would mean it would likely be an offseason event right around the #0 update. After a season or two, it would become routine that you sign these guys before that, or lose them.

#34451	05/24/2016 5:57:37 pm
newtman Joined: 11/02/2013 Posts: 3343 Inactive	The time would be the important thing for me as well, however I was primarily addressing the position of new owners who don't have 100 million in the bank like you and I have. I think age is better than a buyout ceiling, because it seems like it would be much easier to implement. As for the combo of SI and potential making the price of the buyout, I'd go for it as long as the scale is small enough to not price players out of reach of less financially well off clubs.

#34463	05/25/2016 3:09:23 am
amalric7 Joined: 01/20/2016 Posts: 2236 New York Lancers V.4	I'm just wondering how many owners will be tempted to draft from the International Pool this weekend after reading this!

#34465	05/25/2016 4:37:44 am
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	Ha, amalric7 The actual buyout number for each increment up and down the range can almost be a token amount if that's what's needed to make it work. Not paying the prospect's salary for a stretch of years seems like it should be offset in some way though. One small detail I can think of, instead of having the usual "Norwalk [AAA]" it would be "Norwalk [HRV]" for stashed players with the portion in brackets being the country abbreviation as the minor league level wouldn't really work. On a related track, I think these guys should be listed on the Minors page, but maybe on a different tab/page. Maybe a button to the right of Prospect Ranking labeled something like "Draft Rights" or "Held Rights" that takes you to the page with these guys listed in the same layout as the minors page, but with all the hidden attributes being ???. I think we've given Steve a few options to most of the details. Any other loose ends that need working out on this?