2032 Offseason SIM 3 FA2 Complete - Next SIM FA3 Wednesday (AM) 7/10

[Pat]

So #5 SPs are expected to have negative WAR and below 100 ERA+ then?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

You can find guys better than that on minor league deals.

[Pat]

Also BradZ or Matt , the newer GMs needed their salaries adjusted. New Orleans and Maine.

[Matt]

Ok will do. Thanks.

[Carlos]

So #5 SPs are expected to have negative WAR and below 100 ERA+ then?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Not expected to, no. But reality is you're not going to find a lot of #5 pitchers that are above 100 ERA+.

You can find positive WAR #5 pitchers but I wouldn't expect it. Over 100 ERA+ is going to be tough.

Using real-world. the New York Yankees have one of the best records in the league and one of their starters has a 90 ERA+.

The Houston Astros only have four starters with an ERA+ over 100. They are having trouble finding a consistent #5.

The Twins only have four starters with an ERA+ over 100.


These are three of the best teams in the league. I know it sucks when you can't find 5 good starters but that's realistic. It's supposed to be tough. I think there's actually more balance now.

[Carlos]

Really good point on this part. 55-55-55 type pitchers are kind of long relievers now or bullpen. Pawtucket had to do alot of magic tricks to get to .500 and it was alot of #4, #5 type guys.

My point still stand though not seeing alot of pitchers from our college's.

Actually in one scary part, I never checked the pitchers but out of our top 50 hitting prospects 8 of them were Intl "free guys" while that doesn't sound very bad most were usually at the top 25 portion.

I'm pretty sure real life "discoveries" really aren't like this. One was from England for Christ Sakes.

You weren't part of the Slack discussion on this.

When I looked, something like 45-48% of the Top 20 prospects in MLB were international signings by scouts. As I mentioned in Slack, I know we try not to be like the MLB, but the game is designed after the MLB so I think it's just more realism we have to accept. I'm more worried about talent in the league without the international aspect. I do agree though that OOTP should handle it differently because the "free guys" aspect is kind of ridiculous.

But that's another discussion because teams also shouldn't be out of the international amateur period just because they are over-budget. Every team in MLB has money to sign international amateurs. OOTP just handles it in the most unrealistic way possible by having it broken into a free distribution system and a free agent period in the middle of the season.

[Guest]

You weren't part of the Slack discussion on this.

When I looked, something like 45-48% of the Top 20 prospects in MLB were international signings by scouts. As I mentioned in Slack, I know we try not to be like the MLB, but the game is designed after the MLB so I think it's just more realism we have to accept. I'm more worried about talent in the league without the international aspect. I do agree though that OOTP should handle it differently because the "free guys" aspect is kind of ridiculous.

But that's another discussion because teams also shouldn't be out of the international amateur period just because they are over-budget. Every team in MLB has money to sign international amateurs. OOTP just handles it in the most unrealistic way possible by having it broken into a free distribution system and a free agent period in the middle of the season.

I remember when the IC was proposed most of us were under the impression that finding elite prospects would be incredibly rare, if not non-existent, but it’s clearly not turned out that way.

I’m fine with it because of the aforementioned flaws in the way OOTP handles it, though.

[Sharkn20]

I remember when the IC was proposed most of us were under the impression that finding elite prospects would be incredibly rare, if not non-existent, but it�s clearly not turned out that way.

I�m fine with it because of the aforementioned flaws in the way OOTP handles it, though.

You are confusing Scout Discoveries with IAFAs.

Star Scout Discoveries --> Rare

Star IAFAs --> One or two per year with great potential, yet to translate to BLB greatness (Too early to tell yet).

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Guest]

You are confusing Scout Discoveries with IAFAs.

Star Scout Discoveries --> Rare

Star IAFAs --> One or two per year with great potential, yet to translate to BLB greatness (Too early to tell yet).

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Can you just like...leave me alone please

[funclown]

You are confusing Scout Discoveries with IAFAs.

Star Scout Discoveries --> Rare

Shark, all kidding aside this is becoming the issue. Check the top 50 prospects out most have been discovered.

Again, fine I suppose but this is not what we signed up for. I see some teams continue to just land them while others its just scrubs.

We might as well go back to the days of unlevel markets. Random is fine, but this can really tilt things besides the playing field. Its also giving team more trade power.

I know me and another GM spoke about this and this was an actual worry expressed at the time we voted.

The one you pay for PERFECTLY ok with it. Its a huge risk your taking, but its backed up by money so cool.

[Pat]

I remember when the IC was proposed most of us were under the impression that finding elite prospects would be incredibly rare, if not non-existent, but it’s clearly not turned out that way.

I’m fine with it because of the aforementioned flaws in the way OOTP handles it, though.

I think the jury is still out on that. By design, you will find a lot of discoveries or IAFA signings that look amazing at 16/17yo. But they have no stats to make a decision off of and a lot of them just fizzle out before even making the BLB.

[funclown]

Back to signing our CF. He debuted #10 for Center Field when inserting him in our lineup. Cool, hole plugged.

[umd]

Discoveries should be disabled. Too random. I’m fine with bidding on internationals. The random scout discoveries was mentioned by me in the vote thread as a possible issue going forward. I think that issue is now here.

[Guest]

I think the jury is still out on that. By design, you will find a lot of discoveries or IAFA signings that look amazing at 16/17yo. But they have no stats to make a decision off of and a lot of them just fizzle out before even making the BLB.

That’s fair. The number of top prospects on the list is jarring relative to what we expected though, regardless of outcome.

[Pat]

Check the top 50 prospects out most have been discovered.

Again, fine I suppose but this is not what we signed up for. I see some teams continue to just land them while others its just scrubs.

The one you pay for PERFECTLY ok with it. Its a huge risk your taking, but its backed up by money so cool.

Discoveries should be disabled. Too random. I’m fine with bidding on internationals. The random scout discoveries was mentioned by me in the vote thread as a possible issue going forward. I think that issue is now here.

See, I actually like the discoveries more than I like the IAFA signings, mainly because of control/success.

Quantity and quality of scouting discoveries are based on two factors: your scouting directors "international scouting" ability and the amount of money you allocate for "international scouting." After we lowered the scouting budget ceiling to $9M, there isn't really any team that has an upper hand here. I know a lot of GMs, myself include, left little to no money for international scouting until some legit prospects started showing up. I think the first 3+ seasons we had discoveries turned on, I just left my ITL budget at $0. Because that $9M is spread across four categories (majors, minors, amateurs, and ITL), if you really wanted to land the best discoveries, bumping your ITL budget north of $5M, along with a quality ITL scout, you will get a good return. Since I raised my budget considerably is when I found LF Richie Van Luik, SS JR Djojo, 1B Lonnie Obayana, SP Danny Ley and SP Mike Ponce. Those currently rank #1, #2, #4, #10 and #19 in my org Top 30. Granted, that's OSA, and every single one of those players, my scout likes less than OSA. But before then, all the guys my scout discovered I would cut before they even reached Rookie League because they had zero potential.

I'm however not the biggest fan of IAFA, mainly in effort to protect teams from making bad decisions. The margin of error in OOTP is very slim in a lot of areas. Prospects sometimes never develop. The star player you give a big contract to could decline rapidly. Etc. What I don't like about IAFA's is it's a LOT of money for a teenager that your scout has seen just one time. We have all seen players in the draft that at initial look, your scout or even more so OSA, absolutely LOVED out of the gate. But after a few full seasons in the feeder league, the reports start to decline and the stats don't project a great player. When you are deciding to fork over say, $5M+ (sometimes we have seen some go for $9M), for a 16yo your scout has seen one time, with no stats, that is insanely high risk. We see teams scramble to clear $5-$10M every year because the player declines, the team is over budget, etc. It might not seem like much but $5M can get you a lot of things in the BLB. It can add seats to your stadium. I landed a top 20 SP (at the time) in Bill Roman for $5.5M last year in FA. Bumping your overall scouting budget from say $3M to $8M, is going to make a ton of difference. Paul just signed possibly the best IFA of this class with less than $5M annually.

[Pat]

I'm looking at some of the biggest IAFA signings the past few seasons. There are two players that went for $7M+ that my scout doesn't think will even sniff the BLB. There are even some that after signing, were top 30 prospects, only to drop off the list completely (and down in the 20s with their organization) less than a year later.