Farm System Alternative

[georgefc3]

Guys

I was thinking about the system BBM uses and wondered if there is a better alternative. I think I have it!!

In BBM, everyone's spending is compared to the other manager's spending. There is an alternative. The alternative is this: everyone's spending is compared to an absolute scale.

Specifically, spending would be divided up into five categories:

0-15.........Low
16-35.......Medium
36-60.......Average
61-100.....High
101-150...Very High

Thus the maximum allowable to spend would be 150 points. The idea of a maximum is that beyond a certain point one reaches a point of diminishing returns. If your farm spending exceeds your payroll, as some teams do, something is very wrong!

If two people each pay 50 points of Farm spending there is no special incentive to go to 51 to get an advantage over your neighbor. And in real baseball this is the case. No one says "Boston spends 25 million of Farm, I will spend 25.1 Million!"

Finally, this system has a slight bias to weaker teams. The brackets at the low end are small. So if you are the Expos it should not be impossible to get to AVERAGE - 48 points. If you are the Yankees, once you spend 150 points you are done. Spend it on players or bank it!

Finally, the benefits to each level - each additional level would mean one extra rookie per year. Alternatively, the level of farm spending would limit the number of roster spots in the minors. If you have maximum spending you would get all of the minor league roster spots. Lower levels of spending mean fewer roster spots available.

Obviously this final part needs a bit of work. Feel free to respond and elaborate!

Finally a poll. Please let me know your thoughts! Am I onto something, or have I been tokin' on something?

[khan]

I like it. Your plan is more real-life-like than the current system. And why aren't you in the Mogul Challenge?

[georgefc3]

Kahn

Being the obsessive compulsive sort that I am, I cannot participate in Mogul Challenge. My wife gets mad at me, I find myself checking on my teams at work. My boss has spoken to me about this and I am concerned that it may affect my future if I don't let go...

I'm down to two leagues and will soon be down to one. I can manage one pretty well without going crazy...

But thanks for the compliment!

[khan]

LOL, I think we're finding a pattern here. I'm in the same boat. Except, my wife yells at me with even one team :(.

[takaplan]

Interesting - definitely makes sense!

[crgupta]

i think there are some good pts you make in your farm system suggestion. However, I disagree with you about bracketing the spending at higher levels--i think alot depends on how free of a market you want to create. Why equalize spending abilities at certain levels? If I am a large market, my strategy might be to outspend other teams in developing farm so that in the long term I get assurance that 1) I will have the best farm system, 2) perhaps start driving the other teams into financial distress, 3) Spend away to my heart's content because I am free to do so... diminishing returns should be a judgement of the owner, not of the league! On top of that--with the current lack of data in our farm systems, it is hard to figure out how to optimize our farm spending anyways...

Maybe bracketing would be "fair" at the lower revenue levels, but then there is the argument of what really is "fair"? Maybe these teams are best helped if they basically close shop--at the very least it makes the league more competitive because the talent won't be as diluted!

I think the major problem of the farm/scouting system right now is that we are unable to DIRECT our scouts to acquire players we NEED. Under the current system, if this was MLB, you would have a weird/unrealistic situation where the owner would tell his scouts-- "I want a Catcher because we don't have any"--and then the scouts come back with 3 Left Fielders! I don't want to be spending 150pts on farm each year if all i get is Left Fielders!

Also, directing your scouts on what players you want can help every team immensely in the way they want to direct their franchise and craft players to suit the style of coaching or home stadium attributes (i.e. i'd want more power hitting rookies in Colorado). This gives you more bang for your buck!

Quite frankly, the current BBMO farm system is a rip off!

[DaveHorn]

I actually don't like this idea too much. I think it would produce too much medicrity and very little difference in quality level of rookies between teams.

While you think it has a bias to lower teams, I think just the opposite almost. Now teams loaded with money can pay their 150pts every year and have lots of extra to spend on FAs, and they would get quality farm year after year. I like the competition between teams to maximize their expenses, its the only way to keep these loaded teams in check. Very bad plan IMHO.

BTW George, you not leaving EM are you?

[georgefc3]

Equalized Mogulers will be my last league.

Right now RBL is down to six players. It has been at six for quite some time. At some point players will drop out. Then EM will be it for me.

Thanks for your input, by the way.

[billjoe439]

crgupta stole my words. the way it is now is flawed, but i think i like its setup more. a LOT of ball clubs can put up 101 in farm, then what happens? they all get superstars, or they all end up getting mediocrity players? or just random, because then if it's random, it defeats the purpose.

farm needs to be split up by position. then i can put like 80 into catcher, 20 into shortstop, and 0 into lf, rf, and cf if i have too many outfielders, etc. just like the cd-rom allows you to do.

[skydog617]

I think the biggest problem with the farm right now is that you can't always get what you want and you NEVER get what you need... I've even tried voiding my club of a position to see if I can get a couple of prospects for that position from the farm and it doesn't work. I think George has an interesting idea but I'm not sure it would work.

[georgefc3]

:-)