|
|
Post by Druce on Feb 7, 2022 15:25:57 GMT -5
Just tossing this out there for discussion. I feel like 15k is entirely too much for on-roster scouts. I also think if we lowered the cost they would be not included in the coach. Just for ideas sake have position groups available at a discount would be cool i.e. bigs (c and pf) forwards (sf and pf) wings (sf and sg) guards (pg and sg) or even full roster scouts. I put a poll for some options.
|
|
mazunga
Charlotte Hornets
Posts: 440
Likes: 176
Joined: January 2021
|
Post by mazunga on Feb 7, 2022 15:27:00 GMT -5
Hide your money there are poor people around.
|
|
|
|
Post by 20s on Feb 7, 2022 15:30:06 GMT -5
I don’t understand why they would be cheaper than the draft prospect scouts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Feb 7, 2022 15:30:39 GMT -5
I don’t understand why they would be cheaper than the draft prospect scouts. because they're already on your team... |
|
|
|
Post by 20s on Feb 7, 2022 15:30:56 GMT -5
Not trying to shut you down, I just haven’t seen a case made yet as to why you think they are too expensive or should cost less. I’d be willing to read one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Feb 7, 2022 15:33:14 GMT -5
Not trying to shut you down, I just haven’t seen a case made yet as to why you think they are too expensive or should cost less. I’d be willing to read one. there is less competitive advantage in just seeing what your own guys are after tc vs. drafting them. if you find a hidden gem or stud sleeper in the draft for example. also, it stands to reason that in a "real life" scenario scouting your own team would be exponentially cheaper than scouting college players based on logistics |
|
|
|
Post by Sapular on Feb 7, 2022 15:33:18 GMT -5
I don’t understand why they would be cheaper than the draft prospect scouts. Because they are a player on YOUR team. If you think about it you have the ability to "see" your player in your own settings. Yes there is cost with it but why would a player that is part of your team cost the same as a player that isnt part of your team? Having taken the "risk" of drafting a player should have some benefit to it. You are stuck with him either way and you do get some piece of mind by getting the scout prior, but that also has a higher cost. Once you "own" them it should be cheaper. |
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Feb 7, 2022 15:34:17 GMT -5
I don’t understand why they would be cheaper than the draft prospect scouts. Because they are a player on YOUR team. If you think about it you have the ability to "see" your player in your own settings. Yes there is cost with it but why would a player that is part of your team cost the same as a player that isnt part of your team? Having taken the "risk" of drafting a player should have some benefit to it. You are stuck with him either way and you do get some piece of mind by getting the scout prior, but that also has a higher cost. Once you "own" them it should be cheaper. Easy there, that was abolished a long time ago |
|
|
|
Post by TinyTimPig on Feb 7, 2022 16:31:51 GMT -5
Makes sense to me. I voted 10k because I think slightly cheaper is reasonable, but I like that they're one thing that make it easy to spend lots of money quickly. Lots of money spent = more activity, either via articles, trades, board duties, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Odin on Feb 7, 2022 16:45:08 GMT -5
i voted 5k because ive been team post everyone's everything publicly each season for years. if free were an option i'd vote that. regardless of the amount, a reduction in cost here would be fantastic. i agree that there's minimal competitive advantage to scouting after the draft and the price should reflect that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Feb 8, 2022 8:46:04 GMT -5
would appreciate more than 6 votes on this
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2022 8:52:10 GMT -5
I like the current cost and even think it should be raised, but of course that's not an option.
Teams in real life play garbage players FOR YEARS before they figure out they are trash. But we can know that with just a flick?
|
|
|
|
Post by delap on Feb 8, 2022 9:25:40 GMT -5
I voted 10k because I support Tim.
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2022 14:36:38 GMT -5
Just to recap where we are at here.
7 Votes to reduce the cost.
2 Votes to keep it where its at.
Could we all meet in the middle and settle on a cost to reduce it to?
I would propose 8500 as a nice breakeven point, more half the cost of draft scouting but still costly enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Odin on Feb 8, 2022 15:03:34 GMT -5
I like the current cost and even think it should be raised, but of course that's not an option. Teams in real life play garbage players FOR YEARS before they figure out they are trash. But we can know that with just a flick? this is a game not life. if irl gms could pay to have exact scouts, they would. the limitations of others have no impact on our limitations. |
|
|
|
Post by TinyTimPig on Feb 8, 2022 16:00:04 GMT -5
Just to recap where we are at here. 7 Votes to reduce the cost. 2 Votes to keep it where its at. Could we all meet in the middle and settle on a cost to reduce it to? I would propose 8500 as a nice breakeven point, more half the cost of draft scouting but still costly enough. 8500 isn't an option in the poll and therefore has received 0 votes. It's important to remember how Eric reads these things. If we want the scout cost reduced, we should agree to vote on one of the already available options. |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2022 16:06:30 GMT -5
Just to recap where we are at here. 7 Votes to reduce the cost. 2 Votes to keep it where its at. Could we all meet in the middle and settle on a cost to reduce it to? I would propose 8500 as a nice breakeven point, more half the cost of draft scouting but still costly enough. 8500 isn't an option in the poll and therefore has received 0 votes. It's important to remember how Eric reads these things. If we want the scout cost reduced, we should agree to vote on one of the already available options. I agree completely, I am trying to find a middle ground that we all might agree on. 8500 seems to split the difference between all options. If thats reasonable Druce could reset the poll and change to an agreed number. |
|
|
|
Post by TinyTimPig on Feb 8, 2022 16:10:50 GMT -5
8500 isn't an option in the poll and therefore has received 0 votes. It's important to remember how Eric reads these things. If we want the scout cost reduced, we should agree to vote on one of the already available options. I agree completely, I am trying to find a middle ground that we all might agree on. 8500 seems to split the difference between all options. If thats reasonable Druce could reset the poll and change to an agreed number. We should just vote 10,000 and make it easy. It feels more likely to get approved since it's a less drastic shift than cutting the cost in half. Smaller changes seem to go over better and get implemented faster than major ones. |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 8, 2022 16:11:45 GMT -5
I agree completely, I am trying to find a middle ground that we all might agree on. 8500 seems to split the difference between all options. If thats reasonable Druce could reset the poll and change to an agreed number. We should just vote 10,000 and make it easy. It feels more likely to get approved since it's a less drastic shift than cutting the cost in half. Smaller changes seem to go over better and get implemented faster than major ones. agreed, I changed my vote to 10k. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2022 16:14:59 GMT -5
this kind of poll won't have any changes because of it's unbalanced nature.
"oh look the average vote is less than the total", well of course, you only let options be on one side of the current total. If there were options for 25000 or 35000 or even 50000, the people on 15000 could've voted them instead and then the outcome of the poll would be to increase the total.
i have spoken
|
|
|
|
Post by Yawn of the Dead on Feb 9, 2022 11:55:10 GMT -5
lets get those votes changed folks. Papa wants to spend less to know more about his crappy players
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Feb 9, 2022 13:46:42 GMT -5
i've been surprised from the beginning that people spent on this at all, but people spend on it a lot, so it doesn't seem to me like the price is too high
i get that people would rather pay less, but i don't see a league benefit out of making the change
|
|
|
|
Post by Odin on Feb 9, 2022 13:58:56 GMT -5
i get that people would rather pay less, but i don't see a league benefit out of making the change ok, jeff |
|
|
|
Post by Herby New Year! on Feb 10, 2022 11:25:28 GMT -5
i've been surprised from the beginning that people spent on this at all, but people spend on it a lot, so it doesn't seem to me like the price is too high i get that people would rather pay less, but i don't see a league benefit out of making the change I would do it more if it were cheaper. I guess it is a question of whether you think more information is better for the league. Or maybe, like Florida and Texas, you think ignorance is bliss. |
|
