Still too many 23+ year old's in offline franchise drafts

[bigd51]

Out of 251 prospects so far on the scouting list before the draft, a total of 91 are 23, 24, and 25 years old which is 38% of the class. There are 23 total "blue-chip" prospects so far and 11 of them are 23 years +.

There's just no logic that fits for me to ever draft a 24 or 25 year old with a 50 overall, even if he is a "blue-chip". Overall, I think the whole scouting and prospect generation system desperately needs to be touched on. I'm tired of seeing the majors and minors overrun by guys in their 30's when you get deep into a franchise. Realistically, these guys won't hit the 40 man until they're in their 30's and after 6 years of contract renewable and arbitration stages, won't have the chance at their first big contract until 36 or so. Based on their age, their starting overalls are just too low to justify ever taking these guys yet the CPU drafts them because they're programmed to value blue-chips over anything.

I can understand 23 year olds by the math, but how can a guy 6 or 7 years removed from high school still be considered draft eligible? IRL, do they not technically become FA's after 4 years of college? And why are they considered "blue-chips" when most of the 24 and 25 year old's have overalls of 50 or 55?

[Ghost Of The Year]

I guess the only workaround is 30-team control, then edit ages.

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ghost Of The Year

I guess the only workaround is 30-team control, then edit ages.

Editing them down a few years would work easily enough....but...you don't need 30 team control to edit any players.

M.K.
Knight165

[Ghost Of The Year]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

Editing them down a few years would work easily enough....but...you don't need 30 team control to edit any players. M.K. Knight165

That;s good to know.
I never looked at it closely on other teams, I just assumed you;d need 30-TC.

[KBLover]

I wouldn't mind the 22-23 y/o's if they weren't as raw as the 19 y/o's...

I'm going to take a very raw project, might as well take the teenager.

[moth to a flame]

How quickly do guys develop in the game? Are there ways that older players develop quicker? I've seen players that are projected to be MLB ready the next year with overalls in the 50s-60s.

[Syce]

Quote: Originally Posted by moth to a flame

How quickly do guys develop in the game? Are there ways that older players develop quicker? I've seen players that are projected to be MLB ready the next year with overalls in the 50s-60s.

not sure but i see a few guys in my franchises draft class that are 18 and are projected to be MLB ready in 3 years.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by moth to a flame

How quickly do guys develop in the game? Are there ways that older players develop quicker? I've seen players that are projected to be MLB ready the next year with overalls in the 50s-60s.

I'm not sure what the ETA is based on. I figure it as "how close is he to his POT".

None = He's probably at/near his POT but will be terrible anyway

6 to 10 years out = Very raw project, but could be something if he somehow gets there

2 to 5 years out = Someone who is close to ready and might could play now if you're willing to accept some warts or a limited role.

2 years or less = Someone who could play now and may even be at his POT already. Usually someone very close.

But for all I know, there could be a hidden development rating that the ETA is trying to show. I just notice that when I take one of these decade projects, he's very very raw but usually has at least C potential, while the guys under 5 years of ETA are usually decently close to their POT where you could project/visualize them reaching it in that time frame.

Unfortunately, there's some 20-somethings with long ETAs. It's not as though the older players are closer to whatever they will be than the 17 year olds.