Asunto: II.1

Hmm, the draft has been a joke to me since the day it started. I do not have one player from any draft on my team.

I treat it as the poorly implemented game mech that it is. It is the one mech that almost made me never come back to the site again.

Though, to be fair, I never thought it was fair that academy had any place in a draft.

Don't know if I should go for 1 of the 2 5/6 A's or just go for the 10 6/6 B's.

5/6 A and place to sell this or next season.

Some days, I really hate my goalie(s).

Seriously... when you hold the other team to under 40 sog, and you still somehow allow almost 30 goals, it just makes you wanna smack a bitch.

Loomis is very disappointing. Cason and Farnsworth are both better from my team. None of his unscouted qualities for Goa/FiP/Sho/Blk are above 60, though he has a 99 for Agr and somehow 83% unscouted AVQ. His OR is only 332.

Dawson has unscouted positional qualities in the 80's.

For what it's worth, I see Loomis as 72 AQ.

I was shocked to see most of the A and B players coming in in the low 300s. I'm thinking the whole "respective to others" thing is catching up with us. As some teams are starting their level 15 SA facilities, level 12 and 13 facilities are no longer "great" by comparison.

My 2nd round pick is actually decent by the looks of him (3.5 stars in the wing category), but I'm hesitant to pick him up because his OR is only 325. Being that he's also 5/6 CL starting out, I'd just end up blowing money carrying him and end up cutting him anyways.

72 AQ does better reflects the qualities that I currently see.

The best players look like O'Rourke (81 AVQ and 394 OR) and and Welker (85 AVQ and 411 OR).

Based on hockey and soccer, that should happen eventually, though I've gotten enough high OR players this season that I think level 12 and 13 aren't quite obsolete, at least not until more teams build level 14 (which is especially expensive in building costs and maintenance expenses).

Though you could train Guthrie towards 400 OR and sell him at the end of the season when he might look like a good late season pull, most of the ~380 OR players on the market without elite qualities seem to be available for ~10,000<expected salary payments. Among the latest transfers there are two players around the 380 range with greater than 200,000 returns, but one of them seems to have gotten an unreasonably high bid at relative to the AQ that I see and the other only got slightly more than 200,000. Another concern would be if you have sold enough players to start to pay a larger penalty for selling further players and intend to sell another more valuable player at some point in the near future.

I see O'Rourke as 76% and Welker as 70% lol. I'd imagine both are in the mid to upper mid 70s. I had both scouted as Bs before and after they were drafted. I can't imagine either would be in the 80s in quality. In my experience, you have to be at least an A to come close to that.

Loomis will probably surprise you when you've scouted him. I'd bet that he comes out as being in the upper 70s (77-79).

As far as training and selling the throwaways goes... I could probably make the best money selling them as 16-17 year olds. I have a good enough TF (and only getting better) that I could get them up to probably 430-550 OR by then. Granted, to see if it even makes sense to do it... I'd have to subtract out the cost to carry them for one to two years (which will probably be anywhere from 600k to 1.5 million).

Regardless of all that... here's hoping that the "end of the season/beginning of next season" draft actually has some decent players in it. I'm tired of this 1 A player out of 140 crap we've had the last several times.

3.5 stars, 5/6, and 325 OR isn't even good enough for my team to pull, much less yours, so ditch him. My handball team has gotten to about where my hockey and soccer teams are in terms of SA pulls - 4 stars or better only unless it's a 3.5 star with 6/6 and very high OR.

After seeing way, way too many 3.5 star disappointments, it's just better to save the money.

Yeah... I pretty much agree. The only reason I why I decided to pull him from the SA was because his initial contract length was favorable (60 days or so remaining).

So if I do decide to cut him, it won't cost me as much. We'll see what his scouted stats come in at. His shooting quality is atrocious, but the rest of his stuff actually doesn't look horrible.

Oy. Well I can't say I'm surpised I lost today. I'm honestly surprised I managed to hold 1st place down as long as I did. I imagine that CP will have it locked down going forward. It was a good run while it lasted lol. =)

Loomis ultimately had slightly better qualities in field play and shooting, though they only improved to average. His EQ is in the low 70's (closer to 75 if I ignore blocking) and his AQ is 73. His qualities for Agr and Tec are in the low 90's though.

I suspect that player with good qualities in the areas especially relevant to their projected positions might tend to rate more highly as opposed to players who have the most potential taking into account the qualities of all attributes that will be trained with the proper weight given to each quality. The same thing happened with Huiskens in the previous draft.

Huh... interesting. I can't believe that he came out that poorly. That's rather disappointing. I wonder how Leandro O'Rourke came out... he was my planned pick before [handball_team=16023] spoiled me.

As it was, my 1st rounder turned out ok... John Cavanaugh will probably be my 2nd goalie in a few seasons since he has very decent all-around stats (he's actually better than my current backup Ryan Stapleton in everything except OR). He's 77 EQ with none of his top 3 goalie qualities below 77 and neither of his secondary qualities below 63.

I'll probably shed another goalie onto the market now (since I have a few that I'll probably never ever use now).

Wow.................. no words.

#Goaliefail

GG Cap, well played.

That was lucky for me, but you're probably going to ultimately promote to I.1 in a few weeks anyway.