1. I understand this point, but the counterargument is that managers tend to get more interested in the game when they have players they care about, who are usually trainees. So he might be more likely to stick with the game if he has a killer draftee who is the star of his team, who he gets to watch grow and develop and dominate other players. I know from experience that I really started to get into this game when I got Dimas Conanan and started learning how to train him, and my interest heightened when I drafted Anthony Lucas next season. Will he make some mistakes? Maybe. But isn't that what mentors are for?
2. Maybe, but promotion is kind of overrated unless you do it the 'right' way, in my opinion. What's more fun: buying a bunch of expensive aging veterans, dominating for a season or two, then promoting and being in the middle of the pack while your veterans' skills start to decline, or training up a bunch of young rookies, learning to compete, and then promoting while your trainees are just coming into their own and still improving? Personally I find that only half the fun from this game is winning games, and the other half is watching my players improve and become better than everyone else's.
3. If he were talking about a pure big man (say a 7'2" center or something like that) or even a guard, I would agree with this point. But if you read my original post, I advocated keeping him only if his skills were such that he could be made into a SF/outside oriented PF type. Those types of players are pretty cheap salary wise if you build them right, it's just tricky because they require so many different skills that require training at so many different positions, etc. But he can easily afford a SF/PF for most of his career. The two SFs on the USA U21 team both have salaries under $20K, and both of them have 90+ skill points. That is a very salary efficient build, and $20K players are not a salary burden--plenty of low-level teams have players with even higher salaries. And he'll get a merchandise bonus for drafting him, which covers part of his salary.
Looking at the Australian NT, the only true SF on the roster has a salary of a little under $90K. They have a PF on the roster who also plays SF with a salary of $74K. It will take several seasons to train him to where his salary is anywhere near that high, and by that point this player could have led him to multiple championships and a spot in an Australian D.I or D.II league. Even if he has to sell him then, is it worth it? I'd say definitely.
And here's another thing to consider: if he sells him when he's 25 and well trained, borderline NT caliber, he'll make way more than if he sold him right after the draft. You say he could sell for $1-1.5 million. Some draftees have sold for $2 million, if they're really good. But consider the example of Bill Weeks. Wahoowa was in D.III, but still was able to afford him until he was 25, with a $70K salary. Even then he wouldn't have had to sell him if he hadn't decided to quit BB, but that's another matter. The point is when Bill Weeks sold, he sold for over 5 million. If Stubby can train a SF and sell him for anywhere close to that, it will be more financially rewarding than selling him right after the draft.
Of course, this whole discussion is purely hypothetical until we know his skills. If he's not a SF prospect, then EBW is right--training a top-tier big man as a new team is going to be hard to afford, as his salary can skyrocket. There have been U21 players with salaries well in excess of $100K, which is definitely a little much. I guess the point is, let us know what his skills are. I hope for your sake they're awesome.
P.S. Yes, I did just write a 700-word forum post that might become completely irrelevant for all I know, depending on what skills this player ends up having. And yes, I know this means I have no life.
Last edited by Kennedy at 4/25/2012 7:15:18 PM