Auto-Draft Substitution Question/and Comment

I pretty much know how the auto-draft works. My question deals with player salaries in context to the auto-draft.

I know that:

1) if you have a player on your card, and no one else has that player on their card - you get the player.
2) If you rank the player higher than anyone else, you win that player.
3) ties - player randomly awarded to team


Question:

4) - if you lose a player, how is the substitution based - in context to salary?

So as to make this clear, here is an extreme example. You put Hugh Duffy's .90 card all the way at number 1 on your draft card. There is a pretty decent chance you will get him at #1. But if you lose him, do you get the next highest replacement LF/CF from his 11.75 card or do you get a replacement at the .90 or lower range?


Comment:

Also - Personally, I think card values should come into play in determining the auto-draft. If someone is willing to allocate 11.75 for Duffy, they should get precedent over someone allocating .90 for his card regardless of where you rank him on your draft card. (This goes for any player. Just using Duffy as an extreme example). Highest drafted salary card wins. JMO


Opinions?

I believe in your scenario you would get the next 0.90 guy who plays the same primary position if you miss on the 0.90 Duffy.

hackra is right. You would get the next CFer under 0.9 mil available.
I agree highest salary card chosen should be the first tiebreaker when 2 people select a player in the same draft slot.

hackra is right. You would get the next CFer under 0.9 mil available.
I agree highest salary card chosen should be the first tiebreaker when 2 people select a player in the same draft slot.

I think highest salary card should take precedent regardless of where the player is ranked on your draft card. It should be highest salary first, then then the ranking in relationship to all owners draft cards.

For instance:

Duffy is on 5 players cards. On 2 cards, owners have selected the .90 card. On the other 3 owners draft cards, they select the 11.75 version of Duffy. The 2 owners selecting the .90 card are out of the picture. Duffy is awarded to the owner who then ranked him highest on their card. In the event of a tie, it would be randomly awarded as it is now.

Btw I am first to admit that I take advantage of drafting some players lower value cards and converting them as do many other owners.

I just think that changing the auto-draft process to incorporate the players salaries would be a more judicious way of auto-drafting players in the higher cap games (140m & 200m).

If I understand you TRW, I disagree.

If I have cheap Duffy at #1, and you have expensive Duffy at #25, there's no way you should get him.

I do agree with salary begin used as a tiebreaker.

I think I understand the reasoning behind the stances taken by trw and bkeat23.

On one hand I agree with trw. Seems like a huge reward for guy to pick 0.9 mil Duffy and still have all that money left for better picks later on card. So kind of agree with him.

But change the example to say Arod. I want him to play third so I pick the 10.3 mil third base card. Someone else at a later slot takes the 10.6 mil shortstop card. I would be miffed if they got him just because the shortstop card is priced higher. So agree with bkeat23.

And I suppose that makes it perfectly clear where I stand on the issue.
You guys think I am ready for my career change to politics?

I absolutely agree that preference should be given to where a manager places the player on his draft card rather than the price of the card.

The risk/reward of trying to get players at a low value and than trading up later is obviously built into the system in that the risk is getting stuck with lower value players as consolation if the hoped for player is drafted by someone else. I have dabbled a little with that strategy and have gotten burned at least as much as i was rewarded.

No feeling better than getting your first look at your team following autodraft and finding you drafted Roy Hartzell #1.