[LegalEagle80]

It's definitely a balancing act. I didn't play OOTP back in 2006 but it sounds like it was the right idea but too cumbersome.

I wouldn't want to deal with individual scouts like they're coaches. I'd rather have a scouting director who manages (invisible) scouts based on my direction. Budget would dictate both how long something took (more scouts = more players reviewed) and maybe even 2nd opinions (cross-checking) on players, but not necessarily more accuracy.

I do like talent (based on history) to be a consideration in hiring a scouting director, however. It just sorta seems arbitrary right now. I just throw money at the guy who has the most "outstanding" and "legendary" ratings and call it a day. In this sense, the teams with the highest budgets essentially have the best scouting, but as history has shown, that's not always the case (look at Tampa Bay right now).

I'd prefer to dictate big-picture things -- favoring tools versus talent, favoring power pitchers versus finesse, college arms versus prep, which could dictate the types of players that get a more in-depth assessment, so there could be multiple layers to it without having to tell individual scouts to go do their jobs in certain places on a daily basis.

Anyways, I'm intrigued by them revisiting this idea. Seems like a lot of people would be open to it.