I'm all for the idea of free agents signing with good teams for less. Not sure if would do much to discourage tanking, though. The worst tankers are the ones who run tiny budgets and accumulate top prospects for a few seasons and then debut them all at once and start winning. Those guys don't really go after a lot of free agents.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2015 3:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rockindock on 5/27/2015 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2015 2:32:00 PM (view original):
If you want to tie anything to success, it's free agency.   Rather than high bidder, every time, maybe some guys actually sign with successful teams only.   For less.

I like this idea. Don't get a big head over it Mikey. (Is that possible)?

Maybe include other factors, like hometown, good training and medical budgets, etc.

It actually does the same thing that the dynamic budget guys want.    It's just not as upfront.

If Johnny Fireball signs with me for 5/65m because we won 90 games instead of taking your offer of 5/75m because you won 75, you were actually playing with a 10m deficit.   At least for that one player. 

Free agency should probably be overhauled so they don't take the most money every time.    They could program in any number of factors.   Including historical success. 

I would love to see this in IFAs, because it would help eliminate rebuilds to sign more stud prospects. Include logic in the code so that some IFAs take a reasonable offer instantly, and the chance increases if the offering team has recent or sustained success. Some guys just want to play for the teams they heard of growing up, like the Dodgers or Yankees, and don't wait for the Brewers to make an offer.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2015 2:32:00 PM (view original):
If you want to tie anything to success, it's free agency.   Rather than high bidder, every time, maybe some guys actually sign with successful teams only.   For less.

I think right now past success is only a tiebreaker and usually impacts max deals. I'd like it to be a bigger factor, it would make a nice tie-in with the patience rating. I think right now players are more likely to resign before FA with a team based on a high patience rating. I'd think with 'less patience' they'd also want to sign with a winner.

I don't have a definitive answer on how to do it, but I think one of the best ways to discourage tanking and have shorter cycles of dominance is to make sure guys re-sign for appropriate amounts. The current system of it just being on overall doesn't work. There should still be guys who stay with one team their entire careers. The loyalty is fine. But if a guy would get (and deserve) $20M on the open market, I should not be able to re-sign him for $9.75M. Maybe $16M, I don't know but something significantly higher. It would be harder to trade guys late into arbitration (and therefore would get worse prospects back theoretically) since they would cost more, and it would also be prohibitive to keep them. If you somehow accumulate 8 MVP/Cy Young quality players, it shouldn't be financially possible to resign them all to long-term deals in their late arb years. Right now it is. It makes those top IFAs and top draft picks that much more important, since you have them for their entire career sometimes at way, way less than market value. It also makes it easier for top teams to continue building through IFA since they have lower payrolls. It would make things way more interesting and difficult (in my opinion).

You appear to be a professional tanker yourself.  In your case the solution to discourage tanking is to not allow yourself to do it.

Dynamic budgets are not horrible in all scenarios.  Imagine a scenario where teams with lots of minor league talent and very few major league wins suffer a budget penalty.  Who does that affect?  Tankers that are happily tanking (maybe just meeting MWRs).

What does this budget penalty cause a tanker to do?

1.)  Try to win to avoid penalty.  Ok, sounds good.
2.)  Continue to tank because they like all the prospects they've nurturing.  Ok, reduced budget makes it harder for them to snag more IFAs.  Sounds good.
3.)  Leave the league.  Ok, sounds good.  Tanker leaves.  Maybe the new owner actually tries to win.  Sounds like it can only be an improvement.

Potential downside:  Might have to find a replacement for a tanker.  Assuming the tanker doesn't just try to win instead of continuing to tank. 

Yeah, we're past that bad idea.   It's the worst one ever.    But, moving along, I suggested a few things with regards to player control.

Some guys refuse to sign after 1st arb or 2nd arb.  
Players do not automatically take 5 year deals after 2nd arb.  
Future FA demands, in their last year before FA, change as the season progresses.  Some even refuse to sign.  

As it stands right now, we control players for 10 seasons at a minimum.   3 minimum wage, 2 arb, 5 LT.  Almost 11 is you do the wait 20 game thing(which could be another trigger for a player refusing to sign with you later).    None of that is realistic. 

Well, if you say so then.

My main hope is that WIS doesn't think this echo chamber represents the thoughts of everyone that plays the game.

Posted by dcbove on 5/27/2015 7:30:00 PM (view original):
My main hope is that WIS doesn't think this echo chamber represents the thoughts of everyone that plays the game.

I'm sure they're aware of that.

The problem you have, other than a seeming lack of intelligence, is that you think everyone who loses is tanking.   Looks like you have about 10 of your 84 seasons where you lost 90 or more.    Were you tanking?   If you say "no", then your entire point about dynamic budgets goes to hell in a handbasket. 

Assuming you weren't, at what point is someone tanking?

Posted by arcticlegend on 5/27/2015 7:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcbove on 5/27/2015 7:30:00 PM (view original):
My main hope is that WIS doesn't think this echo chamber represents the thoughts of everyone that plays the game.

I'm sure they're aware of that.

Maybe but I can sniff out a bad idea better than anyone.   Budgetary punishments for losing is the worst idea ever.   Ever.

Maybe dynamic budgets are the worst idea ever- but I'll try and improve on it a bit... What about just rewarding playoff teams or World Series teams? You don't get set back if your team loses, and even if you switch to another league the successful teams in that league would still have a budget advantage, so it would be no incentive to switch

OK, I'll use small words so everyone can understand.

WifS wants people to play HBD.  It's kinda how they get our money.   
WifS would like said people to believe they can win.   In short order.   People who think they can win are more likely to hand them some money.
Therefore, the best way to create that feeling is to have said people believe it's an even playing field so they can win in short order.

Giving one team more or one team less resources does not create that playing field.

Now, please, stop.    Different budgets based on success/failure is the worst idea ever.    Please, patrickm885, come in and say "That, in fact, will never happen."

Seeing our first IFAs in Ford today. A little bit unsettling that I can't see current ratings for the players, and I only have 8 mil in the Intl scout budget. I can see that this will create a lot of 20s and 0s in the Intl, Coll, and HS scout budgets. Either you completely trust your scouts or you forget them.