I wasn't envisioning a cumulative effect. Just a slight bonus for a winning season and a slight penalty for losing. $5-$10 up or down; certainly not $40.

And, yeah, I admitted that there would be problems with this approach in practice. But it's not the worst idea ever.

No, it really is the worst idea ever. 

Back when I was younger, I drove some junkers.   $10 for a headlight, $20 for a door handle, $18 for a fuel filter, etc, etc.   Just a few bucks every week to keep it on the road and avoid a car payment.   But, eventually, the cost of upkeep outweighed the benefit of no payment.   So I'd buy another car.

That's what you would have by reducing budgets of unsuccessful teams.    They would reach a point when moving on is a better option than getting nickel and dimed to death while staying with the same team. 

Unwanted turnover.

I've had plenty of terrible ideas.   None as bad as that one.   Because it's the worst idea ever.

Any of you play Soccer Dynasty?    You get revenue based on stadium size.   When you start, you have a tiny stadium.   You upgrade and make more profit.   Without that profit, you can't afford players.  Without those players, you can't compete.   So your first season is a loser.   Second season(where I am) you can compete but the long-time owners still have a huge advantage.   If it wasn't free, no one would get past 1 season. 

That's what this idea is.  Asking people to pay to be unable to compete.   Worst idea ever.

When I was 18, my friends and I got drunk and decided to fly kites in out apartment parking lot at 3 in the morning. We made a ton of noise, ****** off the neighbors, and got kicked out of the apartment.

That was a worse idea than what I wrote above. Therefore, it isn't the worst idea ever.

No, that only affected you and your drunken, noisy friends.    This idea would affect everyone playing HBD.   

Looking at it from a commissioner's viewpoint, I want good, attentive owners.    But, more often than not, everyone is going to have a bad stretch.    An example:

9	MikeT23	ML	92-70	.568	2nd	Yes	No	no	no	no
10	MikeT23	ML	65-97	.401	3rd	No	No
11	MikeT23	ML	80-82	.494	3rd	No	No
12	MikeT23	ML	78-84	.481	3rd	No	No
13	MikeT23	ML	73-89	.451	3rd	No	No
14	MikeT23	ML	66-96	.407	4th	No	No
15	MikeT23	ML	76-86	.469	4th	No	No
16	MikeT23	ML	83-79	.512	1st	No	Yes	no	no	no

I had a dispute with ADMIN over WC ban(I denied an owner entrance into MG so he found an "offensive" remark I made in Happy Jack, digging 8 pages deep into that chat to do so) and neglected this team during FA.  Anyway, I spent 6 seasons trying to put a band-aid on it.   I wasn't rebuilding or running low payrolls.   Had I been working with less budget, I'd have likely fallen victim to my own MWR. 

No one wants to lose long-term owners who struggle for a few seasons.   And you make their job that much more difficult when you give them less to play with.   Worst idea ever.

To further the point, an owner getting in trouble with the MWR is going to overspend on FA.   After all, winning BL games is the only way to save his team.   So he'll have to make adjustments somewhere else.   Assuming he's already at 0 ADV, and that IFA/College/HS scouting is more important, he has some tough calls to make.   Cut training and hurt player development/increase decline?    Cut amateur scouting and wreck the farm system?   Cut medical and destroy injured player's careers?   None of those are good for the future of the team that he may or may not be around to run.

It amazes me how often dynamic budgets come up. Its one of those ideas that seems like it should make sense until you really think it through. Then you just shudder and say WTF was I thinking.

Some people do.   Others will go to their grave thinking it's a good idea.

The attachment to teams is purely in our heads.   If you're in an average world with a struggling team in a powerhouse division, the practical thing to do is to pack up and move on.   Losing isn't fun.   But we drafted Jimmy Joe three seasons ago and Billy Bob last season.   Those two guys are gonna be the foundation to my WS winning staff for years!!!!!   I can't abandon Jimmy and Billy!!!!!

Truth is, attachment to HBD teams is probably similar to pets.   You have a 15 y/o cat that has a slew of medical bills.   The practical thing to do is put that cat down and get another from the shelter for $10.   But we don't.   Tabby has been with us since she was a kitten and we can't bear to let her go even though she acts as if she hates us.   We'll just eat noodles for a week so Tabby can live another month.

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.

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.