International Free Agency Process Overhaul Topic

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
I'm kind of torn.

I get the "why bother, these jackasses have transfered half their budget to prospect" aspect of this idea. Right now, only 4-5 teams per league have a crack at it because those are the teams in "perpetual rebuild"

Yet...last time I did an informal check on owners who loved to do this cycle and their overall records, they were winning about one championship every 35 seasons. Otherwise known as, less often than your randomly typing monkey.

Thus, on the side having all owners have a crack at all aspects of the game, I agree. On the side of competitive disadvantage, it tends to fall on the side of the "transfer $40M to prospect" owner rather than the "plays it correct" owner, so you are not disincentivize a competitive advantage, rather a competitive disadvantage.
6/9/2011 2:59 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Treat the disease, not the symptoms.  The reason the IFA market is so crazy compared to real life is because you've got guys who we know with a reasonable amount of certainty will be studs floating out as free agents that are known about by a bunch of teams.  The real-life IFA process couldn't be any more different.  In the cases where it IS similar (big time Japanese free agents and the Cuban defectors), you do start to see the crazy numbers in real life.  Heck, even go back to '96 when Boras got some of the top draft picks declared free agents to see what happens in real life when you have well-known amateur talent available on the free market.  In real-life, many IFAs are signed as teenagers with minimal certainty of how good they will become, and so many fewer teams even know about them.

Two things I'd much rather see done that would make a huge difference in bringing these bonuses in line:
#1 - Stop having the initial demands be such a good indicator of talent.
#2 - Make projections "fuzzier" for internationals, especially the younger internationals.

Right now, it is too easy to compete in the international market without investing heavily in scouting.  These changes will either knock certain teams out of the market altogether, make them much more hesitant in giving out big bonuses, or give them less money to spend on those IFAs because they'll have to up scouting to stay in.
6/9/2011 3:15 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Posted by AlCheez on 6/9/2011 3:16:00 PM (view original):
Treat the disease, not the symptoms.  The reason the IFA market is so crazy compared to real life is because you've got guys who we know with a reasonable amount of certainty will be studs floating out as free agents that are known about by a bunch of teams.  The real-life IFA process couldn't be any more different.  In the cases where it IS similar (big time Japanese free agents and the Cuban defectors), you do start to see the crazy numbers in real life.  Heck, even go back to '96 when Boras got some of the top draft picks declared free agents to see what happens in real life when you have well-known amateur talent available on the free market.  In real-life, many IFAs are signed as teenagers with minimal certainty of how good they will become, and so many fewer teams even know about them.

Two things I'd much rather see done that would make a huge difference in bringing these bonuses in line:
#1 - Stop having the initial demands be such a good indicator of talent.
#2 - Make projections "fuzzier" for internationals, especially the younger internationals.

Right now, it is too easy to compete in the international market without investing heavily in scouting.  These changes will either knock certain teams out of the market altogether, make them much more hesitant in giving out big bonuses, or give them less money to spend on those IFAs because they'll have to up scouting to stay in.
Well then it becomes a lottery. Why spend $20M on IFA scouting when $1M will do?
6/9/2011 3:35 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Huh?  These changes make spending on IFA scouting more important, not less.  Making the projections a bit fuzzier is far from making it a blind draw - and of course those who spend more on scouting will still get much better projections. $1 million wouldn't do at all - you won't see hardly anyone and on the rare chance that you do see a stud, you'll have no clue whether he is a stud or not.

Right now, in terms of the studs, how much you spend only really impacts how many you see, because the way that the demands work clearly indentifies them even if your projections suck.  You can easily do well in the IFA market without investing heavily in scouting.
6/9/2011 3:52 PM (edited)
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
One bid.   Show the IFA, leave him out there for 48 hours, allow teams to make 1 bid.  No process.

That does a lot of what you just asked for with one simple move.
6/9/2011 3:59 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2011 3:59:00 PM (view original):
One bid.   Show the IFA, leave him out there for 48 hours, allow teams to make 1 bid.  No process.

That does a lot of what you just asked for with one simple move.
If there was going to be a reform to the bidding process itself, I would prefer something like this as opposed to max contracts and caps on how many you can sign.
6/9/2011 4:06 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect

It's been discussed to death in prior IFA/draft projection discussion.

It's not real life, can't be real life.

More fuzzy = more random = more of a lottery. The way it is now is best; $20M, you see closest, you see most, you don't see all.

tec's suggestion, if I'm reading correct, addresses more the amount of prospect money thrown at these studs. I have no problem with people paying top dollar to see them. That's money that can't be applied elsewhere. But eating 1/3rd of your total budget to get one guy is a touch on the demented side.

6/9/2011 4:07 PM
kcden
Posts: 1635 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 58 368 177
Prospect
Posted by deathinahole on 6/9/2011 2:59:00 PM (view original):
I'm kind of torn.

I get the "why bother, these jackasses have transfered half their budget to prospect" aspect of this idea. Right now, only 4-5 teams per league have a crack at it because those are the teams in "perpetual rebuild"

Yet...last time I did an informal check on owners who loved to do this cycle and their overall records, they were winning about one championship every 35 seasons. Otherwise known as, less often than your randomly typing monkey.

Thus, on the side having all owners have a crack at all aspects of the game, I agree. On the side of competitive disadvantage, it tends to fall on the side of the "transfer $40M to prospect" owner rather than the "plays it correct" owner, so you are not disincentivize a competitive advantage, rather a competitive disadvantage.
Yet...last time I did an informal check on owners who loved to do this cycle and their overall records, they were winning about one championship every 35 seasons. Otherwise known as, less often than your randomly typing monkey.
 

Ironic argument from one with such a "stellar" record... are your randomly typing monkeys also drunk?


Both AlCheez's & Mike's suggestions are solid; tec's, not so much, IMO
6/9/2011 4:16 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Posted by deathinahole on 6/9/2011 4:07:00 PM (view original):

It's been discussed to death in prior IFA/draft projection discussion.

It's not real life, can't be real life.

More fuzzy = more random = more of a lottery. The way it is now is best; $20M, you see closest, you see most, you don't see all.

tec's suggestion, if I'm reading correct, addresses more the amount of prospect money thrown at these studs. I have no problem with people paying top dollar to see them. That's money that can't be applied elsewhere. But eating 1/3rd of your total budget to get one guy is a touch on the demented side.

I'll grant you that it would be "more" of a lottery than currently, but it's also one that becomes more heavily weighted in favor of teams that actually invest the dollars.

Hell, forget making projections more fuzzy - just changing the initial demands so you can't use them to pick out the studs would help things.  There are teams that consistently make a killing on the international market now spending 6-8 million dollars in scouting.  They see fewer studs, sure, but you don't need to see them all, and the demand system makes it so they don't have to worry about their crappy projections when they see them.
6/9/2011 4:17 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

As I've said before, all initial demands should be one set price.   50k would work.   Couple that with one bid and many of the IFA evils are covered.

6/9/2011 5:25 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Posted by kcden on 6/9/2011 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by deathinahole on 6/9/2011 2:59:00 PM (view original):
I'm kind of torn.

I get the "why bother, these jackasses have transfered half their budget to prospect" aspect of this idea. Right now, only 4-5 teams per league have a crack at it because those are the teams in "perpetual rebuild"

Yet...last time I did an informal check on owners who loved to do this cycle and their overall records, they were winning about one championship every 35 seasons. Otherwise known as, less often than your randomly typing monkey.

Thus, on the side having all owners have a crack at all aspects of the game, I agree. On the side of competitive disadvantage, it tends to fall on the side of the "transfer $40M to prospect" owner rather than the "plays it correct" owner, so you are not disincentivize a competitive advantage, rather a competitive disadvantage.
Yet...last time I did an informal check on owners who loved to do this cycle and their overall records, they were winning about one championship every 35 seasons. Otherwise known as, less often than your randomly typing monkey.
 

Ironic argument from one with such a "stellar" record... are your randomly typing monkeys also drunk?


Both AlCheez's & Mike's suggestions are solid; tec's, not so much, IMO
Of course you feel that way, you're a dump and chaser. It would kill your " strategy"
6/9/2011 5:25 PM
kcden
Posts: 1635 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 58 368 177
Prospect
And then, of course, I would be completely lost and give advice on how to be competitive in this game with a .458 winning percentage and zero championships.
6/9/2011 5:33 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
I'm not giving advice on how to be competitive.

I'm giving advice on how NOT to be competitive. Dump and chase. My record has nothing to do with the "success" of that method.

And, as stated prior and so completely and conveniently ignored by you, I'm not sure I'm onside with tec. I'm partially there.

I do like the initial starting demand idea.
6/9/2011 5:47 PM
1234 Next ▸
International Free Agency Process Overhaul Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.