Posted by deathinahole on 6/9/2011 5:47:00 PM (view original):
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.

I didn't ignore the fact that you aren't onboard with tec's idea.  My point is that I think your assertion that it is never a good use of budget spend 20-30 (or 40+, taking into account the 50% lost to transfer) mill (or thereabouts) on an IFA is patently wrong.  I'm not saying it is always the way to go or always a good strategy, but it can work just fine.  40 million in one year of budget for ~8-9 years controlling a superstar ML player (at very cheap to reasonable per year cost) can be well worth it.  As an alternative way of looking at it, pull up those two to three 7-9 mill IFA's you get in a season and I'll take the 17-30 mill single IFA over those 2 or 3  nearly every time.
I also like the starting demand idea.  If they made that change, I would move my IFA scouting budgeting back up to the 18-20 million I used to run it at.

The entire problem with the whole "super team", which is what the vast majority of the "budget transfer" people are after, is that they still have to win at least 3 short series to win that elusive championship.   Other teams will still be good so your 120 win team is playing a 104 win team, maybe two-three of them, along the way.

I'd much rather make the playoffs 3 times in those 5 seasons where the "super team" chaser is running a 20m payroll and winning 53.  Because, when he's finally ready to unleash the beast in S7, I can still beat him 3-2 in a 5 game series.

i liked boogerlips and cheez's posts. and mikes. i am not as successful or mindful of such specifics and data and whatnot, but i like what i hear. i am wondering if tec thinks the same thing should apply to regular free agents as well. aren't stud (which is what we're talking about here as far as intls anyway, nobody cares about a borderline ml intl prospect) free agents also bid up like crazy here in hbd? or is it just the fact that the discrepancy between mlb dollars and hbd dollars is usually so different what drives this proposal about internationals?

I'll speak for tec and he can correct me if I'm wrong.  I think his problem really lies in the transferred money.   As death points out, 2m becomes 1m and, when that happens, you've put yourself at a disadvantage to compete right now.   So when someone transfers 40m, they're working with a 165m budget.   You can do that and compete(

6

Kansas City Swing Kings

MikeT23

80 (38)

20 (41)

 with 75 wins) but most owners don't.  They're building that "super team" and grabbing a high draft pick is also a goal.  IMO, the "problem" most see is the huge transfer and the inevitable "soft" tanking that comes with it. 

I've been without power at home since around 5pm last night, so I'm just now trying to catch up with the thread.  So I'll try to hit the high points and address some of the comments directed to me and the thought behind my proposal.

First, I completely endorse the low starting bid idea.  That certainy addresses the fast that IFA studs could be easily identified solely by their starting bid price.  That seems like it should be a failrly "fix", should ADMIN decide to address it.

Second, I also like the fuzzy rating proposal that has been discussed many times over the past couple of years.  It should apply to both IFA and the draft.  But I think this is a more extensive change, so I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

Third, the primary intent behind my proposal was to find a way to discourage or curb the amount of dollars spent on IFA.  Go back to the article referenced in the original post.  In MLB, where there are no restrictions on how much money can be spent, IFA spending is very modest.  Yet in HBD, where we have fixed budgets, IFA spending is much larger that real-life.  In a game that's supposed to emulate real-life, including the aspect of managing a fixed budget, having one aspect on the financial model that is so out of whack with reality seems to scream "FIX ME!"

Mike's 8:55am post is only partially right.  The transferred money is a problem because of the 50% "tax" on transfers.  That's money that is lost and cannot be used for anything else.  But my real problem is just the total money spent on IFA.

As for sergei's question in his 8:31am post "i am wondering if tec thinks the same thing should apply to regular free agents as well" . . . the answer is no.  HBD free agency fairly well resembles the MLB FA process in terms of money spent.  It's only IFA that is completely disjointed from reality.

i still like it the way it is. it gives no disadvantage to people looking to get prospects thru intls, which is good for rebuilding teams. supply and demand is what rules hbd as far as players go. they are worth what someone will pay for them. if they 'waste' money by transferring to prospects, they have that penalty built in already. some owners do have low player budgets every year while still signing several intls, but they are running their franchises the way they want. some even compete but never dominate. intls, like regular free agents, are there for anyone to sign. the only way to improve a draft pick is to have a bad record. it seems to balance itself out to me, for the most part (and this coming from a guy who would love to build a 'superteam' but is not smart enough to do it)

I don't disagree that IFA is an excellent alternate source of talent.  But the process as it is currently implemented allows, and even encourages teams to spend an unrealistic proportion of their budget on them.  Often at the expense of other aspects of running their teams.

The total money is out of whack because the nature (in terms of certainty and widespread knowledge) of the talent available is out of line with real life - so I don't think you impose artificial restrictions without taking steps to address the actual cause of the problem.  Again, you only have to look back to 1996 to see what happens in MLB when top, well-known amatuer talent winds up on the free agent market - and that's basically what we have in HBD with IFAs.

That being said, I would be fine with some sort of hard cap on prospect budget, or even a maximum amount you could transfer (ie, if you started with 10 you couldn't get it above 15 no matter where the hard cap was set) - budget transfers were never designed to be something you planned on doing , just something that could help you out in a pinch if you made a mistake in budgeting.

Budget transfers weren't part of the original game.  It's certainly something that could be changed again.

Posted by AlCheez on 6/10/2011 9:57:00 AM (view original):
The total money is out of whack because the nature (in terms of certainty and widespread knowledge) of the talent available is out of line with real life - so I don't think you impose artificial restrictions without taking steps to address the actual cause of the problem.  Again, you only have to look back to 1996 to see what happens in MLB when top, well-known amatuer talent winds up on the free agent market - and that's basically what we have in HBD with IFAs.

I agree with your original comment of "treat the disease, not the symptom", which is what you seem to be reiterating here.  Fuzzy ratings, consistently low starting bid, etc.

I do think that these will help, but my gut feeling is that it wouldn't completely solve the problem.  My proposals with capping the prospect budget, capping the max bonus, and restricting the number of max bonus IFA's one could sign might still be needed to curb the problem.

i know there are private leagues out there that already have rules similar to those you put forth, tec