Posted by alleyviper on 5/27/2015 2:22:00 PM (view original):
If we want realism then we should tie payroll to team success and markets. Realism should not be the goal, a well oiled, fine tuned, balanced, fun game should be the goal. If it happens to mimic real life then that's icing on the cake.
The Phils/Cubs comp is a farce explicitly because there aren't fixed budgets in MLB. A team having a ton of albatross Major League contracts does not prohibit them from still scouting, drafting and signing draftees and IFAs - the Yankees have been one of the highest amateur spenders in all facets for decades now. The Phillies are bad simply because they're run poorly from the top down, regardless any kind of parallel you want to draw to HBD.
I wouldn't want the market to affect payroll. Part of the charm of this game is that you can play a team in Sioux Falls, Salt Lake City, Fresno, etc. Nobody would pick those teams if market size had an effect on $ - we'd just end up with the same 30 markets that are in MLB I. Every world.
But I'd be all for tying payroll budget to success. Give everyone $185 for the first season. If you lose more than, say, 100 games, then you get a penalty of $5 or $10 for next season's budget to represent Lower attendance, tv ratings, merchandise sales, etc. Win the World Series, and you get a $10 bonus next year because the fans are excited and they all bought playoff tickets.
I'm sure that in practice there'd be drawbacks to this approach, but it sounds like fun, and it'd certainly discourage long-term tanking.