Posted by opie100 on 7/13/2010 6:12:00 PM (view original):
I'm just saying that IFAs getting $20-40MM in bonus money make this game more unrealistic.  Not that matching MLB's precedent is our primary goal here, but this becomes silly in my view.  One solution is to make those type of players much less of a sure thing.  Another would be to lower overall budgets or limit the amount one can apply towards IFAs (or both).

Wait for Yu Darvish to hit the market. 

Heck, Daisuke Matsuzaka went for $50M and KEI IGAWA got $25M. There's precedent for high fees (& more contracts) for IFAs. The Red Sox gave a Cuban SS $9M last season AND spent north of $20M to sign their amateur draft picks. The IFA costs offset an unnaturally low amateur draft cost. HBD allows teams to draft like big spenders, but most of those huge bonus guys refuse to sign, unlike in MLB, where Rick Porcello jumps at big $ to turn pro. 

I do think the IFA process is broken, but it's due mostly (IMO) to the budget transfer process and how it depresses spending on ML teams looking to make a big splash in IFA. If IFA were capped at $30M, and you had to set that at the beginning and couldn't transfer, most of your concerns would be addressed. 

Posted by morneau33hr on 7/13/2010 8:37:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, but WIS cant help what we pay for them. The demands for the players arent ever higher than 5 mil from what ive seen, people just bid them up into the 20-30 mil range.

I'm not arguing that HBD owners are acting irrationally given their financial position - others have already pointed out how it can make sense.  I'm just saying that the financial and/or predictive aspects of the game should incentivize owners differently.  I generally don't consider bid fees to Japanese teams for proven players to be an equivalent to IFA signing bonuses.  Perhaps eliminating transfers above a certain number like SoxFan suggests could solve it.  However I'd put it far lower.

Why wouldn't bid fees to Japanese teams be equivalent to IFA signing bonuses here? Some of the IFA WIS sends our way are not like the 18- 19-year-olds you list on Page 1 of this thread. There regularly are players available to us that are at least comparable to what Dice K was expected to be in MLB.

Certain cases players are just as good as regular free agents if not better. Shouldnt it be okay for them to get 25 mil? For example i signed a IFA who i paid 26 mil who was ML ready. Through 30(Straight to ML) games he has 1.206 OPS and is a stud. So in essence i get him at the minimum for the next 3 years for a Silver-Slugger type guy. I think it can be fixed like you said, but some for some players 20+ mil might not be that crazy.

The best argument against transfer caps is that they help the better teams because teams with higher draft picks spend more on the draft.  Having the 32 pick makes it easier to sign the big Int because you have more prospect dollars remaining than team with better draft picks.   

Posted by joshkvt on 7/14/2010 1:49:00 AM (view original):
Why wouldn't bid fees to Japanese teams be equivalent to IFA signing bonuses here? Some of the IFA WIS sends our way are not like the 18- 19-year-olds you list on Page 1 of this thread. There regularly are players available to us that are at least comparable to what Dice K was expected to be in MLB.

Because HBD signing bonuses are paid to the players and are not bid fees.  Each of those bidding-upon Japanese players ends up getting both a bonus and a wage, just like HBD IFAs do, and that is what HBD bonuses are intended to emulate (IMHO).

Posted by soxfan121 on 7/13/2010 9:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by opie100 on 7/13/2010 6:12:00 PM (view original):
I'm just saying that IFAs getting $20-40MM in bonus money make this game more unrealistic.  Not that matching MLB's precedent is our primary goal here, but this becomes silly in my view.  One solution is to make those type of players much less of a sure thing.  Another would be to lower overall budgets or limit the amount one can apply towards IFAs (or both).

Wait for Yu Darvish to hit the market. 

Heck, Daisuke Matsuzaka went for $50M and KEI IGAWA got $25M. There's precedent for high fees (& more contracts) for IFAs. The Red Sox gave a Cuban SS $9M last season AND spent north of $20M to sign their amateur draft picks. The IFA costs offset an unnaturally low amateur draft cost. HBD allows teams to draft like big spenders, but most of those huge bonus guys refuse to sign, unlike in MLB, where Rick Porcello jumps at big $ to turn pro. 

I do think the IFA process is broken, but it's due mostly (IMO) to the budget transfer process and how it depresses spending on ML teams looking to make a big splash in IFA. If IFA were capped at $30M, and you had to set that at the beginning and couldn't transfer, most of your concerns would be addressed. 

Umm, theres nothing wrong with IFA at all, its called a market, supply is limited, therefore demand sets the price. If i consider that the opportunity cost of transfering 10M from payroll to prospects is worthwhile the 50% penalty then i should be able to do so. You should also be pleased when people transfer $, they pay a 50% cost to do, which has the net effect of them playing with a smaller budget, which should give you an advantage somewhere else.

If teams are being uncompetative to horde IFAs that is a world issue, not neccessarily a IFA issue.

Posted by new on 7/14/2010 9:06:00 AM (view original):
The best argument against transfer caps is that they help the better teams because teams with higher draft picks spend more on the draft.  Having the 32 pick makes it easier to sign the big Int because you have more prospect dollars remaining than team with better draft picks.   

Exactly. Despite the fact that people (tankers) abuse it, one of the biggest advantages crappy teams have to improve is that their players usually suck so they don't have as much money tied up in salary. Being able to transfer extra money into prospects and let that superstar can help turn around a crappy franchise. Getting rid of tankers should be the commish's job, not something for WifS to legislate as an overall rule.

Posted by Crump123 on 7/14/2010 9:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by soxfan121 on 7/13/2010 9:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by opie100 on 7/13/2010 6:12:00 PM (view original):
I'm just saying that IFAs getting $20-40MM in bonus money make this game more unrealistic.  Not that matching MLB's precedent is our primary goal here, but this becomes silly in my view.  One solution is to make those type of players much less of a sure thing.  Another would be to lower overall budgets or limit the amount one can apply towards IFAs (or both).

Wait for Yu Darvish to hit the market. 

Heck, Daisuke Matsuzaka went for $50M and KEI IGAWA got $25M. There's precedent for high fees (& more contracts) for IFAs. The Red Sox gave a Cuban SS $9M last season AND spent north of $20M to sign their amateur draft picks. The IFA costs offset an unnaturally low amateur draft cost. HBD allows teams to draft like big spenders, but most of those huge bonus guys refuse to sign, unlike in MLB, where Rick Porcello jumps at big $ to turn pro. 

I do think the IFA process is broken, but it's due mostly (IMO) to the budget transfer process and how it depresses spending on ML teams looking to make a big splash in IFA. If IFA were capped at $30M, and you had to set that at the beginning and couldn't transfer, most of your concerns would be addressed. 

Umm, theres nothing wrong with IFA at all, its called a market, supply is limited, therefore demand sets the price. If i consider that the opportunity cost of transfering 10M from payroll to prospects is worthwhile the 50% penalty then i should be able to do so. You should also be pleased when people transfer $, they pay a 50% cost to do, which has the net effect of them playing with a smaller budget, which should give you an advantage somewhere else.

If teams are being uncompetative to horde IFAs that is a world issue, not neccessarily a IFA issue.

The game is intended, for the most part, to emulate MLB.  IFA's regularly going for $15MM-$40MM is unrealistic.  Think instead about why we don't see this type of activity in real life (Japanese bid fees excluded).  It is because even the most sought after IFAs don't have the same guarantee of future performance as they do in HBD.  How may owners would bid $40MM for a player if there was a good chance he'd never be good enough to get out of AA?

Posted by opie100 on 7/13/2010 1:23:00 PM (view original):
WIS should make IFAs future performance more unpredictable, to be more in parallel with reality.  That would help eliminate the absurdity of $20MM+ IFAs.  This is clearly a problem.  Here's the highest paid MLB IFAs:

Michael Ynoa, 16, RHP, 2008, Athletics, D.R., $4,250,000
Miguel Sano, 16, SS, 2009, Twins, D.R., $3,150,000
Gary Sanchez, 16, C, 2009, Yankees, D.R., $3,000,000
Rafael Rodriguez, 16, OF, 2008, Giants, D.R., $2,550,000
Yorman Rodriguez, 16, OF, 2008, Reds, VZA, $2,500,000
Wily Mo Peña, 17, OF, 1999, Yankees, D.R., $2,440,000
Joel Guzman, 16, SS, 2001, Dodgers, D.R., $2,255,000
Angel Villalona, 16, 3B, 2006, Giants, D.R., $2,100,00
Juan Duran, 16, OF, 2008, Reds, D.R., $2,000,000
Adys Portillo, 16, RHP, 2008, Padres, VZA, $2,000,000
Guillermo Pimental, 16, CF, 2009, Mariners, D.R., $2,000,000
Jose Vincio, 16, SS, 2009, Red Sox, D.R., $1,950,000
Miguel Cabrera, 16, IF, 1999, Marlins, VZA, $1,800,000

Please avoid certainties like "This is clearly a problem." when it is, in fact, not really a problem at all.

Thanks in advance.

I apologize - I meant it was a problem in my opinion.  I usually try to couch comments in that fashion but I find that saying that in every case gets tedious.  Just like you saying it is not a problem is, in fact, your opinion.

The Cincinnati Reds were willing to spend $30 million earlier this year on an international free agent.

$30 million over five years.  That's a contract, not a signing bonus.

The problem (imho) is not with the IFA market in and of itself, but rather with the overuse of the payroll transfer function, resulting in rampant tanking.

I said it's not *really* a problem, as I think IFAs show up with reasonable demands, and with appropriate fuzziness in their projections given your budgeting.

What people bid on them is a USER issue. We can't legislate prudent spending.

Posted by opie100 on 7/14/2010 4:24:00 PM (view original):
$30 million over five years.  That's a contract, not a signing bonus.

No, they have him under contract for the next five years. In HBD, his bonus was $30M and his yearly salaries are the minimum; in MLB, his salary over those 5 years equals $30M. How is that different? It's just allocation, not a substantive difference.