Prospect Budget Cap in Private Worlds Topic

boogerlips
Posts: 3731 (0)
Hall of Famer
205 45
Hall of Famer
Posted by Crump123 on 3/21/2012 3:21:00 PM (view original):
20M hard cap limits may lead to the best IFA going to teams at the bottom of the draft, since a lower draft position typically means a 1st rounder costs less to sign, which means you have more $ available for that IFA.

I'm not convinced something that gives a good team an advantage to get high level talent, is a good thing.

I suspect some proponents of this are dreaming of that scenario. Owners who enjoy the rewards of spending big in FA are also wanting to land an IFA. Seems greedy to me. You either budget big for FAs, big for IFAs, or middle of the pack for both.

Spending 100-130mil on payroll is a style, not something that is the "correct" way. Manipulating the draft is wrong. Budgeting for IFAs instead of FAs isn't.
3/21/2012 3:28 PM
boogerlips
Posts: 3731 (0)
Hall of Famer
205 45
Hall of Famer
And what I assume happens when you force everyone to spend 70mil+ on payroll, the market price for FAs goes up, meaning the guys who would normally land a few nice FAs won't get as many. So the IFAs get spread around, but so do the FAs. I guess there's some possible strategy intrigue that makes that interesting, but it could also be considered boring in that everyone has to budget nearly the same. Buyers like having sellers, and sellers like having buyers....
3/21/2012 3:43 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
At the end of the day, pretty much any cap will benefit someone and penalize someone else.   But that's the way with all rules.  

I'd be vehemently opposed to a payroll cap.   If I want to keep paying my aging players while paying my rising stars, that's on me.   Why should I have to decide on which one to cut loose when I could just cut medical to 12m?
3/21/2012 3:44 PM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect

I dont envision the issue that Crump brought up as being a huge deal because a few things would have to fall in place. 2 owners with different draft positions see the same future all-star. For it to be an issue - both teams would need to have $20M budgeted, and both teams need to actually see the player, and be willing to go all in. And since we are talking $20 Mil, likely an owner will only get 1 International stud--so whose to say the next guy isnt better, leaving the owner with the higher pick in better shape.

One idea that has been rattling around is to allow transfers up to the signing bonus amount requested by your first round pick. Although I really dont think I would want to deal with enforcing and monitoring that.

3/21/2012 3:46 PM
boogerlips
Posts: 3731 (0)
Hall of Famer
205 45
Hall of Famer
@Mike  Would it be similar to a situation where 25 of the worlds owners were low payroll, IFA guys and they were complaining that the other 7 were getting too much talent in the FA market, so they decide to put in a salary cap to force those high payroll owners to transfer and play the same style they do so they could get a shot at the FAs too?
3/21/2012 3:49 PM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/21/2012 3:44:00 PM (view original):
At the end of the day, pretty much any cap will benefit someone and penalize someone else.   But that's the way with all rules.  

I'd be vehemently opposed to a payroll cap.   If I want to keep paying my aging players while paying my rising stars, that's on me.   Why should I have to decide on which one to cut loose when I could just cut medical to 12m?
I think the payroll cap has worked really well in Kenny Powers. Especially when Im looking at the contracts and crazy high budgets floating around in some other worlds I recently joined. We have a $100M cap there. I am raising it to $110M in this world, because I dont think it's outrageous, and its over the default payroll, so I wouldnt have to deal with the occasional new owner forgetting to set their budget being over the cap.

I really havent had anyone complaining about the salary cap.
3/21/2012 3:52 PM
boogerlips
Posts: 3731 (0)
Hall of Famer
205 45
Hall of Famer
Some worlds don't complain about tanking or letting a noob who signed up for four teams at the same time in. Some people are easy to please. Just sayin  :)  ....
3/21/2012 3:54 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
If you cap both payroll and prospect, then you kind of level the playing field so that everybody has to play with a similar financial approach . . . then it comes down to who can execute the best.
3/21/2012 3:58 PM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect
I would never try to implement a salary cap in an existing world. This is for a new world. Im raising the cap from where I had it. And Im trying to make sure I take into account the ramifications of a prospect cap.

The biggest issue I see, and it may be a deal killer--or it may convince me to go to 25 or 30 mil, is that the initial talent distribution in a new world varies widely, and a team that gets the worst franchise, may get stuck with a bad draft pick as well would not be able to do anything to get a competitive advantage in the IFA market.

Obviusly Im thinking this through as I go, and I will continue to flip flop.
3/21/2012 4:01 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
In fact, a world in which all 32 teams had to play with the exact same budget across all categories (prospect, payroll, coaches, training, medical, scouting) would be kind of interesting.  No transfers allowed.
3/21/2012 4:01 PM
boogerlips
Posts: 3731 (0)
Hall of Famer
205 45
Hall of Famer
Ya Tec, I can see the intrigue there. I guess from my point of view I wouldn't want it forced on me because owners felt it was the correct thing to do in the way that MWRs seem to be. If it was marketed in a new world as just something to make it unique and different and interesting then cool.
3/21/2012 4:01 PM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 3/21/2012 4:01:00 PM (view original):
In fact, a world in which all 32 teams had to play with the exact same budget across all categories (prospect, payroll, coaches, training, medical, scouting) would be kind of interesting.  No transfers allowed.
Going that far would be interesting for awhile, but I dont want to completely take away a big aspect of the game. I just want to try to reign in a bit of the unrealistic aspects of HBD, if possible.
3/21/2012 4:06 PM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect
I did consider just going with a no transfers rule though.
3/21/2012 4:07 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I wouldn't complain about a salary cap.  I just wouldn't join a world with one.   I can see the benefits of one.  I just wouldn't join a world with one. 
3/21/2012 4:09 PM
boogerlips
Posts: 3731 (0)
Hall of Famer
205 45
Hall of Famer
What do you guys think the proportion of talent is in the FA market vs the IFA market? 
3/21/2012 4:17 PM
◂ Prev 123456 Next ▸
Prospect Budget Cap in Private Worlds 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.