Posted by MikeT23 on 3/21/2012 4:09:00 PM (view original):
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. 

An added benefit of having a salary cap.

I like prospect caps because I like to see those listless bottom-feeding franchises (even if they're meeting the MWR) devote some kind of payroll to player.  Seeing $35M Player, $40M Prospect makes me sick.

That said, I think a $20M cap is too hard.  I believe I played in a world with this in place once, even.  Contending teams can often run $20M Prospect, so you may end up with 80% of the world running $20M prospect, and then the IFA distribution gets wonky in the other direction, and it again feels unrealistic.

As I was reading through this thread, tec's idea of having uniform budgets struck me as well.  A world where budget exploits were removed and shrewd FA signings/trades were the only way to distinguish yourself from the pack does sound interesting and fun.

Posted by boogerlips on 3/21/2012 4:17:00 PM (view original):
What do you guys think the proportion of talent is in the FA market vs the IFA market? 

Not sure how you'd want this answered.

15m in IFA scouting.   30m in signing bonus.   Minimum of 10 seasons under control.   Say 1m for 1st three seasons.    1.5m for S4,  5.5m for S5.   5 years at 7m before he hits FA.    88m for 10 seasons of top-flight player.    You might have to pay that for 5 seasons of a FA.  And a couple of those might be on the downside of his career.

i dont think thats what he was asking. I think he was asking how the talent of IFAs compares to the talent of the typical FA pool. It would vary widely. I think the # of top tier FAs is probably about the same as the # of top end IFAs in the beginning of the world.

Well okay, then multiply those kinds of figures with the quantity of such players that are available per year in IFA and FA (which is what I was thinking but thats good insight too).

I think theres a bit more talent available in the FA pool. Mike is basically suggesting theres a 2:1 advantage in signing an IFA over a similarly talented FA. If thats true then a 2:1 budget ratio (FA:IFA) may be most desirable. 

If you are actually giving $30M in international signing bonuses, thats really a $40 mil budget hit.

That's also true.   98m for 10 seasons.   Top FA could get that.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/21/2012 4:41:00 PM (view original):
That's also true.   98m for 10 seasons.   Top FA could get that.

True. And I was a bit fixated on what is being spent in a single season. A huge chunk of that is spent upfront, you get him on the cheap in subsequent seasons.

In Guinness the average ratio is 82:17
Maris is 92:15

Posted by dmurphy104 on 3/21/2012 4:07:00 PM (view original):
I did consider just going with a no transfers rule though.

+1, IF you can't transfer, you budget properly, and there's no point in doing a lot of things that allow extreme payroll scenarios to play out.

I am all in favor of a 20 mill hard cap on prospects.  Teams spending 35-40 mill on prospects and only 40 mill in player salary is completely unrealistic in the real world.  

Posted by ct_duck on 3/21/2012 7:17:00 PM (view original):
I am all in favor of a 20 mill hard cap on prospects.  Teams spending 35-40 mill on prospects and only 40 mill in player salary is completely unrealistic in the real world.  

I just don't think that this happens as much in leagues with MWRs.

In No Quitters, 4 of the top 5 IFAs (by salary bonus) were signed by playoff teams. The highest-paid IFA (28M) was signed by me, and I won 102 games. But I don't put any money into the draft (I have 0 in college and hs and only sign my last 10 or so picks to fill out my minors), so I have plenty to spend in IFA. My player budget was still 80M+ after transfer.

Not to mention the fact that the IFA market is really unpredictable. This past season (S22) in No Quitters was a loaded class, with 4 guys going for 20M+. The previous year was the complete opposite, with only 1 elite prospect, but like 10 guys going between 7-15M.

For me, it's not so much a matter of forcing the crappy teams to spend more (the MWR should take care of that), but instead of giving well-run teams an opportunity to replenish talent.

I spend 80M on player payroll. Another 7 on coaches. 16 in IFA scouting and 20M prospect budget. Add in another 40M in training/medical and that's like 165M. What am I going to do with that extra 20M? If there's good FAs, I'll sign them. If not, what am I going to do, just sign a bunch of scrubs to do something with the money? Why shouldn't I be able to put that into IFA and get a prospect or two?

When it comes down to it, knowing which player is "good" and which player is "bad" is pretty easy. I mean, the player cards literally have ratings that tell you how good the players are. So ultimately, this game is really all about budgeting and making financial decisions and allocating resources. If I have made smart decisions and assembled a roster that can win 90+ games and make the playoffs, and I still have money leftover to transfer into prospects... why shouldn't I be allowed to do so?

If this is the way you want to go then you need to make it a spending cap on ifa's not prospects. or owners with worse picks or have signed type a's have an advantage.