An optional private world rule to prevent long-term problems caused by someone overpaying for vets, making a run for a few seasons, and then dumping the team when the players are past their prime and still do big money.

If you have any contracts over $10M, you have to commit (pay WIS) to run the team that long.  League could set the contract amount.

WIS would have to add the ability to signup for more than the next season.

Enforcement by league commish or majority of returning owners that vote. Boot owner's that don't commit to seeing their big investments through.

This is a really good idea, but I don't think there is anyway WIS would implement it.  I think there are just too few customers that would front $100 for a league; to compete using a strategy heavily reliant on signing FA's, you would have to do that.

Less about that and more about semi-abandoned teams.    Last year of the deals, no shot, check in once a week to stay "active". 

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2011 6:41:00 PM (view original):
Less about that and more about semi-abandoned teams.    Last year of the deals, no shot, check in once a week to stay "active". 

I'm not sure I get what you mean.  If a coach signs a max contract and because of that had to front the next 4 seasons and stick around, you think they are just going to write that last $25 or $50 off and ignore the team?

There's no way to enforce long-term commitments to a fake baseball league. Real life intervenes, even when guys have the best intentions, and you can't force them to manage their teams after they get that promotion or their baby's born. Who cares about that $25 or $50 if you just don't have the time or interest to continue.

You can't force them to manage, but I would think it would reduce the number of people that put out a large , back-loaded contract, with plans of leaving after the 2nd or 3rd season of the contract if they had to sign up for those seasons in order to make the contract offer.

Ok, let's think about this.

You want to do this, why? Because you think that someone will say "yea, that's worth it, here's my $50" or you think that people will start thinking discretion is the better part of valour?

If it's the latter, then you don't want people to cough up doe. You want the ability to do that gone.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm saying cut to the chase.

This idea would be a killer for owners of multiple teams. 

It just occurred to me that this idea would give an in-game advantage to owners who have more real-life money. Don't think that's the best direction to pursue.

It just doesn't work on many levels. 

1.  You can't force owners to manage teams.  Sign a bunch of 5 year deals($115 out of pocket).  Have a nice 3 season run and become what is effectively an absentee owner, lose a bunch of games and collect some high picks while planning to repeat the process again.   Does anyone care, 9 months later, about a $115 credit card purchase?

2.  The real world happens.  Maybe you're locked in and intend to play out the committment.  Life gets in the way.   Would WifS replace an absentee owner with 4 seasons of committment left because he's AWOL for 16 days?

3.  The multiple team aspect.  I could care less about $115.   But make it $575 and now there's a decision to be made.   An owner with 8-9 teams is looking at a grand.    Maybe he doesn't want to pay that sort of money so he starts signing players to 2-3 year deals.   He can't compete with the owners offering 5 years.

I'm sure there's more but those jump out at you.

I think we're losing sight of the golden ring, and that is that maybe, 5 yrs and $20M (or, $110M overall, if you will) are maximums that are too high.

A max deal player is a max deal player, and then the logic defaults to other factors.

So, let's debate the pros/cons of a lower max deal and get away from the "ask for a mortgage" thought.

i like the current max deal level, think it would be kinda silly to drop it below $100M

fact of the matter is that 'tards that hit and run are going to **** up teams one way or another, CS can mitigate it for the new owner in really bad worlds.  other than that don't join a league that lets in 'tards that hit and run.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.  I see an owner with 42 seasons in 38 worlds and I go "Huh?   Yeah, don't think so."    It's not like we can't see what an owner has done in the past.

Ok good. Pros/cons discussed.

Is it an idea, then, to drop the max in public worlds?