Quote: Originally Posted By firemanrob on 4/09/2010
I didn't really like any of the suggestions silentpadna. Hard to fill a team when an owner has ruined ratings of players through bad management. Under your suggestions, an owner could come in do some bad things, have his players take all kinds of ratings hits and then just leave.

I like caps on IFA bonuses/prospect budgeting. Im tired of seeing teams budget $80M for player payroll, while only paying say 40M. They let their own FAs walk, don't bother to sign any FAs before the season starts and during the season transfer over that balance they are carrying (40M which transfers to 20M). They then just blow cash on IFAs. Oh yeah, they are only winning 30-something games per season.

I would prefer they change the Type A compensation assignment. Current system only favors tanking.

Minimum of 41 games a season is way too low, private or public league. Even in the example that WIS gave in the Fairplay Guidelines, they think 50 wins is pretty easy to accomplish.

There should be some kind of way to limit cash transfers in trades. MLB doesn't allow buying/selling players and doesn't allow salary dumps. Should be an easy enough fix to not allow cash involved in trades to exceed say 10-20% of salary costs.



Would be some good starts

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 4/09/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By akgsports on 4/09/2010

The solution is to disincentivize tanking- if admin is even so inclined given the financial advantages to tanking. This always gets kicked around but tanking is eliminated if the advantages of tanking are mitigated.

1. Top 3 picks and super IFA's are sure fire HOFers. This game needs more busts.

I'm not sure how screwing everybody by making the draft a crapshoot helps the game. Owners who spent a good deal of time on carefully preparing for the draft would see their hard work go for naught with random busts.

2. Increase injuries so that organizational and ML depth matters.

Injuries are at an acceptable rate as is. Again, I'm not sure how screwing everybody by increasing injuries helps the game.

3. Create a player payroll floor (like prospect payroll floor) so tankers can't move as much money into IFA budget.

Very easily abused by offering $10m contracts to $1m guys. If the tanker decides to move on, the next owner inherits crippling contracts that were offered to meet the payroll floor.

4. Allow everyone to see all the prospects- HS, College, and IFA, no matter the budget. Top 25-50 prospects everyone sees equally without variation. Higher budgeted teams get a better read on prospects projected to go in rounds 2 or later and get many more DITR that eventually can blossom into ML stars.

Again, easily abused. If everybody can see everybody, with a little effort one can predict projected ratings from current ratings. This in turn negates the need for draft budgeting, allowing for even more money to be devoted to IFAs. This would actually exacerbate the problem.

Now tankers don't get the instant gratification of knowing they've assembled a dominant staff in 2-3 tanked seasons.

Of course whether these suggestions are good for admin bottom line is a different story.

1. More draft busts is a fact of real life. I agree it makes the game less enjoyable but no busts is extreme fantasy.

2. I don't like injuries either. If injuries are occurring at a realistic rate then fine, but I don't think they are. A tanker assembling a 4-5 man dominant staff and then not having to worry about injuries for 10+ seasons is not realistic.

3. A payroll floor does not necessitate an owner signing a player to huge LONGTERM deal. Certainly some players may be signed to 10 mill/ 1 year deals to reach the floor, but safeguards could be put in place similar to those used when IFAs won't sign for a huge bonus at least initally (Player response of I don't know if I can handle the pressure or I can't live up to that bonus or something like that). Maybe tie a max dollar figure that a player will accept to his OVR if no one else has offered him a deal for X number of days.

4. An expansion of DITRs to highly budgeted teams could be a major boon and appropriately incentivize high draft and IFA budgeting, even if everyone can see all the top prospects. High HS budgeting equals more DITRs to former HS draftees; high IFA budgeting means DITRs to former IFA signees; etc.



I posted this under the Fair Play Guidelines post. It fits better here.

One more simple idea. If a guy isn't listed at a position, don't allow him to play there except for injury. Don't let tankers play Cs at SS.

Quote: Originally Posted By silentpadna on 4/09/2010
Here are some anti-tanking ideas that I think, with probably a fair amount of work, be incorporated into the sim-engine:

1. When an owner transfers more than a certain amount of money to prospects from player payroll, all players in the entire org take a ratings hit. (This would be akin to playing for a team that refuses to compete and the players in the org realizing that their org is not "in it to win it"). The more that is transferred, the bigger the hit.

2. When an owner allows pitchers below a designated fatigue level to continue to start games, the remaining players will take ratings hits.

3. When an owner plays a player out of position for x number of games, the player takes a ratings hit.

There could be others, but I would call these basically a "morale modifiers". This morale modifier would also directly affect the willingness of anyone to negotiate with the franchise.

I'm just thinking there may be some more ways to prevent obvious tanking than having these ridiculous loopholes in the 'fair play guidelins'.

When tanking has legitimate costs associated, owners might think twice about how to go about building for the future.

Right now, the only penalties in the engine are budgetary and deal with transfers. The morale modifier would penalize those actions that are clearly intended to increase draft position or intentionally lose games.

Quote: Originally Posted By robocoach on 4/09/2010
Thinking about it, the best anti-tanking idea is having the talent in the next season's draft just not signing with you.

"Wow, you went from 89 to 123 losses? Screw you I'll sit out and enter next season's draft!"



That would end tanking incentive in a hurry.



again...this hurts the new owner potentially who takes over the team from the tanker...should the new owner suffer...the bottom line...play in private worlds only...play for a good commish...and let the commish police the world...pretty simple...

Quote: Originally Posted By robocoach on 4/09/2010
Thinking about it, the best anti-tanking idea is having the talent in the next season's draft just not signing with you.

"Wow, you went from 89 to 123 losses? Screw you I'll sit out and enter next season's draft!"

That would end tanking incentive in a hurry.



Me likey. Remove the carrot. Too tough for WiS to incorporate? I hope the developing Fair Play Guidlines help.

Quote: Originally posted by knucklebones on 4/11/2010I'm not saying give the bad teams less but maybe the good teams more to spend.

Quote: Originally Posted By WiredTiger on 4/09/2010draft lottery. All teams that don't make the playoffs go into draw for the draft picks the following year.

Cap on the amount of money you can pay an Intl FA. After the max is reached then it goes to tie-breakers.