Eliminate Prospect Budget Topic

snake_p
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 60 2
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tedwmoore on 1/22/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/22/2010
As I understand it, there are several ways to rebuild a team without participating in the IFA market.
True. But IFAs can be an important part of re-building for some. And completely cutting off that avenue for those taking over a run-down franchise will decrease the incentive to take on teams, your ability to win WS titles notwithstanding.

I do agree with ian though, top IFAs should not automatically go to the worst teams. High draft picks are the compensation for sucking, but the IFA market should be competetive. Which is why I do not think that top IFAs should automatically go to the best teams. I assume that with your suggestion, Mike, that even a 100-game winner would lose the tie to a 102-game winner?

I just want a competitive IFA market that doesn't require a $60 million ante to get into.

This guy is no newbie. He makes too much sense.
1/22/2010 5:31 PM
snake_p
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 60 2
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By da6nz6ig6 on 1/22/2010Because punishing tankers would be punishing the very people responsible for this change. We can't have that! We must also punish those who can manage to keep a competitive team on the field while, at the same time, using IFA and the draft to build a strong team. Hell, the whole reason I took over a new team is because I missed having that low payroll and having to build with IFA's and the such. Now I just get to run a team with about 40 second baseman and much longer, slower process in front of me to turning the team around. I don't exactly have money to burn so I have to wonder if it's even worth the cash
See, flinging the BS like that -- fling fling fling all over the place -- does nothing to further the conversation and just makes you sound like a jackass.
1/22/2010 5:35 PM
snake_p
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 60 2
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By gjello10 on 1/22/2010
The system you are suggesting, I think, would make it too easy for the best team to outcompete the 10th best team for IFAs.
Probably exactly what he has in mind. He thinks he is a "best team."

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/22/2010
More incentive to be the best team, I'd say.
See?
1/22/2010 5:36 PM
travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2010
Another thing they should do is have all IFA ask for 100k in the beginning.   As has been noted, even with crap scouting, you know a guy who starts at 4.3m is gonna be pretty damn good.

I agree, this is a great idea. The occasional bargain you might unearth would be worth the slight added cost for low-level roster filler.
1/22/2010 5:38 PM
gjello10
Posts: 164 (0)
All Star
6 26
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/22/2010More incentive to be the best team, I'd say
Parity has a place.
1/22/2010 5:39 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Parity has it's place. However, HBD is unlike the real world. In the real world, lose too much and you lose your job. In HBD, lose too much, plop down another $25 and play another year. The objective of this excercise is simple. Give everyone incentive to compete rather than hold back or tank.
1/22/2010 5:46 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
In all honesty, I think the time has come to make a radical change here and there. Rather than worst to first for the draft, it might be time to give team #20 first pick. Make teams fight to the end for a pick. Worst team picks 20th instead of 1st. Rather than seeing teams run out a 1-9 finish, you might see them going 6-4 in order to move up a few slots.
1/22/2010 5:49 PM
travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2010
In all honesty, I think the time has come to make a radical change here and there.   Rather than worst to first for the draft, it might be time to give team #20 first pick.   Make teams fight to the end for a pick.   Worst team picks 20th instead of 1st.  Rather than seeing teams run out a 1-9 finish, you might see them going 6-4 in order to move up a few slots.

Booo, bad idea.

Better idea: Tie improvement to winning. Players should improve a little more for teams that win, particularly down the stretch.
1/22/2010 6:07 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
If your objective is to win, you'll get a better pick in the draft(unless, of course, you're a playoff team). I don't see the downside. Rather than "Booo, bad idea" could you explain the downside?
1/22/2010 6:10 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Can you imagine someone throwing their last three games so they can miss the playoffs and get a high pick? Me either.
1/22/2010 6:11 PM
da6nz6ig6
Posts: 14 (0)
Hall of Famer
7 2 45
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 1/22/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By da6nz6ig6 on 1/22/2010
Because punishing tankers would be punishing the very people responsible for this change. We can't have that! We must also punish those who can manage to keep a competitive team on the field while, at the same time, using IFA and the draft to build a strong team. Hell, the whole reason I took over a new team is because I missed having that low payroll and having to build with IFA's and the such. Now I just get to run a team with about 40 second baseman and much longer, slower process in front of me to turning the team around. I don't exactly have money to burn so I have to wonder if it's even worth the cash.
See, flinging the BS like that -- fling fling fling all over the place -- does nothing to further the conversation and just makes you sound like a jackass
Ah, there it is, the personal attacks. Figured it would come sooner or later. Simple observation....the other day I decided to take over a second team, I never would have done so with the proposed rule change. It simply will take too much time (and money) to rebuild a team with 40 second baseman. I'll leave the rebuild for the next guy and stick with my well established team and I'm sure I won't be the only person to think twice before taking over a major rebuilding job. A tiny payroll + huge prospect budget DOES NOT have to equal tanking. You can do both with a little effort.

I sent a ticket to admin as well to voice my opinion. They make hundreds of changes I have no problem with, I happen to think this one is rather stupid. Simply adding my opinion here as others are doing as well. If this makes me a "jackass" so be it. I say you take a deep breath, relax and go watch an Escape From New York dvd or something....
1/22/2010 6:55 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/22/2010
Conclusion:

You can take over complete crap and rebuild it into a 2-time WS winner without the use of IFA.

Hope this helps.

1/22/2010 7:07 PM
da6nz6ig6
Posts: 14 (0)
Hall of Famer
7 2 45
Prospect
I guess what it boils down to is does anyone have a problem if someone wins 80+ games with a 30 mil payroll and a 40 mil prospect budget? No, their problem is with tankers that lose on purpose. Figure out a way to punish those guys and leave those who can win and rebuild effectively alone. That's all, not the end of the world either way just wanted to voice my opinion. All I know is Coakley lost and all is good. G'night...
1/22/2010 7:35 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By da6nz6ig6 on 1/22/2010I guess what it boils down to is does anyone have a problem if someone wins 80+ games with a 30 mil payroll and a 40 mil prospect budget? No, their problem is with tankers that lose on purpose. Figure out a way to punish those guys and leave those who can win and rebuild effectively alone. That's all, not the end of the world either way just wanted to voice my opinion. All I know is Coakley lost and all is good. G'night...
Most of the time, a team that wins 80+ games with a $30m payroll is doing so because they are just starting to reap the benefits of previous years of tanking with a roster full of studly pre-arb guys.

The exceptions, i.e. owners who are able to do so without previous years of tanking, are very few and far between.

So yes, most good owners and worlds would and should have a problem with what you describe.
1/22/2010 8:08 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Or, who cares? If you don't want a 2nd team under the current guidelines, don't take one. HBD will certainly struggle without you delving into the two team foray but, and I'm just guessing, it will somehow survive.
1/22/2010 8:11 PM
◂ Prev 1...23|24|25|26|27...34 Next ▸
Eliminate Prospect Budget 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.