Instead of making these changes which take out a strategy that may help a competitive team get a young stud they may not otherwise get (good teams dont get top draft picks) why not allow the commissioners to police the problem? Isn't there a way to get rid of problem owners before they become a big problem to the entire world? I mean these are private worlds and they have there own set or requirements for entry so can teams not be banned from worlds for not meeting requirements as set out by the league commissioner in advance?

Also, why are we asking admin to make changes to the way the leagues are run system wide when not every world has a problem (or at least a problem big enough to complain about to this degree)?

I like the change. What it means is that, when in rebuild mode, there is no advantage to cutting payroll budget below a certain point, other than tanking for draft picks. As a consequence, rebuilders, once they've cut the dead-weight, will pobably move back into the FA market a little quicker. We're a little closer to having a payroll floor.



This won't do anything about people who break teams for fun, or are just unable to win games, or who are obsessed with #1 draft picks. But I'm not sure anything will stop these actual "tankers" except being in a private world that keeps them out. What this change will do is modify the incentive structure on honest rebuilding projects to keep payroll a bit higher and do the turnaround a bit faster.



Another effect it will have which no one seems to be talking about, but which seems to me to be even more important, is to bring down the amount of total IFA dollars, and therefore overall prices. What this will do is bring some competitive teams, who have been shunning the IFA process because of a few teams making huge transfers, back into the IFA market, or encourage teams that have been investing smaller amounts in IFA to invest a bit more. It will be much easier for mid-level payroll teams to play for top IFAs.



Tiebreakers won't be much of an issue after the draft. Before the draft, it's a different story: $24 mil max bid. But after picks are signed, someone's going to have more available. Will this, in fact, be an ANTI-tanking incentive? The #7 pick costs less than the #1 pick. Will this cause over-slot draftees to drop further down in the draft? Will teams stop signing low draft picks with Prospect money, and instead sign more MiL FAs with Payroll money, to get a slight advantage on post-draft IFA bidding? There's going to be a lot going on here.



I think an additional change to go along with this would be great: raise the maximum budget amount for prospects to $30 mil. Think about it: all this would do is put an extra $10 mil in the payroll of the least competitive teams. That would be good for the competitive balance overall, I think. Leave the penalty for post-budget transfers as-is. I'd love to hear opinions on this.



Unintended consequence warning: Beware tanking owners trying to use their extra cash, which can no longer be moved to prospect budget, to buy prospects, in some form or another, through trades.

Quote: Originally Posted By gjello10 on 1/11/2010Unintended consequence warning: Beware tanking owners trying to use their extra cash, which can no longer be moved to prospect budget, to buy prospects, in some form or another, through trades

I thought about mentioning that, or a tanker front-loading contracts then trading for prospects ... then realized that the big tankers are far too lazy to put in that much effort

Tankers tank. Boot them out or don't let them your world. That's the best way to be rid of them.

Plus you get the added bonus of a hissy fit when you deny them entrance into your world because they once won 50 games.

Quote: Originally Posted By schedule1 on 1/11/2010this will make the draft more important, though, won't it? which will... encourage tankers

A fair point, which seems to have gone largely ignored. Now, instead of spending almost nothing on payroll, tankers can use the extra payroll they don't transfer to sign horrible players to horrible contracts, insuring good draft position but leaving the next owner in a lurch when they inevitably bail because no one wants them in the World.

Example: Tankapottamous decides he's not competing for four seasons, just building his minors. Trades away all of his ML contracts in Season 1, then signs 38 year old slugs to 3 year deals in Season 2 with the payroll he couldn't transfer. That way his team gets progressively worse until the point he's ready to compete.

Not that I'm arguing against a prospect budget cap in principal - $30 million seems more than fair - but this has the potential to make Worlds worse off than they were before.

With the absolute cap, wouldn't tanking be counterproductive for teams wishing to sign the best IFA? The #1 pick costs at least 4 M, and then each subsequent pick costs less, so the team with the #1 pick will have a hard time outbidding those below that team for the best IFA. I imagine this was part of admin's thinking...

Quote: Originally posted by austinfan1 on 1/11/2010With the absolute cap, wouldn't tanking be counterproductive for teams wishing to sign the best IFA? The #1 pick costs at least 4 M, and then each subsequent pick costs less, so the team with the #1 pick will have a hard time outbidding those below that team for the best IFA. I imagine this was part of admin's thinking...

It's also counterproductive to completely tank because the first tie-breaker is "Playoff contention (based on last seasons winning %)". So, tankers may have to straddle the line of losing enough to get a high draft pick, but winning enough to be able to win the tie-breaker over any other tankers for the best Int'l guy.