Then why are you wanting to cap how much an owner can spend in that open market?

To try to keep the $60m prospect, $10m payroll teams to a minimum.  Duh.

Then let's not call it an "open market" is you're in favor of capping it.

Everybody is free to set their prospect budget to the max of $20m on budget day.  Everybody is free to bid.  People can choose to do so or not do so, for whatever reasons they choose.  That doesn't mean it's not open.

If I tell you that you can work at any McD's you want as a burger flipper, or maybe even switch to Hardee's and flip Angus burgers, but you'll never make more than $8.50 an hour, would you consider that an open market?

Posted by iain on 7/15/2010 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 7/15/2010 12:03:00 PM (view original):
I'm surprised that I've never seen either of these as requirements for staying in a league;

Minimum # of players per level.
Minimum # of wins per level.

Usually, dumping $28M on one player = I don't give a crap if my rookie team/low A team has 5 players on it.

If you do that and can't even squeeze, say, 20 wins out of your rookie team and you lose your franchise, I think you may think twice about doing it.

I believe NABCL has minimum players at each level... CAPB probably does, too.

Wins would be hard(er) to mandate, as sometimes certain parks (+4) are death to pitching prospects, so you always have them skip HiA, and so your HiA team stinks.

If the mandate is lower than the bar you'd set for ML, then it's not an issue.

20 wins. Not that hard. But eliminates the "I don't need to sign anyone but this one IFA" scenario, because those teams end up with 5-149 in the low minors.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/15/2010 1:20:00 PM (view original):
If I tell you that you can work at any McD's you want as a burger flipper, or maybe even switch to Hardee's and flip Angus burgers, but you'll never make more than $8.50 an hour, would you consider that an open market?

A bad and irrelevant analogy.

A better analogy would be if I wanted to buy a 2010 Lamborghini Murcielago.  The Lamboghini dealer wouldn't care if I worked at McD's or Hardees as long as I had the $350k cash to purchase one.

Financial liability, as in not being able to afford, for a given percentage of a given population doesn't preclude a market from being considered open.  It's open to anybody who can pony up the bucks.

Irrelevant because you can't buy a Lamborghini with green stamps. STFU.

Posted by deathinahole on 7/15/2010 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Irrelevant because you can't buy a Lamborghini with green stamps. STFU.

You know this for sure, because you tried?

Was this in any way related to your recent incarceration?

No, an open market would indicate there are no restrtictions.  In sports, baseball has the only legitimate open market.   If you look at the LeBron fiasco, it wasn't a matter of money, 5 or 6 teams were willing to pony up the max, it was a matter of which one of the 5-6 he wanted to play with.   The NFL has more of an open market but even they're restricted.     In this case, you're lobbying for a NBA-type open market.   "Who can afford the max bonus?" is the question.  The question would no longer be "Who can accrue the most prospect money?" 

Posted by tecwrg on 7/15/2010 12:16:00 PM (view original):
So iaiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiain, are you implying that the "bad" teams, with the higher and more expensive draft picks, should also have an inherent right to have more money to bid on IFA's?

IFA's are an open market commodity, not a draft.

No, I'm explaining sched's point, you dumbass.

I actually refuted his claim, as it doesn't work out that way (or at least it didn't in BR while I was there).... but that would require you reading things, rather than jumping to ill-informed conclusions.

Thank you. We're all dumber for you having posted.

You can't, simply cannot, call someone a dumbass and then, in the very next sentence say "I actually refuted him claim".