Eliminate Prospect Budget Topic

spudpicker
Posts: 66 (0)
All Star
4 36
Prospect
Or how's this for a "rule" to avoid tanking. You lose your team if your player payroll (75 mill = 75) and win total for that season don't add up to 100.

Feel like running a 25 million dollar payroll out there for a season? Better win 75 games or someone else is taking over.

1/11/2010 5:08 PM
domiisgod
Posts: 19 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 2 1 16 118
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By spudpicker on 1/11/2010

Or how's this for a "rule" to avoid tanking. You lose your team if your player payroll (75 mill = 75) and win total for that season don't add up to 100.

Feel like running a 25 million dollar payroll out there for a season? Better win 75 games or someone else is taking over.








100=wins+payroll. Or bye bye. Sort of interesting. For the low payroll end, seems like it would be effective. If you drop your payroll to 30 mill and transfer everything, power to you if you can roll 70 wins out on that.



Havent thought how it would effect an 80 million payroll team that loses 130 games. Would fit the equation but would still be at only 32 wins, which youd have to be tanking to win only 32.



If nothing else, it is interesting.
1/11/2010 5:26 PM
cjlancaster
Posts: 27 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 19 27 66
Prospect
Preventing tanking in your World

Outside of having a strong commish who can dictatorially boot people who have the appearance of tanking, there are several effective steps you can take to prevent tanking. I'll uise the template we have in Moneyball, since it has proven to be effective:

1) Be a private world.

You have no authority in a public world. If you arr playing there for anything more than experience to work your way into a private world, you get what you get.

2) Police the owners that you bring into your world.

If your commish is just accepting any applicants (or worse, mailing out the password for yorur league to half the site), then you get what you get.

3) Fail to win 130 games over a two season span and you are gone.

This was designed to mimic the real life aspect of Failure to Win = Fired. What its done is to prevent teams from doing the massive budget transfer. If you can't field a competitve team, you probably are going to leave the building. Its done over a two season span because a rash of injuries can really hamper a franchise for a season and you'd rather not lose an owner over one bad run of luck. If you can do this with a $25 million budget, more power to you. Considering how competitve Free Agency gets in a Win Now or Die environment, it's unlikely that this will occur. You won't see anyone doing a massive transfer to prospect money so that someone else can enjoy the fruits of their tankjob.

1/11/2010 5:32 PM
gjello10
Posts: 164 (0)
All Star
6 26
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By kahrtmen on 1/11/2010I like that idea, but why 30m and not 20m
Both are fine, but I think $20 mil allows teams with very high payrolls to max out. You need to have a set up where you can't have your cake and eat it too. Choices need to be made. If $20 mil was the max, I think most teams would max out. If $30 mil was the max, I think you'd get a distribution of budgets.
1/11/2010 5:38 PM
The_Stiffs
Posts: 3 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 2 99
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By timf on 1/11/2010
stiffs that is the point i am trying to make trades so they dont make use of all the tools available to them. good owners will make trades to get better, sign FA's to fill gaps, draft good prospects at lower spots and sign the good IFA's that dont require $30M bonuses and. Tankers as you so helpfully reitterated do nothing but go for prospects and IFA's. That is their strategy and it works to a point. Better managers will still beat them.



you clearly have not seen the end result of years of this strategy. the teams that can be built are ridiculous. you're talking about an organization with a dozen or more players with OVR ratings in the 80s and/or 90s all under 30, most making the minimum with replacements in the minor league pipeline (so that after arbitrating with these super players for three years they can let them go and turn the compensation picks into the next generation of stars--albeit lesser stars because by now these teams are picking 29th or better instead of 1st).
1/11/2010 5:41 PM
The_Stiffs
Posts: 3 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 2 99
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By schedule1 on 1/11/2010
stiffs, i love the idea of rewarding owners who win games (even if they don't make the playoffs) and punishing owners who lose games (to prevent tanking). but i don't think that dynamic budgets would work, because of turnover, and the rich getting richer.

what else can be done?


as long as incoming owners start at the default $185M, they will be at a disadvantage to the winning teams, but enjoy a budgeting advantage over the losing teams.

as for the rich getting richer, it's better than the poor getting richer...

EDIT: (because the "rich" have earned it)
1/11/2010 5:44 PM
The_Stiffs
Posts: 3 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 2 99
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By steelerstime on 1/11/2010
Wouldn't it be hilarious if WIS incorporated win % into the valuation of bids. So lets say a team that has averaged a .600 win % over the last few years-his $15 mill offer is actually worth $20 mill. And the team with a .325 win %-his $20 mill offer is actually worth $15 mill.

It would certainly affect the tankers, and reward those that are trying to win.



AHH!!! Very good idea! similar in spirit (and function) to dynamic budgets but without the complication. it seems that applying a tiered multiplier to a team's FA offers could be a simple addition...???
1/11/2010 5:48 PM
timf
Posts: 185 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 103
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By The_Stiffs on 1/11/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By steelerstime on 1/11/2010

Wouldn't it be hilarious if WIS incorporated win % into the valuation of bids. So lets say a team that has averaged a .600 win % over the last few years-his $15 mill offer is actually worth $20 mill. And the team with a .325 win %-his $20 mill offer is actually worth $15 mill.

It would certainly affect the tankers, and reward those that are trying to win.




AHH!!! Very good idea! similar in spirit (and function) to dynamic budgets but without the complication. it seems that applying a tiered multiplier to a team's FA offers could be a simple addition...???
As I stated earlier adding to a post from steelers, I think you also need to take into account the IFA's patience/makeup. The lower makeup guys will follow the money, the higher rated guys will go to the winners (as long as their bids are somewhat comparable). The teams winning percentage, combined with the players makeup would be a good starting point for a multiplier.
1/11/2010 6:39 PM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
There's a problem with how IFAs sign. Who they sign with and when they sign has a low connection to the bidding. If they ever decided to make the connection higher, it would help.
1/11/2010 7:13 PM
The_Stiffs
Posts: 3 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 2 99
Prospect
there was a post earlier suggesting a one week IFA blind bidding period. i haven't participated in the IFA market for a long time so i can't really say if that method would be favorable but it sounds reasonable and as long as unused prospect budget is still transferable...
1/11/2010 7:35 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I suggested a long time ago that owners make one blind bid for IFA. Of course, for that to work, budgets have to become secret. Otherwise, one can figure out how much everyone else has to bid.
1/11/2010 7:46 PM
shobob
Posts: 3403 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 370
Prospect
Well, not everyone would be seeing the same IFAs, and the ones they did see wouldn't look exactly the same, depending on how much $ you budgeted for IFA scouting. Also, there would be differing strategies, such as blowing all your wad on one prospect, or trying to get 2-3 mid level ones, etc. Either way, the way it is now (even with a 30 mil cap) any owner who has 15 mil or less prospect cash is pretty much excluded from the process. Perhaps the over unsigned IFAs could become minor league FAs the following season, just like unsigned college sr. draftees? Or they could be recycled into the season after's IFA crop until they are 22, then go to minor league free agency (college sr route)
1/11/2010 7:51 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Why are there unsigned IFA now? Because they suck. They won't suck less next year. There are only a few owners who use unspent prospect budget to sign low level IFA to replenish the minor leagues in the world. That isn't changing.
1/11/2010 8:01 PM
shobob
Posts: 3403 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 370
Prospect
If there is blind bidding, with a one shot deal to sign them or not, it's completely possible that some good ones could slip through the cracks.
1/11/2010 8:02 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
No, it's not. Good ones will be bid on. Why wouldn't they?
1/11/2010 8:03 PM
◂ Prev 1...6|7|8|9|10...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.