Posted by dmurphy104 on 3/21/2012 3:46:00 PM (view original):

I dont envision the issue that Crump brought up as being a huge deal because a few things would have to fall in place. 2 owners with different draft positions see the same future all-star. For it to be an issue - both teams would need to have $20M budgeted, and both teams need to actually see the player, and be willing to go all in. And since we are talking $20 Mil, likely an owner will only get 1 International stud--so whose to say the next guy isnt better, leaving the owner with the higher pick in better shape.

One idea that has been rattling around is to allow transfers up to the signing bonus amount requested by your first round pick. Although I really dont think I would want to deal with enforcing and monitoring that.

Posted by mrauseo on 3/22/2012 2:02:00 AM (view original):
If this is the way you want to go then you need to make it a spending cap on ifa's not prospects. or owners with worse picks or have signed type a's have an advantage.

Are you saying make it a cap per player or for all IFA's? If its per IFA, it doesnt really solve much. It would work if its a total cap for signing internationals, but will just take a little more to police.

I was starting to lean towards allowing transfers up to the amount that it takes to sign your 1st round and supplemental picks (and you have to use the money to sign the draft picks).
 

I've thought a lot about this, and tried to get a push for it in one of my worlds, but didn't get much support, so I'd definently be interested if that world ever forms.  The one aspect that was brought up in discussion that I'd be weary of, is seeing a lot of people dump 95% of their draft in order to sign a top level IFA.  Get too much of that, and the depth in the minors becomes pretty shallow really quick.  I'm not convinced it would change anything that the typical public or generic setup world doesn't see already, so probably not an issue, but something that could develop.

This all really goes back to one of the basic HBD issues:  predictability of player development and the "sure thing".  Someone ealier mentioned that a $35M payroll and $40M IFA budget is unrealistic.  That's true, but so is the 'sure thing' of development.  You'd never see that kind of bidding with more randomness because players wouldn't make those kind of transfers. 

Make the budget categories blind to other players (except what's actually spent on contracts) and you'd get more "true" bidding.  I've played in a world with prospect caps and it seemed okay, but MWR seem to be the best overall approach.  A good competitive world with MWR has to affect the market for IFA's.  The player who puts all their chips into getting the elite stud in more than just a season or two will either quickly learn that they can't keep up with the MWR or they'll end up losing their team.