I recommend we make HBD mirror the current MLB CBA in certain respects.  Notably around free agency, the draft and International free agents.  I think by doing this it would make the draft and international approach more dynamic and resolve some of the HBD concerns around tanking and how to approach internationals:

Free agency:  Change the current system for identifying type A and B free agents by eliminating type A and B designations and adopt the qualifying system approach.  How I see this working is that each team during the resign player period of the off-season would have to make a decision to offer a qualifying offer (say at least 1 yr and 8-10M), by doing this you would likely ensure that only the truly top tier players would get draft compensation tied to it, which flows into the next section...

Draft Compensation:  Under the new CBA only the top ten picks are protected.  The team signing the qualified player still loses their first unprotected pick, but the team losing the free agent only gets a 1st round sandwich pick.  This in theory lessens the value of holding a player to get draft compensation and could generate more trade activity during the season.

Draft:  Generate draft spending pools based on where the team finishes.  Its important to note this doesn't change how much you can spend on the draft, you will still budget prospect spending but you now would have a cap on what you can spend on the draft without suffering penalties.  If you go over the spending pool to sign a high bonus pool player then you will forfeit the following years first round draft pick (regardless of protected status, meaning  you can forfeit a top 10 pick).  Why I think this will have impact is contingent on the next recommendation

Greater Bonus Babies:  More top tier prospects with theoretical negotiating leverage (i.e. high school players, juco, college so and jrs) with big bonus demands.  Why will this create a new dynamic, well it means that more high end players could be available in the second half of the draft forcing teams to make decisions about forfeiting future picks for high end talent.  For example, does it make sense for a team in rebuild with a top 10 pick this to potential lose a top ten pick the following season to sign a high end tough to sign talent or go with a easier to sign high end talent?  Probably not meaning that more quality talent could be available to mid round teams who have to make a decision to forfeit a future pick to sign them.

International Free agency:  Same concept as the draft, except you'll have a bonus spending pool cap or slot (same as before that will not lessen the amount you can spend it is just the cap you can spend with out suffering penalties).  Each team will get a recommended $ value they can spend based on where they finished without suffering a penalty, if a team exceeds this pool to sign internationals (whether it is one sign or many) they will lose the right to sign any international the next year for more than a 300K bonus (and will still have to remain within their pool restrictions or suffer the same fate the following season).  This will also force teams to make hard decisions on how far they go to sign internationals and whether they are willing to forfeit the right to sign top tier internationals the next season, which could result in spreading around the top tier internationals from year to year and teams who are in the penalty won't tank their budget and can invest in the ML team the following season cause they can't spend big on internationals.

Another note on international free agency, as opposed to international free agents coming out sporadically across the season, like MLB having a signing period, shortly after the draft and prior to the all star game.  This will result in more competition for the top tier players and could result in some falling through the cracks to other teams as the few top tier player garner the most attention.

I like the last paragraph as it would flow nicely with my suggestion that 6m of drafted, slot money players be auto-signed. 

These are very good next-level suggestions.  The difference would be, to use the old adage, like playing chess instead of checkers.

As this is just my fourth season in HBD, I'm still figuring out budgeting.  One thing that really irks me, though, is that I can never keep up in the international market - I've stopped trying, essentially - and the same teams get the best prospects every year.  I agree with yanks21.  Making HBD more similar to the CBA, especially in this regard, would make the game much better.  As outlined by one site:

 

How are the bonus pools calculated?

MLB assigns four bonus values to each club using a formula that grants teams additional money based on their record during the previous season. $700,000 is then added to each club’s bonus pool. Based on this formulation, the Astros have the largest bonus pool—it totals $5,015,400. The Cardinals have the lowest bonus pool total in MLB for the 2014-15 international signing period: $1,866,300.

Keep in mind that signing bonuses of $10,000 or less do not count toward a club’s signing bonus pool.

What are the potential penalties if a club exceeds its bonus pool amount?

The CBA lays out penalties for teams that exceed their allotted bonus pool amounts:

0-5% overage: MLB taxes the overage at a 100% rate.
5-10% overage: (1) MLB taxes the overage at a 100% rate. (2) The offending club loses the right to sign any player to a bonus exceeding $500,000 during the following international signing period.
10-15% overage: (1) MLB taxes the overage at a 100% rate. (2) The offending club loses the right to sign any player to a bonus exceeding $300,000 during the following international signing period.
15%+ overage: (1) MLB taxes the overage at a 100% rate. (2) The offending club loses the right to sign any player to a bonus exceeding $300,000 during the following two international signing periods.
 

I think that adding these aspects of the CBA would help to make the international market far more competitive and fair, especially if penalties incurred by these rules would carry over from season to season.  Additionally, yanks21's take on the new FA compensation and draft budgeting are spot on.

Adding all of these rules would make the game much more competitive, and spur growth among the league's bottom half.  Further, it would add another layer of strategy to the game, and would separate the next-level GM's from the rest of the pack.

I'm not sure it's in WIS's interest to add any rules or logic the can punish the following season for actions taken this season.

It's hard enough to find GMs for team in bad shape.  How much worse would it be if one of those teams couldn't sign an IFA and/or their #1 draft pick because the previous GM blew too much money on mediocre prospects?

There are ways to prevent this from becoming a problem.

(1) Only allow "over allocation" moves to be executed by GMs who have paid for the following season.  That way their team would at least be free to the new GM if they don't return.

(2) Allow Simmy to run teams so seasons start after no more than 1-2 weeks off.  Simmy wouldn't make trades. Would draft according the default settings. Would play the best 25 players in the ML.  Promoted prospects every season.  And probably stay out of IFA.  I'm fairly confident Simmy would do a better job taking care of teams than many new GMs and those aren't really involved with the game.

I am all for changes to HBD that will increase strategy and decrease the benefits of having a LOT of time to be on the site and knowing the tricks / bugs / quirks of the coding.  But any change will have impacts and they should be thought through.

Simmy running teams is a bad idea.   See other thread.

tufft, I think that only allowing over allocation by already returning owners would be great.  That incentivizes people to re-up early, and would keep GMs from tanking a team they won't run the following season.  However, I think that the way the IFA market works at present is a very broken system, and were they to add the CBA rules, it would be much better.  Allowing only returning GMs to over allocate, and thus face the penalty, is a genius solution.  This is especially true because with more owners re-upping early to be more competitive in the IFA market, other owners will be forced to do so if they wish to remain competitive, and as a result, rollover time will decrease between seasons, as well.

Personally, in my world, about 80% of the owners return every season, but very few re-up until after the season.  I think that using current CBA rules for IFA but allowing only over-allocation by owners confirmed to be returning will solve multiple problems at once.  Kudos, tufft.

I understand the concern about an owner going over their pool to sign multiple internationals and only signing crap.  But I view this as a worst case scenario and not a likely one, I think the suggestions I provided resolves more issues than it creates and the impact to incoming owner on ateam that exceeded its pool will only be a 1 year penalty.  Which doesnt preclude them from making signings (just not going over their pool limit).

True. I don't think it would be incredibly discouraging to an incoming owner, either.

Seems like this gives even more advantage to top tier owners and will actually ensure that teams that aren't renewed are in even worse shape for their next owner.

It could... But I don't think it would. Top tier owners already know how to navigate the international market very well.  In my four seasons, I haven't spent much internationally because I can't keep pace.  Now, the top tier owners, if they went past their international allotment, would not be able to do so the following season.  That would actually give the less experienced owners a shot at some very good IFA's that they might otherwise miss.  That would align with the current CBA and would be healthy for the game, provided they can find a way to keep it from affecting leagues negatively (i.e. a careless, exiting owner overspending).