Also, if you're shooting for 2nd last, you're definitely playing with fire. You're an unlucky stretch of games from last place. Keep in mind that whoever is in last is going to be fielding as competitive a squad as possible to try and get to 2nd last at the same time. Personally, if I were 2nd or 3rd last, I'd be trying to win in order to avoid ending up in last.

It's not bad. A little harsher than most would want to see, which I think is the point. During the recent discussion with Admin about how to get owners to keep their minor leagues healthy, my only point was that half-measures wouldn't achieve anything; the only way to make us change our behavior is to make sure we are punished. Serious punishment.

This is not MWR related, but similar....one of the leagues that I commish is beginning to have a discussion about using a payroll cap. Since recruiting can be a bit difficult, I would like to make the penalty harsh enough to discourage violations but also not be a removal. My initial thought was something like the "draft a 2 pitch RP" rule but I'm curious if anyone here has a better idea. Thanks in advance!

Posted by bruinsfan911 on 8/20/2021 12:55:00 PM (view original):
This is not MWR related, but similar....one of the leagues that I commish is beginning to have a discussion about using a payroll cap. Since recruiting can be a bit difficult, I would like to make the penalty harsh enough to discourage violations but also not be a removal. My initial thought was something like the "draft a 2 pitch RP" rule but I'm curious if anyone here has a better idea. Thanks in advance!

"Draft a 2 pitch RP" won't work for a payroll cap penalty. Here is why: Owners who spend 100M+ on salaries don't care about who they get in the draft for 2 reasons. First, they most likely don't have a first round pick due to signing a type A free agent. Second, to get their salary budget up over 100M they likely have cut their scouting budgets way down. Most owners who do these 2 things are not expecting to get a ML quality prospect out of the draft.

Agreed with dyoungquist

Posted by dyoungquist on 8/20/2021 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bruinsfan911 on 8/20/2021 12:55:00 PM (view original):
This is not MWR related, but similar....one of the leagues that I commish is beginning to have a discussion about using a payroll cap. Since recruiting can be a bit difficult, I would like to make the penalty harsh enough to discourage violations but also not be a removal. My initial thought was something like the "draft a 2 pitch RP" rule but I'm curious if anyone here has a better idea. Thanks in advance!

"Draft a 2 pitch RP" won't work for a payroll cap penalty. Here is why: Owners who spend 100M+ on salaries don't care about who they get in the draft for 2 reasons. First, they most likely don't have a first round pick due to signing a type A free agent. Second, to get their salary budget up over 100M they likely have cut their scouting budgets way down. Most owners who do these 2 things are not expecting to get a ML quality prospect out of the draft.

Those are very good points...my other thoughts were 1) a Free Agency ban 2) Requiring teams to draft someone from the Rule 5 pool 3) an IFA ban but those seem harder to enforce than a "Draft a 2 pitch RP" rule. I'm also open to other out-of-the-box suggestions because at this point we are simply discussing the rule rather than actively trying to implement it.

Ultimately, the only penalty that can be enforced is removal from the world. If I am slapped with a "Draft a 2 pitch RP" penalty it is my choice if I actually comply or not. If I don't comply, the only course of action left for the commissioner is removal.

I get not wanting to kick out owners given the recruiting hassle, but a Payroll cap feels a lot different from a MWR where you could be trying to comply... or maybe trying to cut it a little too close to the line and screw up (which reminds me of the time I took a class Pass/Fail in college and didn't want to do too well because Pass looks the same whether it's an A or a D... it didn't end well).

If someone screws up and sets their budget too high, I'd make the penalty an immediate transfer of as much of their budget as necessary to get under $100M (or whatever the cap), which means they'll lose half the money than if they would have just set it up correctly. If someone won't comply with that I'm not sure why they would join a league with that kind of rule set up in the first place (ignoring, I suppose, anyone in the league now who's opposed to setting a cap... I'd think some teams may need a 1 or 2 season grace period when you first set the cap to clear some contracts).

Posted by dw172300 on 8/20/2021 4:46:00 PM (view original):
I get not wanting to kick out owners given the recruiting hassle, but a Payroll cap feels a lot different from a MWR where you could be trying to comply... or maybe trying to cut it a little too close to the line and screw up (which reminds me of the time I took a class Pass/Fail in college and didn't want to do too well because Pass looks the same whether it's an A or a D... it didn't end well).

If someone screws up and sets their budget too high, I'd make the penalty an immediate transfer of as much of their budget as necessary to get under $100M (or whatever the cap), which means they'll lose half the money than if they would have just set it up correctly. If someone won't comply with that I'm not sure why they would join a league with that kind of rule set up in the first place (ignoring, I suppose, anyone in the league now who's opposed to setting a cap... I'd think some teams may need a 1 or 2 season grace period when you first set the cap to clear some contracts).

10.3.0

This is again a good point, and we are going to have a grace period...I did a quick check and only one team would be over the cap for next season and I have let them know that they will not be penalized so I don't anticipate too much push back.

One world I am in has a minor-league MWR penalty of having to sign a free-agent (chosen by the commissioner) with an option remaining for $4 million and that player must remain in the minors all season. So really more of a monetary penalty.

After getting ****** about tanking.....in a league with a MWR.....I have just come to accept that its just part of the game. No matter what the rule is....someone will figure out a way to manipulate it. Most owners really don't care if other owners run their teams to tank because they plan on doing it after their 7-8 season run. With that said, having a MWR is better than not having it because at least owners try to win a certain number of games. It doesn't eliminate the extreme low salary teams. They are still going to be there.

Posted by bigbucks07 on 8/21/2021 12:36:00 AM (view original):
After getting ****** about tanking.....in a league with a MWR.....I have just come to accept that its just part of the game. No matter what the rule is....someone will figure out a way to manipulate it. Most owners really don't care if other owners run their teams to tank because they plan on doing it after their 7-8 season run. With that said, having a MWR is better than not having it because at least owners try to win a certain number of games. It doesn't eliminate the extreme low salary teams. They are still going to be there.

Have to say I agree with this. None of us are dummies and this is a program; we can and will all figure out how to exploit whatever is available.

The only point is that tanking is the least intelligent exploit available. Any moron can do it. And has been stated by smarter people than I, this game seems to be set up so that even the worst Legitimate major league quality team, even with bad luck, should win no worse than about 50 games.

An MWR is simply to stop those who deliberately humiliate themselves from sending AA players out there.