Salary Floor and Budget Incentives Topic

dillontt
Posts: 108 (0)
Hall of Famer
236
Prospect

Since there is a limit that can be spent on player salary, why wouldnt there be a salary floor, specifically a minimum amount of salary that has to be paid to player payroll.  A lot of leagues seem to not want 'tanking' and put in place minimum win regulations but this would not be an issue if teams had to spend a certain amount on players.  This would help eliminate poor teams dedicating all resources  to scouting, international prospects and monopolizing the best draft picks for several seasons.  Good Management and making good transactions become more important in this scenario.

Second, it makes no sense that a team that purposely tanks gets the same budget as a team legitmately trying to field a winner.  What about a base salary to franchises with incremental increases based on performance.  In this scenario you could tank all you want but your budget next season should reflect that.

If there are any worlds out there that have tried either of these I would be very interested.

2/11/2011 2:00 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
1.  I could overspend on a few players and reach any salary floor you set.
2.  Performance based budgeting would be a nightmare.  The rich get richer.   And no one would take on a team with a 170m budget.   But, before you say "Reset the budget with each new owner", that's just an alias nightmare. 
2/11/2011 2:09 PM
taz21
Posts: 470 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 93
Prospect
I think some worlds have tried it.  We've discussed it in a couple of worlds, the biggest problem is where do you set the floor, and how much is proper to be spent to compete?  If you set it at $60, some are in a situation where they can compete w/ a player budget at $55.

to me, in the end, it matters not how much you spend on players, but what are you doing to ensure that you have a legit team at the ML level, and what direction are you going w/ your franchise.  I have no problem with a guy who says "I'm trading away some of my aging vets for prospects now, I'll build thru the draft and IFA market and come back strong in a season or two"  Sometimes the shape of your team dictates that you need to take a step or two back, to start going forward again.  You can almost always get solid players that can fill in for a season or two at discounted prices once demands start falling in FA.  I think the last thing you want to do is make someone spend money just to spend money.  As long as they have a legit team on the field, which will more than likely meet most minimum win requirements in many worlds, you shouldn't have to worry about how much or how little they're spending on player payroll.
2/11/2011 2:15 PM
dillontt
Posts: 108 (0)
Hall of Famer
236
Prospect

Thanks all,

Performance base could be very simple, the top 8 teams might get a base plus some percent increase, next 8 base plus smaller increase, next 8 base minus small  increment etc.  Under this type of scenario your top 8 teams might have overall budget of $200 Million and your last 8 maybe only $160 Million.  This provides incentive to win, motivation to manage efficiently, better reflects what happens when teams win (playoff revenue, increased attendance, etc)

As for number of wins, that does not matter to me.  If teams want to sandbag, go ahead but lets not give them the budget and means to get every top prospect and reward them with same budget as a world series winner.  

2/11/2011 3:30 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
That would result in owners dropping teams.   40m is about 4 quality FA. 
2/11/2011 3:36 PM
dillontt
Posts: 108 (0)
Hall of Famer
236
Prospect

thanks Mike,

I guess this scenario would have to absolutely involve 32 serious owners that see the merits in doing their best to field a winner. 

2/11/2011 3:51 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

It's been discussed a lot.   Even with 32 owners doing their best to win every game, someone has to lose.  Nothing would suck worse than simply being the worst owner in a group of 32 very good owners and then getting hamstrung by declining resources to compete with the other 31 who are just simply doing better.  

2/11/2011 4:16 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
The beauty, as well as the challenge, of HBD is that everybody starts out on an even playing field of $185m every season.  It's what you do with your $185m, i.e. how wisely your allocate and spend your money, that makes the difference.

I'll use my team in Cooperstown as a perfect example of why this suggestion is not a very good idea.  I built a very good team over a number of seasons via good trades for young prospects, a few key IFA signings, and some very good drafting.  I was also pretty lucky, particularly with the draft, because I was able to get the right mix of quality draftees at different positions over five seasons or so that all fit very well into a final picture.  Six straight division titles and two World Series appearances (unfortunately, back-to-back Game 7 losses) in what is generally considered as one of the most (if not THE most) competitive HBD world was the high point of my rebuild.

Then my guys started hitting arb and FA.  Tied to a $185m budget, I had to make decisions that I knew would have negative impact in the long term.  I cut down on my draft scouting budgets.  I cut down on my IFA budget.  I cut down some on medical and training.  All because I needed to find a way to meet increasing payroll.  I knew this was where I was going to end up many seasons before.  It was part of the business of building the team that I built in the manner that I built it.

With a performanced based budget, under this suggestion, I would have gone up to $200m per season.  That would have made it a LOT easier to keep my team together, and I wouldn't have had to make some of the decisions that I made.  Which, though "hooray for me", would have taken some of the challenge away from the game.

As Mike said, "the rich get richer".  Really not a good thing for competitive balance in a world.
2/11/2011 4:30 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Oddly enough(not really), tec's rise came came with my downfall.  7 straight playoff appearances(4 D-titles) with the last being the beginning of tec's reign of terror in the same division.  I won a tightly contested division last season.   That's the fun of HBD.   If tec had been allowed to keep all his players with an increasing payroll, maybe I still slug around in third.  Or, conversely, maybe tec never rises to the top because my payroll would have been so much more than his when my downfall began.
2/11/2011 7:04 PM
foulballz
Posts: 132 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 162
Prospect
I've been thinking of ways to give incentives for winning for awhile and agree that adjusting budgets would just help maintain the super teams like has been mentioned.  My idea is kind of similar to a budget floor/win minimum.  It seems the most common win min. is 55/125.  however, tanking teams can still hover slightly above those numbers for years.  I think if there was a rule that you also had to win 65-70 games or whatever the number would be in order to compete for IFA's  would both help reduce tanking and increase payroll.  Tanking teams are counting on high draft picks and having lots of money for IFA's.  But if they weren't allowed to compete for IFA's, there'd be less incentive to tank because you're only getting one stud a year instead of 2-3.  So if you missed the number, the next season you couldn't get IFA's and would have to spend your excess cash on players to improve your team or waste it.  The ban would only be in effect the year following not meeting the win requirement and  wouldn't transfer to new owners.    Likewise, teams that win on low budgets wouldn't be penalized like in a budget floor.  Don't know if this has been tried before or not.
2/15/2011 9:03 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
We use 55/125/195/280 in Coop/MG.  That keeps teams for hitting the minimums for 2-3 season.   A lot can go wrong on your way to 85 wins in S4.
2/15/2011 9:29 AM
foulballz
Posts: 132 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 162
Prospect
Those win mins. work great for your worlds because they are among the best, always have a waiting list and you have more owners to choose from/screen  to allow in.  However, in some worlds those win mins. aren't in place.  Even if they were, it still could leave a team stacked for the next owner which really doesn't help the world.  There could still be a super team, just a different owner running it.
2/15/2011 9:45 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
The theory behind the MWR is that is discourages owners from playing exclusively for tomorrow, knowing that they have to win games today.  With that in mind, it's less likely that owners will continue to follow the "tanking for a future superteam" strategy, knowing that they may not be around to reap the benefits.
2/15/2011 10:08 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I agree that it's "easier" to institute MWR in worlds that have experienced, successful owners.  However, it's pointless to hit the minimums and miss in S4 for the reason tec mentioned.  No matter what rule(s) you make, someone will always have first pick and someone will always have more money for IFA.   But extended MWR discourage being at the bottom of the barrel for too long. 
2/15/2011 10:28 AM
Salary Floor and Budget Incentives 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.