The IFA process continues to be broken, and IMO, it is the #1 underlying reason for tanking.

To be able to afford a top-notch IFA, one must transfer money from payroll to prospect budget. The $6M minimum means that for the first half of the season, the max bonus is ~$25M, but after the amateur draft it can be $30M or more. At $2-for-$1 transferred, it costs a minimum of $10M (more like $12-24M) of player payroll AND the entirety of the prospect budget to even THINK about bidding on a top notch IFA.

That means to maybe secure a top notch IFA, a team has to allocate nearly 1/4th or 1/5th of their $185M, in pursuit of one player. I see "max" contracts bemoaned almost daily on this forum as an example of "what's wrong" and tanking is the #1 topic of discussion.

The transfer "penalty" is essentially a league, not team penalty. The league suffers because the team never intended to win, or even try, and instead viable ML players sit unsigned, declining (among other negative consequences).

The team losing $2-20M in player payroll to invest in that one top-notch IFA per year "tanks" and also nets a top 5 amateur draft pick. Add three prospects per season, repeat 5 times, hold back the "prospects" from year 1 in AAA for just one season, unleash juggernaut that wins 3-5 WS titles while every one is cheap. I've a couple leagues where this happened/was in process, and I read about those leagues here as well. And from picking up abandoned teams in public worlds has proven it - it costs a tanker $100 (roughly) to build a team that can earn $100 (in credits). The ROI isn't profitable, except in WS titles and internet bragging rights...but we all play this game, so if I could play it (essentially) for free ... well, it's tempting.

There's a reason people tank - it works, given time. It's a money making scheme, really. And it RUINS worlds.

And at the very core is the way the IFA bidding process works. Because without the top-notch IFAs, building (exclusively) through the draft is not a 3 or 4 season strategy. And to really WIN in the IFA game, you have to keep player payroll in the 20's and 30's, ignore ML FA's who could help the team win games, and LOSE to net good draft slots.

If WifS were to eliminate the prospect budget entirely it eliminates the "waste" of budget transfers. It enables teams that have competitive major league teams to bid on IFAs.

Make "Prospect Budget" be a flat $5M, to used exclusively on picks. (This helps address minor league depth, skill position player shortages and helps prevent toxic wasted dump teams) All other funds are "Player Procurement". If someone wants to give a $50M bonus to an IFA, well, that would be unfortunate, but it would also help clearly ID the "is just stupid" from the "actively tanking to build a super team".

There is no guarantee of winning the $100 you mention, especially if the league has multiple tankers.

That's awful long to be so stupid.

So, if I want to spend 50m on a IFA, I still can, right? So, your "Player Procurement" category is just IFA/payroll budget now, right?

So, instead of taking a 50% hit for transferring, I now have 100% to bid on IFA, right?

How does that change anything except allow the 88m payroll teams to bid on IFA? The 22m payroll team still has more funds to bid. So, in essence, the 30m IFA simply becomes a 40m IFA.

Nice "solution".

We are going to limit the amount of money that is allowed to be transferred to the prospect budget when we release the HOF.

In Uecker I've been able to keep my ML payroll low, while still winning 90+ games, and stashing 20-30mil in prospect budget, to go after IFAs, most seasons.

See, I like to win and build at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive.

Best way to identify a tanker is the record, not what's in Prospect.

Most of the ******** can be put down to jealousy I think. Since some people don't have the payroll flexibilty to get into the bidding process, they resent anyone who does. Because life is always fair, right. Boo-f*cking-hoo. Suck it up, Princess.

So IFA budets become easier to build, but you can sign all your draft picks without worrying about signing IFAs?

I'm not sure why we have to do the first before doing the second.

Quote: Originally Posted By patrickm885 on 1/11/2010We are going to limit the amount of money that is allowed to be transferred to the prospect budget when we release the HOF.

Nice!

Quote: Originally Posted By patrickm885 on 1/11/2010We are going to limit the amount of money that is allowed to be transferred to the prospect budget when we release the HOF.

That's quite the "tack on".

Won't stop tanking. Tankers tank. Doesn't matter what prospect/payroll restrictions are implemented.

interesting. patrick, can you shed some more light on that: what the max will be, how an IFA will choose among max offers, etc?

Quote: Originally Posted By patrickm885 on 1/11/2010We are going to limit the amount of money that is allowed to be transferred to the prospect budget when we release the HOF.

Cry babies win again!

How about enforcing your minimum win % rule? How about actually doing something when someone is obviously (purposefully or ignorantly) harming a franchise? Nah, that would require work on admin's part, best to take the lazy, easy way out. Don't pull anything patting yourselves on the back.

Quote: Originally Posted By examinerebb on 1/11/2010Salary floor. Is a cap far behind

Cap's there. It's $173M (185- 6 for prospects -6 for coaches). It's hard to get to $173M given the rules about subsequent year payroll, but that's the cap.

Sure,

Over time we have noticed that a common strategy is to have an unrealistically small player payroll, take the surplus and transfer it all into the prospect budget. This provides for an unfair advantage over teams that are actually willing to compete.

In nearly every case we are seeing that these franchises tank for several seasons to accumulate minimal player payroll and then build their farm system through the IFA process. In turn, the franchises that are trying to compete season after season are out of the IFA process entirely.

We decided that one way to curb the tanking is to limit the amount of money that can be dumped into the prospect payroll budget. That amount is going to be $30M and max contracts will be handled the same exact way that was outlined in the last update thread.

We also talked about getting rid of the budget transfer page altogether, is that something that you would rather see?

I am not as experienced as alot of guys on here but why do so many people ***** about transferring budget to sign INTL FA's? Of course some guys are going to do it and they will end up with the best prospects but aren't you other guys missing something? The guys that have to do this are not good managers or they would be able to make trades, draft better and sign the cheaper INTL FA's and at the same time they could field a competitive team. There are far better ways to win besides tanking to get INTL FA's and high draft picks. Sign FA's wisely, draft well, manage your team and budget properly and these tankers won't be a problem because they still won't know how to manage a winning team while you will have the experience necessary to do just that.