Working on getting blessing for a new world from admin. It will probably be a little ways off beofre they let it roll. I dont really want to argue the merits of a new world in this thread.

My question is what does HBD think about prospect budget caps? We recently added solid MWRs in Kenny Powers and there was also a lot of support for a prospect cap--not enough to implement it though (I required 2/3 majority vote on the rule changes).

In setting up the new world, I will include the MWRs from the start (may give the newbie owners the ability to argue against dismissal the first season only), a salary cap (110M), and I was thinking $25 or $30 Mil in total prospect budget to limit player payroll transfers to $10 or $20 mil.

Thoughts?

I don't really get the prospect cap as long as you have minimum win rules.

For example, in No Quitters (a quality world that's always in the top 10 or so whenever everybody does those world ranking threads), I have had 29, 33, 40, 38, 35, and 29 million in prospect over the past 6 years. In that time, I've won 102, 99, 87, 92, 89, and 99 games. Of course, I also have 0 in college and high school scouting.

If you have minimum win rules (of which I'm a big fan of), why does it matter how somebody puts together their team?

I'd be more in favor of such a thing if we didn't have access to other teams' financials.   As it stands, we know exactly how much owners can transfer and how much they've spent.   Doesn't take long to figure out who can bid what if you want.  With a limit, it's even easier.

I think the guys that have issue with it are those that budget $20M and dont have the money to transfer are usually left out of the international market. Maybe thats a bad thing, maybe its just the way the game is played. Alternatively, I could put a limit on transfers, or set a salary minimum--or just leave it alone. I was just curious on the general thoughts before I set up the rules.

I'd hard-cap prospect at $20m, period.  Either budget it all at budget time, or transfer up to the delta in-season and pay the 50% penalty.

What is the goal of such a rule?

What's a realistic budget?

Not $35 Million player payroll and $40 Million prospect payroll.

Initially when HBD first came out, we were not allowed any transfers of budget. When WIS allowed transfers, I believe it was with the intent of bailing users out that couldnt sign all their draft picks, or needed an extra Million for their coaching staff, or ran into player payroll issues. I dont think the intent was to have users load up on prospect budgets like they have.

Again Im not convinced the rule is neccesary. And Im not going to implement it in my current world--i put it up for vote because some users brought it up.

Yeah, I mean, I hear you on the soft tanking thing, but if you are playing with decent MWR, it really shouldn't be an issue.

If I can consistently win over 70 games, you are either:

(1) Not tanking
(2) An idiot because a little more effort would put you in playoff contention in a competitive world that doesn't have multiple 100-game winners.

If I can consistently make the playoffs while transferring to 30M+ in prospect budget, why should I be penalized because somebody else wants a shot at an IFA that I've budgeted properly to get? I'd love to get a shot at a top-10 draft pick, but if I'm making the playoffs almost every year, that isn't going to happen.

In No Quitters last year, there were 12 teams that transferred to get over 20M in prospect. On average, these teams had a 69M player payroll (after transfer), 25M prospect payroll, and won, on average, 79 games.

5 teams were somewhat in the "soft tanking" mode, they won between 62 and 69 games and their budgets (after payroll) were between 63 and 69M, with the exception of one owner who had 47M.

3 teams were "middle of the pack", winning between 75 and 84 games and missing the playoffs. Their budgets were 48 (for the 84 win team actually), 70 and 76.

4 teams (including myself) were playoff teams, who skimped on either hs/college or medical/training. Their budgets were 77, 84, 70, and 99 after transfer, and they won between 92 and 102 games.

4 of the top-5 internationals (by bonus) were signed by playoff teams, including one by a team who didn't go over 20M.

So I think, in a league that has MWR, going over 20M in internationals is not necessarily a strategy for rebuilding teams who want to "soft tank" but also the only viable strategy for playoff teams to have access to elite level prospects. I'm not sure it hurts the world.

A prospect limit would force teams to use budget elsewhere.   That 70 win owner, knowing he can't transfer 40m to prospect, might sign 3-4 FA for 20m and win 85 instead of loading up his prospect budget.   And 85 wins will contend in most worlds.   It might shock owners out of the "Stockpile for our big year" strategy.

A cap on prospect also helps spread the IFA talent around.  If you have a cap at $25m, for instance, then you won't see one owner being able to sign two $15m+ IFA's.  It adds a little more strategy to the thought process . . . "do I go in for $15m+ on this guy, or do I hold back and see if somebody better comes along?".  it should also hold the prices down and keep the IFA signing bonuses down to a more reasonable level.

That's why I'm more of a proponent of a $20m hard cap rather than $25m or $30m.

20M hard cap limits may lead to the best IFA going to teams at the bottom of the draft, since a lower draft position typically means a 1st rounder costs less to sign, which means you have more $ available for that IFA.

I'm not convinced something that gives a good team an advantage to get high level talent, is a good thing.

I don't see FA vs IFA as the same thing as FA vs AmateurDraft. Its kind of like Office Space "You know what, Stan, if you want me to wear 37 pieces of flair, like your pretty boy over there, Brian, why don't you just make the minimum 37 pieces of flair?" If 2.5mil is the minimum(average) you want me to spend on a player, then why is the minimum 327k?