The original subject here was IFA spending.

Unless you have a top 5 pick you can almost always count on having a much better chance of getting a impact player in IFA than the draft.

So the system that WIS has in place makes it more attractive to go after those top players.

Obviously you can`t do it every year or you wouldn`t have a farm system but if 5-8 teams are doing it every year it causes the problem.

The 30M cap is only going to bring tiebreakers into it more not solve the problem.

I think that if the IFA market had less impact and the draft more it would solve the problem better.

There will always be owners who tank and some will do it for better draft picks too but if tanking only gives them one better pick than the other teams it isn`t the same incentive as keeping a low payroll and rolling money into IFA.

Please see tec's "Where did your players come from" thread with regards to IFA vs. draft.

I`ve seen that but i never said more players don`t come from the draft.

I said if you don`t have a top 5 pick IFA is your only chance for a "impact" player and that is what`s driving up the prospect budget and lowering payroll.

A thread about how many all starts come from the draft compared to IFA would have more relavence to this conversation.

Quote: Originally Posted By jc44 on 1/22/2010The 30M cap is only going to bring tiebreakers into it more not solve the problem.

I think that if the IFA market had less impact and the draft more it would solve the problem better.

A cap on prospect budget will mean less impact on IFA, which in turn means it will have more impact on the draft.

With a cap on prospect (to curb IFA spending), some owners will have less opportunities to go after the big name IFAs. Instead of being able to sign two or three, they may be able to sign only one. Which means they'll have to look elsewhere to augment their franchises talent pool. Like the draft.

Again, I think a hard cap of $20m on prospect budget would make this even better.

Look, I'm trying to be nice but you're being rather dense.

The difference between player 1 and 5 in a draft is neglible. The difference between 6 and 12 is neglible. And so on down the line. Not seeing a player is the equivalent of getting a bad scouting report. There's no harm done because you were picking third and didn't see 1-2-4-5 in the draft.

Now, with that behind us, filling out your team with 20+m IFA is NOT possible without tanking. You're only going to get 1 per season. At that rate, it's going to take you 15 seasons to make an impact. At that point, your first signing has probably declared for FA and moved on 5 seasons ago and your last three aren't BL-ready. So you're only going to have 7 or so on your BL roster at any point in time. 7 players aren't going to win a lot of games.

I appreciate your efforts to be nice but feel like your every bit as dense!

I have not said anything about filling a team with 20+ IFA.

I`m saying that there are too many impact IFA that are getting 20M+ to sign.

Those are the players that are causing teams to have a low payroll and heap money into the IFA market.

They aren`t doing for the players who are rated in the 50`s or 60`s it is happening for the top IFA players.

If the IFA market wasn`t so attractive then all those teams putting all that money into prospect budgets wouldn`t have good places to spend it and they would stop doing it!

That would keep prospect budgets down instead of putting in a cap that will just keep letting teams put 30M into it and let tiebreakers decide who gets who.

In your worlds, how many 20m IFA do you have?

Moonlight Graham(14 seasons):
20m+: 7
15-19.9m: 8
10-14.9m: 35

Isn't it really just a product of the world?

FWIW, 4 of those 7 were last season.

I'd in fact argue the opposite, that you get better value in the draft.

Prospect Budget = $6M (can comfortably sign all draft picks for slot, or slightly above)

One (or both) of College / High School Scouting = $16-18M

DRAFT TOTAL = $22-42M

Compared to:

Prospect Budget = $20M + transfers (to be capped at $10M) = $40M of budget money, either way.

International Scouting = $16-18M

IFA TOTAL = $56-58M

Just seems like better value to me, plus you have to pay for your amateur draft ON TOP of that!

Quote: Originally posted by jc44 on 1/22/2010I appreciate your efforts to be nice but feel like your every
I`m saying that there are too many impact IFA that are getting 20M+ to sign.

That's a problem with the tarded-up worlds you play in.

In the 7 years I've been playing in No Quitters, only 2 IFAs have gone for 20M+ (@ 21.3 and 21.8 respectively) and 12 for 15M+.

jc, you're really not thinking this through.

What you're proposing (please correct me if I'm wrong) is changing the draft such that a 10/10 scouting budget allows you to see all the top end talent (i.e. first round talent) that an 18/18 or 20/20 budget allows you to see today. Correct?

If that's true, all that's going to encourage owners to do is to allocate less money to their draft scouting budgets. Because they can see all the good guys at 10/10. Why spend more money to see the rest.

And what are they going to do with that extra money? Some will just pour it into IFA's. More money = more demand = making the IFA market even more attractive than it is today. In the end, it accomplishes exactly the opposite of what (I think) your intention is.

Are you unable to understand this?

I understand that point and i don`t think i ever said that you should see the same scouting for each player regardless of budget.

Just like i didn`t say anything about building a team entirely through IFA.

I`m having just as hard of time trying to understand what part your missing as you are with me because you keep arguing things that i didn`t say.


I tried making a point and i`m sure some got it and some didn`t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"And what are they going to do with that extra money? Some will just pour it into IFA's. More money = more demand = making the IFA market even more attractive than it is today. In the end, it accomplishes exactly the opposite of what (I think) your intention is."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The IFA market isn`t going to be more attractive just because you have more money.

If the players aren`t as good and owners still spend the same money they won`t get the same value which will either stop them from spending it or at least make it not work so well for them.

Can you really not understand that?

I`m done discussing it because it really doesn`t matter this much to me since i`ve never spent that much anyway and you can never get everybody to agree on anything.

If you think the 30M cap is going to fix something good luck with that but i bet this whole argument comes back very soon after it takes effect.

So your solution is crappy IFA. Why even have them if they're not worth signing?

Quote: Originally Posted By jc44 on 1/22/2010
The original subject here was IFA spending.

Unless you have a top 5 pick you can almost always count on having a much better chance of getting a impact player in IFA than the draft. [That is a faulty assertion that undermines part of your argument. You highly overstate the chance of getting an impact IFA. A typical season may have 4 or 5 impact IFA's, while a draft will have far more.]

...

I think that if the IFA market had less impact and the draft more it would solve the problem better. [That is already the case more than you assert. This is the part of your argument where your false assumption undermines your argument.]

You also said, "I said if you don`t have a top 5 pick IFA is your only chance for a "impact" player." That assertion wildly understates the value of the draft.

Hopefully that helps you see the problem some people are having with your argument.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/22/2010So your solution is crappy IFA. Why even have them if they're not worth signing

And that wildly misstates what jc is proposing. He is proposing lessening the value of IFA's, right jc? That might not be such a bad idea. Improving the value of draft-eligibles coming out of college or high school would have to balance the nerfing of IFA's so the overall quality of incoming players remains constant. WIS could do this in very slight increments so as not to destabilize the game. I think there is some merit to this, perhaps even more than messing with budgets.

If he is proposing "lessening the value of IFA's", why do you need to change the incoming talent pool (IFA or draft)?

The problem with IFA's is the market value set by the owners pursuing them. If you don't have a cap, then signing bonuses can go through the roof. Which then indirectly encourages those owners who have huge boners for the IFA studs to be pumping $40-$50m from payroll to prospect (albeit with a 50% penalty) to chase the studs. This is what's happening today.

If you want to lower the relative value of the IFA's, a cap does the trick. With less ability to transfer oodles of dollars to prospect, owners have less potential money to spend on IFA's. Less money = lower demand. The same amount of studly IFA's come through the system every season, but maybe now they get spread around a little more among teams. Less value for the IFA's means more value in other places. Like the draft, which is the only other source of incoming talent.