I'll direct you to this thread.

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/threads.asp?ForumID=58&TopicID=150310&SearchPagePosition=1&search=Vegas&searchMode=&searchIn=Topic&forum=58&searchSort=dateDESC&ReturnPage=Search&ThreadPage=12

I took over a team that lost 314 games in the three prior seasons. Won 2 WS. Not a single IFA on my WS winning roster.

Did the Pirates get first dibs on Matsuzaka?

Quote: Originally Posted By e_mandat on 1/22/2010absolutel

Why?

Personally, I think it just encourages tanking... or at least an indifference to winning.

Does Matsuzaka have a health rating?

Quote: Originally Posted By e_mandat on 1/22/2010
Does Matsuzaka have a health rating?

Touché.

Just checked to make sure I didn't sign IFA and trade them.

Nope. I started signing IFA in S10 when the team was an established winner.

im just saying i like parity. Maybe my feelings are different because my world isnt one of the good private worlds.

Conclusion:

You can take over complete crap and rebuild it into a 2-time WS winner without the use of IFA.

Hope this helps.

Quote: Originally Posted By csherwood on 1/22/2010I agree with ted. I think budget transfers should be solely formistakes made on budget day -- Prospect budget should be capped at whatever dollar amount is the max allowed on budget day (20, 25, 30, etc - i dont care which)

Bingo.

I favor $30 mil personally. $30m seems like a lot now, but that's because $30m in prospect budget means $40m once you count the transfer penalty. $40 mil is prohibitive. With a $30 mil cap, a team that today might spend $46m to have a $33m prospect budget. If we implenment this suggestion, this team will instead spend $30m for a $30m prospect budget, leaving an additional $16m for him to improve his BL club. Also, I think a lot of top teams would choose to pour $30m into prospects on budget day and compete for top IFAs if they could avoid a $10m transfer penalty and knew the low-payroll teams were capped at the same level.

Here are some numbers from the 4 Worlds I play in. These are the averages of the total prospect budget over $20m for the entire World over a two season span:

Roy Hobbs (Private): $54.5 mil/yr

Uecker (Private): $19.5 mil/yr

Robinson (Public): $47.5 mil/yr

Greenberg (Public): $66 mil/yr

Uecker has a hard cap on prospect of $25 mil, hence the much lower number. Roy Hobbs is a very good world, and Robinson is outstanding for a public world (3 team turnover last season, for example). Greenberg is kind of tardy, but not the worst.

Those are the amount of dollars vanishing from each World each year for what I'd guess is 95% intentional, pre-planned budget transfers over the budget day max. Keep those dollars in the payroll budgets of the bottom-tier teams, and you'll have a better, more competitive world.

The problem with $20mil, in my opinion, is it encourages the top handlful of teams to adopt a 4/4 draft budget, sign Type As with regularity, and budget 20 for Intl Scouting, and go get the very top IFAs every single year. $25m or $30m will work better, once you allow the max budget number on budget day to match the actual max number. Tanking would no longer let you dominate the IFA market.

I don`t know why i`m even trying this again but....

Everybody keeps tying the IFA problem to tanking when they are separate issues.

I am in a league where last years champ just spent 32M on one IFA.

He isn`t tanking!
He won!

Instead of his #32 pick that would be very good he signed a type A FA spent no money on scouting and put it all into the IFA and got a player who is a good as a #1 pick.

If he wasn`t so sure that doing that would net him a top player he wouldn`t have done.

Sorry,
I meant his 32nd pick that wouldn`t be very good.

Capping IFA would prevent him from outbidding everyone on the best IFA every year.

Quote: Originally Posted By e_mandat on 1/22/2010im just saying i like parity. Maybe my feelings are different because my world isnt one of the good private worlds.

I do, too.

It's not like you can't turn a team around with a few 8th and 9th picks. No need to get the #1 or 2 for six seasons running.

Discouraging tanking is a step towards parity, imho.

Tanking is a bit of a cheat code to get a superteam, and then others feel like they need to build their teams similarly in order to compete with said superteam.

It's a vicious cycle, I think, and creates the inflated win AND loss totals that make people dismiss many public or semi-public worlds as " 'tard worlds".

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/22/2010As I understand it, there are several ways to rebuild a team without participating in the IFA market.

True. But IFAs can be an important part of re-building for some. And completely cutting off that avenue for those taking over a run-down franchise will decrease the incentive to take on teams, your ability to win WS titles notwithstanding.

I do agree with ian though, top IFAs should not automatically go to the worst teams. High draft picks are the compensation for sucking, but the IFA market should be competetive. Which is why I do not think that top IFAs should automatically go to the best teams. I assume that with your suggestion, Mike, that even a 100-game winner would lose the tie to a 102-game winner?

I just want a competitive IFA market that doesn't require a $60 million ante to get into.

Quote: Originally Posted By jc44 on 1/22/2010I don`t know why i`m even trying this again but....

Everybody keeps tying the IFA problem to tanking when they are separate issues.

I am in a league where last years champ just spent 32M on one IFA.

He isn`t tanking!
He won!

Instead of his #32 pick that would be very good he signed a type A FA spent no money on scouting and put it all into the IFA and got a player who is a good as a #1 pick.

If he wasn`t so sure that doing that would net him a top player he wouldn`t have done.

What's his player payroll?

You can bet your bottom dollar (wow that's ghey... but moving on) that he tanked his way to that team, or there's no way he could afford to do that. None.