Spending a lot of money (too much money) one-time on an IFA isn't good, but it really doesn't cripple a franchise long-term. Next year the team gets is $185MM back. A bad IFA signing is a lot like a bad 1st round pick. Not good for the team, but its more of a bump in the road.

The same is not true for bad FA contracts. We've all seen GMs leave teams with 3-4 seasons of bad contracts.

The solution to this is simple - open bidding. The only ones who benefit form the current FA & IFA system are the pretend players. It's hardwired to screw the humans who play HBD.

My experience is this is a big part of what makes crap worlds crap worlds.

Open bidding?

Don't get him started on that. It's borderline retarded.

I'm sure you were part of the discussion.

I bid 10m right now and get an immediate response. I bid 10m + $1 immediately and get another immediate response. And so on until I'm higher bid. I believe he referred to ebay when he was explaining how stupid we were for saying "That's retarded."

Oh yeah. I remember that now.

That was among the worst ideas ever.

Posted by bighead34 on 10/12/2016 11:32:00 PM (view original):
more likely they don't want to cripple franchises with ignorant owners signing worthless players to exorbitant contracts...however, it clearly does present a problem albeit an exceedingly rare one

I repeat..." And it's not like you're hurting the franchise for the future, because IFA money always comes from the current season's budget."

No, it's not. But WifS is trying to stop us from being stupid. A noble cause but those who are determined to be stupid will find a way.

"Spending a lot of money (too much money) one-time on an IFA isn't good, but it really doesn't cripple a franchise long-term. Next year the team gets is $185MM back. A bad IFA signing is a lot like a bad 1st round pick. Not good for the team, but its more of a bump in the road."

I totally disagree. A first round pick (assuming it's a good one), is the result of a poor season/a franchise in poor shape. You need to hit on those picks to help turn the franchise around. Spending $20M on an IFA and totally missing does not set the franchise back at all. It affects THAT owner, and his payroll in that season only. It's not really any detriment to the franchise.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/13/2016 3:37:00 PM (view original):
No, it's not. But WifS is trying to stop us from being stupid. A noble cause but those who are determined to be stupid will find a way.

I understand why they do it. But I think sometimes they go too far. I think they should protect us from ourselves, so we don't cripple a franchise or a world. But putting a max on how much an IFA will accept is overdoing it, IMO. It's unnecessary as it only hurts that owner - and it will likely be a valuable learning experience for him if it doesn't work out.

If I take over a franchise and the previous owner signed an absolute dud in IFA for $20M, I'm inheriting a franchise that's no worse off than if he hadn't signed that IFA. That $20M wasn't coming to me anyway.

It's money spent needlessly for a sub-par player. Again, WifS is trying to force us to spend wisely.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/13/2016 3:40:00 PM (view original):
It's money spent needlessly for a sub-par player. Again, WifS is trying to force us to spend wisely.

It's no different than someone waiting for that plum FA that never comes and left holding $20M at the end of the season. No one else is affected by it.

Again, I understand why they do it. I just think it's unnecessary in this case.

It would be better if they capped FA signings well before the 5/110 on 99% of the players. I understand it's an open market but we've all grossly overpaid for FA because he was a "best option" and some other dumbass felt the same way.

Re: IFAs - Can't this also be seen as a loophole in the system? You could put minimal money into IFA and offer $20M to every IFA you see. If he declines because it's too much money, you know it's not a stud IFA.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/13/2016 3:42:00 PM (view original):
Re: IFAs - Can't this also be seen as a loophole in the system? You could put minimal money into IFA and offer $20M to every IFA you see. If he declines because it's too much money, you know it's not a stud IFA.

eh, it wouldn't be terribly efficient...again the bar that the player has to clear to be allowed a player to be offered unlimited money is somewhere around 70 OVR i believe...there are plenty of guys with 70 OVR that don't belong anywhere near the majors...additionally, there are plenty of very good MLers with OVRs in the 60s who you would miss out on...they might not all be worth 20M, but using your system you'd miss them at lower prices too...again, even as someone who has gotten screwed by this, i don't really find it to be much of a problem...certainly many other things i'd prefer to be addressed over this issue