There needs to be an absote maximum a team an spend on int. prospects as there is n real pro ball. Now some teams are transferring uunlimited funds into the INT Prospect budget. I suggest this be capped.

I agree the IFA market is ridicule. Bidding 30 mill for an all star IFA which actually cost 40 mill with the penalty. Doing the math the team gives this rookie a bonus equal to 10 million a year for his first 4 years before he is out of arbitration. You have to be in that market because a huge portion of MVP and Cy Young winners come from there. The other stupid thing is that there is an all world IFA and my team does not hear about him? In the real world I would be paying a clerk to scan local sports pages on the internet and the big time players agent would be sending his video out to all the teams. I would really like to see some major changes to IFA market or even drop it all together and just have a draft.

I would like to see an IFA signing "period", where everyone sees all the IFAs (budget would affect the accuracy of the ratings). It would work exactly the same way as the regular free agency period, except all of them would demand a low amount as they do now (to prevent low-budgeters from using demand levels as a stand-in for budgeting). Thoughts?

Also, cap IFA spending at 25 million

Why cap it? If you can afford to spend $35M on one dude and still win ball games, go for it.

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/5/2017 7:13:00 PM (view original):
Why cap it? If you can afford to spend $35M on one dude and still win ball games, go for it.

That's the issue....guys are tanking in order to spend unlimited funds on IFA's. I one world I was in a guy had $22M spent on salaries for ALL his ML and MiLB teams and transferred an outrageous amount into IFA and was signing top ranked...all while all 6 of his teams had records like 35/40-110. The Commissioner refuses to allow a MWR.

I don't mind a guy truly trying to compete, who fairly transfers and bids accordingly. But I do not feel it's fair to others when guys are so blatantly taking to gain that advantage; especially when the Amateur draft pickings have gotten so slim, and DITR's are a joke.

Posted by Tunaphysh on 10/6/2017 9:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/5/2017 7:13:00 PM (view original):
Why cap it? If you can afford to spend $35M on one dude and still win ball games, go for it.

That's the issue....guys are tanking in order to spend unlimited funds on IFA's. I one world I was in a guy had $22M spent on salaries for ALL his ML and MiLB teams and transferred an outrageous amount into IFA and was signing top ranked...all while all 6 of his teams had records like 35/40-110. The Commissioner refuses to allow a MWR.

I don't mind a guy truly trying to compete, who fairly transfers and bids accordingly. But I do not feel it's fair to others when guys are so blatantly taking to gain that advantage; especially when the Amateur draft pickings have gotten so slim, and DITR's are a joke.

That's sounds like more of an issue with the world than with the IFA market. Institute a MWR and the problem is solved.

Also, an IFA cap is another rule that you could propose to your specific world.

What strikeout26 said. You have to get yourself into a world with like-minded owners. If other owners are using tactics you disagree with, and the commish is fine with it, and the other owners are fine with it, they are likely holding those tactics for their own use if they aren't already doing so.

We utilize a MWR and a Prospect cap of $25M in ULB, works fine. Cuts all that out. They may still spend it all on an IFA, but you never know who your losing in not signing your draft picks.

Posted by shobob on 10/5/2017 5:31:00 PM (view original):
I would like to see an IFA signing "period", where everyone sees all the IFAs (budget would affect the accuracy of the ratings). It would work exactly the same way as the regular free agency period, except all of them would demand a low amount as they do now (to prevent low-budgeters from using demand levels as a stand-in for budgeting). Thoughts?

I would like to see feedback for this proposal. I just mentioned capping IFA spending as a throw-in, as that can (and perhaps should) be done as a private world rule, like ULB, or my world, Yaz.

Posted by jimt14120 on 10/9/2017 12:37:00 PM (view original):
We utilize a MWR and a Prospect cap of $25M in ULB, works fine. Cuts all that out. They may still spend it all on an IFA, but you never know who your losing in not signing your draft picks.

Similar setup in Yaz world, except we force each team to sign at least 15 IFAs/draft picks per season, so people don't blow all their wad on one player.

Why even have a prospect (IFA) budget. Just have the IFA bids come out of the salary budget.

Posted by stews_blues on 10/24/2017 12:07:00 PM (view original):
Why even have a prospect (IFA) budget. Just have the IFA bids come out of the salary budget.

Wouldn't this be like the NFL draft used to be? Brand new players getting max contracts immediately. And the winners would come down to whoever wins the max contract tiebreaker, unless you get rid of max contracts...?

Posted by shobob on 10/5/2017 5:31:00 PM (view original):
I would like to see an IFA signing "period", where everyone sees all the IFAs (budget would affect the accuracy of the ratings). It would work exactly the same way as the regular free agency period, except all of them would demand a low amount as they do now (to prevent low-budgeters from using demand levels as a stand-in for budgeting). Thoughts?

Give me feedback on this idea, please!

Posted by shobob on 10/25/2017 7:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shobob on 10/5/2017 5:31:00 PM (view original):
I would like to see an IFA signing "period", where everyone sees all the IFAs (budget would affect the accuracy of the ratings). It would work exactly the same way as the regular free agency period, except all of them would demand a low amount as they do now (to prevent low-budgeters from using demand levels as a stand-in for budgeting). Thoughts?

Give me feedback on this idea, please!

Sure, as long the the "period" is long. Like a month of real-world time. Don't need any more short periods that screw people with busier lives. HBD take up too much time during some periods as it is.

Even better, the period is at least 2-4 weeks and after that player sign when nobody bids on them for 48 hours after that.

And we can set max bids, like eBay, so we don't have to log in to bid every 4 hours.