Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2014 16:55:10 GMT -5
I would like there to be a better bidding process for all IFAs that enter the league mid-season. Usually, these are young prospects and in the last few seasons there has been bonuses signed for tremendous amounts of cash. This is mainly because there's only one sim to actually sign them, so GMs bid $10M+ in order to secure their services. I think it's irresponsible behaviour and it also leads to irresponsible behaviour from those who otherwise would handle the available money responsibly. I suggest there'd be some sort of Dutch auction ( link to explanation), setting a maximum reasonable bonus signing for the player together with some variables that could include the maximum percentage of budget allowed for each team to spend on IFAs. Yes, there already is a penalty built-in in the game but it usually has little effect. This rule is to encourage responsible budget management and fairness in the acquisition process of IFAs. I'm very much open for other proposals that address this matter. Second link to 'Dutch auction': www.dailyfinance.com/2010/03/11/lets-go-dutch-auction-site-seeks-lowest-bidders/ |
|
|
|
Post by EchoesIE on Mar 21, 2014 17:12:17 GMT -5
The biggest issue I had, is that teams are spending a disproportionate amount of money on IFAs, and making up for it via other methods...negating all need for smart spending.
The Marlins spend $60 MILLION on IFAs alone last year. They were above their allocated player budget by $50 MILLION, but because they were able to make up for it via other methods (gate revenue, etc...) they came out with a positive balance. That's equal to not even having a budget. Whats the point of having a budget set by the owner, if this allows you to effectively exploit how much money you're given to put together a roster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2014 17:17:26 GMT -5
Another variable that could be introduced is that the top system list determines who gets priority when bidding on IFAs in the same way the draft is decided each year.
|
|
|
|
Post by theg02guy on Mar 21, 2014 17:30:22 GMT -5
I, too, would like to see more responsible IFA spending. Lets cut right too it, if a GM goes above and beyond to sign a kid, lets start chopping draft picks in addition to the in-game financial constraints. I'd also like to see a multi-year ban on bidding on IFAs if someone is egregious in their spending, as Rod and Josh have said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2014 17:32:13 GMT -5
I, too, would like to see more responsible IFA spending. Lets cut right too it, if a GM goes above and beyond to sign a kid, lets start chopping draft picks in addition to the in-game financial constraints. I'd also like to see a multi-year ban on bidding on IFAs if someone is egregious in their spending, as Rod and Josh have said. Personally, I'm not in favor of banning and chopping draft picks. It gets a bit too arbitrarily for me, then. |
|
|
|
Post by EchoesIE on Mar 21, 2014 17:35:21 GMT -5
I, too, would like to see more responsible IFA spending. Lets cut right too it, if a GM goes above and beyond to sign a kid, lets start chopping draft picks in addition to the in-game financial constraints. I'd also like to see a multi-year ban on bidding on IFAs if someone is egregious in their spending, as Rod and Josh have said. Personally, I'm not in favor of banning and chopping draft picks. It gets a bit too arbitrarily for me, then. How is it Arbitrary? If you spend $1x-$5x amount more than you should, you lose 1 draft pick. If you spend $6x-$10x amount more than you should, you lose 3 draft picks. If you spend more than $10x, you are immediately fired and put on 2-year probation. Lay it out, make it clear and nothing has to be guessed at. |
|
|
|
Post by theg02guy on Mar 21, 2014 17:45:19 GMT -5
Personally, I'm not in favor of banning and chopping draft picks. It gets a bit too arbitrarily for me, then. How is it Arbitrary? If you spend $1x-$5x amount more than you should, you lose 1 draft pick. If you spend $6x-$10x amount more than you should, you lose 3 draft picks. If you spend more than $10x, you are immediately fired and put on 2-year probation. Lay it out, make it clear and nothing has to be guessed at. That's basically my point. If you look at the IFAs IRL (think Aledmys Diaz not Yoenis Cespedes, I believe), teams aren't egregiously spending over everyone else because there are financial constraints and ramifications. Because this is an online league where no real money is involved people spend all willy nilly. With most online GMs hoarding prospects, hitting them with draft pick penalties for going way over the amount (this is in extreme situations, signing a guy for $10M when the limit is $3M, for example) is one way folks might curtail their spending a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by PadresGM on Mar 21, 2014 21:57:59 GMT -5
I like the gist of the idea and honestly, I doubted that there would be a particularly good solution.
Let's face it, the way the game handles it, you might as well throw the money at some of the best IFAs and most of these guys are barely old enough to drive to the park.
I think the idea of trying to determine a realistic baseline amount and then turn, as said, egregious bids above that results in lost draft picks.
As good as these kids might be in the context of the IFA pool, the idea of paying way above market value for a teenager that will in turn cause you to lose a selection in the amateur pool seems like a pretty solid deterrent to me. Or at least a step in the right direction with it clearly laid in code the general league attitude towards the massive cash bids with little regard for the game's penalty system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oakland A's GM on Mar 22, 2014 7:24:15 GMT -5
While I think the MLB rules in having IFA's is not a good system as these players should be included in the draft as well. It doesn't make sense to me that players are not subjected to the same system. If you want to play in the MLB, go through the draft.
As for LBLB because I am sure others want to include IFA's:
I agree with this idea. I think that there should be a deterrent included for signing IFA's in addition to the in-game rules. However, I would not think that 1st rounders should be taken away.
What about if a GM spends 10 million, he loses his 2nd round draft pick in the upcoming draft. However, GMs must remain within his budget (though not calculated in-game) with a $15 Million cap.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by JayArr47 on Mar 22, 2014 10:18:22 GMT -5
I'm still in favor of a hard cap at budget max (taking into account taxes) and voiding any deals that breach that, but I don't know that an arbitrary cap below that does a whole heck of a lot. And if a GM has 60mil to spend and a guy is worth $30mil, who are we to say he shouldn't spend it? I think that's part of the beauty of running your team how you want. But we do need safeguards. And penalties.
|
|
|
|
Post by brettman on Mar 28, 2014 12:25:51 GMT -5
New IFA Rule
Moving forward, any bid involving an International Free Agent MUST stay within the team's budget, including any incurred taxes. Budget's were given to us as General Managers for a reason. As such, you MUST stay within your budget at all times. Anyone making IFA bids that go beyond the team's budget will have those deal's voided out, and be unable to make any further IFA bids that season. If a team does this on multiple occasions, we will consider it reckless management, and you could face stiffer penalties.
Again, you can use up to your whole, budget, but you can't go a penny over INCLUDING taxes. Let's be responsible, and run our teams the way they would be run in real life so some extent. |
|
