WBL Rule Change Thread

[doh]

Linge, like Bucky has had one good year.

If you are a small budget team wouldn't you want to be able to sign a player like Linge for cheap. I don't understand your POV @doh. Just because something is good for large market teams doesn't mean it's bad for small market teams and vice versa.

He wouldn't take 9/$50m btw. Also low greed and happy.

My POV is simple-- the biggest hardship that good teams face in the current WBL is risk of re-signing guys who enter their decline to big salaries and being stuck with them. If you eliminate that risk, then good teams have less obstacles to be good and can keep together teams easier.

The other thing is the game isn't good at lot of guys pre-arb extension offers. It's gotten significantly better but I still think it's gaming the AI.

 

[Orlando]

Only the Swede wanted 10 years initially. Linge went to 5 or 6 when i tried to drop it to 9/50.

I don't know what the answer is though. This is my point @NML. A good amount of GMs didn't feel we needed to be restricted like we were. It's difficult to remove yourself from the situation and figure out what is right for the league. What is a good middle ground? Do we just cut all extensions to and 8 year limit? 7 years? 6? 5? Do we reinstate a rule the make a majority of the league unhappy and go back to how it was?

 

[NML]

The only negative of a hard IFA cap is it makes building a team harder with a budget in the lower spectrum.

How?

 

[Yankee151]

There's no easy way to do it that doesn't involve everyone screenshotting their max arb for every extension they sign

 

[Orlando]

My POV is simple-- the biggest hardship that good teams face in the current WBL is risk of re-signing guys who enter their decline to big salaries and being stuck with them. If you eliminate that risk, then good teams have less obstacles to be good and can keep together teams easier.

The other thing is the game isn't good at lot of guys pre-arb extension offers. It's gotten significantly better but I still think it's gaming the AI.

You didn't even answer my question. You just repeated yourself. It also helps small budget team retain talent. Is that a bad thing?

It's your opinion the game isn't good at pre-arb offers. Others disagree. How do we solve for everyone? Take various strategies and styles into account, not just your own.

 

[OU11]

How?

Because I can't spend 50m on guys every two years. Instead I'd be forced to either fight with the bottom feeders for the 1* scraps or sign one of the "not the best IFA in the class" guys to a $10m deal. I can't sign the top guy because if I offer him 10m I'll be put in a field of bids and that means I'll lose the first bid status on every other IFA, so I have to offer one of the lower tier guys $10m or go with 1*s.

This is of course if I'm paying attention and know it's the preseason

 

[doh]

The only negative of a hard IFA cap is it makes building a team harder with a budget in the lower spectrum. I'll add the caveat that you have to build it right, and not have a large payroll but yeah, it definitely helps big teams more than the small teams when I think about how it plays out. I guess if the small team gets its $10m bid in first they could win, but I'm not sure how the IFAs calculate which bid they like more out of multiple offers that are the same amount

It also helps larger payrolls because there is more than one way to get talent... you can take on bad contracts, buy players or picks, sign professional IFA/Indy guys who come up in the off-season, etc.

IF you limit it to $10m (with 100% tax after 4m), that's $16m max a team can spend for "$10m" worth of talent (in an artificially depressed market where teams will sign guys for less because there's just not enough money to go around).

So last year I spent $74m on IFA of my $200m budget and wasted about $40m on players who already suck. So for WBL/devo/everything else, I had just $124m left. Under a "cap" system, I would have minimum $186m left and probably end up with not as good IFA talent but still some. Long term, that's better for me than lighting $40m on fire on guys who already look like trash.

 

[Orlando]

There's no easy way to do it that doesn't involve everyone screenshotting their max arb for every extension they sign

I already said the easy way to do it is to limit contract length in the game settings. Some of these turds aren't worth max arb everyone whined about Bucky being worth more than max arb because of a SSS. Should you not be rewarded for some type of risk with deals on young players?

 

[doh]

You didn't even answer my question. You just repeated yourself. It also helps small budget team retain talent. Is that a bad thing?

It's your opinion the game isn't good at pre-arb offers. Others disagree. How do we solve for everyone? Take various strategies and styles into account, not just your own.

Yes it helps smaller 'budget' teams (which doesn't mean anything really because anyone can have a huge budget without market factors) but better teams normally have better players thus more guys they want to sign young. They also have the available budget to do it -- sometimes a smaller budget team might not have the budget space to extend key guys.

 

[OU11]

The only way it hurts big budget teams is if they lose out on the first day $10m bid on the top guy. Then they are scrambling, but so is every other team that lost out. it just trickles down and smaller budgets will always lose a capped fight.

 

[Yankee151]

That's why my proposal was 70% of max arb (which would've made the bucky deal legal anyways, cuz his max arb was 6M since his season wasn't as good as it seems), but then I realized there was no point to doing that anyways

We could limit contract length I guess, but if we go back to A Doh rule, it should be 8 years instead of 5 or something

 

[NML]

I'll address this post here

Also, in regards to the contract rule trump-like executive decision I apparently made - this was on the table for a season+. From what I could tell most were for it with a few exceptions and they were at least somewhat addressed. Wooly signs the first 10 year deal and everyone loses their shit, led by NML who I don't think even spoke up the first time. Then you use figs and tony quoted out of context to say I signed an executive order no one wanted. Just fuck off with that.

If we want to change it, fine. Get a proposal out there that isn't super convoluted and requires a ton of policing. The easiest thing we can do in game is lower the max-contract years.

Here's my issue with how it played out:

- I've made a few different rule proposals. Every time I have, you have specifically told me it has to be unanimous. If it was a joke, it did not come across to me.

- in particular, recently I made a proposals that a handful of owners agreed with (I honestly can't remember which it was). I think, at my last count, it was 4 for, 3 against, and 2 who didn't care. Then you said "well it has to be unanimous" and the conversation ended. I even said something along the lines of "well we'll never pass anything doing that" which would've been a great time to fill me in on the joke. You didn't.

- multiple people had concerns when you initially posted. There was no vote. Only three people agreed with you when you followed it up at the end of the year.

If you don't see the issue with that, I'm not sure what to tell you.

All I ask is for consistency. If you get to make the end decision, okay, I'll stop wasting my time making proposals. If we vote, then let's vote before passing stuff.

 

[Orlando]

Yes it helps smaller 'budget' teams (which doesn't mean anything really because anyone can have a huge budget without market factors) but better teams normally have better players thus more guys they want to sign young. They also have the available budget to do it -- sometimes a smaller budget team might not have the budget space to extend key guys.

It means they have a small budget though.

 

[NML]

smaller budgets will always lose a capped fight.

This makes no sense and the opposite is true

 

[NML]

Because I can't spend 50m on guys every two years.

there is more than one way to get talent... you can take on bad contracts, buy players or picks, sign professional IFA/Indy guys who come up in the off-season, etc.

 

[OU11]

This makes no sense and the opposite is true

The bottom budgets would get a lot more 1*s for sure, but the top guys are all going to go for $10m because why spread money around when that means you're buying 1*s? Just buy one good player for $10m.

How do you see IFA with a $10m cap? You think the good players are going to be paid any less than $10m? Because I don't and that may be why we are seeing this go so differently. No cap I have a shot at the best player every year, with a cap I don't.

 

[OU11]

quotes that are unrelated to each other

And all of those are worse for a true rebuild like I was going for initially than buying IFAs

 

[Yankee151]

I mean the best way would be MLB's scaling cap that lets bad teams have more money, but I don't think that logic is part of OOTP

 

[NML]

The bottom budgets would get a lot more 1*s for sure, but the top guys are all going to go for $10m because why spread money around when that means you're buying 1*s? Just buy one good player for $10m.

How do you see IFA with a $10m cap? You think the good players are going to be paid any less than $10m? Because I don't and that may be why we are seeing this go so differently. No cap I have a shot at the best player every year, with a cap I don't.

I was just responding to you saying a small budget team always loses a capped fight, because a small budget team always loses an uncapped fight

 

[Orlando]

I'll address this post here



Here's my issue with how it played out:

- I've made a few different rule proposals. Every time I have, you have specifically told me it has to be unanimous. If it was a joke, it did not come across to me.

- in particular, recently I made a proposals that a handful of owners agreed with (I honestly can't remember which it was). I think, at my last count, it was 4 for, 3 against, and 2 who didn't care. Then you said "well it has to be unanimous" and the conversation ended. I even said something along the lines of "well we'll never pass anything doing that" which would've been a great time to fill me in on the joke. You didn't.

- multiple people had concerns when you initially posted. There was no vote. Only three people agreed with you when you followed it up at the end of the year.

If you don't see the issue with that, I'm not sure what to tell you.

All I ask is for consistency. If you get to make the end decision, okay, I'll stop wasting my time making proposals. If we vote, then let's vote before passing stuff.

Nothing will ever be unanimous because its nearly impossible to get every GM to even vote. We cant even get people to export correctly on opening day. If you had a 50/50 proposal, it probably wasn't ready.

Only one person had concerns, figs, and I thought people addressed them. When I followed up, no one disagreed so it seemed like enough to push forward. Even the person who was basically the driver of the rule, @doh, felt like it was ok to let it go.

I don't know how you arrive to the conclusion that you should stop making proposals. Whether we vote or I Trump the bitch, most things are not originally my idea. Other people bring them up.

The consistency is the inconsistency because we cant get people to vote (7 GMs is not enough). If the commissioners feel the rule change is better for the league we have generally just pushed it through. Something that will really change the league goes to a vote and we hope enough people vote. The most consistent thing is whatever we do it will piss someone off. Take your one-game playoff. I found myself in an impossible situation. Most of them are.

 

[OU11]

I was just responding to you saying a small budget team always loses a capped fight, because a small budget team always loses an uncapped fight

i wont, but i may not be small budget. if it is capped at 10m i will do significantly worse in IFA than if it remains uncapped. so it is worse for me. i also keep a really low payroll so if a small budget team is stupid and has crazy payroll numbers it would benefit them.

i will always lose a capped IFA fight.

 

[TonyGin&Juice]

i wont, but i may not be small budget. if it is capped at 10m i will do significantly worse in IFA than if it remains uncapped. so it is worse for me. i also keep a really low payroll so if a small budget team is stupid and has crazy payroll numbers it would benefit them.

i will always lose a capped IFA fight.

Unless people do theyselves a disservice and bid guys up I don't see how a $10M cap in IFA hurts HAVES or HAVE NOTS. For the HAVES they only get one "good" IFA (whatever that means now) with their $10M and the HAVE NOTS can buy up a bunch of the 1* turds if they so desire. Having IFA a free for all every other year (depending on which IFA cycle you fall in) is a terrible idea.

 

[OU11]

Unless people do theyselves a disservice and bid guys up I don't see how a $10M cap in IFA hurts HAVES or HAVE NOTS. For the HAVES they only get one "good" IFA (whatever that means now) with their $10M and the HAVE NOTS can buy up a bunch of the 1* turds if they so desire. Having IFA a free for all every other year (depending on which IFA cycle you fall in) is a terrible idea.

Your post states exactly how the HAVE NOTS are hurt

I can buy the better IFAs right now, in fact I can buy multiple. I cannot buy the better IFAs with a cap unless I get lucky and they choose my day 1 bid. If I am not lucky I get 1*s instead.

Unless the owners in this league are a lot dumber than I think, there is no scenario where a team I control with a budget under $110m is better off with a capped IFA.

 

[Orlando]

IFA has been slower lately or at least it seems that way. A lot of GMs are sleeping through it. Could be laziness could be scared of getting burned. More $500k guys seem to pop than $5m+ players reach potential or anything close to it.

 

[TonyGin&Juice]

Your post states exactly how the HAVE NOTS are hurt

I can buy the better IFAs right now, in fact I can buy multiple. I cannot buy the better IFAs with a cap unless I get lucky and they choose my day 1 bid. If I am not lucky I get 1*s instead.

Unless the owners in this league are a lot dumber than I think, there is no scenario where a team I control with a budget under $110m is better off with a capped IFA.

What have not has scored a legit stud in IFA recently? I can't think of any.

 

[kingssc]

What have not has scored a legit stud in IFA recently? I can't think of any.

Lisbon scored Hernandez last offseason for $4M who's the #35 prospect

 

[OU11]

What have not has scored a legit stud in IFA recently? I can't think of any.

If I could remember to participate I would. Unless they all go for $50M+ I'll get one. If they are all going for $50M+ then we're already playing the same IFA as the capped IFA except the big guys would benefit a lot more with a cap because they wouldn't have to spend all that money

 

[OU11]

Lisbon scored Hernandez last offseason for $4M who's the #35 prospect

WTF


If the top guys are going for $4M-$10M then it would definitely screw smart small budget rebuilds over to cap it. I'm surprised that's hard for anyone to comprehend.

 

[kingssc]

WTF


If the top guys are going for $4M-$10M then it would definitely screw smart small budget rebuilds over to cap it. I'm surprised that's hard for anyone to comprehend.

I just threw out a $4M offer on Day 1 and he accepted I was as shocked as anyone

 

[NML]

Whatever, there's enough push back that it won't pass

Let's just get to the offseason

 

[Orlando]

Lisbon and Buffalo were active this last season.

 

[NML]

I'm surprised that's hard for anyone to comprehend.

I'm surprised you can't look past what you want to do

 

[Orlando]

WTF


If the top guys are going for $4M-$10M then it would definitely screw smart small budget rebuilds over to cap it. I'm surprised that's hard for anyone to comprehend.

They signed quick this last year. It was weird.

 

[OU11]

I'm surprised you can't look past what you want to do

When my budget goes north of $150m I'll gladly vote for it

 

[NML]

 

[OU11]

I'm surprised you can't look past what you want to do

Well I'm the small budget you're trying to help, and your proposal hurts any rebuild I can think of since a major part of the rebuilding process is freeing up as much room as possible to throw around in IFA.

Like I said, when I get my budget up I'll gladly back a capped IFA since I'm not an acting commish anymore and can vote based on my own personal gain

 

[Orlando]

Whatever, there's enough push back that it won't pass

Let's just get to the offseason

Since we can't increase tax on IFA, I don't think a cap helps the main problem which is the imbalance of funds. I don't think IFA is as fruitful as some people. If you'd like to see that imbalance be smaller, what are some other ideas?

 

[NML]

hurts any rebuild I can think of since a major part of the rebuilding process is freeing up as much room as possible to throw around in IFA.

Exactly, you can't look past what you want to do

 

[TonyGin&Juice]

They signed quick this last year. It was weird.

They sign quick in OOTP18. Every OOTP18 league I've been in they sign quick, usually on the first sim.

Lisbon scored Hernandez last offseason for $4M who's the #35 prospect

Hernandez is 17 and hasn't thrown a pitch in A yet. I'm talking about guys that have actually turned out to be WBL contributors.

 

[NML]

Since we can't increase tax on IFA, I don't think a cap helps the main problem which is the imbalance of funds. I don't think IFA is as fruitful as some people. If you'd like to see that imbalance be smaller, what are some other ideas?

Set the cap at $0 so everything is taxed 100%

 

[OU11]

Exactly, you can't look past what you want to do

Well all small budgets are rebuilding or they wouldn't be small budgets. We have the system we do so that if you win you make money and stop being a small budget. So I'm not sure what other thing a small budget team could be doing unless they just aren't playing.

 

[Orlando]

Hernandez is 17 and hasn't thrown a pitch in A yet. I'm talking about guys that have actually turned out to be WBL contributors.

These are two different things though. I don't think it proves what you think it does.

 

[OU11]

Set the cap at $0 so everything is taxed 100%

This I like

 

[Orlando]

Set the cap at $0 so everything is taxed 100%

I read that a bunch of guys sign for $0 minor league offers when set that way

The other problem is you can't buy IFA every year if we do that.

 

[NML]

Well all small budgets are rebuilding or they wouldn't be small budgets. We have the system we do so that if you win you make money and stop being a small budget. So I'm not sure what other thing a small budget team could be doing unless they just aren't playing.

They could build in other ways. Not everyone wants to rock a $30m budget and break the loss record

 

[TonyGin&Juice]

These are two different things though. I don't think it proves what you think it does.

We might be talking about two different things. I'm suggesting that the number of HAVE NOTS that have produced a legit STUD from an IFA purchased for less than $5M has to be close to zero.

 

[OU11]

We could do $500k or $1m though. Honestly that would hurt the big teams more than the small teams IMO since they actually have needs for the money. It would cause all the problems big budgets have with IFA to happen a lot faster.

 

[TonyGin&Juice]

We could do $500k or $1m though. Honestly that would hurt the big teams more than the small teams IMO since they actually have needs for the money. It would cause all the problems big budgets have with IFA to happen a lot faster.

This makes zero sense. Can you clarify this a bit?

 

[NML]

I don't even really like that proposal anyways, because then teams with minimal funds have zero incentive to use IFA.

Increase revenue sharing somehow?

 

[OU11]

They could build in other ways. Not everyone wants to rock a $30m budget and break the loss record

Sure, it's just not as fast and they won't be as good. They'd need to build through FA but that price goes up as well if IFA is capped.

What you need to do is lower the budget ceiling while keeping the floor and flexibility the same.