IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason

[aaronweiner]

Difference noted. That's still better than the first round of most recent drafts.

[recte44]

SIGH

[recte44]

I'm thinking about rolling out a new league where every team has the exact same fan interest, stadium size, ticket prices. Every single player will be rated "5" in every category. No PP's. The IFA pool will consist of the same rated players every single season and the Ammy Draft will contain all players with ratings of "5" in every category. There's no winning or losing. No championships. The main point is that every team has the exact same playing field, no matter what. And every single season, in every way, will be exactly the same.

For those of you who are Kurt Vonnegut fans, reference his short story Harrison Bergeron.

Off Topic

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

[bcslouck]

I'm thinking about rolling out a new league where every team has the exact same fan interest, stadium size, ticket prices. Every single player will be rated "5" in every category. No PP's. The IFA pool will consist of the same rated players every single season and the Ammy Draft will contain all players with ratings of "5" in every category. There's no winning or losing. No championships. The main point is that every team has the exact same playing field, no matter what. And every single season, in every way, will be exactly the same.

As long as the ratings are blue, count me in.

[recte44]

That can be the only color. Everyone needs the same color.

[bcslouck]

Everything aside, if we adjust everything for balance (or whatever), doesn't OOTP just adjust back? Drafts should vary year to year. IFA's classes should have some high POT's but isn't it known they are way more volatile?

Finances are a whole different thing but there are ways to be at least middle of the road financially while being a bad team.

[aaronweiner]

I'm not saying that IFAs should be cancelled or even that they should suck. I just don't think that it should be a free-for-all for players that collectively are better than our drafts. If the drafts were better I'd have no objection. If the IFA pool was worse I'd have no objection.

But for rich teams to basically outflank poor ones to this extent throws this too much into disarray. It not only encourages tanking, but tanking to the extent that you no longer buy players in FA so you have cash for IFA. Is that the league we want? Because that's what happens in MLB.

And THEN they give the poor teams an advantage in IFA.

Considering the current perspective on this, since it is possible that IFA can be better than the draft, count me as a vote to remove IFAs.

[aaronweiner]

Just to emphasize my point, here's a link to MLB payrolls. We cut out some of the BS by having a salary cap, of course, but this is disparity defined.

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/_/y ... cap_total2

Some teams have become competitive under this system, but one would assume once the young players are eligible for free agency they'll go right back to being farm teams for the Yankees and Dodgers.

[DaveB]

I'm not saying that IFAs should be cancelled or even that they should suck. I just don't think that it should be a free-for-all for players that collectively are better than our drafts. If the drafts were better I'd have no objection. If the IFA pool was worse I'd have no objection.

But for rich teams to basically outflank poor ones to this extent throws this too much into disarray. It not only encourages tanking, but tanking to the extent that you no longer buy players in FA so you have cash for IFA. Is that the league we want? Because that's what happens in MLB.

And THEN they give the poor teams an advantage in IFA.

Considering the current perspective on this, since it is possible that IFA can be better than the draft, count me as a vote to remove IFAs.

We’re in a cap league where there’s a 21 million dollar variance between the team with the highest and lowest media revenues. There’s a 13 million difference between 1st and 16th in media revenues. It’s a cap league there shouldn’t be any difference in the media revenues. Add the 13-20 million revenue to the lower revenue teams and take it away from the top teams and you’ll see a lot more parity in the league including the IFA market.

[Trebro]

I'm thinking about rolling out a new league where every team has the exact same fan interest, stadium size, ticket prices. Every single player will be rated "5" in every category. No PP's. The IFA pool will consist of the same rated players every single season and the Ammy Draft will contain all players with ratings of "5" in every category. There's no winning or losing. No championships. The main point is that every team has the exact same playing field, no matter what. And every single season, in every way, will be exactly the same.

For those of you who are Kurt Vonnegut fans, reference his short story Harrison Bergeron.

Off Topic

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Matt, with respect, this dismissal of concerns raised by long term GMs like Aaron and Dave isn't healthy for respectful discussions, GM retention, or overall league health.

I understand if you disagree that there is a problem, but the manner in which you reacted to a genuine question about IFA vs Draft and its potential impact seems outsized to the objections raised.

Your league, your call. But please think about how this looks and how it makes non Board GMs feel.

[aaronweiner]

I'm thinking about rolling out a new league where every team has the exact same fan interest, stadium size, ticket prices. Every single player will be rated "5" in every category. No PP's. The IFA pool will consist of the same rated players every single season and the Ammy Draft will contain all players with ratings of "5" in every category. There's no winning or losing. No championships. The main point is that every team has the exact same playing field, no matter what. And every single season, in every way, will be exactly the same.

For those of you who are Kurt Vonnegut fans, reference his short story Harrison Bergeron.

Off Topic

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Also, I know you meant this as a sneer, but I'm actually sort of fascinated. I bet if you did this, two things would happen: it would migrate away from this itself, and even if it didn't, every team full of average players would not likely produce 32 81-81 teams. And if it did, would we have March Madness to win a Monty? Fun thought experiment really.

[ae37jr]

All of Nashville's players would bump to 6/6/6 during spring training and they'd go 162-0

[aaronweiner]

All of Nashville's players would bump to 6/6/6 during spring training and they'd go 162-0

I'm already pretty sure there's some 6/6/6 involved in Nashville. But it would probably go to 7-7-7. Not that they need a bigger jackpot.

[DaveB]

All of Nashville's players would bump to 6/6/6 during spring training and they'd go 162-0

Then lose in the playoffs

[RonCo]

Looking at bonus cash, it should be even less acceptable than it was five minutes ago to have this kind of distribution. 13 teams are negative bonus cash, and while there's no one type of team that fits this metric, that's 40% of the league who can't even really bid on IFAs without wrecking their franchise.

That was okay when they were all kind of mid and teams were bidding on a couple players, but now it's a talent overload free for all and that's just ugly.

With the cap raise and the unlocking of media contracts, and the very reasonable OOTP change to FI impacts via popularity, our fundamental financial environment has changed dramatically...and it's showing up in those cash numbers. Unless you're quite careful now, small revenue teams can really blow themselves up.

The increase in talented players is an interesting game theory. If there are only a couple, it's a huge advantage to big market teams. But if there are a bunch, well, that's good for mid-market teams simply because there's more there after the big sharks eat.

[aaronweiner]

Looking at bonus cash, it should be even less acceptable than it was five minutes ago to have this kind of distribution. 13 teams are negative bonus cash, and while there's no one type of team that fits this metric, that's 40% of the league who can't even really bid on IFAs without wrecking their franchise.

That was okay when they were all kind of mid and teams were bidding on a couple players, but now it's a talent overload free for all and that's just ugly.

With the cap raise and the unlocking of media contracts, and the very reasonable OOTP change to FI impacts via popularity, our fundamental financial environment has changed dramatically...and it's showing up in those cash numbers. Unless you're quite careful now, small revenue teams can really blow themselves up.

The increase in talented players is an interesting game theory. If there are only a couple, it's a huge advantage to big market teams. But if there are a bunch, well, that's good for mid-market teams simply because there's more there after the big sharks eat.

I had considered this. The problem I have with it is twofold: that it completely leaves out the bottom teams that we're hypothetically trying to help through the draft process, and that top teams have bigger budgets and more bonus cash, making it viable for them to blow themselves out a lot easier than the mid-markets or small markets, then replenish that cash with either PPT or through the normal earning process - some teams are very profitable, some are much less, as Dave repeatedly notes.

Top teams will not get ALL of the talent, but they will surely get more than lesser ones, and that defies the purpose.

[RonCo]

I had considered this. The problem I have with it is twofold: that it completely leaves out the bottom teams that we're hypothetically trying to help through the draft process, and that top teams have bigger budgets and more bonus cash, making it viable for them to blow themselves out a lot easier than the mid-markets or small markets, then replenish that cash with either PPT or through the normal earning process - some teams are very profitable, some are much less, as Dave repeatedly notes.

Top teams will not get ALL of the talent, but they will surely get more than lesser ones, and that defies the purpose.

That's not wrong. And it may be so right as it matters a lot. Most of these 16 year olds are going to die on the vine, though. So the counter -- that more teams wast more money, could actually make the bull market better for small revenue teams. The issue with that argument is that we would never know the truth because it's a 5-year study before the class makes it in, and by that time we'll have changed our minds 4 times.

The best thing we can do for small revenue teams is lock media contracts again, and slowly edge salary cap back to $110M. Those will bring small revenue teams gains in 1-2 seasons.

[recte44]

We need someone to tell us the general success rate of IFA's. Trust me, that number will make you all feel better.

[RonCo]

We need someone to tell us the general success rate of IFA's. Trust me, that number will make you all feel better.

Yeah. It's not great. And of those who do make it, they are often just players, not PLAYERS! But psychologically we see those beautiful 70s and 80s and get ratings envy. And SOMETIMES they do make it through and become huge. So...there's that.

IFA is important to the league because it's a place that big revenue teams can make high-risk bets that mostly suck cash out of their coffers.

Examples: Klauss Renders and Mag Cosmos drew out some $50M in cash two years ago. First, they are still in SA/R. And, second, they have both already dropped in overall ratings...Renders being mostly just okay right now, and Cosmos looking like a fairly decent LH DH...except that his ratings just have not grown at all, which leads insiders to suggest he's a bust in the making. Neither one would draw the $20+M they drew as scintillating 16-year-olds.

[RonCo]

Difference noted. That's still better than the first round of most recent drafts.

The development field 15 and 16 year old IFAs go through is tough. Some make it. And, with 100 of them out there, and maybe 20 of them being actually good, maybe 5 will be impacts? I dunno.

Most draft picks are better prepared, so develop a bit more reliably. I should say data is limited. All that is basically my opinion.

As YS9 I probably pumped $25-$30M a year into IFA whenever I could. 1-2 "star" players every two years for 25 years. I might have yielded three guys? I don't remember. So I could be wrong. There's this time thing that people get wound up in. But really, if you give me $30M a year, I'll be happy to give you 15 year old with mega blue bars and a 1/1/1/1/1 rating. One of them is going to hit every now and again, but it's going to siphon $300M in cash from you over a decade.