IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason

[aaronweiner]

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.

That is a reasonable point of view, but every draft pick is a dice roll, too. Less, sure, but still rolling dice. That's a point you've made to me more than once.

I think there's little question if we plopped the IFAs down in the middle of drafts that a whole lot of those guys would go in the first round, regardless of 1-1-1 or not.

[recte44]

So again I say, then what is the point exactly of IFA?

[RonCo]

So again I say, then what is the point exactly of IFA?

1) Some people find it fun. (Of course others don't...so that's a mixed bag)
2) It soaks up lots of resource from big-revenue teams for high-risk, high-reward payback
3) It gives middle/Low revenue teams a way to add a few interesting, but cheap guys (see my article in the media guide a year back..or two?

If we want to kill it, I suppose it would at least stop people complaining (except for those who like it). Personally, I'd keep it, and I'd set it and forget it for five years and see what happens. But IFA is definitely going to get growls from folks. Let'em growl. They aren't hurting anyone.

[aaronweiner]

See, I also think it’s shortsighted simply evaluating IFAs as prospects. For contending teams who can afford to just absorb them, they’re high-value trade chips. It’s even more likely that a cellar dweller will take on the player without the financial risk after the wealthy teams buy them.

I think that I would be more amenable to IFA if signed players couldn’t be traded for, say, three years.

[BaseClogger]

I like that IFA exists and I appreciate commish’s gentle touch to address it this year.

If the media contracts were equalized that would go a much longer way towards competitive balance than removing IFAs IMHO.

[RonCo]

See, I also think it’s shortsighted simply evaluating IFAs as prospects. For contending teams who can afford to just absorb them, they’re high-value trade chips. It’s even more likely that a cellar dweller will take on the player without the financial risk after the wealthy teams buy them.

I think that I would be more amenable to IFA if signed players couldn’t be traded for, say, three years.

Yes, that is true. Mostly because so many teams don't grade IFA's properly in their first two seasons. So they pay a bunch for the blue bars that fade to green or yellow.

[JimSlade]

I bit my tongue when this first came up, but I'll say it now: Why can't we play with the hand we're dealt?

It must have been about 10-12 seasons before I joined the league that you guys had draft classes that produced countless studs who are just beginning to die off and stop being dominating forces in their late 30s. Were oldtimers complaining about draft classes being too strong?

Draft pools have sucked since I've been in the league. Few guys turn me on past the first 8 picks, and I take drafting seriously (and seem to be doing all right with my annual picks around #12). Drafting is never a surefire thing - and why should it be?

By the game's luck of the draw, we finally have a ridiculously appealing IFA class. I actually have some money to take fliers on IFAs rather than 34-year-old fragile pitchers in free agency, and now we've got to reshuffle the deck and deal again? I don't get it.

Sure, the rich often get richer. That's life. Sometimes the lower middle class organizations have the opportunity to spend stupid money, too, even if some of those IFA guys come down to earth in 2 years. The next IFA pool could suck. Why not make hay while the opportunity presents itself?

If managing IFAs is a concern, why not have them get randomly assigned to us, for no cost or for a fixed fee? Or why not have a hard cap on IFAs? "OK kid, you don't want to sign within what we're budgeted to spend? Fine, enjoy playing in your native land!"

Paying money to adjust guys' ratings is one way we allow ourselves to get around playing with the hand we're dealt. The IFA market is never real stable. We all have moments when we kick ourselves because another GM outbid us 4 times over, but I don't see IFAs being surefire deals. There are so many factors that affect our ability to improve our teams. Why not let the random parts of the game play out and stay focused on what we can affect?

[aaronweiner]

A lot to unpack here.

First, the countless studs helped quite a bit. For example, I remember drafting Daniel Pepper at #40; he would have gone top five in any draft we had in the last five years. But the year he was drafted #40 was one of the best draft classes ever, and there was a chicken in every pot. BTW, I'm personally happy those players are starting to die out - we might not want identical robots, but parity is good.

Secondly, some drafts are better than others, but if you look back, most drafts start to peter out around draft pick #20, and it goes from sure things to points of view. I know I've written countless pieces on the "typical" late-round 1 starting pitcher. There are exceptions. For example, 2057 was a pretty darn good draft, and that's not that long ago. That year you drafted O'Reily, who's a 60 right now. I got like nine usable players from that draft.

Hard cap would be fine. Randomly assigned is better than the current system (and a stratified lottery would be better), but that already happens in the game engine; we don't need a whole other pool for that. My vote is still no IFA bidding war. Personally, from me, fuck the rich getting richer. I could expound, but I think "fuck the rich getting richer" about sums it up - that's not the league I want at all. That's why I objected in the first place.

I bit my tongue when this first came up, but I'll say it now: Why can't we play with the hand we're dealt?

It must have been about 10-12 seasons before I joined the league that you guys had draft classes that produced countless studs who are just beginning to die off and stop being dominating forces in their late 30s. Were oldtimers complaining about draft classes being too strong?

Draft pools have sucked since I've been in the league. Few guys turn me on past the first 8 picks, and I take drafting seriously (and seem to be doing all right with my annual picks around #12). Drafting is never a surefire thing - and why should it be?

By the game's luck of the draw, we finally have a ridiculously appealing IFA class. I actually have some money to take fliers on IFAs rather than 34-year-old fragile pitchers in free agency, and now we've got to reshuffle the deck and deal again? I don't get it.

Sure, the rich often get richer. That's life. Sometimes the lower middle class organizations have the opportunity to spend stupid money, too, even if some of those IFA guys come down to earth in 2 years. The next IFA pool could suck. Why not make hay while the opportunity presents itself?

If managing IFAs is a concern, why not have them get randomly assigned to us, for no cost or for a fixed fee? Or why not have a hard cap on IFAs? "OK kid, you don't want to sign within what we're budgeted to spend? Fine, enjoy playing in your native land!"

Paying money to adjust guys' ratings is one way we allow ourselves to get around playing with the hand we're dealt. The IFA market is never real stable. We all have moments when we kick ourselves because another GM outbid us 4 times over, but I don't see IFAs being surefire deals. There are so many factors that affect our ability to improve our teams. Why not let the random parts of the game play out and stay focused on what we can affect?

[recte44]

I bit my tongue when this first came up, but I'll say it now: Why can't we play with the hand we're dealt?

It must have been about 10-12 seasons before I joined the league that you guys had draft classes that produced countless studs who are just beginning to die off and stop being dominating forces in their late 30s. Were oldtimers complaining about draft classes being too strong?

Draft pools have sucked since I've been in the league. Few guys turn me on past the first 8 picks, and I take drafting seriously (and seem to be doing all right with my annual picks around #12). Drafting is never a surefire thing - and why should it be?

By the game's luck of the draw, we finally have a ridiculously appealing IFA class. I actually have some money to take fliers on IFAs rather than 34-year-old fragile pitchers in free agency, and now we've got to reshuffle the deck and deal again? I don't get it.

Sure, the rich often get richer. That's life. Sometimes the lower middle class organizations have the opportunity to spend stupid money, too, even if some of those IFA guys come down to earth in 2 years. The next IFA pool could suck. Why not make hay while the opportunity presents itself?

If managing IFAs is a concern, why not have them get randomly assigned to us, for no cost or for a fixed fee? Or why not have a hard cap on IFAs? "OK kid, you don't want to sign within what we're budgeted to spend? Fine, enjoy playing in your native land!"

Paying money to adjust guys' ratings is one way we allow ourselves to get around playing with the hand we're dealt. The IFA market is never real stable. We all have moments when we kick ourselves because another GM outbid us 4 times over, but I don't see IFAs being surefire deals. There are so many factors that affect our ability to improve our teams. Why not let the random parts of the game play out and stay focused on what we can affect?

THANK YOU

[aaronweiner]

I mean, I think you're missing the point, Matt. The whole thing is totally risk-free for wealthy teams and franchise wrecking for poor ones. I've made the point that it can even be franchise wrecking for poor ones if they GET the players in trades after the wealthy ones make risk-free purchases and trade them for better or at least more sure talent.

Again, if we're going to have insane IFA pools, I'm going to TANK ALL DAY LONG, spend no FA money, and every two years spend $60 million to load up on IFAs and garner outstanding draft picks. If it doesn't work, at least it's EASY.

That is what it is too, right? My choice? Or do we have rules for competitive balance? To regulate? Which is it?

[recte44]

We can't win either way, Aaron. There's a good IFA pool, the sky is falling. There's no one in there, these guys suck.

It's absurd that we continue to argue about things like this every single season.

[aaronweiner]

We can't win either way, Aaron. There's a good IFA pool, the sky is falling. There's no one in there, these guys suck.

It's absurd that we continue to argue about things like this every single season.

Then we need the solution, not the argument. I'd say random IFAs fine, no IFA pool would solve this one cold. It's the control over the pool by wealthy, successful teams that's the problem, not the random game engine adds.

[BaseClogger]

Hard cap would also solve the problem you’re describing. I like some flexibility and don’t want to see that but just saying.

My preference is simply to prune the IFA class when it exceeds a certain threshold. The way commish did it is perfect. Allow the big money teams to throw their weight around on a top guy or two but not a nearly unlimited list of talent.

[recte44]

We're working as the Board on some financial fixes. Know that with the great talent boom aging out of the league now and in the next several seasons, OOTP will try to balance this out. Please look at the future draft classes as examples of what is to come.

[BaseClogger]

Sounds like good timing on having my team go to shit!

[Trebro]

For whatever it's worth, if we reduce the giant financial disparity somewhat (not saying everyone equal but the spread right now is too wide), this becomes far less of an issue IMO. So it's good news to hear that's being looked at.

Everyone posting about this is passionate about the League. No one speaking up would indicate an apathy that would worry me.

[bcslouck]

Hard cap would also solve the problem you’re describing. I like some flexibility and don’t want to see that but just saying.

My preference is simply to prune the IFA class when it exceeds a certain threshold. The way commish did it is perfect. Allow the big money teams to throw their weight around on a top guy or two but not a nearly unlimited list of talent.

My problem with the hard cap is these top teams will have even more money to keep guys they otherwise wouldn't be able to keep, causing terrible free agent classes. Which in turn is going to cause complaints about the free agent classes.

If you want more parody financially, shouldn't we start with upping the revenue sharing percentage? I think that's a setting you can change but it's been awhile since I've messed around with league setting. I'd rather see that over messing with the ebb and flow of league talent.

[BaseClogger]

Hard cap would also solve the problem you’re describing. I like some flexibility and don’t want to see that but just saying.

My preference is simply to prune the IFA class when it exceeds a certain threshold. The way commish did it is perfect. Allow the big money teams to throw their weight around on a top guy or two but not a nearly unlimited list of talent.

My problem with the hard cap is these top teams will have even more money to keep guys they otherwise wouldn't be able to keep, causing terrible free agent classes. Which in turn is going to cause complaints about the free agent classes.

If you want more parody financially, shouldn't we start with upping the revenue sharing percentage? I think that's a setting you can change but it's been awhile since I've messed around with league setting. I'd rather see that over messing with the ebb and flow of league talent.

I don’t think it’s going to impact league talent. Commish said he put them in feeder leagues. I assume that will eventually make them draft eligible.

[aaronweiner]

Hard cap would also solve the problem you’re describing. I like some flexibility and don’t want to see that but just saying.

My preference is simply to prune the IFA class when it exceeds a certain threshold. The way commish did it is perfect. Allow the big money teams to throw their weight around on a top guy or two but not a nearly unlimited list of talent.

My problem with the hard cap is these top teams will have even more money to keep guys they otherwise wouldn't be able to keep, causing terrible free agent classes. Which in turn is going to cause complaints about the free agent classes.

If you want more parody financially, shouldn't we start with upping the revenue sharing percentage? I think that's a setting you can change but it's been awhile since I've messed around with league setting. I'd rather see that over messing with the ebb and flow of league talent.

They'll be limited by the salary cap, as always. A dynasty under a salary cap always peters out when the cheap, young talent the team had been relying on starts to earn real money, and thus shall it ever be, I think. Happened to me. Happened to anyone who's ever had a dynasty. It might even happen to Nashville (#1 farm system so screw all of us silly, but still).

Still, again, count me as a vote for no IFA pool. Good drafts, as Matt mentions, would actually cause me to double down on this point of view - this could help restore competitive balance if we're not balancing it out with bought prospects.

Hard cap on IFAs makes almost as much sense as scrapping IFAs altogether, but not quite as much IMO. MLB, as I've pointed out, gives small market teams an actual advantage in that calculation, which I also like, but it'll end up being based on relationships and some degree of random chance, which at least gives it some balance.

[recte44]

We arent getting rid of IFA. So, let's put that out of the thinking. Hard stop. I'm going to go ahead and lock this thread for now because I feel that there have been plenty of opinions, but continuing down the road of speculation helps nothing.

We're on it.