Below is the discussion of the three potential plans. As mentioned in the previous posting, you will have until Saturday, August 27th to make your decision to vote (sent to me via TC or sitemail) for the prospect cap, the salary floor, or to do nothing. I will post the breakdown on the blog Sunday morning. I’ve included a few charts of data from seasons 13-16 to help people wrap their heads around how many teams would be affected by the changes. Let me know if there’s anything else I can provide to clarify matters.
Prospect Cap of 30 Million:
What it is: Essentially the maximum allowable money in prospect is capped at 30M. This means that if your prospect budget starts the year at 20M, the maximum you can transfer in is 10M.
What's good: IFA caps have been used in many other worlds and have worked well in spreading the IFAs out since there are many more bidders with similar budgets. A cap of 30M would not restrict the market for a single player, as the maximum IFA this world has ever seen was 31M (Season 8- Vargas).
What's bad: Capping the prospect budget limits those with high draft picks, as the players drafted early require large signing bonuses, which comes out of the same pot of money. Obviously the high draft picks are presumably good value for the money, and they aren't REQUIRED to sign them, but it is still a limitation.
What it is: Essentially the maximum allowable money in prospect is capped at 30M. This means that if your prospect budget starts the year at 20M, the maximum you can transfer in is 10M.
What's good: IFA caps have been used in many other worlds and have worked well in spreading the IFAs out since there are many more bidders with similar budgets. A cap of 30M would not restrict the market for a single player, as the maximum IFA this world has ever seen was 31M (Season 8- Vargas).
What's bad: Capping the prospect budget limits those with high draft picks, as the players drafted early require large signing bonuses, which comes out of the same pot of money. Obviously the high draft picks are presumably good value for the money, and they aren't REQUIRED to sign them, but it is still a limitation.
Rebuttal: With the IFA cap at 30M, there is still plenty of room to sign most premium IFAs (and your draft picks), as the top money-getters have gotten 21.3, 21.2, 20.0, 21.0, 21.1, and 25.6M, respectively, in seasons 10-15. For the record, this season's highest bonus has been 23.2M.
Salary Floor of 45 Million:
What it is: The amount of money allocated to payroll cannot go below the proposed level of 45M. Prospect is still uncapped, but at least 45M needs to stay in the player budget. Now this doesn't mean the owner needs to SPEND 45M, just that they can't transfer money out to dip that payroll below the set limit of 45M.
What's good: Teams can still put as much as they would like in their prospect budget, just at the sacrifice of other areas such as training, medical, scouting, etc. This also encourages competition from teams with low salary, as there is no benefit for dumping more salary/talent past the 45M level.
What's bad: This does take some of the advantage away from being in a rebuilding mode, as it limits the advantage to having an extremely low payroll. With an extremely low payroll, there is more cash available for IFAs and prospects, and we're effectively limiting how low a team can go.
What it is: The amount of money allocated to payroll cannot go below the proposed level of 45M. Prospect is still uncapped, but at least 45M needs to stay in the player budget. Now this doesn't mean the owner needs to SPEND 45M, just that they can't transfer money out to dip that payroll below the set limit of 45M.
What's good: Teams can still put as much as they would like in their prospect budget, just at the sacrifice of other areas such as training, medical, scouting, etc. This also encourages competition from teams with low salary, as there is no benefit for dumping more salary/talent past the 45M level.
What's bad: This does take some of the advantage away from being in a rebuilding mode, as it limits the advantage to having an extremely low payroll. With an extremely low payroll, there is more cash available for IFAs and prospects, and we're effectively limiting how low a team can go.
Rebuttal: With a salary floor at 45M, this would affect very few teams, as relatively few have been there annually in recent years. For example, this season (16) there are 3 (42, 33, 32), Season 15 there were 4 (39, 39, 36, 36), Season 14 there was 1 (31), Season 13 there were 2 (43, 35), Season 12 there were 2 (43, 39), Season 11 there were 2 (38, 37), and Season 10 there were 3 (31, 31, 23). That’s an average of 2.42 teams, which is 7.5% of the teams. There was a maximum of 4 teams (12.5%) and a minimum of 1 team (3%). Therefore, less than 10% of teams would likely even have to consider the floor, and in some cases we're only talking about a few million.
Let's Do Nothing:
What it is: Just like it sounds- we're not instituting any rule changes.
What's good: It's the way this league has run for a while, so people are familiar with the way things have gone. With a world full of savvy owners, no caps or floors are needed. No rules means we don't limit the way owners go about their business.
What's bad: In the past a few select teams have been able to amass a number of talented players and keep costs extremely low, while transferring the most money into the prospect budget, giving them effective control over the international market and assuring themselves the top IFA. Therefore, rebuilding teams cannot compete for the top IFAs unless they completely bottom out their payroll, which is difficult to do without sacrificing talent and putting owners in jeopardy of failing to meet the season win requirements of 125 over 2 seasons. Therefore, the problem stays constant, resulting in the same teams at the top year after year.
What it is: Just like it sounds- we're not instituting any rule changes.
What's good: It's the way this league has run for a while, so people are familiar with the way things have gone. With a world full of savvy owners, no caps or floors are needed. No rules means we don't limit the way owners go about their business.
What's bad: In the past a few select teams have been able to amass a number of talented players and keep costs extremely low, while transferring the most money into the prospect budget, giving them effective control over the international market and assuring themselves the top IFA. Therefore, rebuilding teams cannot compete for the top IFAs unless they completely bottom out their payroll, which is difficult to do without sacrificing talent and putting owners in jeopardy of failing to meet the season win requirements of 125 over 2 seasons. Therefore, the problem stays constant, resulting in the same teams at the top year after year.
Rebuttal: This season (16) has shown a very diverse IFA market, with plenty of teams getting the 'top' IFAs, which may mean we have a healthy and competitive league and we don't require any rule changes or installments.
-bjharder, commissioner
No comments:
Post a Comment