IFA Limits

[Cnasty]

3 options

1. Remove the midseason IFAs all together
2. Limit the number of IFAs released into the pool to 3 or less
3. Leave it the same

[GeorgesGoons]

Should have 3 options. Leave it the same should be one

[Cnasty]

Should have 3 options. Leave it the same should be one

Done

[wdoupis]

I know this is directed at Ted but everyone has the chance to sign guys like he does.

If we want to limit how many a guy can bid on and therefore sign then that should be an option as well

[shel311]

I know this is directed at Ted but everyone has the chance to sign guys like he does.

If we want to limit how many a guy can bid on and therefore sign then that should be an option as well

It's less about Ted and more about the lack of realism...kinda like the injury settings.

[GeorgesGoons]

I know this is directed at Ted but everyone has the chance to sign guys like he does.

If we want to limit how many a guy can bid on and therefore sign then that should be an option as well

Or total amount of money, even though the game tries to thwart it with the tax but if you have money who cares

[wdoupis]

There is a bigger discussion to be had here then just a couple options. I don’t think removing mid season IFAs should even be on the table

[Cnasty]

There is a bigger discussion to be had here then just a couple options. I don’t think removing mid season IFAs should even be on the table

I only posted a "bigger discussion" about 3 times....

[shel311]

There is a bigger discussion to be had here then just a couple options. I don’t think removing mid season IFAs should even be on the table

I think lowering the amount coming in is the way to go.

[wdoupis]

I know this is directed at Ted but everyone has the chance to sign guys like he does.

If we want to limit how many a guy can bid on and therefore sign then that should be an option as well

It's less about Ted and more about the lack of realism...kinda like the injury settings.

How does the mid season IFA signings go against realism? That’s an honest question. I don’t pay attention to that shit in real life

[GeorgesGoons]

Would a hard cap on a player help even the playing field? This allows smaller clubs to at least compete on a somewhat even playing field to gain the service of the IFA

Is that what you are trying to get out of this Corey?

[dakshdar]

Limiting to some small pool number means that those without huge monetary access can't take a flyer on a lower rated guy that could develop while still letting the guy with all the money scoop up the players he wants.

Capping what can be spent would be a better option if you're trying to spread the IFA wealth. If it was 100% tax on the value over $2.5 million and $10 million hard cap (so max of $6.25 million in total offers) that would let people on the lower end of the financial spectrum have the opportunity to sign people.

But it is unclear what the intent of the change is...

[wdoupis]

Agreed. Only 3 guys appearing in the pool is far more unrealistic then what we have (still waiting to hear how it is unrealistic)

Either a hard cap like Joe proposed or a limit of how many you can offer (and therefore sign) would be much better options if we are trying to limit Ted or whoever else from grabbing all IFAs

[Cnasty]

There is no influx of 10 top prospects that suddenly become available in the league from across the globe. . Teams don’t magically get away with 7 year $4mil a year deals and can continue to take advantage of the AI/IFA process by backloading their minors continuously.

Keep it then, fun!

[TheGobOne]

I'm with Billy. Either limit the total amount of $ a team can spend or the number of players they can sign (ie 2 or 3).

[dakshdar]

We have the international complex, which is scouts discovering players who are rarely good, but sometimes are great.

We have international players coming in during free agency from other pro-leagues that we can sign.

And we have IFAs but it works under the previous CBA: It used to be that you could go over your pool number and were penalized like we are now. Now, you can trade pool to other teams, but when it comes to signing you can't exceed pool anymore. Period. See page 288: http://www.mlbplayers.com/pdf9/5450407.pdf

If we did it that way it would fix a lot of things.

[dakshdar]

And according to this Reddit thread, OOTP should already have this ability (not sure if it is in our league settings):
https://www.reddit.com/r/OOTP/comments/ ... tional_fa/

[shel311]

We have the international complex, which is scouts discovering players who are rarely good, but sometimes are great.

We have international players coming in during free agency from other pro-leagues that we can sign.

And we have IFAs but it works under the previous CBA: It used to be that you could go over your pool number and were penalized like we are now. Now, you can trade pool to other teams, but when it comes to signing you can't exceed pool anymore. Period. See page 288: http://www.mlbplayers.com/pdf9/5450407.pdf

If we did it that way it would fix a lot of things.

Anyone know if the new CBA in OOTP does it the same?

[wdoupis]

No idea but we are switching to new CBA in this preseason so it may fix itself

[wdoupis]

I just did some research, there were over 800 IFAs signed last year. There is a "top 30" report published every year which is why our game does 30.

If you look at our league about 10% of the top 20 batters or pitchers any given year are midseason IFA signings.

This is not a problem in our league and is nowhere near unrealistic.

This poll is about Ted so if you want to address that then make another poll with a hard cap on money spent or a hard cap on players you can sign/bids made at a time. Perhaps the new CBA will fix it for us on its own