Has anyone ever tried a "worse team" league...

That's getting too restrictive for my taste - only 450 players available? Open it up to give managers more flexibility in roster construction - now that I think about it, I wouldn't go any higher than 2M minimum on SP/hitters and 1M on RPs, and no max - there may be a 5M turd who is worse than a 2M player in the right (wrong?) situation.

I wouldn't sign up for a league like this with only 450 players available - 300 would get drafted, which means some would be forced based on draft card to have guys they don't want.

Just a thought for discussion.

What if winner was the person who in the end spent the most money per win.

So yeah I could spend 60 mil and only win 40 games but that is 1.5 mil per win.
So if someone else say spent 80 mil with 50 wins that is 1.6 mil per win. Second person wins.

If you went with this concept players dropped during season the cap hit would come off their total value not only lessening their team but also would lower their money spent per win.

Example player A wins 50 games and finishes with a roster valued at 70 mil because they absorbed 10 mil in cap hits over season.
Player B wins 50 games but because they wasted less money they still have 75 mil value roster.
Player B wins because he spent more to get those 50 wins.

With this formula you could open this up to most any salary cap. There is no need for minimums or maximums spent per player. Maybe Ruth in Petco becomes a value player or McLain in Wrigley.

Again you would have to coordinate with strat to give credits to the teams this formula defines as winner.

Ooof! This is getting pretty complicated. Maybe it's just not an idea that has any practical solutions?

Honestly, the concept was very simple with no rules when we ran it before.

If you don't want a league of nickel guys, just set a minimum not based on meeting a salary cap, but based on what kind of garbage you don't want in the league. If you want all guys 2.5M and above, set the cap at 150M - gives roster flexibility at the draft and the ability to cut bait regularly - essentially turning it into a free market. No one would spend the 150m to try to be a dick - it just lets someone stick Denny McLain in Wrigley if they think that is the best (worst) option, and then cut him for another player with minimal penalty if that experiment fails.