Is it just me or is a conclusion to this discussion really hopeless. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/30/2012 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hbdgirl on 7/30/2012 4:43:00 PM (view original):
True. But on its own, the idea of giving another owner $5M more than everybody else while bringing my total budget down to $180M is pretty unappealing. I'd have to be getting a screaming deal to agree to that.

Holy ****.  I literally cannot believe what I am reading.

Sigh.......

Question, jclark. And yes, I'm getting philosophical. There is also a follow up question/point depending on how you answer this:

Do you see the $185M as a budget given to you, or a cap the league imposes?

It's a budget.  The system allows you to go over that number after initially setting your budget.  However, the league has a cap: 32 x $185m.  That number cannot be exceeded.

Posted by hbdgirl on 7/30/2012 9:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 9:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bfkfraser on 7/30/2012 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 1:13:00 PM (view original):
I hope you guys all hire accountants.  Because they have an understanding of assets, liabilities and equity.

As an accountant, I will assure you this is less about accounting and more about keeping the competitive balance.    When you set your $185M budget, you made choices.   These choices gave you advantages in some areas and disadvantages in others based upon your team makeup, strategy, and direction.   When you send money to another coach, you give said coach the ability to alleviate some of his/her disadvantages by giving them money over the 185M.   This is  not only an advantage over your team, but all of the 30 other teams not involved.   It allows a coach to shortfall an area of his/her budget if he/she expects to get cash later to make up for it.  Hence, people saying 190>185.   Not surprisingly, many of these coaches have learned this already from experience.

I will cast a veto on any trade that includes cash in excess of the difference in salaries.  If the cash is less than the difference in salaries, then I may or may not cast a veto vote depending on various circumstances including, but not limited to, the time of season, and the amount of cash

When you trade someone a ML SP, you give that coach the ability to alleviate his disadvantage in ML SP.  This is not only an advantage over your team, but all 30 other teams.  It allows a coach to shortfall his/her ML starting pitching if he/she expects to get a SP later to make up for it.

Wow, that was easy.

Now, explain what advantage their is to getting $5m in cash, as opposed to cutting $5m in liabilities.

Dumbest. Post. Ever.

I know, it's tough for you to follow.

Oh. My. God.

All you need to do is add up anyone in any of your leagues that have made a cash trade (payroll + payroll cap left + other budgets), or, maybe, listen to the 40 some odd people telling you that you are wrong.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 9:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bfkfraser on 7/30/2012 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 1:13:00 PM (view original):
I hope you guys all hire accountants.  Because they have an understanding of assets, liabilities and equity.

As an accountant, I will assure you this is less about accounting and more about keeping the competitive balance.    When you set your $185M budget, you made choices.   These choices gave you advantages in some areas and disadvantages in others based upon your team makeup, strategy, and direction.   When you send money to another coach, you give said coach the ability to alleviate some of his/her disadvantages by giving them money over the 185M.   This is  not only an advantage over your team, but all of the 30 other teams not involved.   It allows a coach to shortfall an area of his/her budget if he/she expects to get cash later to make up for it.  Hence, people saying 190>185.   Not surprisingly, many of these coaches have learned this already from experience.

I will cast a veto on any trade that includes cash in excess of the difference in salaries.  If the cash is less than the difference in salaries, then I may or may not cast a veto vote depending on various circumstances including, but not limited to, the time of season, and the amount of cash

When you trade someone a ML SP, you give that coach the ability to alleviate his disadvantage in ML SP.  This is not only an advantage over your team, but all 30 other teams.  It allows a coach to shortfall his/her ML starting pitching if he/she expects to get a SP later to make up for it.

Wow, that was easy.

Now, explain what advantage there is to getting $5m in cash, as opposed to cutting $5m in liabilities.

Ah, you can't win the arguement so you divert the topic.  This is about advantages gained in the budget.  It has nothing to do with SP or 1b talent comparison.   So let me reiterate so hopefully, you can follow along.

Everybody gets 185M to spend as they see fit.  Team A is rebuilding and loads up in scouting and prospect.   Team B has a high player payroll, but has a smaller prospect budget.   Both choices made.    Team C also has a higher payroll, but keeps their budget high.They sell one of their players.  Now that extra cash is used to outbid team B for the prized free agent or international prospect all because they sold a player.   Team C's extra budget gave them an advantage over other teams that they would not have had received in a lopsided trade.  Hence 190M > 185M is not good for the league.  Since, it is not good for the league, it deserves to be vetoed

Posted by dlmose on 7/30/2012 9:52:00 PM (view original):
Is it just me or is a conclusion to this discussion really hopeless. 

When you're dealing with stupid people who don't realize they're stupid, there won't be a happy ending.  At least in the fairy-tale meaning of the term.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/30/2012 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hbdgirl on 7/30/2012 4:43:00 PM (view original):
True. But on its own, the idea of giving another owner $5M more than everybody else while bringing my total budget down to $180M is pretty unappealing. I'd have to be getting a screaming deal to agree to that.

Holy ****.  I literally cannot believe what I am reading.

Sigh.......

Question, jclark. And yes, I'm getting philosophical. There is also a follow up question/point depending on how you answer this:

Do you see the $185M as a budget given to you, or a cap the league imposes?

It's a budget.  The system allows you to go over that number after initially setting your budget.  However, the league has a cap: 32 x $185m.  That number cannot be exceeded.

Ok.

16 teams have $370M. 16 have 0.
Still fits within your dumbass logic.

Go!

If a team accepts $5m cash in a deal, then they have $190m budget, 30 teams have $185m budget, and one team has a $180m budget.

Some folks think that's just dandy.

So would it be OK for one team to accept $5m cash in 31 separate deals such that they end up with a $340m budget and the other 31 teams have a $180m budget?

This is one of those instances where one person is right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Posted by bfkfraser on 7/30/2012 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 9:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bfkfraser on 7/30/2012 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 1:13:00 PM (view original):
I hope you guys all hire accountants.  Because they have an understanding of assets, liabilities and equity.

As an accountant, I will assure you this is less about accounting and more about keeping the competitive balance.    When you set your $185M budget, you made choices.   These choices gave you advantages in some areas and disadvantages in others based upon your team makeup, strategy, and direction.   When you send money to another coach, you give said coach the ability to alleviate some of his/her disadvantages by giving them money over the 185M.   This is  not only an advantage over your team, but all of the 30 other teams not involved.   It allows a coach to shortfall an area of his/her budget if he/she expects to get cash later to make up for it.  Hence, people saying 190>185.   Not surprisingly, many of these coaches have learned this already from experience.

I will cast a veto on any trade that includes cash in excess of the difference in salaries.  If the cash is less than the difference in salaries, then I may or may not cast a veto vote depending on various circumstances including, but not limited to, the time of season, and the amount of cash

When you trade someone a ML SP, you give that coach the ability to alleviate his disadvantage in ML SP.  This is not only an advantage over your team, but all 30 other teams.  It allows a coach to shortfall his/her ML starting pitching if he/she expects to get a SP later to make up for it.

Wow, that was easy.

Now, explain what advantage there is to getting $5m in cash, as opposed to cutting $5m in liabilities.

Ah, you can't win the arguement so you divert the topic.  This is about advantages gained in the budget.  It has nothing to do with SP or 1b talent comparison.   So let me reiterate so hopefully, you can follow along.

Everybody gets 185M to spend as they see fit.  Team A is rebuilding and loads up in scouting and prospect.   Team B has a high player payroll, but has a smaller prospect budget.   Both choices made.    Team C also has a higher payroll, but keeps their budget high.They sell one of their players.  Now that extra cash is used to outbid team B for the prized free agent or international prospect all because they sold a player.   Team C's extra budget gave them an advantage over other teams that they would not have had received in a lopsided trade.  Hence 190M > 185M is not good for the league.  Since, it is not good for the league, it deserves to be vetoed

So they gave value in the form of a player and received value in the form of cash?  So that is bad.  But it is fine to just trade a guy who has a high salary in order to free up some money?  It is still value for value.

There are players and money.  Both are worth something.  You are concentrating on the acquisition of the money and not also concentrating on the dealing of the player to get it.

AGAIN, what is the advantage to receiving $5m as opposed to cutting $5m in liabilities?

As I pointed out before it's possible that the team receiving the $5M could ALSO come out ahead on the player end of a trade. It's called a trade rape. So not only does that owner improve his playing staff but he ends up with $5M more than everybody else.

Posted by deathinahole on 7/30/2012 9:59:00 PM (view original):
Oh. My. God.

All you need to do is add up anyone in any of your leagues that have made a cash trade (payroll + payroll cap left + other budgets), or, maybe, listen to the 40 some odd people telling you that you are wrong.

So, if I have a $12m per year stud ML SP, who has 4 years left on his contract, and my team is pretty much heading for rebuilding, and I trade him for a single prospect who has the same prospective ratings as the ML SP, and I throw in $5m to help the other team out on salary, the other team has an advantage over me?  When I have obtained a comparable prospect AND gotten out from under $48m in future liabilities?

Posted by deathinahole on 7/30/2012 10:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/30/2012 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hbdgirl on 7/30/2012 4:43:00 PM (view original):
True. But on its own, the idea of giving another owner $5M more than everybody else while bringing my total budget down to $180M is pretty unappealing. I'd have to be getting a screaming deal to agree to that.

Holy ****.  I literally cannot believe what I am reading.

Sigh.......

Question, jclark. And yes, I'm getting philosophical. There is also a follow up question/point depending on how you answer this:

Do you see the $185M as a budget given to you, or a cap the league imposes?

It's a budget.  The system allows you to go over that number after initially setting your budget.  However, the league has a cap: 32 x $185m.  That number cannot be exceeded.

Ok.

16 teams have $370M. 16 have 0.
Still fits within your dumbass logic.

Go!

Way to advertise how ******* stupid you are.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/30/2012 10:09:00 PM (view original):
If a team accepts $5m cash in a deal, then they have $190m budget, 30 teams have $185m budget, and one team has a $180m budget.

Some folks think that's just dandy.

So would it be OK for one team to accept $5m cash in 31 separate deals such that they end up with a $340m budget and the other 31 teams have a $180m budget?

Would it be OK?  Probably not, because that team would have gotten rid of all its good players in order to get the cash.  You see, it is not just cash.  Players come into it.  You know guys, the players you are forgetting about in this whole equation.

What?

What's the difference between receiving $185M, and cutting $185M in liabilities?