Posted by overeasy on 7/31/2012 12:16:00 AM (view original):
When I have time to kill, I pop in and read the updates to this thread. At this point, I am a bit confused about where some people actually stand. Obviously, no helpful purpose was served when the thread sank into juvenile name calling antics.

There was some comments claiming it was jcb vs. "the world." (Seems bwb53 is invisible.) But of the four most vocal opponents through the second half of the thread, there is not really a unified opposition.

deathinahole and tecwrg have been consistent and hardline with no cash ever. No confusion here.

miket's message is a little muddled to me. He states that cash in trades is bad, but then also reveals that MG and Coop (which I'm pretty sure in other threads have been repeatedly referred to as the "Best Damn Worlds in HBD") both allow cash in trades to cover salary. So if it is bad, why isn't it banned in the best worlds?

hbdgirl appears to be a bit confused. From what I have read, jcb's argument is refuting the hard line stance of no cash in trades. Then hbdgirl stated, "But on its own the idea of giving another owner $5M is pretty unappealing. I'd have to get a screaming deal to agree to that."  There was also another post about smaller cash amounts near the trade deadline being ok. Sounds like an endorsement for cash in trades under the right conditions. (Which is pretty much where I fall on the subject.)

Looking back at my cash trades, I wish I could have a few back as some of those prospects I traded for vets along with cash have done pretty well and given a lot more value than I received in my short term pursuit of a ring.

One world I play in, Moonlight Graham, has a $1.5M limit on cash. Another world, Cooperstown, has a no more cash than salary limit. The third world I play, Mantle, has no rule but probably should. I abide by the private world rules in each. I don't automatically veto cash in trades like Deathinahole. However, I do veto cash to sign draft picks, excess cash to salary, and frown upon cash traded to teams way under the cap prior to free agency ( not an automatic veto though ... I'll wait for the world chat debate. ) My complaint with this thread is that the people advocating cash don't seem to want to acknowledge that a higher than $185M budget is an advantage over other owners. No matter how you slice it, the team with the budget over $185M is at an advantage and that's not open to debate. By in large, I try not to lower my budget through cash trades or transferring. If I have excess payroll, I'll use signing bonuses on long term contracts to get lower yearly salaries. Lowering your budget below $185M is a disadvantage. And if lowering it below $185M is a disadvantage, that makes raising it above $185M an advantage.

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

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/30/2012 10:51:00 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. So it's a budget. And you spent time in the beginning of the season setting your budget. X million to this scouting, Y million to training, Z training to medical, etc. You take time making sure you have enough money to each part of your budget, to make sure you have enough in FA, prospect $, etc. And everyone is on a level playing field - everyone has the same challenge as you - to take your $185M and set your budget to best accomplish your goals for this season.

Someone in your division spends too much in getting international free agents. The draft comes, and he can't afford his 1st rd draft pick. A team buys a player off him, a cheap player who is about to hit Arb. He gets his draft pick, and promotes his player in AAA who was ready to replace him anyway, who was once an international free agent that was signed 3 seasons prior when, guess what, that owner spent too much money to get him (and let's say you could have gotten him, but didn't because you realized you needed to sign your draft picks) and then sold another player to be able to sign his draft picks.

Do you see how this can be abused? How it isnt exactly fair? One team spends $190M on his team, while you, and the rest of the league, spends $185M.

Why is this fair? You spent your $185M in an efficient way, didn't screw anything up, didn't need a bailout. Why should one owner be allowed to spend $190M this season? Your division rival continues a trend of being allowed to spend more money than you, or anyone else in the league, did.

And if you need a "bailout" because you don't have adequate SP, you can trade for one. That's ok.

The answer to the question is there is no damn difference at all on the books if you get $5m or cut $5m. It is the same.

Gents, you have no idea how fun this has been. Two of my leagues were in the offseason and I was bored. But Kinsella starts tomorrow, so I must be leaving. I recommend you all take some classes in Econ and finance. You appear to need it.

PS: from this day forth, I will refer to the "no cash in trades" leagues as the "Simple Leagues".

"Gents, you have no idea how fun this has been. Two of my leagues were in the offseason and I was bored. But Kinsella starts tomorrow, so I must be leaving."

Translation: I now realize how stupid I am, so I'm bailing from this thread.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 11:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/30/2012 10:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 10:36:00 PM (view original):
So, no takers re what the advantage is of getting $5m as opposed to cutting $5m in liabilities?  I thought not.  So sad.

Because you would have $190m of assets (scouting/training/medical/coaching/prospect/payroll budgets) instead of $185m.

What's that?  You don't understand?  I thought not.  So sad.

Sigh.......

I know.  Facts suck, don't they?

Posted by bwb53 on 7/30/2012 8:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2012 5:24:00 PM (view original):
So you're trying to free up 10m?   You're trading a 5m player and getting 5m in cash?

Either way, I have no problem with you waiving a good 5m player.   Knock yourself out.   There's no "I'll help you out" factor in play. 

No, iam trading a 5m  player who is fairly valued and a 27k player for a 27k player both 27k are minor leaguers forever.. the player is being flat out sold . the trade is very unbalanced in talent, but I get the dough I need for whatever, and he gets the player he wants.

Then it's vetoed in any decent world.   

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 10:36:00 PM (view original):
So, no takers re what the advantage is of getting $5m as opposed to cutting $5m in liabilities?  I thought not.  So sad.

One must assume that 5m player you're losing has value.  That he's not some try out camp pitcher making 5m. 

One must also assume that your waiver isn't collusion(your buddy claiming him so you can get 5m freed up). 

When someone sends you 5m in cash for some low level player, it's smells of collusion.

Do you see the difference?    One owner doing something vs. two owners doing something.

Posted by bwb53 on 7/30/2012 11:04:00 PM (view original):
You can't stop someone from that unless you eliminate the waiver wire. You can veto the trade  sure, but I waive/ designate him and get the same results from the same owner., except I am not limited to 5m.

Someone has to claim said player.   If he has no value, he won't be claimed.  Unless it's collusion.

Posted by overeasy on 7/31/2012 12:16:00 AM (view original):
When I have time to kill, I pop in and read the updates to this thread. At this point, I am a bit confused about where some people actually stand. Obviously, no helpful purpose was served when the thread sank into juvenile name calling antics.

There was some comments claiming it was jcb vs. "the world." (Seems bwb53 is invisible.) But of the four most vocal opponents through the second half of the thread, there is not really a unified opposition.

deathinahole and tecwrg have been consistent and hardline with no cash ever. No confusion here.

miket's message is a little muddled to me. He states that cash in trades is bad, but then also reveals that MG and Coop (which I'm pretty sure in other threads have been repeatedly referred to as the "Best Damn Worlds in HBD") both allow cash in trades to cover salary. So if it is bad, why isn't it banned in the best worlds?

hbdgirl appears to be a bit confused. From what I have read, jcb's argument is refuting the hard line stance of no cash in trades. Then hbdgirl stated, "But on its own the idea of giving another owner $5M is pretty unappealing. I'd have to get a screaming deal to agree to that."  There was also another post about smaller cash amounts near the trade deadline being ok. Sounds like an endorsement for cash in trades under the right conditions. (Which is pretty much where I fall on the subject.)

Looking back at my cash trades, I wish I could have a few back as some of those prospects I traded for vets along with cash have done pretty well and given a lot more value than I received in my short term pursuit of a ring.

Nothing muddled about my stance.    If cash is needed to complete an equitable trade, I have no problem with it as long as it doesn't exceed the salary of the player being moved.    I'm against buying/selling players.     If someone wants to trade a 5m player for a prospect in order to gain cap space to sign a draft pick, have at it.   Just make sure the 5m player and the prospect are A) current or future BL quality and B) of similar value.

Hope that clears things up for you.

I also think cash is for the lazy and/or stupid.     Can't make a deal work under the cap?  The simple way is to throw in cash.   Don't bother trying to figure out how to work another player into it, just add cash.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/26/2012 12:49:00 PM (view original):
But, if you're selling a player, I veto anyway.    Lincoln brought war to the US and killed over 600,000 Americans to stop slavery.  You can't sell people.

And this.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/26/2012 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Anyway, owners are free to veto for any reason.   They can't say "I think Owner A is an *** so I veto all his deals" as that is against the FPG.  But they can say "Looks unbalanced to me" and be done with it.   They can explain their veto or ignore your demands for an explanation. 

But, at the end of the day, if 10 owners veto a deal, it probably deserves to be vetoed.    Get 1/3 of the world to agree on anything is hard.

And this.

I'll also refer to this guy:  http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/UserProfile.aspx?uid=665629   Got about 35m in cash in S1 of Steinbrenner(much to my loud chagrin).   The two biggest contributors to the cause were gone after 1 season.   I think another lasted 3 seasons and one more lasted 6.  The rest were 1-2 season owners.  ericwoody lasted three.   Because he was busted for using aliases.   The commish had to make a rule limiting how much cash one owner could accept per season to prevent it from happening again.

Soooooo......if you don't think owners, maybe his aliases, weret feeding him players and paying their salaries in a collusive manner, there's not much help for you.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/31/2012 8:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 7/30/2012 11:04:00 PM (view original):
You can't stop someone from that unless you eliminate the waiver wire. You can veto the trade  sure, but I waive/ designate him and get the same results from the same owner., except I am not limited to 5m.

Someone has to claim said player.   If he has no value, he won't be claimed.  Unless it's collusion.

If he is worth trading for by team B, then team B will think he is worth claiming.The trade is vetoed.The same player who wanted him in the trade, sees him on the wire, still wants him, and claims him, unless someone ahead of him does. i don't care who claims him Nothing under the table at all. Everything is up front All I want is to move the contract,and use the funds elsewhere. The veto has been overidden.

If you're just trying to clear salary, why not just waive him to start with?    Don't involve anyone else so there's no possibility of collusion?

FWIW, when I need to clear salary, that's my first option.   I try to find a player I don't need and waive him.   I then hope someone claims him.  Usually, they don't.  SImply because if I don't need him, no one else does either.    His salary is more than his value.

I can do that to, but if by chance it occurs in this order, I already know I can waive him, and get results