Cash in trades should not be allowed until AFTER the world's free agency period has completed.

Cash during free agency is tough, because those in favor of it will say, "If I have the cash during free agency, I can use it towards a good player."  But what if you still miss out on that player you're going for?  You're left with either a much lesser player or a wad of cash.  You've then traded a good player for essentially nothing, or at least much less than you gave up.  That's a problem, both for the owner trading for the cash and for the world as it moves forward.

If an owner is getting cash before or during free agency, then he's playing with a bigger checkbook than everybody else, and at the time of the season when most of the biggest checks are being written.  Why the other 31 owners let that happen is beyond me.

of course you are referring to owners with the same amount of budgeted player payroll getting an advantage, right? since each owner sets up his budget for his teams player costs at the beginning of the season

If you have 195 and I have 185, you have an advantage regardless of where/how it's budgeted. 

The entire problem with cash is it has no value until it's applied. 

right. the point of my post was that people can adjust how much they have to start with as far as player payroll by deducting from their other budget categories. tec's argument of someone 'playing with a bigger checkbook than everyone else' is what i was responding to.
if i budget from day one to have $120 mil in player payroll, chances are i have a lot more to begin with than everybody else.
i agree that if someone receives cash in a trade before free agency is over they get more 'free' money to use to bid (meaning not weakening their other budgeted categories to do so)

"Playing with a bigger checkbook" refers to having more than $185m, as Mike pointed out.  Apparently that was not clear.

This is like the "Wedge Strategy" implemented by people in the intelligent design movement.....can't get cash in trades outlawed in general? Start with a specific part of the game and work from there.

In the end, this will have roughly the same arguments (on both sides) as the general cash in trades debates.

Perhaps.  I just don't understand the need to receive cash via trades a mere two days after budgeting has completed.  Especially if the owner receiving the money has around $17m of unspent payroll as FA is just starting.  Why is the guy sending the money giving the other guy an advantage?

Well, the game is really more about 'wants' than 'needs' isn't it?  An owner might have 17m of unspent payroll but WANTS to sign the stud SP and SS that can hit.  He knew before setting his budget, but that was all the payroll space he could free up.  Anti-cash guy would say "Tough, you only get $185m, deal with it".  Pro-cash guy would say "If he wants to give up something to get more cap room, fine".

As far as needs, I'm not sure when you actually would ever NEED cash.  Unless, of course, you screwed up budgeting or spending....but then aren't we right back to the standard cash in trades argument?

To your first point: if somebody is willing to be the giver of money in order to get something back . . . he's not playing in a vacuum.  If owner 1 gives owner 2 an extra $5m of cash, then he probably should take into consideration the fact that while he may benefit by getting something in return (lets say, a prospect), that owners 3 through 32 are now all at a bit of a disadvantage because they are now playing with a smaller budget than player 2.

To your last point . . .if "you screwed up budgeting or spending", then isn't that all on you?

I know . . . it's the same old argument.

Exactly

I'd be fine with not allowing player "sales" during free agency (of course, I'd be fine with that in general), but I don't think you can outlaw cash in trades in general - it would suck to have to wait until after FA to be able to make a contract you were trying to get off your books more tradable by paying part of the player's salary.