Bingo.

A chattering monkey can instantly undo crappy signings, "I'm going for it" trades the previous year by tacking on $3M to a trade to ship it off.

Lazy and stupid. "I'm overpaying if I offer this contract to this FA. What the hell! I'll just ship him off later with $5M"
"Damn, I'm 4 bucks away from the cap. Who gives a ****! I'll make a cash deal"

So play in a world that doesn't allow it.  Some owners want to play in a world where it is allowed.

Posted by robusk on 9/15/2011 8:20:00 AM (view original):
No.  Some people may budget differently but I disagree it would make the game less challenging.  All it would really do is limit the number of trade partners you have.  Regardless of how anyone feels about one particular feature though, I feel that removing options and/or abilities that owners hurts the game.

Look at two examples:  The pitch count rule so it is harder to use relievers as starters (40 PC minimum; less control over who gets to pitch that game...  I once saw a great owner lead his team to like 7 championships in a row starting most playoff games with relief pitcher...  I thought it was genius) killed a big part of tandem pitching.  The second change that comes to mind is the Rule V change where certain players are automatically protected.  The Rule V is crap now and mostly a waste of time (rare bottom of the bench guy in most cases it is used).  If owners are too lazy or forgetful to protect their players, owners who are not should be able to scoop them up.

Again, what I am saying is I want more features/abilities/options...  not less.

Anytime you provide a means for somebody to easily climb out of a hole that they dug themselves into, the game is easier.  That's what cash in trades does.

Your two examples are poor: the PC rule was put in to prevent, or at least discourage, people from gaming the system.  That's exactly what your "great owner" was doing.  You think it's "a genious" move; others will contend that it's horseshit.

Also, your comments about Rule 5 are interesting, to say the least: you want people to have to pay the price for their neglect if they screw up by not protecting R5 guys.  Yet you want to provide people an easy out if they screw up their budget management by being able to get oodles of cash if they find a willing partner.  Seems inconsistent. 

Posted by robusk on 9/14/2011 11:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 9/14/2011 6:59:00 PM (view original):
Robusk basically turns "cash is for the stupid and lazy", which it is, into "you're violating my right to be stupid and lazy"

You are an idiot.  You haven't demonstrated you even know how to play this game yet think you should have a heard voice on how it should be governed.  It makes sense that you want to limit options in the game because you want to simplify it so any idiot can win.  Your comments are not educated ones.  The way the game currently exists, all you have to do is not be "stupid and lazy" to win.  Your very proposal caters to the stupid and lazy.

This is incorrect(not the part about death being an idiot but the other parts).

No cash in trade adds importance to budgeting.   Rather than spend up to your last payroll dollar, you have to plan for additions to your BL roster without counting on the generosity(or prospect-raping) of others. 

Quite simply, more options makes the game easier.

By definition, more options (choices) makes the game more complicated.

We shouldn't confuse "easier to fix a mistake" with "easier in general".

Let's add the option "ability to adjust my budget at any point in the season"
Let's add "ability to increase current ratings"

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/15/2011 9:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 9/14/2011 11:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 9/14/2011 6:59:00 PM (view original):
Robusk basically turns "cash is for the stupid and lazy", which it is, into "you're violating my right to be stupid and lazy"

You are an idiot.  You haven't demonstrated you even know how to play this game yet think you should have a heard voice on how it should be governed.  It makes sense that you want to limit options in the game because you want to simplify it so any idiot can win.  Your comments are not educated ones.  The way the game currently exists, all you have to do is not be "stupid and lazy" to win.  Your very proposal caters to the stupid and lazy.

This is incorrect(not the part about death being an idiot but the other parts).

No cash in trade adds importance to budgeting.   Rather than spend up to your last payroll dollar, you have to plan for additions to your BL roster without counting on the generosity(or prospect-raping) of others. 

Quite simply, more options makes the game easier.

Thanks for backing me up!

You're welcome. 

Posted by deathinahole on 9/15/2011 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Let's add the option "ability to adjust my budget at any point in the season"
Let's add "ability to increase current ratings"

"ability to adjust my budget at any point in the season" is really just removing budgeting which does make it easier.

How would "ability to increase current ratings" make things easier?  I'm assuming that everyone can do it, but that it comes with a cost/consequence.  Doesn't that make the game more complicated?

Posted by jvford on 9/15/2011 11:49:00 AM (view original):
By definition, more options (choices) makes the game more complicated.

We shouldn't confuse "easier to fix a mistake" with "easier in general".

Let's not make the incorrect assumption that "complicated" is a direct contradiction to "easier".

Drop someone in a well with an icepick and they have one option to figure a way out. 
Drop someone in a well with ropes, pulleys, a lawnmower engine, climbing boots, a protractor, a GPS, a pile of lumber and a complete toolbox.  They have many options.

One of those scenarios is more complicated AND easier.

Posted by jvford on 9/15/2011 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 9/15/2011 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Let's add the option "ability to adjust my budget at any point in the season"
Let's add "ability to increase current ratings"

"ability to adjust my budget at any point in the season" is really just removing budgeting which does make it easier.

How would "ability to increase current ratings" make things easier?  I'm assuming that everyone can do it, but that it comes with a cost/consequence.  Doesn't that make the game more complicated?

You said "more options = more complicated"

There's two more options. Is the game now more complicated? "Hey, now I have the option to make all my players 100 across the board!"

Cash in trades is the lazy and stupid way out.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/15/2011 12:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 9/15/2011 11:49:00 AM (view original):
By definition, more options (choices) makes the game more complicated.

We shouldn't confuse "easier to fix a mistake" with "easier in general".

Let's not make the incorrect assumption that "complicated" is a direct contradiction to "easier".

Drop someone in a well with an icepick and they have one option to figure a way out. 
Drop someone in a well with ropes, pulleys, a lawnmower engine, climbing boots, a protractor, a GPS, a pile of lumber and a complete toolbox.  They have many options.

One of those scenarios is more complicated AND easier.

You're missing the main point.  You have to think about it in terms of competing against others with the same tools.

Dropping 32 people into a well each with an ice pick is less complicated and easier than dropping 32 people in a well with "ropes, pulleys, a lawnmower engine, climbing boots, a protractor, a GPS, a pile of lumber and a complete toolbox."

He knows adding cash puts more tools in the tool box.  He also knows it makes the game easier.  But, truthfully, I don't know how it makes the game more complicated.   It's just an option you have to cover up budgeting errors.

Posted by deathinahole on 9/15/2011 12:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 9/15/2011 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 9/15/2011 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Let's add the option "ability to adjust my budget at any point in the season"
Let's add "ability to increase current ratings"

"ability to adjust my budget at any point in the season" is really just removing budgeting which does make it easier.

How would "ability to increase current ratings" make things easier?  I'm assuming that everyone can do it, but that it comes with a cost/consequence.  Doesn't that make the game more complicated?

You said "more options = more complicated"

There's two more options. Is the game now more complicated? "Hey, now I have the option to make all my players 100 across the board!"

Cash in trades is the lazy and stupid way out.

I think you might want to re-read my post and re-think your response.

Posted by jvford on 9/15/2011 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/15/2011 12:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 9/15/2011 11:49:00 AM (view original):
By definition, more options (choices) makes the game more complicated.

We shouldn't confuse "easier to fix a mistake" with "easier in general".

Let's not make the incorrect assumption that "complicated" is a direct contradiction to "easier".

Drop someone in a well with an icepick and they have one option to figure a way out. 
Drop someone in a well with ropes, pulleys, a lawnmower engine, climbing boots, a protractor, a GPS, a pile of lumber and a complete toolbox.  They have many options.

One of those scenarios is more complicated AND easier.

You're missing the main point.  You have to think about it in terms of competing against others with the same tools.

Dropping 32 people into a well each with an ice pick is less complicated and easier than dropping 32 people in a well with "ropes, pulleys, a lawnmower engine, climbing boots, a protractor, a GPS, a pile of lumber and a complete toolbox."

You're making another incorrect assumption.

All 32 people at the bottom of the well want to get out.
All 32 people in your world are not trying to win the World Series.   Hell, some are undoubtedly not too worried about winning games.

Not a good comparison.