Posted by MikeT23 on 9/15/2011 12:36:00 PM (view original):
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.

Because EVERYONE can do it.

Read my previous post.    EVERYONE doesn't have the same goal.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/15/2011 12:38:00 PM (view original):

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.

I never assumed that 32 people want to get out.....just that more than one of them do.

So, in your world, some people would be cool with living at the bottom of a well?

Seriously, you have HBD owners who are fine with winning 50-60 games per season for several seasons in hopes of building that "super team".   And they seem to be the ones who are content with including cash to cover salary.   So who gets the cash?   Teams that are trying to win. 

Since I decided to play by world rules rather than personal belief, I get cash all the time.   It's very, very easy to say "Hey, how about throw 2m into the mix?  You've already spent it if we don't deal so there's no reason not to include it."

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".

Yes

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.

Yes.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/15/2011 12:45:00 PM (view original):
So, in your world, some people would be cool with living at the bottom of a well?

Seriously, you have HBD owners who are fine with winning 50-60 games per season for several seasons in hopes of building that "super team".   And they seem to be the ones who are content with including cash to cover salary.   So who gets the cash?   Teams that are trying to win. 

Since I decided to play by world rules rather than personal belief, I get cash all the time.   It's very, very easy to say "Hey, how about throw 2m into the mix?  You've already spent it if we don't deal so there's no reason not to include it."

Not sure why you're struggling with the competition piece of it. 

It's simple.  Everyone has the same set of options (tools).  The more options (tools) they have, the more complicated and harder their decisions are.  With cash, sure you can get rid of a mistake, but so can everyone else. 

The argument against cash is simple....It makes things too complicated and hard for inexperienced owners....so experienced owners will take advantage of them.

Other arguments are inaccurate and/or just preferences.

I'm not sure how you think slinging cash into a deal to "make it work" makes anything more complicated.    It simplifies it.   I've been on both sides(refusing to include cash/happily including cash).   I'm speaking from experience when I say "Cash makes trading much more easier." 

"The argument against cash is simple....It makes things too complicated and hard for inexperienced owners....so experienced owners will take advantage of them."

Wow. Everyone has the same $185M cap, and can't have a higher cap, thus experienced owners will take advantage of them. Seriously?

You're a take my net home because you're not playing right kind of guy, so I'm not surprised. But your argument is silly and irrelevant. You are hereby dismissed and ignored from now on.

The thing that would make this the most aggravating for me:
Team X wants to move a vet that is no longer needed during the season.
Only teams A, B and C can fit it under the cap if cash is not allowed; they have no need or desire for said player, although many other teams in the league do.

Actual baseball teams aren't hindered by some ceiling like that....  Even smaller market teams with limited revenue can take it out of next year's budget or alter some element of their revenue in some way.  We don't have the option (yes, we can move coaches salary or prospect salary...  often times this are exhausted or after penalty it isn't enough...  not to mention that is a pretty limited number of locations we pull from).

So, by not allowing cash, you are advocating that teams just leave unused pools of money in their salary budget in case someone wants to move a vet OR not trade for veteran players during the season.

Bringing me back to the "turn it into SimLeague Baseball where all there is to do is check boxscores" point.

Here's an exercise for "Cash makes the game more complicated" people:

Owner A say "Joe Slugger is available."   He makes 5m and it's mid-season so he's owed 2.5m.
You think "Damn, he could play 3B and I could send Jimmy Rookie back to AAA." 
Sadly, you have $12 in cap space.
You and Owner A reach an agreement for last season's first rounder.  Sadly, he makes 27k.   You still need 2.47m in cap space. 
You've got a mediocre RP due 1.47m sitting in AAA.  You add him.   Unfortunately, you still need another million to get the deal done.
With no cash, your options are A.  "Find another BL salaried player to add".  And, it can only be one since you already have two in the deal.  B.  Ask for 1m in cash.

Which is option easier AND less complicated?  Hell, you don't even have to include the crappy RP is you get 2.47m in cash.

Posted by deathinahole on 9/15/2011 1:11:00 PM (view original):
"The argument against cash is simple....It makes things too complicated and hard for inexperienced owners....so experienced owners will take advantage of them."

Wow. Everyone has the same $185M cap, and can't have a higher cap, thus experienced owners will take advantage of them. Seriously?

You're a take my net home because you're not playing right kind of guy, so I'm not surprised. But your argument is silly and irrelevant. You are hereby dismissed and ignored from now on.

I don't think you really understand what I said.  I'm not surprised since you seem to be one of the inexperienced owners that gets taken advantage of.

Posted by robusk on 9/15/2011 1:16:00 PM (view original):
The thing that would make this the most aggravating for me:
Team X wants to move a vet that is no longer needed during the season.
Only teams A, B and C can fit it under the cap if cash is not allowed; they have no need or desire for said player, although many other teams in the league do.

Actual baseball teams aren't hindered by some ceiling like that....  Even smaller market teams with limited revenue can take it out of next year's budget or alter some element of their revenue in some way.  We don't have the option (yes, we can move coaches salary or prospect salary...  often times this are exhausted or after penalty it isn't enough...  not to mention that is a pretty limited number of locations we pull from).

So, by not allowing cash, you are advocating that teams just leave unused pools of money in their salary budget in case someone wants to move a vet OR not trade for veteran players during the season.

Bringing me back to the "turn it into SimLeague Baseball where all there is to do is check boxscores" point.

Actual baseball teams don't have budget caps.

Wouldn't HBD be fun if one team had unlimited funds and others could only budget 60-70m due to revenue streams?

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/15/2011 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 9/15/2011 1:16:00 PM (view original):
The thing that would make this the most aggravating for me:
Team X wants to move a vet that is no longer needed during the season.
Only teams A, B and C can fit it under the cap if cash is not allowed; they have no need or desire for said player, although many other teams in the league do.

Actual baseball teams aren't hindered by some ceiling like that....  Even smaller market teams with limited revenue can take it out of next year's budget or alter some element of their revenue in some way.  We don't have the option (yes, we can move coaches salary or prospect salary...  often times this are exhausted or after penalty it isn't enough...  not to mention that is a pretty limited number of locations we pull from).

So, by not allowing cash, you are advocating that teams just leave unused pools of money in their salary budget in case someone wants to move a vet OR not trade for veteran players during the season.

Bringing me back to the "turn it into SimLeague Baseball where all there is to do is check boxscores" point.

Actual baseball teams don't have budget caps.

Wouldn't HBD be fun if one team had unlimited funds and others could only budget 60-70m due to revenue streams?

Not my point at all...

My point is that, given that we have budgets, owners should not have to leave large pools of potentially wasted money just in case someone wants to trade a veteran player because we have removed the option to offset the salary difference with cash.

Posted by robusk on 9/15/2011 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/15/2011 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 9/15/2011 1:16:00 PM (view original):
The thing that would make this the most aggravating for me:
Team X wants to move a vet that is no longer needed during the season.
Only teams A, B and C can fit it under the cap if cash is not allowed; they have no need or desire for said player, although many other teams in the league do.

Actual baseball teams aren't hindered by some ceiling like that....  Even smaller market teams with limited revenue can take it out of next year's budget or alter some element of their revenue in some way.  We don't have the option (yes, we can move coaches salary or prospect salary...  often times this are exhausted or after penalty it isn't enough...  not to mention that is a pretty limited number of locations we pull from).

So, by not allowing cash, you are advocating that teams just leave unused pools of money in their salary budget in case someone wants to move a vet OR not trade for veteran players during the season.

Bringing me back to the "turn it into SimLeague Baseball where all there is to do is check boxscores" point.

Actual baseball teams don't have budget caps.

Wouldn't HBD be fun if one team had unlimited funds and others could only budget 60-70m due to revenue streams?

Not my point at all...

My point is that, given that we have budgets, owners should not have to leave large pools of potentially wasted money just in case someone wants to trade a veteran player because we have removed the option to offset the salary difference with cash.

So they should get more budget space in order to do that?     Again, unlimited funds vs. limited funds.