Removal of cash from trade offers Topic

jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/15/2011 1:22:00 PM (view original):
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.
But Owner B could come in and say to Owner A  "I'll give you my first rounder (maybe not as good as yours) from last season and I don't need any cash".  So Owner A has to decide if he wants to preserve some of his cap space or take the better player.  It gets even more complicated if Owners C, D, E, and F decide to get in on it.

From your perspective, you have the option to make the deal because of cash, but you would need to give up a better prospect to do so.
9/15/2011 1:31 PM
robusk
Posts: 15375 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 490 20 90 77
All Star
I might have missed this part...  but where is the argument that there it makes sense to remove the ability from all worlds rather than letting owners have the ability to choose worlds based on these options?
9/15/2011 1:32 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/14/2011 1:17:00 PM (view original):
I hate to put a damper on your speech but death's initial post was meant to rile people up and I simply followed his lead.    While many of us despise cash in trade, most of us recognize it as a necessary evil.  Personally, I've begun to play within the world's rules rather than put myself at a disadvantage by using my own set limits.

Anyway, cash won't be eliminated. 
This was the point you missed. 

You see, death knows that cash won't be eliminated.   He was just stirring the pot.    I joined in because it seemed like fun.   Both of us know that no one is going to change their mind.   People who think cash is a good thing will continue to think so.   People who think cash is the root of all evil will continue to think so.   People who have an opinion, one way or the other but will play within the world guidelines, will continue to do so. 
9/15/2011 1:46 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
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.
Shouldn't budget management be considered part of the game?  Doesn't working within a fixed budget involve a little more work than working within a variable budget?
9/15/2011 2:29 PM
robusk
Posts: 15375 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 490 20 90 77
All Star
Yes...  and the limited amount of cash makes it an asset just like a player.
9/15/2011 2:33 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Except cash is nothing like a player.
9/15/2011 2:38 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by robusk on 9/15/2011 2:33:00 PM (view original):
Yes...  and the limited amount of cash makes it an asset just like a player.
And that is the root of the "religious war" about cash . . . "cash is an asset" versus "everybody plays within the same $185m".

People align themselves on one side of the argument and refuses to acknowledge the merits of the other.

Which is why it cannot be eliminated from the game, but why it should be up to each individual world to decide how cash in trades should be managed.
9/15/2011 2:39 PM
robusk
Posts: 15375 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 490 20 90 77
All Star
Posted by tecwrg on 9/15/2011 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 9/15/2011 2:33:00 PM (view original):
Yes...  and the limited amount of cash makes it an asset just like a player.
And that is the root of the "religious war" about cash . . . "cash is an asset" versus "everybody plays within the same $185m".

People align themselves on one side of the argument and refuses to acknowledge the merits of the other.

Which is why it cannot be eliminated from the game, but why it should be up to each individual world to decide how cash in trades should be managed.
Yeah...  I agree with that.
9/15/2011 2:55 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by robusk on 9/15/2011 2:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 9/15/2011 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 9/15/2011 2:33:00 PM (view original):
Yes...  and the limited amount of cash makes it an asset just like a player.
And that is the root of the "religious war" about cash . . . "cash is an asset" versus "everybody plays within the same $185m".

People align themselves on one side of the argument and refuses to acknowledge the merits of the other.

Which is why it cannot be eliminated from the game, but why it should be up to each individual world to decide how cash in trades should be managed.
Yeah...  I agree with that.
Even though you're on the wrong side of the argument.
9/15/2011 3:02 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
The thing I find funny is that the "cash is an asset" people will admit that they have a cash limit too.

If one owner keeps sending 5m and players to another owner for prospects, everyone will eventually go "WTF?"    No one is going to sit idly by while one owner sends current studs and 5m in cash to the same owner for his prospects.   Doesn't matter how good the prospects are, everyone has a limit.    One team loading up for one season won't be tolerated because, as you know, that owner can dump the team after the season and leave an expensive, prospectless mess while taking his trophy with him.
9/15/2011 3:46 PM
robusk
Posts: 15375 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 490 20 90 77
All Star
Hard to say really...  I haven't seen it.  I never see anyone sell more than an average prospect for more than a couple mil in the most extreme cases.  I think I would be more aggravated about why a guy is selling a stud prospect for only cash...  but I value the players more than the money.  Again though, I probably couldn't say what my limit was or if there was one unless I saw it.
9/15/2011 4:45 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Then you've probably seen a collusive move.   Average prospect for 2 mil?   Sounds like someone needed some cash in order to transfer to prospect so they could sign a high draft pick .   So, essentially, they traded an average prospect for a good prospect.   Not bad on their part. 
9/16/2011 8:39 AM
robusk
Posts: 15375 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 490 20 90 77
All Star
And the other team got a prospect for something they probably weren't going to use...  good on both parts...  which I wouldn't call collusive, especially because every time I can recall seeing it the owner advertised what they wanted on the world chat.
9/16/2011 9:10 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

So, if a deal is good for both teams, it can't be collusive?

 

9/16/2011 9:25 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Maybe I can start sharing my 0/20 draft scouting budget with somebody else who has a 20/0 draft scouting budget, because that would be good for both of us.
9/16/2011 9:36 AM
◂ Prev 1...6|7|8|9|10 Next ▸
Removal of cash from trade offers Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.