It depends on whether you care more about the rule itself or the objective you're trying to achieve with the rule.  A rule is created in an attempt to fulfill a particular objective.  The problem is that rules are imperfect.  The objective of the rule that stipulates no more cash can be included in a trade than the total of the player contracts is to prevent the sale of players.  This deal doesn't sound like it was a sale of a player.

The other side of it is that you do indeed head down a slippery slope when you start making exceptions.  So the trade off for being a stickler is that you are sure to achieve the desired results.  If you bend, you may still achieve the desired results, but the waters become a little more muddy.  I'm just saying I understand both sides.

I prefer not to muddy the waters.    We went thru this with win rules.    Some suggested a vote, or commish decision, to reverse a removal of a good owner.   That involves personalities and owner discretion.   I don't think that's the way to go with internet games.   50 is 50, 1 is 1.   Then there's no way anyone can say "Well, Billy got to stay because Mike likes him while Jimmy had to go because he and Mike argue all the time."

I just said that. Copycat!

I seldom read your posts, convict.

I am also a stickler for rules. I bet if you veto the trade they won't have the money wrong again. They will say "We better get the money right or they will veto it, again."

Your OCD, you cant even promote a guy from AAA to the bigs with $100K.  The intent of the rule was followed. 

You can read minds now?

You allow one rule to be broken, precident set.

I think you enforce the rules.  Everyone will use the "it is close enough that it should be OK" defense only when it benefits them.

Anybody that runs afoul of the rule at issue in this thread was clearly trying to get as close to the "line" as they could without crossing it ... then the cross it and it becomes "come on, I only went over the line b a little, not big deal" ... yet, it was a big enough deal that they didn't back off the line by "just a little bit" so there would be no chance a line got crossed.

yeah, of course it looks silly and petty to get chastised for breaking the rule "by a little bit" ... but it is just as silly and petty to try to run so close to the line to create the opportunity for the issue

Heh.  That reminds me of some of my customers.  I'll quote $500 and they'll say "Can you do it for $495?  It's only $5."    Well, it's only $5 the other way too.

Posted by new on 7/30/2010 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Your OCD, you cant even promote a guy from AAA to the bigs with $100K.  The intent of the rule was followed. 

Sure you can.  It just depends what time of the season.   And, although I haven't been specific, the teams in question had "some" cap room.  They didn't need it to be exact.    Of course, that sort of goes along with what 'motown just posted.  That "little bit" mattered to them.    So 100k isn't always a "little bit".

I left a WS winner behind over about 20k in a trade of two nothing minor leaguers.  It was an obvious "help a brother out" deal.    That 20k allowed an owner to sign a first round and supplement round pick.  To me, that "little bit" is rather substantial.

Seems to me the people who are trading are playing hardhead instead of hardball. What is the problem? Just resubmit the trade with money changing hands a little lower than what his salary would be. If the difference is only a little bit, what difference does it make? That way you are happy and the rule stays in place without being broken.

Posted by moosep on 7/30/2010 11:04:00 AM (view original):
Seems to me the people who are trading are playing hardhead instead of hardball. What is the problem? Just resubmit the trade with money changing hands a little lower than what his salary would be. If the difference is only a little bit, what difference does it make? That way you are happy and the rule stays in place without being broken.

One world did just that after the veto(and full day of discussion).  Wasn't necessary in the other world because there weren't 10 owners who cared about a "little bit".

If the cash complied with the rule at the time the trade was accepted (i.e. only covering remaining $ or less) and the approval period proration puts it in "violation", then the trade should be allowed. 

Intersting take.   The responsibility of determining whether a trade was "legal" at the time of acceptance lies with the owner who has to decide to approve/veto.  So a guy can go to work, put in his day, have dinner with the family, check his HBD world and then gets to calculate the salaries of players involved in a deal to determine if the deal was within the framework of the rules 20 hours ago.   Very interesting indeed.

Or, on the other hand, the two owners who want to make a deal can determine if the salaries will be legal 23 hours after acceptance and make it easy on the guy determining the fate of their deal.

If the cash is close I don't see the big deal. There should be some acceptable leeway to account for people who are not on the computer 24/7. I can also see the flipside if you don't have the time to play within a league rules then get out of the world, which is what I would probably do myself. Simple solution is probably what someone already proposed, add the words to the rule that the salary must match the cash at the time the trade is accepted, not proposed.