i agree with plague agreeing with me.

I think it works best if these "rules" are set at the beginning of a world. MG is a good example. We pretty much had a unwritten rule on 1.5m cash being too much. Regardless the salary of the player being traded. And for the most part those trades didn't happen and if they did, they were vetoed. Though on occasion someone would try to buck the trend. And **** happens and chaos ensues.

It's harder when rules are implemented in season 5 or season 12. But your style of commish is this is the way it is and no one can question it. But that works for you.

Posted by plague on 7/30/2010 8:03:00 PM (view original):
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.

The problem with that is if they go a little, the next time they go a little bit more.

LC, yes, I know how I feel about it and, quite honestly, I doubt I'm changing my mind.   But, if someone can make a convincing argument, you never know. 

The problem I have is, if you allow 10k today, you can expect 20k tomorrow.  And so on.  Then, at some point, it becomes too much.   I've set my "too much" at $1.  So my veto will be consistent.   Anyone who says "Oh, it's just a lttle bit" either has no problem with selling players(which is fine) or will set an amount as "too much" at some point.   If you're going to set an amount, I'd like to know what it is BEFORE you veto my deal.  Consistent approval/veto guidelines is what I'm seeking.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2010 11:01:00 AM (view original):
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.

Some people always need to get the win, even if it's only by a little bit. They need to come away thinking they got the better of the deal.

I have to agree with Mike on this one. If you are cutting it so close that you need to figure out exactly how much a player makes each cycle, you have bigger things to worry about.

Why have rules if you're not going to follow them?

Posted by hartjh14 on 7/31/2010 1:05:00 PM (view original):
Why have rules if you're not going to follow them?

+1
I'm of the camp that money and players are both commodities and should be able to be traded as such (i.e. I don't have a problem with selling players) BUT, if the league has the the rule, the rule should be followed.  I joined Cooperstown this season and I'll follow the rules and veto any trade with more cash than salary.

Posted by schedule1 on 7/30/2010 10:00:00 PM (view original):
i agree with plague agreeing with me.

LoL.

I've sat this one out a little while because I am one of the people involved, but I thought I would add a little context.

1.  There is no rule against cash in trades in this particular world, though I am not necessarily against there being one (I am not for it, but I could live with it).
2.  As the one who offered the trades, I made them roughly cash-neutral and wasn't worried about a small discrepency (but as it turns out others were).  There was about 70K in each deal in my favor, but I had no plans for it.  I was not making a deal to gain cash in any way, as there really was nothing I could do with it.  I am nowhere near close enough to transfer anything to prospect (which = $0 exactly right now).
3.  We re-worked the deals, complete with my putting together a spreadsheet to figure out how each player's salary would decrement from offer to expected acceptance to completion to make the deal as cash-neutral as possible.  That really wasn't too hard to do.


One of the strange things in all this was, that despite a fairly active and sprited debate between Mike, one other owner, and me, the fireworks were from those that didn't want to read the discussion.  Our debate was probably more civil than those who objected to the debate.

I have big problems with the concept of having a rule against cash in trades, but more in concept than in practice.  But I don't intend to go into that here and rehash a couple of 20-odd page debates that have already happened on these forums.

This post is just to add a little context and point out that although the subject matter talks about "Rules are Rules", there really isn't one in the case that caused this subject to be posted in the first place. 

1,  I beg to differ.  A)  trop was told, the season before I joined, that he could not "sell" a prospect.  That would only happen if cash exceeded salary.  B)  A similar trade with more cash than salary was vetoed last season.   C)  I could be mistaken, because I could have confused Hamilton with the half dozen other worlds I looked into before joining, but I'm pretty sure sportsboy said it was a rule.  If he had said "No, we don't care about that", I'm certain I would have stricken Hamilton from the list of potential worlds.   So, I think, one of us is wrong.   Especially since the deal in question was vetoed and the similar deal, the one you put together after the veto, was not. 

2,  It was 400k when the deals were vetoed.  You can check for yourself.  I can also find some use for 400k althought that's irrelevant.

3.  I agree.  It wasn't hard to do.  Could have saved a lot of time had it been done the first time. 

1.  There was a precedent - not a rule.  Like I said before, I'm fine with it if there becomes a rule.
2.  You are correct on #2.  I was correct on the 70K at offer.  And I also correct on the intention, though no one actually knows and all you have there is my word.
3.  It probably should have been done the first time, given what we know now.  No harm no foul.

Again, this was more for context.  We now have 2 precedents, and a rule will likely follow, but for clarity's sake, there is no published rule now.  And for context's sake, there was no real intent to bypass any rule (or even precedent for that matter).  Just a quick offer from my cell phone (where it's pretty tough to do things in detail) with rough numbers.

Perhaps its an unwritten rule. Or maybe it's just understood from previous deals.    As I said, when I was looking for a world, I asked two questions.  1.  Do you allow the sale of players?  2.  Is there a tanking problem and/or a way to handle tanking should it occur?   If I didn't get the answers I sought, I said "Thanks but no thanks."  Since I joined Hamilton, it must be assumed that I got the answers I wanted. 

As for intentions, you're right, only one person knows.  That's why I prefer a rule.  No mind-reading required. 

It's obvious now in practice that we do not allow the sale of players, and now that it's happened, I will likely veto deals like that for consistency.  I've been in HBD for all of about a year and a few months and from what I can tell, this particular world does not have a tanking problem.  I think the most recently replaced owner didn't know what he was doing and never understood things; that's about as close as it's gotten.