Cash is transient and replenishes itself every season.  Players are not.  You can't equate them on the same level by selling a player for cash in a dynasty game.

You asked "Why can't....?"    Did you think I'd be offering positives if I chose to answer your question?   Selling prospects is a fine way to commit collusion, ruin a team and damage a world. 

I am hoping for an answer that will shut me up.  So far there has not been an answer that doesnt apply to many other parts of the game.  If the standard is, what can a user do that can be used to commit collusion, ruin a team or damage a world we shouldnt be allowed to do anything.

If it can't damage a world, what sort of answer are you seeking?   I'm pretty much against it because it's a simple tool for committing collusion, ruining a team and/or damaging a world.

In a perfect enviroment, I know all 31 other owners personally.  They're all honorable men(or women) who would never do anything that could be questioned.  All of them would only be interested in improving their team and protecting the integrity of the world.   They would never even consider an action that would damage a world.  They would reject the thought the moment it entered their head and feel ashamed for thinking it.

Sadly, I don't ride a beautiful unicorn on streets paved with gold on my way to the Free Candy Store.  This is the internet.

The WIS cap @ 5 mil makes it so that, as you say, too much damage cannot be done.

The arguement about you not being able to judge the strength of the trade is pretty bad. From what I've read, your usually on point but that a pretty dumb statement. Each trade is individual to itself, you can't consider a future move. If the Marlins move Cameron Maybin for Johan Santana does that mean they traded Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis for Johan? NO! and it also doesn't make the Maybin/Miller for D-train/Miggy trade any better. It is just a move correcting a bad one previously.

If the Angels trade Scott Kazmir for a bad starter who only lasts for 1/2 of a year does that mean the Mets got fair value with Victor Zambrano? NO.

The value of cash is in itself and a 5 mil cap makes sure you can't do too much damage with it. I mean you can only transfer another 2 mil to your prospect budget with 5 mil cash.

As stated above, every major sport allows the moving of cash in trades. WIS shared your worry and made the cap @ 5mil, an amount that can't really have the lasting impact you speak of.

Also, wouldn't we all reject a trade Cash for a top prospect anyways without any rule?

If the trade isn't collusion or ridiculously lopsided I think its pretty dumb to reject it based on cash.

But, if your world's rules say otherwise (the original topic here) you should always follow them.

Why ask a question if you're planning to argue against every answer you're given?  Are you trying to start a RSF?

Also, allowing the use of a large amount of cash in deals helps teams. If you take over a team that has low budgets in the scout8ing medical and training areas you can only increase them by so much. If you max them all out and have 18 million left over and don't see anyone in FA you want, you should be able to use that cash in trades instead of losing 1/2 of it transfering it to prospects

Do I need to post several 5m players to show you how varied their talents can be?  And, if I do, will you agree that I have no idea how you'll utilize your new 5m?   If I show you a team with 5m in unused cash will you agree that they got nothing of value with that 5m in cash?

Please don't use MLB trades in any example involving cash in HBD.    MLB does not tell every team "Here.  Take this 185m and do your best!"  

#1: MikeT will never admit heis wrong even if proven so. Therefore, there is no point in responding to him.
#2: Even without selling players if you set out to trash a team for a one season run, you can do it. Just sign all those 35 year old veteran free agents for 5 year deals.
#3: WIS gave us a veto for a reason - if you AND nine other owners disagree with a trade, for whatever reason you choose, just veto it. If the people invlved don't like that you vetoed their deal, they are free to leave the world at the end of the season.

Posted by toddcommish on 8/2/2010 2:54:00 PM (view original):
Why ask a question if you're planning to argue against every answer you're given?  Are you trying to start a RSF?

I don't mind the argument against any point I might make.   I just think we've reached a stalemate when he says "Yeah but let's pretend it can't damage a world or strip a team of it's future.  And let's say owners can't leave after a season.   Are there any other reasons I can't I sell my prospects?"

1.  Needs to be proven.
2.  No need to provide more ways to do it. 
3.  I actually agree with that.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/2/2010 2:35:00 PM (view original):
Cash is transient and replenishes itself every season.  Players are not.  You can't equate them on the same level by selling a player for cash in a dynasty game.

Of course you can.  Players are transient and replenish themselves every season too.  Players have shelf lives.  Cash has a shelf life.  It's different for different players.  Limiting cash beyond WiS rules simply limits cash's shelf life further.  Sooner or later a player loses its value.  Sooner or later, cash does too.  For those worlds with extra cash limits, devalues cash sooner.

After arguing this point a number of times, I'll leave it to the worlds I'm in to police what they (we) choose or make rules how they (we) choose.

My own stance on this has compromised a bit, but only because there are too many that don't understand economics well enough to avoid damage to worlds.  This game is advanced.  Limiting cash in trades to something less than WiS does makes it less advanced.  But given what can happen when people don't understand the full economics of their decisions, I understand the other side of this.  I do not necessarily agree with a lot of the premises, such as the one above, but I can see how things can damage a world.  Having participated in a couple of 20+ page debates on this before, I'll probably not go into it now; it is a polarizing topic.  And it's one that most people will not change their minds on.

It's less about "not understanding economics" and more about "understanding the game and those who play it".    You can't, or shouldn't, compare real life economic knowledge to an internet game. 

Unless, of course, you're talking about the real $24.95 that people pay to play the game and how insignificant that amount is over a 3 month period and how that affects the decisions said people make.

don't have the patience to read through all this but to respond to the 1st post - I believe in MLB all transactions involving cash must be approved by the commissioners office and in general the "sale of players" is not sanctioned (see Charlie O vs B Kuhn(I believe)).  Therefore in MLB cash trades are subject to review - much like the HBD trading process - except the decision lies in the hands of 32 owners of which 10 are needed to veto rather than 1 commissioner.