I said it was up to the league to police my trades. My job is too do whats best for my team. What does that have to do with my question or comments? You think in real life a GM says "I can't do this trade, its too much in my advantage and this other GM is a rookie." If you want to use that as a excuse to avoid answering a legit comment then that is your choice. I see it as avoiding the question by changing the subject.

The other comment is if you are worried about someone getting more cash on the season than 180 million why do you allow people to cover the cash of someones salary in a trade? That is allowing someone to go over the 180 million mark. All the reasonings seem hypocritcal to me.

Posted by andersaa on 8/2/2010 2:22:00 PM (view original):
I disagree with selling players, becuase it is not a free market. You assign money to sign IFA's, Draft picks and Free agents and everyone has a bid they cna make on these players. There is a system in place. Selling your players to other teams should not be allowed becuase everyone does not get a chance to "Buy" your players. Owners have not set aside money to buy players from other teams, so the one or two teams that have money to buy your players get an advantage becuase they misbdugeted somewhere. WIS allows you to do alot of dumb things that does not mean it is right.  

How is it misbudgeting? What if those teams budgeted to buy players? Why is it that you did not misbudgeted by using all your cash in other areas and you did not allow yourself the leeway in your budget to buy players that other teams are selling? .....It's ok if you don't like something, but don't try and add a BS reason to your answer.

Posted by steelerstime on 8/3/2010 6:01:00 AM (view original):
I look at it as a cop out by an owner who is not as capable of managing their teams finances vs other owners. Each team is given the same amount of play money to use. Most owners are able to properly manage the money. Those that NEED extra money obviously feel the need to resort to sell players for money. They didn't properly manage their payroll and need extra $, or need extra cash to bid on an int'l vs another owner who properly managed his $185.

I actually look at it as being incompetent. People begging to be bailed out by selling players/prospects for cash. Reminds me of the scene from the beginning of the Godfather, with the singer crying to Don Vito Corleone. Any volunteers to play the Don Vito character and give the crybabies a slap?

Why does it have to be incompetence? Looking at your history in Spahn seven times you had cash added to player or players you acquired in a trade. Does that mean you were incompetent 7 times ? Did you not properly manage your payroll and that is why you needed the extra cash?

This again comes down to it's fine if you don't like a rule, but don't try and justify it with BS or negative labels or be hypocritical when your guilty of the exact same BS reason you give.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/3/2010 8:21:00 PM (view original):
I don't like covering salary in trade either but that's a battle I've lost everywhere but MG.

I can respect someones reasoning if its all across the board. I just have a problem when people argue that the reasoning selling a player is bad for X reason, but then they allow other aspects of the game that also involve X reason.

For example the person who said that people who need more cash in a trade are incompetent and looking at his history he has 7 times in 1 world had more cash added to his trades.

People who like certain rules generally seek worlds with those rules. I see no problem with that. I avoid leagues with rules because in my opinion its like regulations where they have other negative effects.

Example I played in Moneyball, which is a excellent league with excellent players and I don't mean to downplay that league as a whole just the one rule, but the  win rule generally helps the status quo. It makes it hard for teams to rebuild because they are consistently trading their prospects for aging veterans so they don't get fired. It becomes a cycle where the good teams that don't risk firing trade their aging veterans to the bottom dwellars who had high draft picks.

I have to head off to work. Good luck.

The big "IF" here that everyone is missing is that you can't control the long term commitment of any owner.  I agree 100% that you should be able to send straight up cash for any player at any time - but that is only in a league where all 32 owners are experienced and held to staying in the league for an indefinite amount of time.  And that last stipulation is almost impossible to hold.  The point is, with the way HBD is set up at this moment, we have no way of controlling the commitment of owners and therefore there is a need for some sort of regulation.

Posted by bigal888 on 8/4/2010 12:22:00 PM (view original):
The big "IF" here that everyone is missing is that you can't control the long term commitment of any owner.  I agree 100% that you should be able to send straight up cash for any player at any time - but that is only in a league where all 32 owners are experienced and held to staying in the league for an indefinite amount of time.  And that last stipulation is almost impossible to hold.  The point is, with the way HBD is set up at this moment, we have no way of controlling the commitment of owners and therefore there is a need for some sort of regulation.

This is spot on.  "I agree 100% that you should be able to send straight up cash for any player at any time - but that is only in a league where all 32 owners are experienced and held to staying in the league for an indefinite amount of time."  I was with you 100% until the very last sentence.  Where worlds set that up, fine.  I've softened my own stance because of this, but in theory, if all of the owners are committed and experienced, you wouldn't have to simplify the game regarding cash.  It would be an asset like any other asset, subject to a shelf life and the value each owner places on it.  It would have a supply and a demand, and therefore a price.

Didnt read everything. Its pretty silly for you guys to compare moves that the real ML teams have done to moves you want to make in a pretend online game.  If the owner of the Twins makes a retarded trade, he has to live with and cant just close shop and find a new team to screw up.  If a RL owner makes an idiotic move and then tries to sell his team he will likley get less $$ on the sale due to a mistake that he has made.  

That being said, right at the point you start comparing real life teams to fantasy teams, is the point where I realize that you're not going to make very intelligent argument.