I'm OCD lately with otherwise smart people seemingly failing in their consistency to apply a veto consistently. Philo's begging and pleading for understanding brought it to the forefront of my brain again.

Spot the difference.

Player A $7M salary
for
Player B $57K salary
Player C $327K salary
Player D $5M salary

A for B and C is a legit baseball trade, D is 37, in AAA, but in there to get the trade to pass through the cap.

Player A $7M salary
$5M cash
for
Player B $57K salary
Player C $327K salary


A for B and C is a legit baseball trade, the $5M cash barely gets the trade under the cap. The trade can't pass without it.

Do you pass both, neither, or one not the other? Explain.

No judgements, just conversation. I will post mine after some discussion.

Should we assume that players A, B and C are legit current/future BL players?

Yes. Legit baseball trade. Listen to what I mean, not what I say.

Well, I think you know how this plays out.   People who don't like cash approve the first one and not the second.    People who say "Cash is an asset just like players!!" approve both. 

Probably. I'm looking for a measuring stick as to who goes what way and why. + I think some would not approve either. And I know where you stand.

Are there any rules in the league your in?  I would approve both, however if there was a no-cash in trade rule then you have to obey and veto #2.  If its a legit trade and the cash is only used to even everything out (IE it isnt a cash for a player deal) then I am fine with it.

Assume that you're using your own conscience.

I'm not sure how you could argue that one is okay and the other is not.  If you agree with one, you agree with them both.  If you disagree with one, you disagree with them both.  The 37 y/o AAA player can probably be had from the free agent pool for AAA min.  

For the record, I don't like cash in trades unless it's necessary to stay under the cap.  Cash in this one was necessary.  Whether you put it in an envelope and send it over or attach it to the back of a AAA player doesn't matter.  Some subjectivity comes in if this is the 3rd deal like this the owner has made, giving him an extra $15MM in cash this season.  That doesn't feel right, and would thus garner a veto.  Stupid?  Maybe.  But that's the way I see it.

I think you said that wrong. The way I am reading it is in the 1st trade the $5 million was necessary for cap reasons. In the second trade, you weren't sending a contract to balance the salaries, the owner was giving $5 million so not only is the 1st owner getting rid of a $7 million contract, but he's also getting $5 million in return so he's actually getting $12 million in cap space. Assuming you stated the trades correctly, I can understand why the 2nd trade got vetoed as they are not at all the same trade.

Posted by sportsboy010 on 10/25/2010 1:47:00 PM (view original):
I think you said that wrong. The way I am reading it is in the 1st trade the $5 million was necessary for cap reasons. In the second trade, you weren't sending a contract to balance the salaries, the owner was giving $5 million so not only is the 1st owner getting rid of a $7 million contract, but he's also getting $5 million in return so he's actually getting $12 million in cap space. Assuming you stated the trades correctly, I can understand why the 2nd trade got vetoed as they are not at all the same trade.

Good catch. I've corrected the scenario so that the team that is cap starved is the one getting the cash or moving the salary.

To recap;

The baseball deal is good.
Two methods to get it so the trade will fit under the cap, one involving a player salary, one involving cash.
Are you ok with one, both, or neither?

With the change, I would say that that are just about identical. The cash serves the exact same purpose. Maybe the owner doesn't need/want some scrub that he can just pick up off the wire. The cash goes to the exact same spot with the exact same intent.

the difference as I see it (and just my opinion) is that in deal #1 (no cash) all the money is "spent" and can't be converted to something else.

Sure, the $5M player may not be "worth" $5M in talent, but cash (in the past) has been traded for a contract, and somebody will be spending budget for the contract.

In the cash deal, the team getting the $7M player doesn't have the budget to acquire a $7M contract, so he needs cash from somebody else's budget.  And the person giving the cash has $5M sitting around that may or may not get used by season end.  In the hands of the person giving it up, it hasn't yet become the type of asset that can generate HBD wins, but packaging it with a $7M contract lets someone who couldn't otherwise "afford" the $7M contract aquire it.

maybe I didn't explain that very well and maybe the "explanation" doesn't create a distinction of any import to a lot of people, but that is why I personally think the first deal is OK but not the 2nd.

Et voila. Green hits it on the head.

Example;

We all start with a $185M cap.
Lets assume that the team receiving the cash or player has $100M in salary, $85M tied up in others (prospect, college scouting, etc etc).

Before the trade, that team has $98M in salary committed.

Scenario 1 - $98M + $7M - $5.384M = $99.614M in salary committed. Cap remains at $185M.

Scenario 2 - $98M + $7M - $.384M = $104.614M in salary committed. Cap is now $190M, because that $5M isn't really "cash"...it's cap space.

The reason for the exercise is that I see a LOT of owners (and that's was the consensus before green stepped in) that see cash, and think it's really cash. What you are really doing is giving someone a larger cap than the rest of the league.

That may not change someone's mind, but I get uptight because I don't think many know what they are approving.

I will tack-on and note that an owner can do plenty to play around with budget across years... a signing bonus front-loads the obligation and makes the player more "tradeable" and/or cheaper to you in a  later season ... a back-loaded mutual option makes a player affordable to you now, but an albatross to you (or someone) in a later year ... but all of those items become known when the money is trade for a contract

You plan for in advance or take advantage of them at the appropriate time (e.g. you miss a stud FA, so you sign a lesser guy to a front loaded contract so you don't get stuck with unspent payroll money) ... spending your own budgeted payroll then needing someone else's to make a trade "work" is just plain lazy in addition to being a intra-season budget transfer