Spot the difference Topic

csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
I would approve both because I think the anti-cash in trades vendetta people have is stupid. Cash is an asset that be be used to improve your team just like your prospects. If you dont have prospects but someone wants cash instead, make the deal. The only reason the person moving the cash has the extra money is because they didnt use it to buy another player - so instead you give it away and let the person on the oter end of the deal use it to buy a player or an international prospect. It is kind of like a gift certificate - you let the other person choose exactly the player they want from another source rather than taking the player that you have.
10/25/2010 2:48 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
And as I said, if you understand that you're giving (or, more likely in your case, taking, since you seem to like reeling in the fish) cap above and beyond everyone else, and are ok with it, then it's your perogative.

I've just noticed that a lot of people don't get the subtle difference to make the informed decision. Not stupid people either.
10/25/2010 2:53 PM
bigal888
Posts: 390 (0)
Hall of Famer
116 4 3 1 15 77
Prospect
I think what's missing from these discussions is the analysis of future value and whatnot.  A player's value is not solely their salary, but a combo of their salary, ratings and future production.  Otherwise, a LoA 45 now/ 54 future rated catcher is worth the same as my LoA 45 now/ 98 future catcher.

Almost always, cash is traded with a veteran player for one or two decent to great prospects (at least that is the only way I see it being justified).  The number one pick in last years draft is not worth the $54k he's getting paid to play at HighA.  His value is the $4+ million paid to sign him - that value doesn't just disappear the next season.

Not allowing a prospect to be traded for cash highly undervaules his current worth.

Alright, feel free to pick apart this argument, I probably butchered it.
10/25/2010 3:04 PM
bigal888
Posts: 390 (0)
Hall of Famer
116 4 3 1 15 77
Prospect
Posted by 98greenc5 on 10/25/2010 2:30:00 PM (view original):
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
I took to long to post my original idea - but I think this is heading in the same direction I was getting at.
10/25/2010 3:06 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Posted by bigal888 on 10/25/2010 3:05:00 PM (view original):
I think what's missing from these discussions is the analysis of future value and whatnot.  A player's value is not solely their salary, but a combo of their salary, ratings and future production.  Otherwise, a LoA 45 now/ 54 future rated catcher is worth the same as my LoA 45 now/ 98 future catcher.

Almost always, cash is traded with a veteran player for one or two decent to great prospects (at least that is the only way I see it being justified).  The number one pick in last years draft is not worth the $54k he's getting paid to play at HighA.  His value is the $4+ million paid to sign him - that value doesn't just disappear the next season.

Not allowing a prospect to be traded for cash highly undervaules his current worth.

Alright, feel free to pick apart this argument, I probably butchered it.
No no, I think I get it.

Here are the two schools of view, assuming that we understand that the money does not = the talent (thus, in my scenario, stating that it is a legitimate baseball trade)

Ok with cash; cash is an asset. It can be dealt or kept.

Not ok with cash; it takes away from the need to budget. Just jam your payroll up to the max and find some fish to give you more.

I'm in the latter camp. In my opinion, budgeting is part of the game. If you rubber stamp trades with cash, you are effectively taking away that part of the strategy and the need to be good at it.

Others are ok with it. But I have left/am leaving leagues that are not in line with my thinking, which is really all you can do about it if there's not 10 in the league that are onside with you.
10/25/2010 3:16 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/25/2010 12:52:00 PM (view original):
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. 
I have no problem with cash in a trade, just so long as it doesn't exceed the salaries being traded by that side.

A $7 million player, with $5 million in cash, is OK with me. A $3 million player plus $5 million in cash gets my veto.
10/25/2010 3:21 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
It isn't on point with the discussion here, but I don't even like the idea of that last point of "if there's not 10 in the league that are onside with you"

I don't think it is approriate to have a vocal minority of 10 deciding for the other 22.  I think a world (through a commish) needs to decide where it is going to differ from the "official" HBD rules.  10 owners shouldn't collude (and that is what it is) to veto a trade that doesn't fit with their view.  The "world" needs to decide how things are going to work, and the veto power will just override two owners that choose to challenge it, not the other way around where a veto block chosses to override the views of the world.

10/25/2010 3:23 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Posted by 98greenc5 on 10/25/2010 3:23:00 PM (view original):
It isn't on point with the discussion here, but I don't even like the idea of that last point of "if there's not 10 in the league that are onside with you"

I don't think it is approriate to have a vocal minority of 10 deciding for the other 22.  I think a world (through a commish) needs to decide where it is going to differ from the "official" HBD rules.  10 owners shouldn't collude (and that is what it is) to veto a trade that doesn't fit with their view.  The "world" needs to decide how things are going to work, and the veto power will just override two owners that choose to challenge it, not the other way around where a veto block chosses to override the views of the world.

Well said.

I guess there's a naive side of me that says 'who would be dumb enough to rubber stamp a trade that gives someone a $190M cap? If someone got a $190M cap on rollover, they'd be screaming at Customer Support to correct it before the season starts".

But, as we see with the feedback that's still trickling in after the scenario is laid out, people don't it the same way. We can think it's dumb, or lazy (to use your words), but it doesn't matter if the masses do not see it that way. Thus, it's my problem that I'm in a league that allows it. Thus, it's up to me whether to accept it, try to change it, or leave it.
10/25/2010 3:32 PM
mhulshult
Posts: 982 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 3 63
Prospect
You can't spend that $5MM that's moving in the trade.  It's already spent on the $7MM player you're getting.
10/25/2010 3:34 PM (edited)
mhulshult
Posts: 982 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 3 63
Prospect
And it's not $190MM cap with no strings vs $185MM cap with no strings.  It's $185MM cap with no strings vs $190MM cap where $5MM has to be spent on a 37 scrub AAA player.  These two are not the same.
10/25/2010 3:33 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Posted by mhulshult on 10/25/2010 3:34:00 PM (view original):
You can't spend that $5MM that's moving in the trade.  It's already spent on the $7MM player you're getting.
Wrong.

The $7M player you're getting is because of the $5M. Without that, you are not getting that $7M player.

Now, if you had budgeted properly on rollover, you could get that $7M player. But you didn't. So, I'm going to veto and teach you a lesson about fiscal management, or I'm going to make you move budget from Prospect or Coaching, or I'm going to make you give up another asset to make it work (see the $5M player in the other example)
10/25/2010 3:35 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Posted by mhulshult on 10/25/2010 3:35:00 PM (view original):
And it's not $190MM cap with no strings vs $185MM cap with no strings.  It's $185MM cap with no strings vs $190MM cap where $5MM has to be spent on a 37 scrub AAA player.  These two are not the same.
Reverse that. $185M with the $5M player, or $190 with no strings.
10/25/2010 3:37 PM
mhulshult
Posts: 982 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 3 63
Prospect
Sorry, that was in response to green's "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."  The $5MM you're getting can't be converted into something else.
10/25/2010 3:37 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
But it has. It's been converted into a $7M player that you could not get otherwise without said juggling above.
10/25/2010 3:39 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Posted by deathinahole on 10/25/2010 2:20:00 PM (view original):
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.

But how is that relevant?

Scenario 1 - $98M + $7M - $5.38M = $99.614M in salary committed.  Cap remains at $185M  and cap room is $.386M

Scenario 2 - $98M + $7M - $.384M = $104.614M in salary committed.  Cap is now $190M and cap room is $.386M

In both scenarios, owner #1 is reducing his available budget by $5M, while owner #2 is increasing his by $5M. 

10/25/2010 3:40 PM
◂ Prev 123456 Next ▸
Spot the difference Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.