Posted by jvford on 10/25/2010 3:40:00 PM (view original):

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. 

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)

So I can say, "I'll give you $5MM in cash, but you have to keep the lug with a $5MM contract in AAA", or "I'll take the $5MM player off your hands."  I can't use that money for anything else because either way it's wrapped up in the $7MM player.  It sounds like there is a lot of overthinking going into this.

And the value you're giving up for being able to have that $7MM player on your team this year (that you would not have otherwise been able to afford) is future performance from a young player that doesn't yet command $7MM.

Posted by deathinahole on 10/25/2010 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 10/25/2010 3:40:00 PM (view original):

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. 

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)

The $7M player you're getting is because you overspent on a $5M worthless, aging player in a previous season. Without that, you are not getting that $7M player.

Congrats, you clearly planned better.

I think you want to disagree with it on principle because you don't like cash in trades, but those two deals are the same (exempt a AAA scrub that no one cares about).

One scenario is trying to talk someone into taking the $5M slug, and you're still at $185M cap. If you don't talk someone into it, then you have to move money from prospect or coaching, or say "F it".

The other has no ramification whatsoever. If you want to give someone a $5M advantage over you for this season, have at it. May as well give someone a 5 yard head start in a 200 yard race too.

You may still beat the guy, but only if he's slower than you. If he's equal, you're F'd.

Are you forgetting about the prospects you're giving up to get that $7MM player?

Posted by jvford on 10/25/2010 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 10/25/2010 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 10/25/2010 3:40:00 PM (view original):

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. 

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)

The $7M player you're getting is because you overspent on a $5M worthless, aging player in a previous season. Without that, you are not getting that $7M player.

Congrats, you clearly planned better.

Everybody; jvford says cash in trades is ok because someone will do something stupid with it.

I'm not just giving you a $7MM player and supplementing your budget $5MM so you can afford him.

Posted by deathinahole on 10/25/2010 3:48:00 PM (view original):
One scenario is trying to talk someone into taking the $5M slug, and you're still at $185M cap. If you don't talk someone into it, then you have to move money from prospect or coaching, or say "F it".

The other has no ramification whatsoever. If you want to give someone a $5M advantage over you for this season, have at it. May as well give someone a 5 yard head start in a 200 yard race too.

You may still beat the guy, but only if he's slower than you. If he's equal, you're F'd.

If the guy is willing to take the $5M slug, he'd be willing to include $5M in the trade.  If he's not willing to take the slug, he's not willing to include the cash.

$190M cap.

$185M cap.

What would you rather have? No "yea but, I'm getting prospects" or "yea but, the guy I'm trading with is dumber than tube socks".

Which one would you rather have?

Posted by mhulshult on 10/25/2010 3:51:00 PM (view original):
I think you want to disagree with it on principle because you don't like cash in trades, but those two deals are the same (exempt a AAA scrub that no one cares about).

 .

Posted by deathinahole on 10/25/2010 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 10/25/2010 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 10/25/2010 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 10/25/2010 3:40:00 PM (view original):

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. 

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)

The $7M player you're getting is because you overspent on a $5M worthless, aging player in a previous season. Without that, you are not getting that $7M player.

Congrats, you clearly planned better.

Everybody; jvford says cash in trades is ok because someone will do something stupid with it.

Huh?  I think you confused yourself.

Posted by deathinahole on 10/25/2010 3:52:00 PM (view original):
$190M cap.

$185M cap.

What would you rather have? No "yea but, I'm getting prospects" or "yea but, the guy I'm trading with is dumber than tube socks".

Which one would you rather have?

You're trading this year for next year.  Yes, you're allowing someone else to have a larger cap to make that happen.

The other team is trading next year for this year.  Yes, he's allowing another team to increase his prospect pool to make that happen.