"Eating a contract" Topic

burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Hypothetical - A trade gets vetoed. The reason is one owner wasn't getting enough back in value for Player X. That owner then says, "OK, Player X is still available, someone offer me a better trade for him." He gets none. Should the original trade then be allowed to go through?
10/28/2010 7:58 AM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 10/28/2010 7:58:00 AM (view original):
Hypothetical - A trade gets vetoed. The reason is one owner wasn't getting enough back in value for Player X. That owner then says, "OK, Player X is still available, someone offer me a better trade for him." He gets none. Should the original trade then be allowed to go through?

Tangents aside, this was really the point I was trying to make.  I asked Mike the same question in a less succint way, but he didn't answer. 

I would guess that the people arguing this "you should get better value" thing would answer "no."  That makes no sense to me.

10/28/2010 8:09 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
As I said, your wording must have been horrible or your question was too long-winded.

First, I'll answer your question.   No.  The trade that was vetoed didn't magically get any better.  Vetoed once, vetoed forever.
Second, if your deal included future/current BL talent of both sides, regardless of the disparity, and neither owner was "new' or just plain horrible at HBD, I wouldn't have vetoed it in the first place.  But, if 10 others did and you tried to push it thru again, I'd veto the 2nd time.

You guys seem to think "This is the best I can get" makes a deal OK.   If it's bad for the world, it's bad for the world.   What you can/can't get in trade doesn't change that.
10/28/2010 8:40 AM
timf
Posts: 185 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 103
Prospect
The people arguing 'you should get better value' are probably the guys running a very low or even 0 AS budget. I see it quite often where an even trade is brought up for discussion by one of these guys and it is just stupid and a waste of time. If you want to argue the 'fairness' of a deal up your budget so you can see what the other guys see and why they think it's a fair deal. Otherwise, if you want to run 0 AS shut up and live with the trade because you have no clue where anyone is going to end up.
10/28/2010 8:45 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I bet I have a better clue of where someone who'll end up than the guy trusting 20m of ADV.   That's pretty much a gimme amongst experienced owners.   You should really win more games before coming with the know-it-all attitude.   You kinda suck at this game.
10/28/2010 8:51 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Owners who 0 out ADV do it because they have an idea of where a prospect will end up, and feel they don't need the help from putting $ into ADV.

Common sense seems to tell me that a player should be allowed to be traded for the best deal possible.  But I understand the concept of "what's good for the world." I'm not sure what to think. 
10/28/2010 9:00 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
The thing is that no one likes their deal to get vetoed.   I've had it happen and I haven't liked it.   But, if 10 owners can agree on something, anything really, you have to at least give some credibility to their collective opinion.  Unless it's some vendetta veto(and I've had that happen), the trade probably was one that significantly shifted the balance of the world.   And when a world becomes unbalanced, you've got a problem.

I'll use Hamilton as an example.  I'm in my 4th season there.  I joined in S6.  It's a pretty good world.   No teams are winning/losing 120.   But there are some teams that are always bad or always good.   I don't know what happened in the first 5 seasons but something did.  Now, in what is an otherwise good world, we have 6-8 openings every season.   Where do those 6-8 openings come from?  The bottom teams.   I think we had 6 openings last season.  5 of them came from the bottom 12.    It took about a month to fill and, due to impatience, some newer owners were given the teams.   Can a new owner turn around a bad team?  Sure.  Can he do it if he's making bad trades?  Nope.   What if the trade are the best he can get but they're still bad?  Nope.   So, if you say "Let them learn from their mistakes!!", they probably will.   But they'll take their knowledge to another world and leave behind a worse team than the bad one they took in the beginning.    Then the world will sit for a month or more waiting for someone to take that turd of a team.   
10/28/2010 9:32 AM
timf
Posts: 185 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 103
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/28/2010 8:40:00 AM (view original):
As I said, your wording must have been horrible or your question was too long-winded.

First, I'll answer your question.   No.  The trade that was vetoed didn't magically get any better.  Vetoed once, vetoed forever.
Second, if your deal included future/current BL talent of both sides, regardless of the disparity, and neither owner was "new' or just plain horrible at HBD, I wouldn't have vetoed it in the first place.  But, if 10 others did and you tried to push it thru again, I'd veto the 2nd time.

You guys seem to think "This is the best I can get" makes a deal OK.   If it's bad for the world, it's bad for the world.   What you can/can't get in trade doesn't change that.

So Mike what would do when you veto a guys deals that were all he could get, then he decides 'to hell with it, I'm waiving the guy'? Clearly this is worse for the world but you have no way of stopping it. You created the situation by vetoing his attempts to at least get something for the guy and now he has resorted to giving him away because he is out of options and wants the contract off his books for the future.

10/28/2010 9:36 AM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Posted by isack24 on 10/27/2010 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/27/2010 5:21:00 PM (view original):
And I'm a cowboy.  And an astronaut.  You can be anything you want to be on the internet.

But, in HBD, two owners don't determine FMV.     That just isn't true.

Astronaut cowboys are hard to come by.  That's impressive.

If you're ever in Minnesota, let me know, and I'll buy you a beer and show you my license.

Someone poisoned the waterhole!
10/28/2010 9:43 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by timf on 10/28/2010 9:36:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/28/2010 8:40:00 AM (view original):
As I said, your wording must have been horrible or your question was too long-winded.

First, I'll answer your question.   No.  The trade that was vetoed didn't magically get any better.  Vetoed once, vetoed forever.
Second, if your deal included future/current BL talent of both sides, regardless of the disparity, and neither owner was "new' or just plain horrible at HBD, I wouldn't have vetoed it in the first place.  But, if 10 others did and you tried to push it thru again, I'd veto the 2nd time.

You guys seem to think "This is the best I can get" makes a deal OK.   If it's bad for the world, it's bad for the world.   What you can/can't get in trade doesn't change that.

So Mike what would do when you veto a guys deals that were all he could get, then he decides 'to hell with it, I'm waiving the guy'? Clearly this is worse for the world but you have no way of stopping it. You created the situation by vetoing his attempts to at least get something for the guy and now he has resorted to giving him away because he is out of options and wants the contract off his books for the future.

Waiving a player is probably a dumb way to be rid of him but it's better than trading a stud to a contender for nothing.   The worst teams get first option on waived players.   A stud going to a bad team will only make them better, it won't make them an instant contender.

But let me ask you a question.  Why would you be so desperate to get rid of a good player for nothing?  What's your motivation?  If he has a contract for future seasons, you do realize that you can trade him next season, right?   Why get nothing for a good player?   Can't you figure out a better way?
10/28/2010 10:10 AM
timf
Posts: 185 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 103
Prospect
Why does it matter if the guy is traded to a .500 team or a contender? The assumption that can be made from this statement is that if a rival makes a deal you are more likely to veto it than if the same deal was made by two bad teams.
I'm not really sure why you are asking me the motivation behind a hypethetical scenario. The future contract is exactly what the owner wants to get rid of so why would he wait until next season to try and trade him again when he has already been vetoed multiple times? Plus it would be too late to adjust the budgets even if he could make a deal next season. Sometimes just getting rid of a contract is motivation enough and improves the team. It allows you to spread the money around instead of having it tied up in one guy.
10/28/2010 10:49 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
OK, I'll answer for you.

It's because newer owners feel that have to make their move RIGHT NOW.   They can't wait.   What they fail to realize, or at least accept, is that HBD is an ever-changing game.   The guy you want to move may not be worth much to me right now but he might be gold if I have an injury.  Or, maybe, I don't have the cap space for him right now but, since his salary decreases as the season plays on, I might be able to fit him in next week.   However, because you have to move him RIGHT NOW, you can't wait that week.  So, when you could have gotten a good prospect in a week, you waive him and get nothing.   Excellent move on your part.
10/28/2010 10:52 AM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
"Why get nothing for a good player?  Can't you figure out a better way?"

That's the whole point.  If no one is willing to offer anything for the guy, then you can't get anything for him, right?
10/28/2010 10:52 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Why does it matter?  Because most of us are playing for a WS win or, at least, a chance to get to the WS.   Trading a stud for nothing to a contender changes the odds of everyone who is playing to win.  That's why.   Surely you see the difference between trading a stud for nothing to a team fighting for the WC2 and trading him for nothing to a 41-67 team.
10/28/2010 10:55 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by isack24 on 10/28/2010 10:52:00 AM (view original):
"Why get nothing for a good player?  Can't you figure out a better way?"

That's the whole point.  If no one is willing to offer anything for the guy, then you can't get anything for him, right?
You can if you wait.  Or maybe you can't.   Either way, you should have thought of that when you acquired him.   I'm not here to fix your mistakes.
10/28/2010 10:56 AM
◂ Prev 1...6|7|8|9|10...13 Next ▸
"Eating a contract" 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.