Trading prospects for cash Topic

tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Hoser, a question for you: which world do you think is better?

World A, which has 4 teams in the 115-120 win range, 4 teams in the 40-50 win range, and everybody else in the middle.

or

World B, which has a couple of teams in the 95-105 range, a couple of teams in the 55-60 win range, and everybody else in the middle.

The reason why I ask is because worlds that tend to allow excessive cash in trades, or straight-out buying/selling of prospects, tend to eventually lead to one of the choices above.  Can you guess which one?
3/31/2011 9:46 AM (edited)
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

First, there's no way for me to stop you from posting your opinion.  If there is, please let me know.   Have I somehow restricted you from expressing yourself to the rest of the HBD members?

Second, if you don't understand "for the good of the world", I'm not sure I can help you.   But I'll try.   Worlds require 32 owners to play a season.   Bad trades can affect competitive balance.   Worlds with a clear line of good/bad teams often find themselves needing replacements for the bad teams every season.  This is often brought about by unbalanced, or bad, trades.   So unbalanced/bad trades create a revolving door for the bad teams.  While owners may enjoy fielding their 120 wins teams season after season, they also become frustrated because they have to wait weeks between seasons because no one wants to take on the bad teams.  The teams that got that way due to unbalanced/bad trades.   Therefore, in a roundabout way, preventing owners from quitting your world is a good thing.

3/31/2011 9:44 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Here's the funny thing(in my mind).    Ott doesn't seem to have any ridiculously good/bad teams.   Ott seems to roll very promptly(at least since hoser has been there).   Ott's owners didn't like the deal and vetoed it.  Evidently, Ott has been doing something right for 19 seasons.   Yet hoser, with his three completed seasons, sees a better way.
3/31/2011 9:52 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Let's see how this sounds:

"Yes, I know this world is in it's 19th season.   Yes, I know you seem to have a history of rolling within 3-4 days.   Yes, I know there are no awesomely good or bad teams so the competition is good.   And, yes, I can see that the turnover is historically small.   However, I've got three full seasons under my belt, all in this world, and I see a better way.   So, if you want a good world, you better listen up!"
3/31/2011 10:04 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/30/2011 9:00:00 AM (view original):
MLB teams don't use cash to buy prospects.   Without a doubt, Selig would veto any deal where Bryce Harper was being sold for 4.7m.   Best interests of baseball.

Do you deny this to be a fact?
+1.  MLB would do this "for the good of the league."
3/31/2011 10:30 AM
hoser1
Posts: 20 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 1 20
Prospect
  "Methinks the OP wasn't looking for opinions.  He was looking for confirmation of his rightness"
   I guess I msunderstood your statement Mike.

  MikeT you keep referring to this $4.7 million dollars in the trade for the prospect. Comparing it to todays trades. What is your point? Is $4.7 not enough, or is it too much? 

 
3/31/2011 11:17 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
My point is MLB would never allow such a thing.   Any trade with more than 1m in cash requires approval from the commissioner's office.   They will only get that if they're trading a huge salary and agreeing to cover part of it.   Prospects and mediocre veterans don't have huge salaries.

My statement about opinions/confirmation meant you have ignored about 95% of this thread because they don't agree with your stance and/or make your stance look silly.    I've asked you several questions.  You've answered none.
3/31/2011 12:00 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 3/31/2011 9:46:00 AM (view original):
Hoser, a question for you: which world do you think is better?

World A, which has 4 teams in the 115-120 win range, 4 teams in the 40-50 win range, and everybody else in the middle.

or

World B, which has a couple of teams in the 95-105 range, a couple of teams in the 55-60 win range, and everybody else in the middle.

The reason why I ask is because worlds that tend to allow excessive cash in trades, or straight-out buying/selling of prospects, tend to eventually lead to one of the choices above.  Can you guess which one?
I'd like to hear an answer to this.
3/31/2011 12:01 PM
bbwinnow
Posts: 111 (0)
Veteran
2 10 4 10
Prospect
I have made cash trades in the past, and they always seem to backfire on me. I don't trade excessive cash (like $5M for a prospect) after getting hosed on one a few years ago.
3/31/2011 1:10 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
hoser, no one is walking with Mike lock-step here.  If you would have taken the time to read the 26 pages in the thread I mentioned above, you'd see that there a lot of people (including me) who don't just concede to Mike just because he's the most prolific poster on the forums.  He and I compete in one of the worlds and we've had many disagreements.  We also happen to get along just fine. 

I will continue to disagree with him and others on the strictly theory portion of cash in trades.  This may sound elitist, but even though I think the average person playing HBD has a very high overall intelligence, most have a limited understanding of economics.  There are solid voices on both sides of that issue. 

 

If you play this game long enough, you'll hopefully realize the value in keeping consistent competition in a world.  Owners who work together to agree on a "no cash in trades rule" are doing so with that intention.  I imagine that you can find worlds that do not have a restriction on it.  I would say that a world like that will only work well if there are 32 owners who have 1) a really deep understanding of economic principles and 2) a long term commitment to remain in the world.   Good luck actually finding that combination.

The minute you have someone who doesn't have the understanding or the commitment, that world would unravel, leaving a whole bunch of well intentioned owners with teams they've invested time and money in in what is lovingly referred to around here as a "'tard world".  Again, all of the points you've brought up, and most likely the ones you're going to bring up have already been brought up.  Many times the arguments against them don't hold water in a pure logical sense.  But you can't separate that from what actually happens in a game played on the internet by a population that includes a wide variety of commitment levels and ability.

The long-term viability of a world is very important to those who have invested in it.  Restrictions on cash in trades work.  Despite the fact that you (and I and others) disagree with the theoretical validity of them.

3/31/2011 4:20 PM
hbdgirl
Posts: 264 (0)
All Star
43
Prospect
Prospects for cash only is stupid and gives someone an advantage because they are over the $185M alloted budget. The good of the world is at stake! HBD socialists unite! Bernie Sanders 2012 ......
3/31/2011 4:28 PM
pstrnutbag44
Posts: 417 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 102
Prospect
Anyone mention that you can't even build a trade with cash on one side and a player on the other? Both sides have to include a player. Seems the game may be designed to prevent cash-for-prospect trades, doesn't it? At least on the surface? Just because there is a work-around, doesn't mean the intent isn't present....
3/31/2011 4:41 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Presumably the cash is supposed to allow you to deal with cap room in the midst of trading players.  I think the intent of the allowance and restriction is pretty obvious.  The "no cash exceeding salary exchanged" "rule" is more restrictive, but in most cases good for the world.

hbdgirl, it is definitely more socailist w/r/t restrictions, but then again capitalism involves making the whole pie bigger.  There are capitalism components in this game, but it is surely  restricted form of it, since the size of the pie (cash) is always the same.  Of course the overall value of each owners' assets are radically different...if it was pure socialism, then every owner would have a different amount of cash at the beginning of the season, because some would need it more.
3/31/2011 5:47 PM
hbdgirl
Posts: 264 (0)
All Star
43
Prospect
@silent .... I was just teasing some noted republicans on this board  about the " balance of the world " thing not the prospect cash. I get a kick outta real life republicans coming on HBD and talking about the need for Balance in the world when they wouldn't be caught dead saying those things about real life. For the record, I'm FOR minimum win requirements
3/31/2011 6:20 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
It's odd that you're incapable of separating real world issues from an internet game economics.    I'd have thought you smarter than that.  I'm forced to break up with you.  Gimme back my letter jacket.
3/31/2011 7:13 PM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7|8...20 Next ▸
Trading prospects for cash 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.