I'm not really for outlawing cash in deals.   I just take that stance to get people riled up.   There should be limits and everyone has a limit.   death is at $0.  I'm a bit higher than that.   MG is 1.5m or full contract, whichever is lower.   Coop is full contract maximum.  I commish both of those worlds.  I play by the full contract rule in my other worlds.   I will say it's ludicrous to say "Removing cash removes a challenge".    Cash is the simple way to bolser a line-up with players you could not afford.  I personally think I won Hamilton last season because I added some players that I couldn't afford along with 2.5m and 2.3m in cash to keep me under the cap.   Building a team is much easier if someone else is paying the bill. 

It's not cash. It's cap space.

Thus, any sentence starting with or containing "MLB" should be ignored. Irrelevant.

Should a trade that allows someone a greater cap than others be allowed? That's the valid debate. But no "Kansas City got $500" BS, because it's irrelevant to the argument.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2011 2:05:00 PM (view original):
I'm not really for outlawing cash in deals.   I just take that stance to get people riled up.   There should be limits and everyone has a limit.   death is at $0.  I'm a bit higher than that.   MG is 1.5m or full contract, whichever is lower.   Coop is full contract maximum.  I commish both of those worlds.  I play by the full contract rule in my other worlds.   I will say it's ludicrous to say "Removing cash removes a challenge".    Cash is the simple way to bolser a line-up with players you could not afford.  I personally think I won Hamilton last season because I added some players that I couldn't afford along with 2.5m and 2.3m in cash to keep me under the cap.   Building a team is much easier if someone else is paying the bill. 

I hope you gave up some quality assets to get those deals done.  If you did, I wouldn't veto.

Posted by deathinahole on 4/2/2011 2:07:00 PM (view original):
It's not cash. It's cap space.

Thus, any sentence starting with or containing "MLB" should be ignored. Irrelevant.

Should a trade that allows someone a greater cap than others be allowed? That's the valid debate. But no "Kansas City got $500" BS, because it's irrelevant to the argument.

This game is all about allocating resources.  I'm sure it's been said before, but when you trade a good prospect(s) for a vet and get the vet's salary paid for , you are just trading back some of a previous season's resources (draft scouting, prospect/payroll budget) for some of this season's resources (vet player and "cap space").  As long as there is relative value for value, I think it's a fair trade, and not bad for the world.

Posted by shobob on 4/2/2011 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2011 2:05:00 PM (view original):
I'm not really for outlawing cash in deals.   I just take that stance to get people riled up.   There should be limits and everyone has a limit.   death is at $0.  I'm a bit higher than that.   MG is 1.5m or full contract, whichever is lower.   Coop is full contract maximum.  I commish both of those worlds.  I play by the full contract rule in my other worlds.   I will say it's ludicrous to say "Removing cash removes a challenge".    Cash is the simple way to bolser a line-up with players you could not afford.  I personally think I won Hamilton last season because I added some players that I couldn't afford along with 2.5m and 2.3m in cash to keep me under the cap.   Building a team is much easier if someone else is paying the bill. 

I hope you gave up some quality assets to get those deals done.  If you did, I wouldn't veto.

Well, I gave up younger players.   They didn't get vetoed so the rest of the world must have thought they were OK.  Nonetheless, the point is I added over 12m in salary(had the deals been done on Day 1) thus giving me a 197m budget.   Without the cash, I can't acquire the players.  Without the players, maybe another owner wins the WS.    Not sure that's fair to the rest of the world although I felt a division title was taken from me a couple of seasons earlier because of similar deals.

The problem is really not so much the owner getting the players/cash than it is the owner giving it up.  They tend not to get full value because A) winning takes them further away from a good pick B) they're only concerned with their position and not with the other contenders.

This is a point that Mike often makes, and maybe he can make it a little more clearly than I can, but I'll give it a shot because it's pertinent.

When you talk about "value", it's clear that ML players have value, prospects have value, and cash has value.  But while the value that players and prospects have may be more readily apparent, the value of cash is less apparent until one knows what the other person is going to do with it.    If the $1m that an owner is receiving in trade is going towards a final (winning) bid on a projected OVR 93 SP who is going to be stud, then that might be more important than if it was going towards providing just a bit extra cap relief in order to pick up a short-term injury-replacement player down the stretch.  Same $1m in cash, but one may have a much bigger impact in the big picture.

The easiest way to explain it is to do a player search.  Find two players making the same(but 5m or less).   Sometimes they have equal value, most times they don't.  And that tells you what can be done with cash. 

Posted by shobob on 4/2/2011 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 4/2/2011 2:07:00 PM (view original):
It's not cash. It's cap space.

Thus, any sentence starting with or containing "MLB" should be ignored. Irrelevant.

Should a trade that allows someone a greater cap than others be allowed? That's the valid debate. But no "Kansas City got $500" BS, because it's irrelevant to the argument.

This game is all about allocating resources.  I'm sure it's been said before, but when you trade a good prospect(s) for a vet and get the vet's salary paid for , you are just trading back some of a previous season's resources (draft scouting, prospect/payroll budget) for some of this season's resources (vet player and "cap space").  As long as there is relative value for value, I think it's a fair trade, and not bad for the world.

See, that's more along the lines of arguing with facts.

That's your view. In my view, only a fool would approve a trade giving someone more resources than the rest of the league because they were too much of a hammerhead to budget their payroll property at the beginning of a season.

I'm just throwing my opinion out there.  Not trying to convert anyone.

It was a compliment, believe it or not. You stuck to the facts and understood what cash does, even if you are on the other side of the fence.

If you've got a crap team, either by your own work or you took one over, its very possible you have no players with any value to any other team.  Highly overpaid, fading vets and no high-quality prospects, because they've been traded away or underdeveloped.

It might be a 70-80 win team, but it's moving in the wrong direction.

You're basically screwed for 1-2 calendar years while you wait for the vet contract to end so you can start to invest that money on developing young players or more high-priced FAs (or some mix).

No matter how overpaid your vets or how thin your minors, you have one asset that has value to every other team.

Money.

The fastest way to get a bad team turned around is to allow an unlimited amount of money to be involved in trades.

If you've played more than a few season, you've had or seen one a player like this - OK, even good stats for a RF, 30 yr, contract $9.5M for 3-4 more seasons, ratings just starting to go down.

Can you trade him?  Would you trade for him?  Probably no to both, right?

But if you had him and you could offer him and $20M in a trade, there's probably going to be an active trade market.  Teams needing one more bat that have some depth at 1 or 2 spots are likely going to make an offer.

If you don't think it's fair that another team could end up with a good RF and $10M+ extra this year in exchange for prospects, then make a better trade offer. If its such a huge advantage, offer up you best prospect and take just $15M.

If enough owners don't like the deal, they can veto it.  Enough veto votes (I think it's 10, not even a majority), deal doesn't go through.  Problem solved.

Obviously, money in trades can result in unbalance world for a period of time.   So can 6-10 other things I listed a few days ago.  I haven't seen anybody arguing any of those should be made illegal.

The difference between money in trades and those other things is money in trades is a good solution to the problems caused by money in trades (if a world fell asleep and let that become a problem.)  Fastest way to let a good owner fix a bad team is to let him do whatever he wants with the $185M everybody gets every season.

Short-term imbalance in a world isn't really a problem.  No matter what the rules or limitations are, one team is going to win the WS and one is going to get the #1 draft pick.

Long-term imbalance is. There are several current rules that tend to result in long-term imbalance.  You can make up ways money in trades is part of that problem. For every one of those ways, money in trades is the fastest solution.

 

Spoken like a guy who doesn't have enough seasons under his belt to understand.

No difference in concept between giving 5m in cash in a deal to get a player, and buying an additional contract for 5m to get a player.You can give a lot more money  for a player using contracts. The first scenario brings out all kinds of howls of discontent, and the second one happens all the time, but both are buying a player. I have done both, nothing at all sinister was involved,and in all cases, both teams benefitted,and the "competitive balance" of the league was improved.I know it is hard for you" no way no how" regarding cash folks to realize it, but perfectly legitmate deals benefitting both side are easily attainable using as a primary tool, dirty old cash.

So...all 5 million dollar players are alike?

All 5 million dollars are.