Team A attempts to propse trade to Team B.

Team A gives up player

Team B gives up cash only, no player

Trade cannot be submitted (Error: You must select at least one Player for both sides of the Trade Proposal.)

Why does the discussion of trading prospects for cash continue past that point at all, really? You clearly have to WORK AROUND THE RULES & THEIR INTENTIONS in order for such deals to work.

Posted by deathinahole on 4/10/2011 6:57:00 PM (view original):

This is the thanks I get for not rubbing in Hipolito Rios

Posted by tufft on 4/11/2011 3:32:00 AM (view original):
What this debate really comes down to is this -

Either you're a good, honest, true, hard-working, American capitalist, like me and the other people who want HBD to have a free market for all goods of value (players and money), or you're a pinko, commie, terrorist like Mike & Death that want controlled and fixed markets that benefit party members and imperialist insiders who what to benefit by denying others freedom.

Mike & Death - Why do you hate freedom?

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 3:06:00 AM (view original):
team b   81 budget   80 salary accepts trade of minor league prospect for another with same salary +5m cash result  86 budget   80 salary leaving 6m   to spend
team b 81 budget 80 payroll  accepts trade of minor league prospect  and 38 yr old AA  P Orville Overpaid and his 5m salary for Minor league prospect with same  minor league salary
result Budget 81  payroll 75 leaving 6m to spend. The same amount of money is spent in both trades. With the exception of the AA pitcher, the trade is the same.In each case a player has been bought, and the end result money wise is the same in both.

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 4/11/2011 2:09:00 AM (view original):

Team A attempts to propse trade to Team B.

Team A gives up player

Team B gives up cash only, no player

Trade cannot be submitted (Error: You must select at least one Player for both sides of the Trade Proposal.)

 

Why does the discussion of trading prospects for cash continue past that point at all, really? You clearly have to WORK AROUND THE RULES & THEIR INTENTIONS in order for such deals to work.

That conclusion just is not true.

In ML baseball, you can't trade players straight up for cash (past some really minimal amount, anyway).

But you can trade an expensive player for a good prospect who makes nothing.  It happens all the time.  Are they circumventing the rules?  No, those are the rules.

I understanding not wanting to allow it in this game, but that's just not a good argument.  That you can make a player for player trade involving a lot of cash suggests that it is within the accepted rules (even if not in specific leagues because of owners' preferences).

Posted by jvford on 4/10/2011 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Mike, so you're saying that any player making more than a player better than him is due to dumbassery? Got it. Can't argue with that logic.

DIAH, anyone who wins less than half his games and has trouble making the playoffs 1/3 of the time can't comment on stuff that requires intelligence.

Posted by isack24 on 4/11/2011 9:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 4/11/2011 2:09:00 AM (view original):

Team A attempts to propse trade to Team B.

Team A gives up player

Team B gives up cash only, no player

Trade cannot be submitted (Error: You must select at least one Player for both sides of the Trade Proposal.)

 

Why does the discussion of trading prospects for cash continue past that point at all, really? You clearly have to WORK AROUND THE RULES & THEIR INTENTIONS in order for such deals to work.

That conclusion just is not true.

In ML baseball, you can't trade players straight up for cash (past some really minimal amount, anyway).

But you can trade an expensive player for a good prospect who makes nothing.  It happens all the time.  Are they circumventing the rules?  No, those are the rules.

I understanding not wanting to allow it in this game, but that's just not a good argument.  That you can make a player for player trade involving a lot of cash suggests that it is within the accepted rules (even if not in specific leagues because of owners' preferences).

>Tuft

You are absolutely right in a pure economic sense.  I've argued your exact points in these forums before (in fact, you'll see pages of it in the link I posted earlier in this thread).

The missing context in the argument is assets overall.  No world starts with or ever has equally distributed assets.  The only thing that is equal is the cash at the beginning of each season.  The team with the highest overall asset value will always have an inherent advantage.

Each asset (or commodity) has a shelf life.  Each commodity has differing values to each owner, because of their context.  What Mike and death and tec don't address is the fact that because cash has a value in and of itself, it is a commodity that takes on different value to different owners.  All commodities have varying shelf lives.  For players, it's measured in seasons and for cash, it's measured in HBD days.  Just like a player's value will diminish in time, so will cash.

The "unequal budget" argument does not hold water because anytime a veteran(s) for prospect(s) deal occurs without cash, the cash budgets become unequal.  Of course, when cash is thrown into the deal to offset salary, the value of the prospect(s) in the deal, i.e. who they are, should theoretically change.  Since those deals go through commonly, it is a patently untrue claim that buying and selling of players does not occur.  They actually occur all the time.  The only time they do not occur is when cash is used to exactly balance the salaries, or when the salaries are already equal.

The "misapplied budgeting argument" is a bit of a red herring.  Your budget decisions are based on expectations, just as everyone else's are.  Since not everyone lands their FA targets, and since the IFA market is never the same, and since draft prospects bonus demands are never the same, and the effect of injuries season to season is never the same, the value of everyone's cash (and players for that matter) is affected in one way or another by unplanned forces, or in other words, market forces.  This is what HBD is all about.

Mike's argument that "cash has no value until it is used" is just an assertion.  It's not supported; it is opinion being offered as fact.  My assertion (not claimed as fact, though I believe it is) is that cash has whatever value someone is willing to give to get it.  Just like a player's value.  If you play in worlds where cash exceeding salaries exchanged is against the rules, then cash in those worlds is worth something different than cash in worlds without those restrictions.

But in purely economic terms, the rules of the game allow for markets to exist for all different types of commodities.  Economics is not the same as accounting.  Just because payroll cash can (and does) change does not mean in and of itself that it is unfair.  What is totally fair is that each owner has the same amount of cash to convert to whatever they wish within the context of the rules. 

I happen to play in worlds where cash exchange is limited.  Pragmatically, those worlds are more stable.  The reasons why the rules are in place are not foundationally supported, but they work for the long term viability of competitive worlds.  Economics is a tougher field to understand than most realize.  If people don't believe that, then ask them to rationally explain why raising tax rates at the top brackets actually reduce revenues.  Short answer:  think dynamic, not static.





 

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 4/11/2011 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 4/11/2011 9:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 4/11/2011 2:09:00 AM (view original):

Team A attempts to propse trade to Team B.

Team A gives up player

Team B gives up cash only, no player

Trade cannot be submitted (Error: You must select at least one Player for both sides of the Trade Proposal.)

 

Why does the discussion of trading prospects for cash continue past that point at all, really? You clearly have to WORK AROUND THE RULES & THEIR INTENTIONS in order for such deals to work.

That conclusion just is not true.

In ML baseball, you can't trade players straight up for cash (past some really minimal amount, anyway).

But you can trade an expensive player for a good prospect who makes nothing.  It happens all the time.  Are they circumventing the rules?  No, those are the rules.

I understanding not wanting to allow it in this game, but that's just not a good argument.  That you can make a player for player trade involving a lot of cash suggests that it is within the accepted rules (even if not in specific leagues because of owners' preferences).

How do you figure that it's not true? Send a ticket, let me know what they tell you. I will assure you it's something along those lines. You CANNOT trade a player for cash, straight up. There is a reason for this. ANY reference to ML baseball is, frankly, irrelevant to what I said. I am referring to THIS game and it's intended rules. What is so difficult to understand about that? What makes that a false conclusion?

You're drawing a pretty broad stroke on their intentions.  In the past, they have closed some "loopholes".

So if they didn't want cash-for-prospects, one could argue that they would disallow cash exceeding salaries.