Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2011 8:36:00 AM (view original):

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.

Untrue.

In the first example, team B now is essentially playing with a $190m budget, which is more than everybody else.  In the second example, team B is still playing with the same $185m budget that everybody else has.

You seem to not be able to differentiate between budget and cap space.  Either because it too inconveniently damages your argument, or because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the two.

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?

1. I'm Canadian. You can't guilt me, dammit. I also drive a Japanese car, and love to park it in front of the GM plant.

2. Being Canadian, I have a socialist slant that you Yanks just don't understand, but in the end, creates a better life for all, free health care and a $1.05 dollar

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 10:18:00 AM (view original):
As a side note, and you can confirm this if you'd like, the "better" owner is the one who receives the cash in almost every deal.   He's either better at the game overall or fielding the superior team that season.   5m in cash is far more valuable to someone who knows how to use it.   In that respect, every deal involving cash is already lopsided.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 9:33:00 AM (view original):

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.

I'm saying if you have to include cash to move a player, there is a value issue somewhere.  

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2011 8:36:00 AM (view original):

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.

Untrue.

In the first example, team B now is essentially playing with a $190m budget, which is more than everybody else.  In the second example, team B is still playing with the same $185m budget that everybody else has.

You seem to not be able to differentiate between budget and cap space.  Either because it too inconveniently damages your argument, or because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the two.

Since you seem to believe one has an advantage over the other, demonstrate it. If what you say were accurate, one trade creates an ability to make a transaction that the other cannot. What would that be? Can one make a larger budget transfer over the other?  Can one side bid on a more expensive FA than the other? Maybe it is the waiver wire. Since they start out exactly the same, if there is a monetary advantage of one deal over the other, then someone should be able to do more,.Where does this  so called" advantage " manifest itself in reality. In order to be an advantage, it has to show up somewhere. Be specific.

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2011 8:36:00 AM (view original):

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.

Untrue.

In the first example, team B now is essentially playing with a $190m budget, which is more than everybody else.  In the second example, team B is still playing with the same $185m budget that everybody else has.

You seem to not be able to differentiate between budget and cap space.  Either because it too inconveniently damages your argument, or because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the two.

Since you seem to believe one has an advantage over the other, demonstrate it. If what you say were accurate, one trade creates an ability to make a transaction that the other cannot. What would that be? Can one make a larger budget transfer over the other?  Can one side bid on a more expensive FA than the other? Maybe it is the waiver wire. Since they start out exactly the same, if there is a monetary advantage of one deal over the other, then someone should be able to do more,.Where does this  so called" advantage " manifest itself in reality. In order to be an advantage, it has to show up somewhere. Be specific.

Your examples have two different end states: one has a payroll budget of $86m, the other has a payroll budget of $81m.

Are you asking me to explain why 86 is more than 81?

Posted by jvford on 4/11/2011 10:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 9:33:00 AM (view original):

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.

I'm saying if you have to include cash to move a player, there is a value issue somewhere.  

Actually, you said: "If owners didn't make bad signings, player salary would be tied to player ability", which is inaccurate.  Best player in the world might only cost 360K.  28 y/o ML average SS might cost 5m and most would say it's not a bad signing.

The "value issue" you are now referring to is just a manifestation of the fact that salaries are not tied directly to ability.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 10:15:00 AM (view original):
They did limit it.   In Aaron S1, there was no limit until I pointed out how ridiculous the game would be if they allowed owners to send 20-30m to another team in one trade.  And they also provided veto power for owners to police worlds on their own.

So while you can trade a training camp pitcher and 5m for whatever, the world can stop it if 10 of them think it's a bad deal.

In the end, WifS gave us a lot of leeway within the game.   And the ability to police ourselves.    WifS isn't going to change cash in trade policy because, as you can see, some people like to utilize it to the fullest extent and some don't.   But it bears repeating that EVERYONE has a limit.   The number is really all that's being discussed.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2011 10:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2011 8:36:00 AM (view original):

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.

Untrue.

In the first example, team B now is essentially playing with a $190m budget, which is more than everybody else.  In the second example, team B is still playing with the same $185m budget that everybody else has.

You seem to not be able to differentiate between budget and cap space.  Either because it too inconveniently damages your argument, or because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the two.

Since you seem to believe one has an advantage over the other, demonstrate it. If what you say were accurate, one trade creates an ability to make a transaction that the other cannot. What would that be? Can one make a larger budget transfer over the other?  Can one side bid on a more expensive FA than the other? Maybe it is the waiver wire. Since they start out exactly the same, if there is a monetary advantage of one deal over the other, then someone should be able to do more,.Where does this  so called" advantage " manifest itself in reality. In order to be an advantage, it has to show up somewhere. Be specific.

Your examples have two different end states: one has a payroll budget of $86m, the other has a payroll budget of $81m.

Are you asking me to explain why 86 is more than 81?