Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 11:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2011 11:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:35:00 AM (view original):
 You can do the same  if you negotiate a 4.8 m reduction in payroll,You haven't shown the advantage of one over the other. Demonstrate in the cash and contract  trades listed above.They start out exactly thesame. What can on do post trade, that the other can't do post trade?

With an $86m payroll budget, you can acquire and pay up to $86m worth of player salary.  With an $81m payroll budget, you can only acquire and pay up to $81m worth of player salary.

I cannot explain it more simply than that.  86 > 81.

You are focusing on cap space, which is the difference between player payroll budgeted and player payroll spent.  In both of your examples, the "net" result is exactly the same.  But you end up with a higher payroll budget in one example than you do in the other.  Combined with the other 8 budget categories, you now have $190m worth of assets (taking each player contract at face value) as opposed to 30 other owners who have $185m and the other guy who only has $180m.

I'm just asking you to demonstate how this would work in the trades .t.They had the same purchaing pwer before, and the same purchasing power after. You say there isan advantage,I'm asking you to put that advantage into practical application.. So far, you haven't..

With respect to cap space, there is no advantage.  I clearly stated that above ("the "net" result is exactly the same"). 

Again, I'll flat-out ask you directly . . . do you not understand the difference between cap space and budget?  Because I'm really not interested in discussing this any further with you if you cannot or will not grasp the difference between the two.

Both trades are legal. Both achieve the same end result.One has no monetary advantage over the other.  Both are buying prospects with the same amount of money.It is difference without a distinction.

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):
That is inaccurate. You can trade  a minor leager whose contract has outlasted his ability.4 seasons ago, he could play ML,, but now he is AA  stuff making a big salary

If this is in response to my post, you are incorrect.  I didn't make a stupid signings that ended with a 4.8m player in the minors. 

As I said, I didn't have 4.8m in expendable player to trade.  I needed the cash to make the deals.  

 Obviously, you have to have a player in your organiztion to do it. Had you inheited a team with prior contracts such as that you could do the same by someone puchaing the contact for one reason or another.

Posted by deathinahole on 4/11/2011 11:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 11:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 4/11/2011 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):
That is inaccurate. You can trade  a minor leager whose contract has outlasted his ability.4 seasons ago, he could play ML,, but now he is AA  stuff making a big salary

You are confusing worth vs. budget.

Read what he is saying. $190M is greater than $185M. End of story. Philosophy sorts itself out after that. Value of contract, etc...moot. Someone has $190M. Everyone else has $185M. Period.

I'm just asking to put this so called advantage to work in a practical manner. He hasn't, maybe you can do it.

• Most obvious, you wouldn't be able to do the trade without having to move budget from coaching or prospect
• Because you couldn't, either the trade doesn't get done, or you are leaving more payroll budget available at the beginning of the season to allow for deal making, or you are making that deal later in the season when the prorated amount works.
• Because you couldn't, you need to make that decision, "do I eat into my prospect payroll, or do I walk away from the deal?"
• Because you couldn't, you are not making that 5 yr $20M offer at the beginning of the season because you cannot have "that's ok, I'll just get someone to throw cash in a trade" to wiggle out of it when it alll goes bad in year 4 and 5

All these fit into Mike's "rewarding the lazy" statement

All of these also fit into philosophical preference. Mine is to not reward the lazy.

But, if you actually understand that you are giving or getting a $5M cap advantage over the whole league, and are still ok with it, then what can I do other than not be in a league with you.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 11:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):
That is inaccurate. You can trade  a minor leager whose contract has outlasted his ability.4 seasons ago, he could play ML,, but now he is AA  stuff making a big salary

If this is in response to my post, you are incorrect.  I didn't make a stupid signings that ended with a 4.8m player in the minors. 

As I said, I didn't have 4.8m in expendable player to trade.  I needed the cash to make the deals.  

 Obviously, you have to have a player in your organiztion to do it. Had you inheited a team with prior contracts such as that you could do the same by someone puchaing the contact for one reason or another.

But I didn't.   You asked for a specific example of how have an extra 5m in your pocket can make a difference.  I showed you.   Are you now asking for another example?

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 4/11/2011 11:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 11:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 4/11/2011 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):
That is inaccurate. You can trade  a minor leager whose contract has outlasted his ability.4 seasons ago, he could play ML,, but now he is AA  stuff making a big salary

You are confusing worth vs. budget.

Read what he is saying. $190M is greater than $185M. End of story. Philosophy sorts itself out after that. Value of contract, etc...moot. Someone has $190M. Everyone else has $185M. Period.

I'm just asking to put this so called advantage to work in a practical manner. He hasn't, maybe you can do it.

• Most obvious, you wouldn't be able to do the trade without having to move budget from coaching or prospect
• Because you couldn't, either the trade doesn't get done, or you are leaving more payroll budget available at the beginning of the season to allow for deal making, or you are making that deal later in the season when the prorated amount works.
• Because you couldn't, you need to make that decision, "do I eat into my prospect payroll, or do I walk away from the deal?"
• Because you couldn't, you are not making that 5 yr $20M offer at the beginning of the season because you cannot have "that's ok, I'll just get someone to throw cash in a trade" to wiggle out of it when it alll goes bad in year 4 and 5

All these fit into Mike's "rewarding the lazy" statement

All of these also fit into philosophical preference. Mine is to not reward the lazy.

But, if you actually understand that you are giving or getting a $5M cap advantage over the whole league, and are still ok with it, then what can I do other than not be in a league with you.

The offering team's status is not listed. It is assumed that he can make the offer. You still haven't put this" imbalance" post trade  into any practical application. Whether or not you wish to be in a league with me, or vice versa is not relevant.

bwb53 preparing for the final exam at Debate School:

Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2011 11:47:00 AM (view original):

bwb53 preparing for the final exam at Debate School:

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Again, you could have gotten the same cash through payroll reduction, instead of a cash offering. They are the same.

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 11:56:00 AM (view original):
That's right. In both trades One team is gaining cap space, and the other team is gaining a good prospect. The cap space in both trades are the same. One is achieved through offering a 5m cash incentive. . The other is done with pickup of a 5m contract. In both trades, a prospect is being bought pure and simple. The trades are essentially identical fiscally.There is no advantage to the accepting team taking one deal over the other. . In each trade offer, they had the same cap space before the trade.,they trade the same prospect away, and they have the same cap space after.

My advice; before you speak, research.
Go to a league. Look at a cash trade. Add up that team's budget + payroll + available payroll.

If they are the team that received the cash, it will be greater than $185M (assuming no budget transfer, etc etc)