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

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.

Again, no, I couldn't.   I had no expendable players making 5m.    I HAD TO HAVE the cash.

I see that. However, one can achieve the same type of acquisition through payroll reduction instead of cash infusion. That you couldn't do it in this fashion, doesn't mean someone else can't, and achieve the same monetary benefit,and use it in a similarly beneficial manner as you did your straight cash. The result monetarily is the same.

Seriously, when someone points to a league and says "this dude has won 6 straight world series and has been bending the rest of the league over in trades", you are the one splayed out on the table.

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 12:05:00 PM (view original):

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

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.

Again, no, I couldn't.   I had no expendable players making 5m.    I HAD TO HAVE the cash.

I see that. However, one can achieve the same type of acquisition through payroll reduction instead of cash infusion. That you couldn't do it in this fashion, doesn't mean someone else can't, and achieve the same monetary benefit,and use it in a similarly beneficial manner as you did your straight cash. The result monetarily is the same.

Yes, I know that.   I've done that many, many times.  And I'll do it again in Moonlight Graham where the max cash is 1.5m.   However, I couldn't do it in those two worlds and maintain my BL team.   The extra 4.8m and 6.5m in cash, respectively, allowed me to improve my BL team without making sacrifices.   And I was rewarded for it.   Having extra budget is an advantage.   In these particular instances, the cash allowed me to win more games.   My budgets became 189.8m and 191.5m and I was competing against teams with 185m budgets. 

Posted by deathinahole on 4/11/2011 12:05:00 PM (view original):
And this is why it should be outlawed. The smart and unethical will take advantage of the bwb's all day, every day.

Nothing unethical at all. I was the one who bought the prospects. In one occasion, the other side had their #1 rase his demands to where he needed an extra 2m in the prospect budget. I offered 4m for a good prospect, but not as good as his #1.We traded, and my organization ganed a prospect, and he signed a better one.Everybody was better off. The other one was acquring a HOF to be C using and additional purchase of washed up player as an extra incentive. The  other sidehad just joined,and was saddled with a number of multi year contracts ( of which this was one) that basically paralyzed his organization in a severe manner to say the least.I bought both players,and in each case the other side was better off in the long run. What is unethical about that?

Posted by deathinahole on 4/11/2011 12:00:00 PM (view original):

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.

Big fat wrong.

Cash - +5M to the cap space.
Player salary - +0M to the cap space.

Cash- 5m to cap space is correct. So what do think happens if one acquires  an additional player in a trade with a 5m salary from you? Do  you think your cap space stays the same?

Posted by deathinahole on 4/11/2011 12:00:00 PM (view original):

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.

Big fat wrong.

Cash - +5M to the cap space.
Player salary - +0M to the cap space.

This post demonstrates the complete lack of understanding on DIAH's part.

FWIW, MikeT is completely right about cash making things easier (please don't quote me on that).  However, making things easier isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Trades in general make it easier to improve your team.  The negative is when you have noob, transient, and/or bad (DIAH) owners in a world.  Then you want to limit the ways that an owner can hurt the world and/or a team.

For God's sake people . . .

THE ARGUMENT IS NOT ABOUT CAP SPACE!!!

IT IS ABOUT BUDGETS!!!



This entire ******* thread has lost it's focus by one person unable to move it off of how cash affects cap space, and most everybody else being sucked into the vortex of it's irrelevance.

poor deathy

Posted by jvford on 4/11/2011 10:31:00 AM (view original):
Obviously, the more flexibility and options that are available, the easier it is for a good owner to improve his team. 

Then I'll quote this.  If cash makes trading easier and good owners will be able to improve their team easier with more flexibility/options, shouldn't all deals where the "better" owner is receiving cash be vetoed for the "good of the world"? 

Or is it OK for the rich to get richer? 

Posted by isack24 on 4/11/2011 11:18:00 AM (view original):

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

Posted by isack24 on 4/11/2011 10:07:00 AM (view original):
That wasn't your conclusion.  Your conclusion was that adding salary to a player-for-player trade is against the intended rules.  That's an assumption, and a relatively unsupported one.

You can trade a player for a player and add however much cash you have.  They could have limited that if they wanted.  They could have limited the amount of cash to the amount of salary needed to make the deal go through under the salary cap.  They didn't.  Unless you find a statement of intent from the programmers, I'm going to assume that they wanted to let us do what we wanted within the confines of their allowances, which would be to trade a player for a player and include whatever salary we want.

My conclusion was what now? Pardon me, but I was VERY straightforward. I was talking about prospects for cash, as the title of the thread implies. If it's the intent of the deal, then yes, working around the rules is EXACTLY what is happening. How do you figure it isn't? That scenario I laid out is not complicated whatsoever....and if you want your statement of intent, I have offered it to you several times. Send a ticket asking why the scenario I lay out plays out like it does, you will get your "statement of intent" directly from the horse's mouth.

Then why do they allow you to trade a player for a player with cash beyond what it would take to work out the salary cap details?

Why, when they had a chance to eliminate it altogether (as Mike mentioned above), did they simply drop the limit to something less likely to ruin a world?

That seems far more conclusive of an approach allowing us to make our own rules than their intent to ban it altogether (which, again, they could have done and chose not to).

I don't know, ask them. I am merely pointing out what is already painfully obvious....

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 4/11/2011 10:31:00 AM (view original):
Obviously, the more flexibility and options that are available, the easier it is for a good owner to improve his team. 

Then I'll quote this.  If cash makes trading easier and good owners will be able to improve their team easier with more flexibility/options, shouldn't all deals where the "better" owner is receiving cash be vetoed for the "good of the world"? 

Or is it OK for the rich to get richer? 

Where do you draw the line?  The "better" owner gets the "better" of all trades, cash or no cash.

Posted by jvford on 4/11/2011 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 4/11/2011 10:31:00 AM (view original):
Obviously, the more flexibility and options that are available, the easier it is for a good owner to improve his team. 

Then I'll quote this.  If cash makes trading easier and good owners will be able to improve their team easier with more flexibility/options, shouldn't all deals where the "better" owner is receiving cash be vetoed for the "good of the world"? 

Or is it OK for the rich to get richer? 

Where do you draw the line?  The "better" owner gets the "better" of all trades, cash or no cash.

Then we come back full circle to cash has no value until it's applied.   With players, I can say "He's this and he'll be that" without hesitation.   With cash, I'm left wondering how it will be used.   A "good" owner will put it to good use.  Maybe such good use that the deal is ridiculously lopsided.   A "poor" owner may not use it at all thus making the deal ridiculously lopsided.   Couldn't one argue that all deals involving cash have a much better chance of damaging a world than a straight player for player trade?

Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2011 12:44:00 PM (view original):
For God's sake people . . .

THE ARGUMENT IS NOT ABOUT CAP SPACE!!!

IT IS ABOUT BUDGETS!!!



This entire ******* thread has lost it's focus by one person unable to move it off of how cash affects cap space, and most everybody else being sucked into the vortex of it's irrelevance.

No, it's about using money to buy prospects. There is just more than one way to do it. You come up with those advantages to the recipient of accepting one trade  vs the other yet? Might be tough to do.

Haven't I already done that?