Posted by jvford on 4/11/2011 12:38:00 PM (view original):

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.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 12:53:00 PM (view original):
Haven't I already done that?

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 12:52:00 PM (view original):

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 jvford on 4/11/2011 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 12:52:00 PM (view original):

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?

Yep.  And one could argue that trades of any type have a much better chance of damaging a world than no trades.  It's all relative.

Posted by deathinahole on 4/11/2011 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 4/11/2011 12:38:00 PM (view original):

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.

Bad owners come in different forms.
There are those that bend people over. There are those that up and leave a league in spring training because someone made them cry.

But to deny the math of it is stupid. You are stupid.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 4/11/2011 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 12:52:00 PM (view original):

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?

Yep.  And one could argue that trades of any type have a much better chance of damaging a world than no trades.  It's all relative.

Except, in a player for player trade, you can evaluate it on the spot.  

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 12:53:00 PM (view original):
Haven't I already done that?

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 12:53:00 PM (view original):
Haven't I already done that?

No, you just stated what an infusion of cash can do. True enough, but the same can be achieved through payroll reduction of the same amount.Of course the  addtional above and beyond the player you actually want payroll would be from a player that is basically worthless as far as performance goes.I have accepted /offered cash in deals, and accepted/offered additional player contract proposals, and they work equally well.You can buy player/prospects with more than just cash in the bank. More than one way to get things done, and the money is the same.Payroll money, budget money. All the same money..

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 12:53:00 PM (view original):
Haven't I already done that?

No, you just stated what an infusion of cash can do. True enough, but the same can be achieved through payroll reduction of the same amount.Of course the  addtional above and beyond the player you actually want payroll would be from a player that is basically worthless as far as performance goes.I have accepted /offered cash in deals, and accepted/offered additional player contract proposals, and they work equally well.You can buy player/prospects with more than just cash in the bank. More than one way to get things done, and the money is the same.Payroll money, budget money. All the same money..

I COULD NOT REDUCE PAYROLL WITHOUT DAMAGING MY BL TEAM!!!!

Which part of that do you not understand?

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 4/11/2011 12:48:00 PM (view original):

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 jvford on 4/11/2011 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 4/11/2011 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 4/11/2011 12:38:00 PM (view original):

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.

Bad owners come in different forms.
There are those that bend people over. There are those that up and leave a league in spring training because someone made them cry.

But to deny the math of it is stupid. You are stupid.

No one's denying the math, just the relevance of it. 

If someone trades me a training camp pitcher making 5m (and covers all but 8k of his salary) for a training camp pitcher, my payroll budget goes up by 5m, but who cares?

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 12:53:00 PM (view original):
Haven't I already done that?

No, you just stated what an infusion of cash can do. True enough, but the same can be achieved through payroll reduction of the same amount.Of course the  addtional above and beyond the player you actually want payroll would be from a player that is basically worthless as far as performance goes.I have accepted /offered cash in deals, and accepted/offered additional player contract proposals, and they work equally well.You can buy player/prospects with more than just cash in the bank. More than one way to get things done, and the money is the same.Payroll money, budget money. All the same money..

I COULD NOT REDUCE PAYROLL WITHOUT DAMAGING MY BL TEAM!!!!

Which part of that do you not understand?

I'm speaking in generalities,not about you specifically.That you could only do it one way is fine ,and understood completely. Others can only go the other direction, and once in a while you can do either. It's all the same in the end.I've done it with cash infusions,and player contract purchases. Works the same.