Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 1:23:00 PM (view original):
I think good, veteran owners would abuse the hell out of it.   After all, they know how to play the game.   I think good, veteran owners take advantage of less cash than salary as it is.   I did.   In my two examples, I traded with teams that were not competing for a playoff spot.  Why wouldn't they just pay the player who might help them win games, thus moving them further away from a top pick, to play for another team?   It's a smart move.  They won't be accused of tanking if they're playing their best.

Is it abusing if all owners are taking advantage of it?  In Moneyball, it works pretty well.

Posted by jvford on 4/11/2011 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 1:23:00 PM (view original):
I think good, veteran owners would abuse the hell out of it.   After all, they know how to play the game.   I think good, veteran owners take advantage of less cash than salary as it is.   I did.   In my two examples, I traded with teams that were not competing for a playoff spot.  Why wouldn't they just pay the player who might help them win games, thus moving them further away from a top pick, to play for another team?   It's a smart move.  They won't be accused of tanking if they're playing their best.

Is it abusing if all owners are taking advantage of it?  In Moneyball, it works pretty well.

Moneyball has minimum win rules.  That keeps the abuse down.   However, I imagine an owner or two has lost a playoff spot due to cash coming in.

Well, minimum win rules are a given.  Most good owners (if not all) wouldn't play in a world without minimum win rules.

EDIT*: And while you're probably right that cash has affected a playoff race or two, everyone has the ability to take advantage of it.

It depends on what you gave up to get the cash. Just like anyother transaction. You may well have gotten away with highway robbery and improved your team.No way for me to know. You say you did, no reason for me to say otherwise.

No, I don't think I got away with highway robbery.   I think I improved my BL team by getting someone else to pay my players.   In one world, I left after the season so any prospects moved will never have an effect on me.   In the other world, one pitcher is a Type A and I re-signed the other guy.  I got value and don't feel I gave up anything of note. 

JVF, Moneyball had a WS winner with a payroll of 19.9m.  You've got a couple of teams(including the returning champ) with more money in prospect signings than payroll(both owners play in MG so I know they're good owners).    I'm sure no one in that world objects(or they'd leave) but there is something wrong with those pictures. 

There are many ways to win.  Someone who is building teams through IFAs is probably spending 80m between IFA scouting and prospect budget while spending 20-40m on salaries.  Someone who is building teams through FA is spending less than 6 on IFA and prospect, while spending 100m+ on salaries.  Most owners fall somewhere in the middle.  I know the idea of a low payroll conjures up thoughts of tanking, but that's not the case.

Philosophy.

That league would make me nuts. Vis a vis, a no cash league would make you nuts.

What I rail on the most, is that most owners do not understand that cash is cap space. Ok for you, ok for leagues with experienced ownership, not cool for the new guy.

I think what bothers me is the possibility that an owner can bust his balls for 120 games to maintain a slight lead in his division only to have that snatched away from him by the 2nd place team who trades two middling prospects for a couple of old studs whose salary will be covered by their old team.   As I said earlier, it's less about the team getting the players and more about the team giving them up.   They're not contending and the money is spent.   Trading away an older player for a 20th man on a BL roster makes perfect sense for them.  If they're in no danger of failing to reach MWR, wins are a problem for their "rebuilding" efforts. 

But aren't you basically telling someone that he's not allowed to shed bad contracts in an effort to rebuild because it makes it more difficult for someone else to make the playoffs?

I guess that really does just come down to a philosophical difference, but it seems a bit restrictive for my taste.

There's a difference in shedding the bad part of the contract and shedding the whole contract.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 2:03:00 PM (view original):
I think what bothers me is the possibility that an owner can bust his balls for 120 games to maintain a slight lead in his division only to have that snatched away from him by the 2nd place team who trades two middling prospects for a couple of old studs whose salary will be covered by their old team.   As I said earlier, it's less about the team getting the players and more about the team giving them up.   They're not contending and the money is spent.   Trading away an older player for a 20th man on a BL roster makes perfect sense for them.  If they're in no danger of failing to reach MWR, wins are a problem for their "rebuilding" efforts. 

In a purely theoretical sense, this doesn't bother me at all. If I'm in second place and I make a deal to pass up the first place team, I should be commended for that. I've made a deal to make my team better and I used resources to do it. Maybe I took the time to manually rank 150 prospects, so I picked up a borderline ML guy in the 3rd round that I used to make a late-season deal for that "old stud." Maybe I managed my budget optimally and freed up an extra 2M to transfer into IFAs to grab a 3M pitcher who I believed into a middling prospect to trade for a stud at the deadline.

In theory, there's nothing wrong with that.

My issue, in an applied sense is that there really isn't a purely "free" market like there is in real life. In real life, when Lance Berkman is on the trade block, it is well-known and the GM of his team is not going to panic and take the first deal that is thrown his way. In practical application, I have found that these deals often involve one (or multiple) owners saying, "this is bullshit I would have given up way more had I known that guy was available and the owner was willing to pay his salary."

And, as mentioned previously, it is often the noob owner who screams the loudest, "it's my team I can do what I want with it!" while running their team into the ground.

Posted by isack24 on 4/11/2011 2:12:00 PM (view original):
But aren't you basically telling someone that he's not allowed to shed bad contracts in an effort to rebuild because it makes it more difficult for someone else to make the playoffs?

I guess that really does just come down to a philosophical difference, but it seems a bit restrictive for my taste.

I'm of the belief that you shouldn't have bad contracts and, if you do, you can suffer thru them.   Or you can trade them and not pay the salary.  Because, when you pay the salary, you haven't shed anything.

Posted by jtrinsey on 4/11/2011 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 2:03:00 PM (view original):
I think what bothers me is the possibility that an owner can bust his balls for 120 games to maintain a slight lead in his division only to have that snatched away from him by the 2nd place team who trades two middling prospects for a couple of old studs whose salary will be covered by their old team.   As I said earlier, it's less about the team getting the players and more about the team giving them up.   They're not contending and the money is spent.   Trading away an older player for a 20th man on a BL roster makes perfect sense for them.  If they're in no danger of failing to reach MWR, wins are a problem for their "rebuilding" efforts. 

In a purely theoretical sense, this doesn't bother me at all. If I'm in second place and I make a deal to pass up the first place team, I should be commended for that. I've made a deal to make my team better and I used resources to do it. Maybe I took the time to manually rank 150 prospects, so I picked up a borderline ML guy in the 3rd round that I used to make a late-season deal for that "old stud." Maybe I managed my budget optimally and freed up an extra 2M to transfer into IFAs to grab a 3M pitcher who I believed into a middling prospect to trade for a stud at the deadline.

In theory, there's nothing wrong with that.

My issue, in an applied sense is that there really isn't a purely "free" market like there is in real life. In real life, when Lance Berkman is on the trade block, it is well-known and the GM of his team is not going to panic and take the first deal that is thrown his way. In practical application, I have found that these deals often involve one (or multiple) owners saying, "this is bullshit I would have given up way more had I known that guy was available and the owner was willing to pay his salary."

And, as mentioned previously, it is often the noob owner who screams the loudest, "it's my team I can do what I want with it!" while running their team into the ground.

It largely comes down to owners being free to not suffer the consequences of their actions.    It was probably back on page 1 when I said I could sell all my prospects for 3-4 seasons, jack up my payroll and jump ship before any of those prospects make the bigs.  This is a game where you're free to leave when you want.   And, quite honestly, that's the best way because the last thing you want is an owner who's forced to play when he doesn't want to.   But that's one of the problems with HBD.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 4/11/2011 2:12:00 PM (view original):
But aren't you basically telling someone that he's not allowed to shed bad contracts in an effort to rebuild because it makes it more difficult for someone else to make the playoffs?

I guess that really does just come down to a philosophical difference, but it seems a bit restrictive for my taste.

I'm of the belief that you shouldn't have bad contracts and, if you do, you can suffer thru them.   Or you can trade them and not pay the salary.  Because, when you pay the salary, you haven't shed anything.

Other than future season's salary.