Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Another example: Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Scranton Lenape Franchise Profile   Tight race.  I accepted 5m to get  Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Jorge Gonzalez.      124 great innings to lead me to the division title with 96 wins.   Couldn't make the deal without the cash.  I also left the world after that season so the prospects I gave up cost me nothing.

It cost you something.  Maybe not something you care about today.  Or ever.

The cost was a reduced change ever join one of the better private worlds.

You've established yourself as owners I would put a lot of effort into blocking from joining any world I was in.  You traded future value for present value, and then left the world.  Took the benefit without riding in impact of the cost.

Just like the guys who are willing to destroy an environment for short-term profit.  Cut down all the trees and let the soil flow into the river.  Dump the chemicals in the lake.  Not to put moral equality on messing up an HBD world with poisoning a lake, but the analogy holds.

That's about the only thing I look at when a world commish floats a potential owner.  Track record of improving several team and giving them up when they peak or just start to slide.  Exactly what I don't want in any of my worlds, as I plan to stick with them for a long time. So long as the worlds can keep out owners who regularly do what you did and the world can stay on top of vetoing bad deals.

If you've done this once out of 6-10 worlds, then there might be other reasons you left the world.  But if its a pattern, you're burning that alias.

I have not checked if this is a pattern for you, or a onetime thing.  You don't have to defend yourself.  I'm not attacking you or your decision to leave a world.  Just pointing out that there was a cost.  There are no free lunches.

HAHAHA!!  That's funny.   You don't know what shape that world was in when I entered or left.   In fact, some might say I saved that world from public death.

As for you, establish a track record before telling us what you intend to do. 

Posted by isack24 on 4/11/2011 1:28:00 PM (view original):

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....

That we're allowed to do it?

Wow, you're really going to make me side with Mike & Tec with this, aren't you? I am not arguing for anything, one way or another. You, however, are intentionally ignoring the obvious. I am simply stating hardcore fact. IF that is HONESTLY what you got from my original post, you are intentionally avoiding points in conversation for which you have no reasonable rebuttal, thus there is no point in even attempting conversation with you, or you truly do not comprehend what is being said.  Have you the intellectual integrity in this academic exercise to address the obvious point that, for whatever reason (and I am not even arguing it SHOULD be this way, simply that it IS that way), you keep avoiding? It's simple. You cannot trade a player for cash. Period. Why should this discussion continue past that point? The intent is that you cannot sell players, since you clearly haven't the courage (or desire for knowledge) to send a ticket and ask for yourself. YOUR conclusions that you are drawing are not on point, nor do they follow the post AT ALL.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 5:01:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I can.  They have these little numbers next to their names.    Because of that, I can determine if they're of somewhat equal value.   I'm not too bad at this game because I can do that.

What good do the little numbers do if the player never plays?  Or if the numbers change?  Of the the projected numbers don't become real numbers?  Or they player is never promoted to the ML?  Or traded away for different numbers that you may or many not think are as good?

I'll make the same point that you ignored.  Not that it's going to change your mind.

When you evaluate a trade, you make up a story about the future of the players.  The positions they'll play, how often they'll play, and what their stats are going to roughly be.

The story may or may not come true.

You could also make up a story about money in trades.  How it will be used.  What kind of value it can be exchanged for.

Based on your replies here, it seems you make up nice stories about the players and bad stories about the money.

Again, pretty pinko commie-like if you ask me.  Money is bad.  The people are good.

Why do you hate America and everything it stands for, Mike?

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 5:31:00 PM (view original):
HAHAHA!!  That's funny.   You don't know what shape that world was in when I entered or left.   In fact, some might say I saved that world from public death.

As for you, establish a track record before telling us what you intend to do. 

As I wrote, my point was not about you or that particular world.  Don't know or care about the particulars.  Not the point of this thread.

I did not intend to attack your character. 

You said there was no cost to your behavior.  I tried to point out there was.

Posted by tufft on 4/11/2011 5:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 5:01:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I can.  They have these little numbers next to their names.    Because of that, I can determine if they're of somewhat equal value.   I'm not too bad at this game because I can do that.

What good do the little numbers do if the player never plays?  Or if the numbers change?  Of the the projected numbers don't become real numbers?  Or they player is never promoted to the ML?  Or traded away for different numbers that you may or many not think are as good?

I'll make the same point that you ignored.  Not that it's going to change your mind.

When you evaluate a trade, you make up a story about the future of the players.  The positions they'll play, how often they'll play, and what their stats are going to roughly be.

The story may or may not come true.

You could also make up a story about money in trades.  How it will be used.  What kind of value it can be exchanged for.

Based on your replies here, it seems you make up nice stories about the players and bad stories about the money.

Again, pretty pinko commie-like if you ask me.  Money is bad.  The people are good.

Why do you hate America and everything it stands for, Mike?

I used this earlier but I'm not going to dig it up.  You can't legislate dumbassery out of the game.   If someone is going to be a dumbass and not play or develop players, nothing can be done about that.  But you can stop them from affecting 30 other owners with their dumbassery.  So, if a trade is uneven, you veto it.   With cash, I don't know what value it holds until it's invested back into the game. 

As for projections, I don't use them.   But I can project a player nonetheless.   It's those darn little numbers next to a player's name. 

Posted by tufft on 4/11/2011 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 5:31:00 PM (view original):
HAHAHA!!  That's funny.   You don't know what shape that world was in when I entered or left.   In fact, some might say I saved that world from public death.

As for you, establish a track record before telling us what you intend to do. 

As I wrote, my point was not about you or that particular world.  Don't know or care about the particulars.  Not the point of this thread.

I did not intend to attack your character. 

You said there was no cost to your behavior.  I tried to point out there was.

And I pointed out there was no cost.   I dare say there's no way you'd have dug into my trade history in S7 of ABU.  You might have noticed that I took a crap team and turned it into a 96 game winner.

Pstrnutbag44: You don't have to side with anyone on the merits, because that's not what we're talking about.

You're concluding that because you can't trade one player for only cash, that it was WiS' intention to ban player + a lot of cash for a player.  I'm simply pointing out that that is an incorrect logical conclusion, especially in light of the information that Mike gave us regarding their previous changes.

There's a legal principle that I think is applicable here.  When a court interprets a law and the legislature subsequently amends the law without modifyinf the court's interpretation, the presumption is that the legislature acquiesed in and approved of the court's interpretation. 

Here, some leagues (the court) have interpreted the rule as allowing a player + cash for player deal.  WiS (the legislature) modified the rule to limit the amount of cash that can be used.  The presumption, then, would be that WiS was aware of what people were doing (which is actually pretty clear in this case), and approved of it.

If they wouldn't have approved, they would have banned it.  End of story.

They may actually have not approved, but not banned it.  I think for leagues to have any semblence of a trading market, there has to be the possibility of cash exchanged because there exists a cap.  It is entirely possible that leaving cash allowable in trades is for the express purpose of encouraging trading, which makes the game more fun for its customers.  Which increases their bottom line.

They could have easily banned all cash transactions beyond the player salaries involved.

I hate to agree with isack but he's right.   WifS didn't think out the ramifications of unlimited cash.  In my own special way, I pointed it out to them.  In our exchanges, I recommended no cash(I've evolved since S1 of HBD) and they pointblank said "That's not happening because it will restrict trading too much."   So they asked for a number, they were looking at 10m, I suggested 2m and they settled on 5m.   I assume, since they were changing the cash program, that they could have limited it to cash in the amount of salary but chose not to.   Maybe it was too hard to program, maybe they didn't think of it(I certainly didn't suggest it) or maybe they set it exactly where they wanted it. since the first pick usually signs for 4m.   Don't know.   But I do know that did not want direct cash for players trades because they didn't program it like that.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 6:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tufft on 4/11/2011 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 5:31:00 PM (view original):
HAHAHA!!  That's funny.   You don't know what shape that world was in when I entered or left.   In fact, some might say I saved that world from public death.

As for you, establish a track record before telling us what you intend to do. 

As I wrote, my point was not about you or that particular world.  Don't know or care about the particulars.  Not the point of this thread.

I did not intend to attack your character. 

You said there was no cost to your behavior.  I tried to point out there was.

And I pointed out there was no cost.   I dare say there's no way you'd have dug into my trade history in S7 of ABU.  You might have noticed that I took a crap team and turned it into a 96 game winner.

You're correct.  No way anybody's looking at anybody trade by trade.

But building a pattern of building up and abandoning teams should raise a red flag and be reason to dig deeper.  If I saw a pattern of swapping the future for the present and jumping ship, I'd point that out and try to convince the commish & other owners in my worlds to not let that person in.

I'll say it again.  I don't know if you do or do not have this pattern.  I haven't checked.  Right now, I don't care. I didn't mean to imply anything negative about you and I'm sorry if you took it that way. 

I agree with you that 'dumb ***' play can't be made against the rules.  Not the point.

For every example you can toss out (made up or really happened) where money in a trade caused a longer term problem or could cause a problem, I'll be able to toss out another story where money in a trade is one of the good solutions to that problem.  And a solution to problems that were created and money it trades had nothing to do with it.

Because money in trades isn't on it's own a problem.

If you don't like it, play in worlds with rules that limit it.  I don't think a single post has been against that.

IMO, it would be bad for the game if the option was taken away, or limited in all worlds.  Fewer trades.  Harder to turn around a bad team.  Less strategy.

Has anybody offered the "no money in trades because extra money is an advantage" guys $1,000 for their first round picks?

I'm curious to see how that goes.

Building teams and moving to the next challenge is something a lot of good owners do.     Keeping them out is probably a stupid idea.   Would you rather have a quality owner take a 50 win team to 90 wins in a couple of seasons and move on or have a so so owner take the team, keep it for 10 seasons and lose 100 every year? 

The point is you can tell the usefulness of a player.  You have no idea what an owner will do with cash.   What he does or doesn't do could make the trade ridiculously lopsided. 

Also, cash doesn't add strategy.  Almost everyone says it makes trading easier.   Easier is not more strategic.

First round picks cost between 1m and 4m.  Why would anybody take that sort of budget hit?

Cash is part of the strategy.  It doesn't make anything more or less easy.  Only rules and owners attentiveness to market values do that.  If cash makes things easier, it's most likely because owners don't look at it as a real commoditiy in the first place.

What an owner does with cash after it is exchanged is presumably a part of the value in the first place.  But since it has fleeting value in terms of shelf life and what it is possible to be used for, it represents risk.  You've asserted repeatedly that cash has no value until it's used.  It actually does have value in terms of it's potential.  It has negative value in terms of its risk.  It might be semantics to you, but it's economic reality.  There's a supply and demand for it.  It's cost is determined by how the market itself values it.