Player for cash discussion Topic

tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by shipoopi on 7/26/2012 2:19:00 PM (view original):
"I don't play in a vacuum relative to the other owners in the league."

So, by that logic, the Blue Jays, Rays, and Orioles should veto every trade the Yankees and Red Sox make, since it has a negative impact on them.  And if they make a ridiculously one-sided trade with, say, the Mariners...giving up a couple of prospects for one of the best pure hitters of our generation...the other teams should be allowed to arbitrarily decide that it was an unfair trade and veto it.

You do not buy the right to evaluate players for other owners when you spend your $25.  It is misuse and abuse of veto power.

I think, from now on, I will decide every trade by coin flip.  It is no less arbitrary as what you people are suggesting.
So I don't have the right to "evaluate players for other owners", but you have the right to decide how other owners should or should not use their veto?

Sure, that makes a helluva lotta sense.
7/26/2012 2:23 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Posted by shipoopi on 7/26/2012 2:19:00 PM (view original):
"I don't play in a vacuum relative to the other owners in the league."

So, by that logic, the Blue Jays, Rays, and Orioles should veto every trade the Yankees and Red Sox make, since it has a negative impact on them.  And if they make a ridiculously one-sided trade with, say, the Mariners...giving up a couple of prospects for one of the best pure hitters of our generation...the other teams should be allowed to arbitrarily decide that it was an unfair trade and veto it.

You do not buy the right to evaluate players for other owners when you spend your $25.  It is misuse and abuse of veto power.

I think, from now on, I will decide every trade by coin flip.  It is no less arbitrary as what you people are suggesting.
And you don't buy the right to trash your team and screw up my league when you spend your $25.  I'm planning on sticking around and you might bail next season and leave the rest of the league to deal with your mess.

You're kidding yourself with this if you're willing to veto collusive deals - because I guarantee you there's a line in there somewhere in terms of your valuation where you would be convinced a deal was collusive no matter what the guy getting the short end of the stick in the deal said about his valuation of the player.
7/26/2012 2:24 PM
joshkvt
Posts: 6200 (0)
Hall of Famer
664 99
All Star
Posted by shipoopi on 7/26/2012 2:04:00 PM (view original):
But again...I say that it is not up to you to decide for another owner what is fair or unfair value to them.  Unless it is a rookie that you are saving from him or herself, it is up to them to decide what value they place upon it, and that is the right they acquire when they put their $25 in WIS' hands.
Deciding whether something is fair or unfair is the reason vetoes exist. If you believe anyone who pays for a team can do anything he wants, why would you block someone from ripping off a new owner? Paying my $25 doesn't give me the right to trash a world, win a title and then leave the mess for others to clean up.
7/26/2012 2:25 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by joshkvt on 7/26/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shipoopi on 7/26/2012 2:04:00 PM (view original):
But again...I say that it is not up to you to decide for another owner what is fair or unfair value to them.  Unless it is a rookie that you are saving from him or herself, it is up to them to decide what value they place upon it, and that is the right they acquire when they put their $25 in WIS' hands.
Deciding whether something is fair or unfair is the reason vetoes exist. If you believe anyone who pays for a team can do anything he wants, why would you block someone from ripping off a new owner? Paying my $25 doesn't give me the right to trash a world, win a title and then leave the mess for others to clean up.
According to shipoops, paying your $25 also doesn't give you right to stop another owner from doing just that.
7/26/2012 2:30 PM
shipoopi
Posts: 14 (0)
Prospect
1
Prospect
Except this owner has been around the league a while.  This is his third season, and he has given no indication he is leaving.

And I would rather be on the slippery slope towards being wrong when I think a deal is collusive than to be on the slippery slope created when "I am going to veto your deal only because I don't like the player as much as you did", which goes the other way towards using vetos for personal reasons.  I mean, if we can misuse our vetos just however we want, what's to stop 20 owners who have been around for years deciding they do not like a newcomer, from just vetoing every trade he makes no matter what, for no other reason than they don't like him? 
7/26/2012 2:30 PM
alleyviper
Posts: 1379 (0)
Hall of Famer
299 1 1 184
Pro
I made this point in WC and I'll express it here, too.

The idea of every team "only" having 185m to work with I think is given way too much credence by people who play this game.  I look at it this way: every world has a pool of $5.92 billion each season that is evenly distributed to the 32 teams, each gets 185m. It is then up to the 32 owners to take advantage of that 5.92b as they will.  Everyone in the world, every single owner, has the same opportunities to try and wrest some of that 5.92b from owners.  There is nothing unfair there, they all have the same 31 other owners to negotiate with, the same total pool to try and acquire as they will.  

It would be one thing if one owner were to somehow acquire an additional 5m from out of nowhere, 5m that the other 31 owners had no access to whatsoever.  THAT would be unfair.  As is, every owner has the same access and means to a chunk of the 5.92b pool beyond their initial 185m as every other owner has, which is entirely fair.  To say that every owner "only" gets 185 and has to live with it is to ignore that the world only has a set amount of money available that all 32 owners have equal access to.  There are no printing machines that can give one owner an unfair advantage over the rest of the world.

7/26/2012 2:31 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Posted by shipoopi on 7/26/2012 2:22:00 PM (view original):
"Ok. Apparently you are new, and a retard."

For personal reasons, I take extreme offense to this comment, and will be reporting it.  Know who you are talking about and what their family situation is before you use words that are brutally offensive.  You are obviously a person of very little quality and unworthy of my time.
You also cannot distinguish between Down Syndrome and retarded. You are dictionary definition retarded. Slow as molasses.

Now, gratefully, you can ignore me.
7/26/2012 2:32 PM
bwb53
Posts: 111 (0)
Hall of Famer
128 401
Prospect
Posted by AlCheez on 7/26/2012 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bwb53 on 7/26/2012 2:14:00 PM (view original):
Bad contracts are used to achieve the same goal as straight cash. Been there, done that, and had very little grousing in the process.
They might acheive the same ultimate goal for the guy shedding the contract, but most of the time, they don't have the same actual impact.
 The impact is, you are buying a player using the contract as the tool instead of cash. Taking 5m off his hands is the same as giving him 5m in cash. When I have done it, the player went to the minors never to be promoted. Only had a mild objection from a very few.Straight cash , and they think you are cheating. Take on a bad contract, and some of them think you are a dummy, but it's your right to be a dummy, and you  usually only need a few.
7/26/2012 2:32 PM
shipoopi
Posts: 14 (0)
Prospect
1
Prospect
"Deciding whether something is fair or unfair is the reason vetoes exist."

No it isn't.  It is to prevent unethical trading.  If two owners decide a trade helps them, then who the hell do you think you are telling them they aren't allowed to trade?
7/26/2012 2:32 PM
joshkvt
Posts: 6200 (0)
Hall of Famer
664 99
All Star
Quote post by shipoopi on 7/26/2012 2:19:00 PM: "You do not buy the right to evaluate players for other owners when you spend your $25.  It is misuse and abuse of veto power."

Actually, yes I do. And no, it isn't. But thanks for trying.
7/26/2012 2:35 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Posted by bwb53 on 7/26/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by AlCheez on 7/26/2012 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bwb53 on 7/26/2012 2:14:00 PM (view original):
Bad contracts are used to achieve the same goal as straight cash. Been there, done that, and had very little grousing in the process.
They might acheive the same ultimate goal for the guy shedding the contract, but most of the time, they don't have the same actual impact.
 The impact is, you are buying a player using the contract as the tool instead of cash. Taking 5m off his hands is the same as giving him 5m in cash. When I have done it, the player went to the minors never to be promoted. Only had a mild objection from a very few.Straight cash , and they think you are cheating. Take on a bad contract, and some of them think you are a dummy, but it's your right to be a dummy, and you  usually only need a few.
Like I said, if the contract in play is literally deadweight, it's the same impact - and I'd treat it the same.  If others wouldn't, whatever.  I'll ask again - did the owner in question have such a contract?  Because if he didn't, this is a moot point, because any contract he had dealt would have hurt his team and provided some addition value to the receiving owner for his $5 million.
7/26/2012 2:36 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Posted by shipoopi on 7/26/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):
"Deciding whether something is fair or unfair is the reason vetoes exist."

No it isn't.  It is to prevent unethical trading.  If two owners decide a trade helps them, then who the hell do you think you are telling them they aren't allowed to trade?

So you'd only veto a trade if the owners involved were dumb enough to make it obvious that they were colluding?

7/26/2012 2:38 PM
shipoopi
Posts: 14 (0)
Prospect
1
Prospect
Posted by joshkvt on 7/26/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):
Quote post by shipoopi on 7/26/2012 2:19:00 PM: "You do not buy the right to evaluate players for other owners when you spend your $25.  It is misuse and abuse of veto power."

Actually, yes I do. And no, it isn't. But thanks for trying.
Actually, no you don't.  Because if it gave you the right to evaluate players for other owners, then WIS might as well just give you their password and let you run their team for them too.
7/26/2012 2:39 PM
shipoopi
Posts: 14 (0)
Prospect
1
Prospect
Posted by AlCheez on 7/26/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shipoopi on 7/26/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):
"Deciding whether something is fair or unfair is the reason vetoes exist."

No it isn't.  It is to prevent unethical trading.  If two owners decide a trade helps them, then who the hell do you think you are telling them they aren't allowed to trade?

So you'd only veto a trade if the owners involved were dumb enough to make it obvious that they were colluding?

That is correct.  For example, if I was to sign a Type A, and the owner I signed him from made me a low-ball offer later in the season to get him back, I would expect that deal to be vetoed.  However, if I accept a bad deal, it is up to me AND ONLY ME to deal with the fallout of that deal...NOT up to you to deny me the right to evaluate players for myself.
7/26/2012 2:42 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Posted by shipoopi on 7/26/2012 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by joshkvt on 7/26/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):
Quote post by shipoopi on 7/26/2012 2:19:00 PM: "You do not buy the right to evaluate players for other owners when you spend your $25.  It is misuse and abuse of veto power."

Actually, yes I do. And no, it isn't. But thanks for trying.
Actually, no you don't.  Because if it gave you the right to evaluate players for other owners, then WIS might as well just give you their password and let you run their team for them too.

It gives you the right to evaluate someone else's trade in your own way.   You only have the right to do something about it if 9 other owners agree with you, so no, it's not similar at all.

7/26/2012 2:43 PM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7|8...38 Next ▸
Player for cash discussion Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.