Player for cash discussion Topic

toddcommish
Posts: 5101 (0)
Hall of Famer
520 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 1:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 7/27/2012 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/27/2012 1:44:00 PM (view original):
I veto virtually all trades that include any cash.
All trades include cash, unless you are trading guys with the same total combined salary.
No, all trades include CAP SPACE.  Which ain't the same as cash. 

If you give me a car, and I give you a bicycle, we did not trade cash.
Each vehicle has value.  Each is worth a certain amount of cash.
Right.  But they don't "include" cash.  There is perceived value.

Some trades come with a bag of.... wait for it....

CASH.
7/27/2012 1:52 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Mmm. No.

Trade a $5M player for a $10M player; both teams have a $185M cap, one increases their payroll by 5M, one decreases their payroll by $5M.

Trade a $5M player for a $5M player and $5M cash - both teams stay at the same level of payroll, team 1 has a $190M cap, the other has a $180M cap.

That $190M, in the right hands, has a distinct advantage over the rest of the leaguen because that extra $5M does not have to be payroll. It can be anything.
7/27/2012 1:53 PM
jclarkbaker
Posts: 1920 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 11 125
Prospect
Posted by joshkvt on 7/27/2012 1:51:00 PM (view original):
"value" and "cash" are not synonyms.
No, they're not.  $5million is $5million.  A player's value is subjective and based on many factors.  But it all comes down to money.

This aversion to cash in a trade is hysterical.  You can trade players with high salaries in order to get room to sign a guy, but God forbid you make a trade that includes $5million.
7/27/2012 2:11 PM (edited)
toddcommish
Posts: 5101 (0)
Hall of Famer
520 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Did you ever see City Slickers?  Y'know, when Billy Crystal is explaining how to watch one channel and record a different channel to Daniel Stern?

And Bruno Kirby explodes with "HE DOESN'T GET IT!  HE'LL NEVER GET IT!  IT'S BEEN FOUR HOURS!  THE COWS CAN RECORD SOMETHING BY NOW!"

That's how I feel about jclark and poopi
7/27/2012 2:00 PM
jclarkbaker
Posts: 1920 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 11 125
Prospect
You're right, I just don't get the flawed argument that is as simple as "cash bad".
7/27/2012 2:03 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Not bad. Just know what it is.

Don't think it's an advantage? Take a look at your own leagues, and figure out who's accummulated the most cash in trades over a long period of time and look at their records.

I'll start you off. Overeasy in Major Leagues, acquired $17M in extra cap space since he's entered that league.
7/27/2012 2:13 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect

There's no way I'm reading this whole thing, but I'll throw this out there - If a team in financial distress sold a AAAA baseball player for $5 million, it would be negated by MLB.  Yes, I know MLB and HBD are not the same things.

7/27/2012 2:15 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Dude knows what he is doing already. Then you guys give him more cap space. Just grab a bar stool and bend over while you're at it.
7/27/2012 2:15 PM
jclarkbaker
Posts: 1920 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 11 125
Prospect
Posted by deathinahole on 7/27/2012 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Not bad. Just know what it is.

Don't think it's an advantage? Take a look at your own leagues, and figure out who's accummulated the most cash in trades over a long period of time and look at their records.

I'll start you off. Overeasy in Major Leagues, acquired $17M in extra cap space since he's entered that league.
There are all kinds of ways to do that.  Why does cash in trades (or what you're going to do with that cash) suddenly make a trade a veto?

If they answer is, which it is, that "I can veto this and I can't veto the other ways, so it is to my advantage to veto" then just say it.
7/27/2012 2:22 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 2:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by deathinahole on 7/27/2012 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Not bad. Just know what it is.

Don't think it's an advantage? Take a look at your own leagues, and figure out who's accummulated the most cash in trades over a long period of time and look at their records.

I'll start you off. Overeasy in Major Leagues, acquired $17M in extra cap space since he's entered that league.
There are all kinds of ways to do that.  Why does cash in trades (or what you're going to do with that cash) suddenly make a trade a veto?

If they answer is, which it is, that "I can veto this and I can't veto the other ways, so it is to my advantage to veto" then just say it.
Everyone has $185M in cap space they can use.  You're giving someone more cap space, and therefore, an advantage over everyone else.  A lot of people have a problem with that, and those trades are generally vetoed in "good" worlds.
7/27/2012 2:24 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
There are two reasons to veto in my book.

1. Experienced player bends over a Noob. No noobs in the leagues I'm in, which leaves...
2. Owner acquires cash in a trade, and thus has a cap advantage over me.

I'm pretty hardcore, so most "I'm throwing in a million to cover the salary" deals go through with probably me being the only one to veto.

Every now and then, veto. Usually, large amount of cash, and someone was to dumb or lazy to budget correct.

Because, in the end, most times cash fixes the problems of the dumb and/or lazy.

"I don't have enough to sign _________ IFA/first round pick"
"I don't have enough payroll to sign an FA/bring up someone from AAA/make this trade" (which I usually point out that there's coach or prospect budget to transfer, but I digress)

Dumb, lazy, or smart enough to know that I don't need X+5million in salary during budgetting because some sucker is going to give it to me.
7/27/2012 2:32 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
I figured out the proper anology - lets say MLB had a cap of $50 million.  Most teams hit this cap #.  

The Yankees trade a journeyman, min salary player for $5 million.  Seems odd, but whatever.  Except when the Yankees get their money, they claim their $5 million now raises their salary cap, and they can use that $5 million on whatever they want to use it for.  Is that ok? Of course not. It actually makes zero sense.
7/27/2012 2:36 PM
jclarkbaker
Posts: 1920 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 11 125
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 7/27/2012 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 2:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by deathinahole on 7/27/2012 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Not bad. Just know what it is.

Don't think it's an advantage? Take a look at your own leagues, and figure out who's accummulated the most cash in trades over a long period of time and look at their records.

I'll start you off. Overeasy in Major Leagues, acquired $17M in extra cap space since he's entered that league.
There are all kinds of ways to do that.  Why does cash in trades (or what you're going to do with that cash) suddenly make a trade a veto?

If they answer is, which it is, that "I can veto this and I can't veto the other ways, so it is to my advantage to veto" then just say it.
Everyone has $185M in cap space they can use.  You're giving someone more cap space, and therefore, an advantage over everyone else.  A lot of people have a problem with that, and those trades are generally vetoed in "good" worlds.
If it is an unfair advantage, then why is it part of the game?  They made it so everyone has the same cap, yet they also made it so you can include money in a trade.  Why is that?  I haven't noticed a big movement to eliminate that aspect from the game.

And seriously, the "good world" argument?
7/27/2012 2:37 PM
jclarkbaker
Posts: 1920 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 11 125
Prospect
Posted by deathinahole on 7/27/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):
There are two reasons to veto in my book.

1. Experienced player bends over a Noob. No noobs in the leagues I'm in, which leaves...
2. Owner acquires cash in a trade, and thus has a cap advantage over me.

I'm pretty hardcore, so most "I'm throwing in a million to cover the salary" deals go through with probably me being the only one to veto.

Every now and then, veto. Usually, large amount of cash, and someone was to dumb or lazy to budget correct.

Because, in the end, most times cash fixes the problems of the dumb and/or lazy.

"I don't have enough to sign _________ IFA/first round pick"
"I don't have enough payroll to sign an FA/bring up someone from AAA/make this trade" (which I usually point out that there's coach or prospect budget to transfer, but I digress)

Dumb, lazy, or smart enough to know that I don't need X+5million in salary during budgetting because some sucker is going to give it to me.
I personally have a different philosophy, but, to each his own.  As someone else here said, if a trade gets vetoed, it probably deserved to get vetoed.
7/27/2012 2:39 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 7/27/2012 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 2:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by deathinahole on 7/27/2012 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Not bad. Just know what it is.

Don't think it's an advantage? Take a look at your own leagues, and figure out who's accummulated the most cash in trades over a long period of time and look at their records.

I'll start you off. Overeasy in Major Leagues, acquired $17M in extra cap space since he's entered that league.
There are all kinds of ways to do that.  Why does cash in trades (or what you're going to do with that cash) suddenly make a trade a veto?

If they answer is, which it is, that "I can veto this and I can't veto the other ways, so it is to my advantage to veto" then just say it.
Everyone has $185M in cap space they can use.  You're giving someone more cap space, and therefore, an advantage over everyone else.  A lot of people have a problem with that, and those trades are generally vetoed in "good" worlds.
If it is an unfair advantage, then why is it part of the game?  They made it so everyone has the same cap, yet they also made it so you can include money in a trade.  Why is that?  I haven't noticed a big movement to eliminate that aspect from the game.

And seriously, the "good world" argument?
I put quotes around the word "good" for a reason.

I'm just explaining why people are against it, and why those trades are usually vetoed.  See my next post.
7/27/2012 2:41 PM
◂ Prev 1...10|11|12|13|14...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.