Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 1:40:00 PM (view original):
Players have value.  Each person places a different value on them depending on ability, age, contract, etc.  A trade involving cash is no different than any other trade.

My question to those of you who want to know what the person is going to do with the money is, do you ask a participant in a trade what they're going to do with the player(s) they're getting in that trade?

I have no problem if one believes that the player in question is not worth $5million, because then, in your opinion, it's an unbalanced trade.  However, if you admit he is worth $5million, but that you are vetoing because of what the one person will do with the $5million, well, I don't agree with that at all.  Because that is an admission that the trade itself is fair.

And lets be serious, there are a whole lot of ways to shed salary if you need to.  All those other ways are fine and dandy, but this is somehow not?

It is all about the trade.  If the trade by itself is fair, no veto.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/27/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 1:40:00 PM (view original):
Players have value.  Each person places a different value on them depending on ability, age, contract, etc.  A trade involving cash is no different than any other trade.

My question to those of you who want to know what the person is going to do with the money is, do you ask a participant in a trade what they're going to do with the player(s) they're getting in that trade?

I have no problem if one believes that the player in question is not worth $5million, because then, in your opinion, it's an unbalanced trade.  However, if you admit he is worth $5million, but that you are vetoing because of what the one person will do with the $5million, well, I don't agree with that at all.  Because that is an admission that the trade itself is fair.

And lets be serious, there are a whole lot of ways to shed salary if you need to.  All those other ways are fine and dandy, but this is somehow not?

It is all about the trade.  If the trade by itself is fair, no veto.

No, I don't ask.   I assume they're not idiots and will use players appropriately.  If they don't, it goes back to what I told alleyviper a few pages ago.   I have no say with what you do with your team.  If you wreck it, you wreck.   But, when you involve another team, WifS has saw fit to give me a say.   So I can look at players and say "Pretty fair deal" or not.  I cannot look at cash and do that.   I can figure it out or I can ask.   Either way, I don't HAVE to explain to either party why I disapprove.  The "NO VETO!!!!" crowd needs to take it up with WIfS..

FWIW, the 5m limit is probably from my doing.  In Aaron S1, there was no limit.    Several sitestaff were in there and I explained, long and loud, how easy it was to abuse cash.  They didn't seem to understand so I proudly said "I'm in first place but I am trading my entire team for prospects.  I will happily pay full salary and maybe even more."   They decided a cash limit per trade might be a good idea.

So I suggest you contact WifS and have them remove the power of veto.  Explain why vetoes aren't necessary.   If you can make a good point, I imagine they'll change it.  Good luck.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/27/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 1:40:00 PM (view original):
Players have value.  Each person places a different value on them depending on ability, age, contract, etc.  A trade involving cash is no different than any other trade.

My question to those of you who want to know what the person is going to do with the money is, do you ask a participant in a trade what they're going to do with the player(s) they're getting in that trade?

I have no problem if one believes that the player in question is not worth $5million, because then, in your opinion, it's an unbalanced trade.  However, if you admit he is worth $5million, but that you are vetoing because of what the one person will do with the $5million, well, I don't agree with that at all.  Because that is an admission that the trade itself is fair.

And lets be serious, there are a whole lot of ways to shed salary if you need to.  All those other ways are fine and dandy, but this is somehow not?

It is all about the trade.  If the trade by itself is fair, no veto.

No, I don't ask.   I assume they're not idiots and will use players appropriately.  If they don't, it goes back to what I told alleyviper a few pages ago.   I have no say with what you do with your team.  If you wreck it, you wreck.   But, when you involve another team, WifS has saw fit to give me a say.   So I can look at players and say "Pretty fair deal" or not.  I cannot look at cash and do that.   I can figure it out or I can ask.   Either way, I don't HAVE to explain to either party why I disapprove.  The "NO VETO!!!!" crowd needs to take it up with WIfS..

FWIW, the 5m limit is probably from my doing.  In Aaron S1, there was no limit.    Several sitestaff were in there and I explained, long and loud, how easy it was to abuse cash.  They didn't seem to understand so I proudly said "I'm in first place but I am trading my entire team for prospects.  I will happily pay full salary and maybe even more."   They decided a cash limit per trade might be a good idea.

So I suggest you contact WifS and have them remove the power of veto.  Explain why vetoes aren't necessary.   If you can make a good point, I imagine they'll change it.  Good luck.

"So I suggest you contact WifS and have them remove the power of veto.  Explain why vetoes aren't necessary.   If you can make a good point, I imagine they'll change it.  Good luck."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/27/2012 3:07:00 PM (view original):
I take it you don't feel you can make a compelling case.   I didn't think you could either.

Posted by tedwmoore on 7/27/2012 3:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/27/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 1:40:00 PM (view original):
Players have value.  Each person places a different value on them depending on ability, age, contract, etc.  A trade involving cash is no different than any other trade.

My question to those of you who want to know what the person is going to do with the money is, do you ask a participant in a trade what they're going to do with the player(s) they're getting in that trade?

I have no problem if one believes that the player in question is not worth $5million, because then, in your opinion, it's an unbalanced trade.  However, if you admit he is worth $5million, but that you are vetoing because of what the one person will do with the $5million, well, I don't agree with that at all.  Because that is an admission that the trade itself is fair.

And lets be serious, there are a whole lot of ways to shed salary if you need to.  All those other ways are fine and dandy, but this is somehow not?

It is all about the trade.  If the trade by itself is fair, no veto.

No, I don't ask.   I assume they're not idiots and will use players appropriately.  If they don't, it goes back to what I told alleyviper a few pages ago.   I have no say with what you do with your team.  If you wreck it, you wreck.   But, when you involve another team, WifS has saw fit to give me a say.   So I can look at players and say "Pretty fair deal" or not.  I cannot look at cash and do that.   I can figure it out or I can ask.   Either way, I don't HAVE to explain to either party why I disapprove.  The "NO VETO!!!!" crowd needs to take it up with WIfS..

FWIW, the 5m limit is probably from my doing.  In Aaron S1, there was no limit.    Several sitestaff were in there and I explained, long and loud, how easy it was to abuse cash.  They didn't seem to understand so I proudly said "I'm in first place but I am trading my entire team for prospects.  I will happily pay full salary and maybe even more."   They decided a cash limit per trade might be a good idea.

So I suggest you contact WifS and have them remove the power of veto.  Explain why vetoes aren't necessary.   If you can make a good point, I imagine they'll change it.  Good luck.

"So I suggest you contact WifS and have them remove the power of veto.  Explain why vetoes aren't necessary.   If you can make a good point, I imagine they'll change it.  Good luck."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Jclark: in a previous post you argued that if cash in trades is unfair then WiS would not have made it part of the game, to which argument you appended an observation that there is no ground swell to have cash in trades removed as a feature.

This is the equivalent of Mike's "take it up with WiS if you don't like vetoes" argument. Cash in trades is part of the game, so are vetoes. For some worlds and for some within the community, cash in trades is acceptable; for other worlds and for others in the community it is not and it will be vetoed. So long as we all self segregate and play in worlds with like-minded owners this is not an issue. But, as with me in Kinsella, that is not always the case. If you find yourself in a world with 10 owners who veto trades that include cash, you either live with the restrictions or leave. For me, I like Kinsella and stay there despite being among the minority of owners who tend to frown on using cash in trades. This of course really does nothing to advance the argument in the forums, but in the end it is probably the only resolution accessible to us as a user community.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/27/2012 3:32:00 PM (view original):
You consider it a strawman, I do not.

The point is, if this is a widespread problem, or you can convince WifS by whatever means necessary that it can be, you should take it up with the creator of the game.   They make adjustments. 

If this is a one-off "They unfairly vetoed my deal!!!", nothing will be done.   Nor should it.

The bottom line is vetoes exist as does cash in trades.  Sometimes the two butt heads.   You either deal with it or you convince the makers to change it.  You've been around long enough to know that no amount of forum discussion will change minds.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tedwmoore on 7/27/2012 3:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/27/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 1:40:00 PM (view original):
Players have value.  Each person places a different value on them depending on ability, age, contract, etc.  A trade involving cash is no different than any other trade.

My question to those of you who want to know what the person is going to do with the money is, do you ask a participant in a trade what they're going to do with the player(s) they're getting in that trade?

I have no problem if one believes that the player in question is not worth $5million, because then, in your opinion, it's an unbalanced trade.  However, if you admit he is worth $5million, but that you are vetoing because of what the one person will do with the $5million, well, I don't agree with that at all.  Because that is an admission that the trade itself is fair.

And lets be serious, there are a whole lot of ways to shed salary if you need to.  All those other ways are fine and dandy, but this is somehow not?

It is all about the trade.  If the trade by itself is fair, no veto.

No, I don't ask.   I assume they're not idiots and will use players appropriately.  If they don't, it goes back to what I told alleyviper a few pages ago.   I have no say with what you do with your team.  If you wreck it, you wreck.   But, when you involve another team, WifS has saw fit to give me a say.   So I can look at players and say "Pretty fair deal" or not.  I cannot look at cash and do that.   I can figure it out or I can ask.   Either way, I don't HAVE to explain to either party why I disapprove.  The "NO VETO!!!!" crowd needs to take it up with WIfS..

FWIW, the 5m limit is probably from my doing.  In Aaron S1, there was no limit.    Several sitestaff were in there and I explained, long and loud, how easy it was to abuse cash.  They didn't seem to understand so I proudly said "I'm in first place but I am trading my entire team for prospects.  I will happily pay full salary and maybe even more."   They decided a cash limit per trade might be a good idea.

So I suggest you contact WifS and have them remove the power of veto.  Explain why vetoes aren't necessary.   If you can make a good point, I imagine they'll change it.  Good luck.

"So I suggest you contact WifS and have them remove the power of veto.  Explain why vetoes aren't necessary.   If you can make a good point, I imagine they'll change it.  Good luck."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Jclark: in a previous post you argued that if cash in trades is unfair then WiS would not have made it part of the game, to which argument you appended an observation that there is no ground swell to have cash in trades removed as a feature.

This is the equivalent of Mike's "take it up with WiS if you don't like vetoes" argument. Cash in trades is part of the game, so are vetoes. For some worlds and for some within the community, cash in trades is acceptable; for other worlds and for others in the community it is not and it will be vetoed. So long as we all self segregate and play in worlds with like-minded owners this is not an issue. But, as with me in Kinsella, that is not always the case. If you find yourself in a world with 10 owners who veto trades that include cash, you either live with the restrictions or leave. For me, I like Kinsella and stay there despite being among the minority of owners who tend to frown on using cash in trades. This of course really does nothing to advance the argument in the forums, but in the end it is probably the only resolution accessible to us as a user community.

ted,  the rules are the rules.  And each owner is going to do what they are going to do.  The reality is that this conversation is academic, because the reality is that there are few trades that occur that cause a huge stink.  People know when a trade is unfair.  I just personally am not a fan of zero tolerance when it comes to trades involving cash (I am not in favor or zero tolerance in general).

My real issue is the one I stated previously re other members not paying attention regarding trades.  I would rather have discussions about a trade not going through that I thought should go through, than having to deal with a trade that went through that should not have because of league members not doing their duty.  And that goes hand and hand with league members also not bothering to vote for HOF.

Shaw for minor leaguer and 5m in cash. One side gets shaw, the other side gets 5m which he puts into signing prospect A,
 Shaw and 5m salaried minor leaguer for minor leaguer. One side gets Shaw, the other has 5m which he puts into signing prospect A. In each transaction, both sides have   the same capabilities post transaction. The only difference are the added  minor leaguers involved. There is no difference between giving 5m in cash, or taking 5m in salary. Both trades leave the teams with the same capabilities. If there was an advantage, one trade  would allow an owner  to do more than the other post trade. It'e the same.

Posted by bwb53 on 7/27/2012 3:58:00 PM (view original):

Shaw for minor leaguer and 5m in cash. One side gets shaw, the other side gets 5m which he puts into signing prospect A,
 Shaw and 5m salaried minor leaguer for minor leaguer. One side gets Shaw, the other has 5m which he puts into signing prospect A. In each transaction, both sides have   the same capabilities post transaction. The only difference are the added  minor leaguers involved. There is no difference between giving 5m in cash, or taking 5m in salary. Both trades leave the teams with the same capabilities. If there was an advantage, one trade  would allow an owner  to do more than the other post trade. It'e the same.