Defintely agree with the assertion that this conversation is as useful as discussing politics or religion, but what the hell, I'll throw out my two cents.
I am not a fan of the flat out buying of players. It is difficult to gauge the cash value of a player, since the only bidding of players occurs in the IFA market. Any IFA who is a decent MLer goes for way more than 5M. The guys that go for 5M are typically of the value that could be cheaply acquired at the end of the FA signing period.
I have no issue with cash being used to make a trade work for covering salary. Yes, this does give the person receiving the cash an advantage in that particular season. That is obvious. I have seen no one mention the fact that this is a dynasty game and if the trade involving the cash is equitable in terms of overall value, the typical scenario is that the player receiving the cash is improving their current situation while the other person is improving their future. If that is not the case, then I would be thinking about the veto myself.
The talk of looking at leagues and seeing folks who have received cash having winning records. That seems completely obvious to me, since the majority of cash trades involve covering salary for a vet going to a playoff contender for a prospect. Losing teams aren't going to be making those deals. (As for the reference to my history in Major Leagues, yes in my 14 seasons, I have netted +17M in cash in trades. I actually belief my success there has more to do with other factors than my average cash influx of $1.2M per season.)
A previous post was concerned with a player bailing after the season. If we are talking about "quality" worlds, I don't work under the assumption that the league members are going to bail. (The leagues in which I participate have turnover of 0-4 per season, usually 2 or less.)
I don't understand why it is not acceptable within a dynasty game for someone to gain an advantage in the current season when they have sacrificed talent for future seasons.
7/28/2012 11:28 PM (edited)