Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 3:54:00 PM (view original):
If the objective is getting $, once I clear cap space I do not have to do the deal.

Deathinthehole, see what happened there?

So you don't understand the question?

Let me try again.

It's near the trade deadline.  You have $2m of available cap space.  You find a trading partner who is willing to trade you a stud ML pitcher who has $7m still left on his contract this season for a stud prospect of comparable projected ratings.  You need to cover the difference of $5m of cap space.

What is easier: (a) accepting $5m cash from the trading partner (assuming he is willing to do that because he really covets the stud prospect), or (b) clearing $5m cap space on your own via a separate deal before you make the deal outlined above?

Thus the rules limiting cash inclusion in some worlds.

I'm still waiting for jclark to provide some examples proving that the better team gets cash, the better team is still better 3 seasons later and that one or both owners are gone after 5 seasons.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2012 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Let me try again.

It's near the trade deadline.  You have $2m of available cap space.  You find a trading partner who is willing to trade you a stud ML pitcher who has $7m still left on his contract this season for a stud prospect of comparable projected ratings.  You need to cover the difference of $5m of cap space.

What is easier: (a) accepting $5m cash from the trading partner (assuming he is willing to do that because he really covets the stud prospect), or (b) clearing $5m cap space on your own via a separate deal before you make the deal outlined above?

Or C) transfer $10M from prospect.

Posted by deathinahole on 7/29/2012 5:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2012 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Let me try again.

It's near the trade deadline.  You have $2m of available cap space.  You find a trading partner who is willing to trade you a stud ML pitcher who has $7m still left on his contract this season for a stud prospect of comparable projected ratings.  You need to cover the difference of $5m of cap space.

What is easier: (a) accepting $5m cash from the trading partner (assuming he is willing to do that because he really covets the stud prospect), or (b) clearing $5m cap space on your own via a separate deal before you make the deal outlined above?

Or C) transfer $10M from prospect.

My bad.  Assume you have no other funds to transfer.

Posted by bripat42 on 7/29/2012 4:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 7/29/2012 3:50:00 PM (view original):
I've thrown in the towel.

There was a good discussion with oe about the chicken and egg effect of cash in a trade; ie, a good owner is in a position to accept cash in a trade, thus is it cash in trade keeping him on top, or he's on top therefore attracts cash in trade scenarios?

Interesting food for thought.

Then tweedledee and tweedledum wander in with their anti math, and it's screw it.

OE did make a very good point. One of the reasons such trades commonly involving contending teams getting cash from rebuilding (for lack of a better term) teams is because unlike in the real world a surplus of cash does not roll over to the next fiscal year. I'm not suggesting that the game be changed to allow that because that's opening a pandora's box that is a whole other discussion. But in this discussion it's worth acknowledging that a system where every team's budget restarts at $185M leaves no motivation for a rebuilding franchise to not include cash in a deal.

Yea, the other pandora's box scenario I've pondered is instead of "cash", it's "budget", and the end result is all parties have to end up at $185M.

So, in the scenario that tec has,

$7M player

$2M player
$5M "cash" (actually, transfer of $5M payroll)

This creates the overall cap imbalance. So, what if the opposite reaction required was

$7M player
$5M prospect

Thus balancing both sides at $185M, and achieving the need of more payroll budget needed.

But that's also ripe for abuse. I'm not sure it's any better than people not knowing the math of what cash does.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2012 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Let me try again.

It's near the trade deadline.  You have $2m of available cap space.  You find a trading partner who is willing to trade you a stud ML pitcher who has $7m still left on his contract this season for a stud prospect of comparable projected ratings.  You need to cover the difference of $5m of cap space.

What is easier: (a) accepting $5m cash from the trading partner (assuming he is willing to do that because he really covets the stud prospect), or (b) clearing $5m cap space on your own via a separate deal before you make the deal outlined above?

What is easier because of time constraints is doing the deal and getting the $5m.  But is the deal as you indicated fair?  I would say probably not.  If the ML pitcher has comparable ratings to the projected ratings of the prospect, I am getting the better deal.  It probably gets vetoed.  Not because I cannot cover the salary, but because I am not giving up anything to get that $5m.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2012 4:17:00 PM (view original):

Mike and Death in econ 101?

Silly me, you guys definitely never got near an econ class.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2012 4:46:00 PM (view original):
Thus the rules limiting cash inclusion in some worlds.

I'm still waiting for jclark to provide some examples proving that the better team gets cash, the better team is still better 3 seasons later and that one or both owners are gone after 5 seasons.

Oh, I see.  You think you win arguments by putting forth a theory, and then your opponent has to prove it false.  No, you see, that is what someone does who either knows he cannot prove his theory, has grave doubts about proving it, or is just too damn lazy to prove it.  Or, even more sadly, thinks that such a tactic makes his argument better.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 5:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2012 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Let me try again.

It's near the trade deadline.  You have $2m of available cap space.  You find a trading partner who is willing to trade you a stud ML pitcher who has $7m still left on his contract this season for a stud prospect of comparable projected ratings.  You need to cover the difference of $5m of cap space.

What is easier: (a) accepting $5m cash from the trading partner (assuming he is willing to do that because he really covets the stud prospect), or (b) clearing $5m cap space on your own via a separate deal before you make the deal outlined above?

What is easier because of time constraints is doing the deal and getting the $5m.  But is the deal as you indicated fair?  I would say probably not.  If the ML pitcher has comparable ratings to the projected ratings of the prospect, I am getting the better deal.  It probably gets vetoed.  Not because I cannot cover the salary, but because I am not giving up anything to get that $5m.

See?  Now was that so difficult, to admit that accepting cash in deals is the lazy man's way to circumventing cap problems?

Next question: is having an effective $190m budget with $10m of available cap space the same as having a $185m budget with $10m of available cap space?

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2012 4:46:00 PM (view original):
Thus the rules limiting cash inclusion in some worlds.

I'm still waiting for jclark to provide some examples proving that the better team gets cash, the better team is still better 3 seasons later and that one or both owners are gone after 5 seasons.

Oh, I see.  You think you win arguments by putting forth a theory, and then your opponent has to prove it false.  No, you see, that is what someone does who either knows he cannot prove his theory, has grave doubts about proving it, or is just too damn lazy to prove it.  Or, even more sadly, thinks that such a tactic makes his argument better.

Sorry, you refuted it.  I've already confirmed it.   I'm telling you, if you don't think it's right, to simply check worlds with heavy cash trading.  You'll see it.  You won't come back and say "Yeah, you're right" because it shoots your argument all to ****.   But I am right.   Anyone who disagrees can check it.

He starts with 2m, and gets 5 from his partner. That is 7 in cap space, not 10.Where does the other 3m come from?

You still have pay the guy 7m Now unless you can come up with where that 3m came from, you have 0 cap.

It's a separate question, numbnuts.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2012 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 5:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2012 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Let me try again.

It's near the trade deadline.  You have $2m of available cap space.  You find a trading partner who is willing to trade you a stud ML pitcher who has $7m still left on his contract this season for a stud prospect of comparable projected ratings.  You need to cover the difference of $5m of cap space.

What is easier: (a) accepting $5m cash from the trading partner (assuming he is willing to do that because he really covets the stud prospect), or (b) clearing $5m cap space on your own via a separate deal before you make the deal outlined above?

What is easier because of time constraints is doing the deal and getting the $5m.  But is the deal as you indicated fair?  I would say probably not.  If the ML pitcher has comparable ratings to the projected ratings of the prospect, I am getting the better deal.  It probably gets vetoed.  Not because I cannot cover the salary, but because I am not giving up anything to get that $5m.

See?  Now was that so difficult, to admit that accepting cash in deals is the lazy man's way to circumventing cap problems?

Next question: is having an effective $190m budget with $10m of available cap space the same as having a $185m budget with $10m of available cap space?

Dumping a high priced ML player for prospects is pretty damn easy.  So I really don't know what point you're trying to make.

Is it the same?  No.  Do you have the exact same amount of money to use.  Yes.  Cap space is all that matters.  Because you give up value to increase that cap number.  There is no windfall.