Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2012 12:35:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, there are exceptions.    I checked Greenberg.  gjello has built a ridiculous team.  5 seasons ago he handed out 10m with his older players and got prospects in return while winning 100.    2 of the three owners are no longer in the world and gjello has been better than the other.   The prospects are now BL players and he's still winning.  So the owner giving up the cash isn't always the lesser owner.   But gjello did exactly what he needed to do to be good now and later.

I see.

I hope you guys all hire accountants.  Because they have an understanding of assets, liabilities and equity.

5M jumps out.  It holds true with lesser amounts of cash.  And, unlike someone who misrepresents themselves by saying "some" when they only have "one" misunderstood example, I have no reason to make **** up.  It's all out there for public consumption.  More often than not, the better owner gets the cash, stays better for a long period of time(maybe they do the same types of deals year after year) and one or both owners are gone after 5 seasons.   It's just a fact.   A fact that anyone can look up in any world with unrestricted use of cash. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2012 1:22:00 PM (view original):
5M jumps out.  It holds true with lesser amounts of cash.  And, unlike someone who misrepresents themselves by saying "some" when they only have "one" misunderstood example, I have no reason to make **** up.  It's all out there for public consumption.  More often than not, the better owner gets the cash, stays better for a long period of time(maybe they do the same types of deals year after year) and one or both owners are gone after 5 seasons.   It's just a fact.   A fact that anyone can look up in any world with unrestricted use of cash. 

I bet if you keep saying it's "a fact" over and over again, you may actually get a few people to believe you.  That's easier than actually doing a study that holds water.

FYI, you misrepresented yourself.  You indicated that "the better team is getting the cash" in your initial post.  In your last post, you indicate that "the better owner gets the cash".  Which is it?

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/30/2012 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2012 11:29:00 AM (view original):
I'm not posting 72 examples because anyone who cares can check it themselves.  I'm not your research monkey.

Both bigal and blanch are still playing the game.

Ignore the facts if you want but you can check any of your "FREE CASH!!!" worlds and see it for yourself.   Of course, I'm sure every owner who leaves is doing so for "real life reasons" even if he has half a dozen other teams, right?

"Ignore facts". 

You have done what all bad researchers do.  You have come up with a theory, cherry picked your studies, and ignored all other factors.  Because you settled on your conclusion first.  Again, fantastic job.

Sez the guy who believes that 190 = 185.

Is that what I believe?

Apparently.  You indicated that the only thing that matters is cap space.  Are you backing off that now?

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 9:02:00 PM (view original):

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.

"Do you have the exact same amount of money to use.  Yes.  Cap space is all that matters."

This.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 1:48:00 PM (view original):
FYI, you misrepresented yourself.  You indicated that "the better team is getting the cash" in your initial post.  In your last post, you indicate that "the better owner gets the cash".  Which is it?

Do better owners usually have better teams?  That's my experience.   Are you in some crazy world where bad owners win lots of games over and over again?

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2012 1:22:00 PM (view original):
5M jumps out.  It holds true with lesser amounts of cash.  And, unlike someone who misrepresents themselves by saying "some" when they only have "one" misunderstood example, I have no reason to make **** up.  It's all out there for public consumption.  More often than not, the better owner gets the cash, stays better for a long period of time(maybe they do the same types of deals year after year) and one or both owners are gone after 5 seasons.   It's just a fact.   A fact that anyone can look up in any world with unrestricted use of cash. 

I bet if you keep saying it's "a fact" over and over again, you may actually get a few people to believe you.  That's easier than actually doing a study that holds water.

This:

"A fact that anyone can look up in any world with unrestricted use of cash."

Posted by tecwrg on 7/30/2012 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/30/2012 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2012 11:29:00 AM (view original):
I'm not posting 72 examples because anyone who cares can check it themselves.  I'm not your research monkey.

Both bigal and blanch are still playing the game.

Ignore the facts if you want but you can check any of your "FREE CASH!!!" worlds and see it for yourself.   Of course, I'm sure every owner who leaves is doing so for "real life reasons" even if he has half a dozen other teams, right?

"Ignore facts". 

You have done what all bad researchers do.  You have come up with a theory, cherry picked your studies, and ignored all other factors.  Because you settled on your conclusion first.  Again, fantastic job.

Sez the guy who believes that 190 = 185.

Is that what I believe?

Apparently.  You indicated that the only thing that matters is cap space.  Are you backing off that now?

So me saying that "the only thing that matters is cap space" really is me saying "190=185"?  Interesting.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/30/2012 2:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 9:02:00 PM (view original):

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.

"Do you have the exact same amount of money to use.  Yes.  Cap space is all that matters."

This.

I answered "no" to the question "is it the same".

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2012 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 1:48:00 PM (view original):
FYI, you misrepresented yourself.  You indicated that "the better team is getting the cash" in your initial post.  In your last post, you indicate that "the better owner gets the cash".  Which is it?

Do better owners usually have better teams?  That's my experience.   Are you in some crazy world where bad owners win lots of games over and over again?

Over the long haul, sure.  But you are talking about individual seasons and specific examples of cash being used in trades.  The "better" owners do not always finish ahead of the "bad" owners.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2012 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2012 1:22:00 PM (view original):
5M jumps out.  It holds true with lesser amounts of cash.  And, unlike someone who misrepresents themselves by saying "some" when they only have "one" misunderstood example, I have no reason to make **** up.  It's all out there for public consumption.  More often than not, the better owner gets the cash, stays better for a long period of time(maybe they do the same types of deals year after year) and one or both owners are gone after 5 seasons.   It's just a fact.   A fact that anyone can look up in any world with unrestricted use of cash. 

I bet if you keep saying it's "a fact" over and over again, you may actually get a few people to believe you.  That's easier than actually doing a study that holds water.

This:

"A fact that anyone can look up in any world with unrestricted use of cash."

Yes.  "That" is a sentence.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 3:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2012 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 1:48:00 PM (view original):
FYI, you misrepresented yourself.  You indicated that "the better team is getting the cash" in your initial post.  In your last post, you indicate that "the better owner gets the cash".  Which is it?

Do better owners usually have better teams?  That's my experience.   Are you in some crazy world where bad owners win lots of games over and over again?

Over the long haul, sure.  But you are talking about individual seasons and specific examples of cash being used in trades.  The "better" owners do not always finish ahead of the "bad" owners.

Am I?  What part of "They're better three seasons later and one/both are gone 5 seasons later" strikes you as "individual seasons"?

(1) the better team is getting the cash