Drop the 27k  players from both sides and it is still the same. You can't actually do that because you need a player, but it's buying a player 5m. Salary dump= selling a player too.

I already have an owner who wants this player.

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/30/2012 10:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/30/2012 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hbdgirl on 7/30/2012 4:43:00 PM (view original):
True. But on its own, the idea of giving another owner $5M more than everybody else while bringing my total budget down to $180M is pretty unappealing. I'd have to be getting a screaming deal to agree to that.

Holy ****.  I literally cannot believe what I am reading.

Sigh.......

Question, jclark. And yes, I'm getting philosophical. There is also a follow up question/point depending on how you answer this:

Do you see the $185M as a budget given to you, or a cap the league imposes?

It's a budget.  The system allows you to go over that number after initially setting your budget.  However, the league has a cap: 32 x $185m.  That number cannot be exceeded.

Ok. So it's a budget. And you spent time in the beginning of the season setting your budget. X million to this scouting, Y million to training, Z training to medical, etc. You take time making sure you have enough money to each part of your budget, to make sure you have enough in FA, prospect $, etc. And everyone is on a level playing field - everyone has the same challenge as you - to take your $185M and set your budget to best accomplish your goals for this season.

Someone in your division spends too much in getting international free agents. The draft comes, and he can't afford his 1st rd draft pick. A team buys a player off him, a cheap player who is about to hit Arb. He gets his draft pick, and promotes his player in AAA who was ready to replace him anyway, who was once an international free agent that was signed 3 seasons prior when, guess what, that owner spent too much money to get him (and let's say you could have gotten him, but didn't because you realized you needed to sign your draft picks) and then sold another player to be able to sign his draft picks.

Do you see how this can be abused? How it isnt exactly fair? One team spends $190M on his team, while you, and the rest of the league, spends $185M.

Why is this fair? You spent your $185M in an efficient way, didn't screw anything up, didn't need a bailout. Why should one owner be allowed to spend $190M this season? Your division rival continues a trend of being allowed to spend more money than you, or anyone else in the league, did.

And if you need a "bailout" because you don't have adequate SP, you can trade for one. That's ok.

The answer to the question is there is no damn difference at all on the books if you get $5m or cut $5m. It is the same.

Gents, you have no idea how fun this has been. Two of my leagues were in the offseason and I was bored. But Kinsella starts tomorrow, so I must be leaving. I recommend you all take some classes in Econ and finance. You appear to need it.

PS: from this day forth, I will refer to the "no cash in trades" leagues as the "Simple Leagues".

Yep

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 11:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/30/2012 10:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/30/2012 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hbdgirl on 7/30/2012 4:43:00 PM (view original):
True. But on its own, the idea of giving another owner $5M more than everybody else while bringing my total budget down to $180M is pretty unappealing. I'd have to be getting a screaming deal to agree to that.

Holy ****.  I literally cannot believe what I am reading.

Sigh.......

Question, jclark. And yes, I'm getting philosophical. There is also a follow up question/point depending on how you answer this:

Do you see the $185M as a budget given to you, or a cap the league imposes?

It's a budget.  The system allows you to go over that number after initially setting your budget.  However, the league has a cap: 32 x $185m.  That number cannot be exceeded.

Ok. So it's a budget. And you spent time in the beginning of the season setting your budget. X million to this scouting, Y million to training, Z training to medical, etc. You take time making sure you have enough money to each part of your budget, to make sure you have enough in FA, prospect $, etc. And everyone is on a level playing field - everyone has the same challenge as you - to take your $185M and set your budget to best accomplish your goals for this season.

Someone in your division spends too much in getting international free agents. The draft comes, and he can't afford his 1st rd draft pick. A team buys a player off him, a cheap player who is about to hit Arb. He gets his draft pick, and promotes his player in AAA who was ready to replace him anyway, who was once an international free agent that was signed 3 seasons prior when, guess what, that owner spent too much money to get him (and let's say you could have gotten him, but didn't because you realized you needed to sign your draft picks) and then sold another player to be able to sign his draft picks.

Do you see how this can be abused? How it isnt exactly fair? One team spends $190M on his team, while you, and the rest of the league, spends $185M.

Why is this fair? You spent your $185M in an efficient way, didn't screw anything up, didn't need a bailout. Why should one owner be allowed to spend $190M this season? Your division rival continues a trend of being allowed to spend more money than you, or anyone else in the league, did.

And if you need a "bailout" because you don't have adequate SP, you can trade for one. That's ok.

The answer to the question is there is no damn difference at all on the books if you get $5m or cut $5m. It is the same.

Gents, you have no idea how fun this has been. Two of my leagues were in the offseason and I was bored. But Kinsella starts tomorrow, so I must be leaving. I recommend you all take some classes in Econ and finance. You appear to need it.

PS: from this day forth, I will refer to the "no cash in trades" leagues as the "Simple Leagues".

How is getting $5M the same as not getting $5M?

Did you read anything I wrote?

Edit: also realized the irony in describing no- or limited- cash leagues as "Simple Leagues." In fact, winning in unlimited cash leagues would be much simpler.

We already have a name for the cash in trades worlds .... Tard worlds

I just gave you an example of one, it's just you don't recognize it that way. Fine by me I get what I want, and the trading partner gets what hewants and that is all that matters

Posted by bwb53 on 7/30/2012 11:17:00 PM (view original):
I just gave you an example of one, it's just you don't recognize it that way. Fine by me I get what I want, and the trading partner gets what hewants and that is all that matters

I don't know what the **** you're talking about, but that's the attitude that leads to ****** worlds.

OH MY GOD!!!!!!

JCLARKBAKER IS LEAVING AND HE DIDN'T TELL ME HIS ARBITRARY HOW MUCH CASH IS OK NUMBER!!!!!

AND WHO THE HELL WAS PLAYER X THAT MADE ALL CASH OK!!!!!!

I CAN'T GO ON!!!!!!!

GOODBYE CRUEL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES!!!!

GOODBYE COMMUNIST CAPS OF 32 times 185 APPLIED IN SOME FASHION TO THE WORLD!!!!

BUT APPARENTLY NOT 16 TEAMS WITH 370M and 16 TEAMS WITH 0!! I THINK HE DIDN'T LIKE THAT ONE!

EVERYONE EXCEPT BWB MISUNDERSTOOD HIS GENIUS!!!!! INCLUDING A GAWDAMN ACCOUNTANT!!!!!

I JUST STARTED PLAYING MONOPOLY WITH MY KIDS!!!!!

I STARTED WITH $1800, AND GAVE THEM $1400 EACH.

I SAID IT WAS OK, BECAUSE IT ALL ADDS UP TO $6000, AND IN EXCHANGE THEY GOT TO ROLL FIRST!!!!

YOU SEE, ROLLING FIRST IS THE "X"!!!!!

Now give them each $ 400 in property

When I have time to kill, I pop in and read the updates to this thread. At this point, I am a bit confused about where some people actually stand. Obviously, no helpful purpose was served when the thread sank into juvenile name calling antics.

There was some comments claiming it was jcb vs. "the world." (Seems bwb53 is invisible.) But of the four most vocal opponents through the second half of the thread, there is not really a unified opposition.

deathinahole and tecwrg have been consistent and hardline with no cash ever. No confusion here.

miket's message is a little muddled to me. He states that cash in trades is bad, but then also reveals that MG and Coop (which I'm pretty sure in other threads have been repeatedly referred to as the "Best Damn Worlds in HBD") both allow cash in trades to cover salary. So if it is bad, why isn't it banned in the best worlds?

hbdgirl appears to be a bit confused. From what I have read, jcb's argument is refuting the hard line stance of no cash in trades. Then hbdgirl stated, "But on its own the idea of giving another owner $5M is pretty unappealing. I'd have to get a screaming deal to agree to that."  There was also another post about smaller cash amounts near the trade deadline being ok. Sounds like an endorsement for cash in trades under the right conditions. (Which is pretty much where I fall on the subject.)

Looking back at my cash trades, I wish I could have a few back as some of those prospects I traded for vets along with cash have done pretty well and given a lot more value than I received in my short term pursuit of a ring.