Posted by deathinahole on 7/28/2012 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 7/28/2012 4:07:00 PM (view original):
You do realize that if you give away a contract that is 5 m, you are gaining 5m in cap space.

No. You can give away a $20M contract, and your cap is still $185M at the end of itm

Instead of looking like a moron, you might want to research what you are saying,

deathinahole doesn't understand that there are two numbers that matter: the cap and the amount you are on the hook for.  Both those numbers move depending on what you do.  And he doesn't understand that contracts are cash.  He has been given example after example of different deals that lead to the same outcome, but he still doesn't get it.  But don't worry, the "quality" leagues all think that way.

"deathinahole doesn't understand that all that matters is the room you have under the cap"

You don't seem to understand that 190 > 185.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/28/2012 9:32:00 PM (view original):
"deathinahole doesn't understand that all that matters is the room you have under the cap"

You don't seem to understand that 190 > 185.

I edited mine so that simpler people could understand.

It's hysterical that you do not understand that when that cap goes up, you are giving away value to make that happen.

Most of the "quality" leagues are full of ******** who think they know everything. They **** all over the forums and expect people to love them.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/28/2012 9:33:00 PM (view original):
It's hysterical that you do not understand that when that cap goes up, you are giving away value to make that happen.

It's hysterical that you do not understand that you have more options when you have $190m in your budget instead of $185m.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/28/2012 9:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 7/28/2012 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 7/28/2012 4:07:00 PM (view original):
You do realize that if you give away a contract that is 5 m, you are gaining 5m in cap space.

No. You can give away a $20M contract, and your cap is still $185M at the end of itm

Instead of looking like a moron, you might want to research what you are saying,

deathinahole doesn't understand that there are two numbers that matter: the cap and the amount you are on the hook for.  Both those numbers move depending on what you do.  And he doesn't understand that contracts are cash.  He has been given example after example of different deals that lead to the same outcome, but he still doesn't get it.  But don't worry, the "quality" leagues all think that way.

Question for you:

You have $2m left in your payroll budget, and no other budget available to transfer into it.

You're approaching the trade deadline and want to acquire a stud pitcher for the stretch run to the playoffs.  You find a trading partner willing to trade you an ace with around $7m (pro-rated) remaining for the season on his contract.  He throws in $5m to get you under the cap.

Are you unable to understand how that's more of an advantage than dealing with a situation in which cash cannot be dealt?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/28/2012 9:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/28/2012 9:33:00 PM (view original):
It's hysterical that you do not understand that when that cap goes up, you are giving away value to make that happen.

It's hysterical that you do not understand that you have more options when you have $190m in your budget instead of $185m.

You have more options when you have more room under the cap.

And why are you all ignoring what you have to do to get that extra $5m?  You are all acting like it is a windfall.  It is not.  You are giving up something to get that.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/28/2012 9:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/28/2012 9:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 7/28/2012 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 7/28/2012 4:07:00 PM (view original):
You do realize that if you give away a contract that is 5 m, you are gaining 5m in cap space.

No. You can give away a $20M contract, and your cap is still $185M at the end of itm

Instead of looking like a moron, you might want to research what you are saying,

deathinahole doesn't understand that there are two numbers that matter: the cap and the amount you are on the hook for.  Both those numbers move depending on what you do.  And he doesn't understand that contracts are cash.  He has been given example after example of different deals that lead to the same outcome, but he still doesn't get it.  But don't worry, the "quality" leagues all think that way.

Question for you:

You have $2m left in your payroll budget, and no other budget available to transfer into it.

You're approaching the trade deadline and want to acquire a stud pitcher for the stretch run to the playoffs.  You find a trading partner willing to trade you an ace with around $7m (pro-rated) remaining for the season on his contract.  He throws in $5m to get you under the cap.

Are you unable to understand how that's more of an advantage than dealing with a situation in which cash cannot be dealt?

So, in your fantasy world, the guy you are trading with is just super nice, and he just "throws in $5m to get you under the cap"?  You are not giving up value to get that?  Right?  Is that really what you are saying?  Please, tell us.

In this fantasy world, there are plenty of instances of people doing favors for others in exchange for future considerations, or to help their friends, or to help themselves. Sending someone $5M for a 5th starter is either dumb or being helpful; when the owner getting the cash is desperate for it so he can sign a top draft pick, those of us who are not fondly wishing for a wizard to come along become skeptical. And we all get that trades of players can also be inequitable, collusion, etc. If an owner takes on a crappy player with a big contract so another owner can free space to sign someone (for those in need of remedial help, that means an inequitable trade), that should also be vetoed.

If you really don't understand why other owners would oppose Owner A helping Owner B dig himself out of a salary cap hole from signing an expensive IFA, you're beyond help.

Wow, there are some real brain surgeons in this thread. $190M allows you to spend $190M. $185M allows you to spend $185M. $190M is more than $185M. $190M has an advantage over $185M. It's really not that difficult a concept.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/28/2012 9:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/28/2012 9:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/28/2012 9:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 7/28/2012 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 7/28/2012 4:07:00 PM (view original):
You do realize that if you give away a contract that is 5 m, you are gaining 5m in cap space.

No. You can give away a $20M contract, and your cap is still $185M at the end of itm

Instead of looking like a moron, you might want to research what you are saying,

deathinahole doesn't understand that there are two numbers that matter: the cap and the amount you are on the hook for.  Both those numbers move depending on what you do.  And he doesn't understand that contracts are cash.  He has been given example after example of different deals that lead to the same outcome, but he still doesn't get it.  But don't worry, the "quality" leagues all think that way.

Question for you:

You have $2m left in your payroll budget, and no other budget available to transfer into it.

You're approaching the trade deadline and want to acquire a stud pitcher for the stretch run to the playoffs.  You find a trading partner willing to trade you an ace with around $7m (pro-rated) remaining for the season on his contract.  He throws in $5m to get you under the cap.

Are you unable to understand how that's more of an advantage than dealing with a situation in which cash cannot be dealt?

So, in your fantasy world, the guy you are trading with is just super nice, and he just "throws in $5m to get you under the cap"?  You are not giving up value to get that?  Right?  Is that really what you are saying?  Please, tell us.

I'm assuming you're trading value to get the player in question.  Otherwise, unless you play in a world that has it's collective heads up their *****, the trade gets vetoed.

I'll also assume that your trading partner is throwing in the $5m because he's throwing in the towel for the season and trading ML players for prospects.  He has no use for the cash this season.  Use it or lose it.

So I'll ask again: do you not see how acquiring a $7m contract in season is a lot easier if he's coming along with $5m in cash (a net cap hit of $2m), than it would be if you had to clear cap space beforehand?

Posted by hbdgirl on 7/28/2012 10:15:00 PM (view original):
Wow, there are some real brain surgeons in this thread. $190M allows you to spend $190M. $185M allows you to spend $185M. $190M is more than $185M. $190M has an advantage over $185M. It's really not that difficult a concept.

It is for the ones who don't want to accept that as fact.

Just a thought - if we replaced the word "cap" with "budget" - does this change anyone's mind about this? As in, "ownership game me a $185M budget to spend on my team this year. I can't go over that without finding a way to get the team more $ this year..."