Really, 19 pages and we've barely touched on philosophy.

We are still on $190M is not better than $185M because you must have had to give something up to get there.

i don't see how terminology matters. We're talking about one owner helping another have more money to spend than everyone else in the league has. At least 3 owners here are fine with that, and many more are not. The former have a right to their opinion, and the latter have a right to veto any such deals. In this case, the combination of some owners opposing buying of players and others deciding that the player being sold is not worth the $5 million got the deal shot down. If Shaw were twice as good, the deal probably would have gone through even with vetoes from some who will never OK selling of players.

I hate to tell you this; in any trade, I've had to give up something to get something.

I'm weird that way.

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.

Thank you! Philosophy!

I wouldn't give you that advantage. Especially in a quality league where the difference between winning and losing is so razor thin, I'd nix anything, philosophically, that would give you more monetary tools.

If you took someone to the woodshed within the original $185M (again, assuming you are not bending over some noob), hats off to you. Trade rubber stamped.

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?

What is the player (s) he is giving up to get the stud pitcher?  You kind of left that out. Makes all the difference in the world. The fella trading this stud pitcher is going to make him pay for that playoff run. Maybe he has lots of good young pitchers coming up, and this is his shot to get that gold glove silver bat SS that he sees the other owner hasdown in AAA. Maybe he is getting an equally good prospect,and his stud pitcher has a multi year contract. That means he gets a stud prospect for the stud pitcher, and 7m to put towards another stud pitcher in the FA market next season. Two studs for the price of one.But like I said, you left that side of the equation out, on purpose I might add.

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.

And 5m less in salary buys you as much as 5m more in cash.

Posted by deathinahole on 7/28/2012 11:12:00 PM (view original):
Really, 19 pages and we've barely touched on philosophy.

We are still on $190M is not better than $185M because you must have had to give something up to get there.

No your stuck on how 5m in cash can somehow buy more than 5m less in salary.

Posted by bwb53 on 7/29/2012 2:14:00 AM (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?

What is the player (s) he is giving up to get the stud pitcher?  You kind of left that out. Makes all the difference in the world. The fella trading this stud pitcher is going to make him pay for that playoff run. Maybe he has lots of good young pitchers coming up, and this is his shot to get that gold glove silver bat SS that he sees the other owner hasdown in AAA. Maybe he is getting an equally good prospect,and his stud pitcher has a multi year contract. That means he gets a stud prospect for the stud pitcher, and 7m to put towards another stud pitcher in the FA market next season. Two studs for the price of one.But like I said, you left that side of the equation out, on purpose I might add.

I left nothing out "on purpose".  But thanks for thinking I did for the sake of being confrontational.

Assume the trading partner is receiving a stud prospect of similar projected talent.  Also assume that the stud ML pitcher with the big contract is in the final year of his deal, so there's no cap advantage for next season.

So let me recap the question - which is easier; receiving $5m in cash to allow the deal to go through, or having to clear $5m in cap space via a separate deal (or even this deal) to make it go through?

How many times can people say the same thing yet think they're making their point in a better manner?

I did this awhile ago and I imagine the results would be the same.    Check the cash deals in your world(or any world) where cash isn't restricted.   You'll likely find a few things:
1.  The better team is getting the cash.
2.  That same team will still be better in three seasons.
3,  One or both owners will be gone after five seasons.

IOW, the owner doling OUT cash usually isn't as good at HBD as the owner getting cash and despite his brilliant move to make a good team better, he won't get better at HBD than his trade partner.

Posted by bripat42 on 7/29/2012 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 7/28/2012 11:40:00 PM (view original):
Thank you! Philosophy!

I wouldn't give you that advantage. Especially in a quality league where the difference between winning and losing is so razor thin, I'd nix anything, philosophically, that would give you more monetary tools.

If you took someone to the woodshed within the original $185M (again, assuming you are not bending over some noob), hats off to you. Trade rubber stamped.

I respect every other owner's right to use the veto tool as he sees fit. My philosophy on the veto tool, though, is not to use it unless there is clear evidence of collusion/cheating. Two owners making a deal that offends my own personal philosophy for how assets should be valued or how franchises should be built/rebuilt is not reason enough for me ever to veto.

There's no harm in dropping a "silent" veto on that deal.  Unless nine other owners feel the same way that you do about your personal philosophy, then it doesn't matter.  And if nine or more owners do feel the same way, then it's not necessarily a personal philosophy anymore, it's a group philosophy and potential world rule.

Right.

There are deals I veto that I know will pass because I know the league philosophy (usually the mid season "I have to make up a million" deal)

You should veto EVERY deal that offends personal philosophy. Most times, like tec said, it's just a silent vote, but sometimes there's 9 others thinking the same thing.

Posted by bwb53 on 7/29/2012 3:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 7/28/2012 11:12:00 PM (view original):
Really, 19 pages and we've barely touched on philosophy.

We are still on $190M is not better than $185M because you must have had to give something up to get there.

No your stuck on how 5m in cash can somehow buy more than 5m less in salary.

Give me an example. I want to be entertained.

I posted a new thread....Paul shaw round 2...as a cash trade involving the same player is involved however this time there is a tangible asset going to the team providing the cash (future payroll flexibility)...take a look.

Posted by joshkvt on 7/28/2012 10:03:00 PM (view original):
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 the trade is unfair overall, then you veto.  That is what the veto is for.