Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Do fair trades matter? Is that a stupid question?

Yeah, people give up stuff for nothing all the time. We're people paying a quarter a day to play a game on the internet. True motives for trades are unknown. That's why we have a veto process. As I pointed out with ericwoody, virtually everyone was sending him cash in their deals. His account was terminated for alias usage.

So, yeah, it matters if the trade is fair. And, if I can't judge whether or not it's fair, why should I approve it?

Not asking if it matters if the trade is fair. I'm asking if it matters whether or not you know what someone does with the $1m.

If a player is worth $1m in a trade, the trade is fair if guy getting the cash uses that money to sign a quality IFA or ****** it away on minor league free agents.

And I'm telling you I don't know if it's a fair trade until that 1m is used. If it sits unused all season, he got nothing.

And if I trade player for player and then do nothing with that player before releasing him, was it a fair trade?

What if I trade a guy sign for 1/$10m to a owner with a bunch of unused cap space for a low level, fringe prospect. I just gained $10m. Fair trade?

It's not about one specific trade. Stop using one example (my original error at the start of this thread). It's about the devolution of worlds when they become rampant.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 1:28:00 PM (view original):
I'm no longer fond of trashing worlds or particular owners so the 2nd half of this does not make me comfortable.

1. Champions was a world full of established, successful owners. Owners who had dominated their 'tard worlds and wanted to see what they'd do against other 'tard world dominators. No vetoes, all trades valid. This included selling players. Bet you can't tell me who is still in that world. You know why? The "anything goes" approach led to a failed world.

2. Gleeman has played 66 full seasons in Gleeman/Gleeman2. The worlds accept new owners with no experience and Gleeman utilizes the buy/sell players strategy. He has won 22 of 66 world series. I have no idea if he buys/sells with first time owners but he wins a lot of games.

I played one season - my first - in GleemanWorld2 Season 23. He then bounced me in Season 24. I discovered what trade rape was and saw it all over that world. I spoke up. I was out.

That said...

Here's what he did trade wise that season :

Take a look at his payroll - Bloggers.

I dunno. Maybe he's just better than everyone else. But there aren't a lot of long tenured owners there.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Do fair trades matter? Is that a stupid question?

Yeah, people give up stuff for nothing all the time. We're people paying a quarter a day to play a game on the internet. True motives for trades are unknown. That's why we have a veto process. As I pointed out with ericwoody, virtually everyone was sending him cash in their deals. His account was terminated for alias usage.

So, yeah, it matters if the trade is fair. And, if I can't judge whether or not it's fair, why should I approve it?

Not asking if it matters if the trade is fair. I'm asking if it matters whether or not you know what someone does with the $1m.

If a player is worth $1m in a trade, the trade is fair if guy getting the cash uses that money to sign a quality IFA or ****** it away on minor league free agents.

And I'm telling you I don't know if it's a fair trade until that 1m is used. If it sits unused all season, he got nothing.

And if I trade player for player and then do nothing with that player before releasing him, was it a fair trade?

I can't control your stupidity in player usage but I can evaluate the value of the player you acquired. I can't do that until you use cash.

Do I need to use smaller words?

Posted by brianplath on 8/19/2016 1:46:00 PM (view original):
It's not about one specific trade. Stop using one example (my original error at the start of this thread). It's about the devolution of worlds when they become rampant.

Of course a world can be impacted by bad trades*. Which is why we have a veto option.

I don't see why a blanket "no cash trades" rule is necessary.

*rant/
it can also be impacted by owners making stupid FA signings, ignoring the draft, not promoting minor league players, not paying attention to the 40/rule 5 draft, etc. That's just life. At least life in this game. The part that attracts me (and I'd guess a lot of people) is the ability to be in charge of a team and run it the way you want to. If we spend all this time trying to come up with rules make sure there's no possible way an owner could negatively impact a world, we end up with a boring game. In my opinion, that's the worst thing that could happen.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 1:42:00 PM (view original):
What if I trade a guy sign for 1/$10m to a owner with a bunch of unused cap space for a low level, fringe prospect. I just gained $10m. Fair trade?

I probably veto this one if 10m player is a legit player. Or I veto it if he isn't.

Not a fan of unbalanced trades. And, judging by the simple fact that the two worlds I commish have waitlists, neither are the owners in my worlds.

I wonder how many people arguing for cash are in worlds that actually play 4 complete seasons in a calendar year.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Do fair trades matter? Is that a stupid question?

Yeah, people give up stuff for nothing all the time. We're people paying a quarter a day to play a game on the internet. True motives for trades are unknown. That's why we have a veto process. As I pointed out with ericwoody, virtually everyone was sending him cash in their deals. His account was terminated for alias usage.

So, yeah, it matters if the trade is fair. And, if I can't judge whether or not it's fair, why should I approve it?

Not asking if it matters if the trade is fair. I'm asking if it matters whether or not you know what someone does with the $1m.

If a player is worth $1m in a trade, the trade is fair if guy getting the cash uses that money to sign a quality IFA or ****** it away on minor league free agents.

And I'm telling you I don't know if it's a fair trade until that 1m is used. If it sits unused all season, he got nothing.

And if I trade player for player and then do nothing with that player before releasing him, was it a fair trade?

I can't control your stupidity in player usage but I can evaluate the value of the player you acquired. I can't do that until you use cash.

Do I need to use smaller words?

But you absolutely can evaluate the cash on the value of. the. cash.

If only it were that simple. Do you think all 1m salaried players are equal in talent?


BTW, "It's my team, I'll run it how I want" has killed plenty of worlds. You may or may not have noticed but a lot of worlds can't fill. There's a reason.

If we spend all this time trying to come up with rules make sure there's no possible way an owner could negatively impact a world, we end up with a boring game. In my opinion, that's the worst thing that could happen.

What's more boring, being in a world with 5 dominant vets and a revolving door of unsuspecting newbies or a world with a few more restrictions and 20+ consistent owners?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):
If only it were that simple. Do you think all 1m salaried players are equal in talent?


BTW, "It's my team, I'll run it how I want" has killed plenty of worlds. You may or may not have noticed but a lot of worlds can't fill. There's a reason.

All $1m FA will be similar in value.

Posted by brianplath on 8/19/2016 2:15:00 PM (view original):

If we spend all this time trying to come up with rules make sure there's no possible way an owner could negatively impact a world, we end up with a boring game. In my opinion, that's the worst thing that could happen.

What's more boring, being in a world with 5 dominant vets and a revolving door of unsuspecting newbies or a world with a few more restrictions and 20+ consistent owners?

Does allowing cash in trades lead to a world with just 5 dominant vets?

Does not allowing any cash in trades prevent 5 dominant vets?

I'm not saying "anything goes, allow all trades!"

I'm saying that there are plenty of times when including cash in a deal is a good way to get the deal done. As long as the deal itself isn't bonkers, that should be ok. If the deal is bonkers, veto it.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 2:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Do fair trades matter? Is that a stupid question?

Yeah, people give up stuff for nothing all the time. We're people paying a quarter a day to play a game on the internet. True motives for trades are unknown. That's why we have a veto process. As I pointed out with ericwoody, virtually everyone was sending him cash in their deals. His account was terminated for alias usage.

So, yeah, it matters if the trade is fair. And, if I can't judge whether or not it's fair, why should I approve it?

Not asking if it matters if the trade is fair. I'm asking if it matters whether or not you know what someone does with the $1m.

If a player is worth $1m in a trade, the trade is fair if guy getting the cash uses that money to sign a quality IFA or ****** it away on minor league free agents.

And I'm telling you I don't know if it's a fair trade until that 1m is used. If it sits unused all season, he got nothing.

And if I trade player for player and then do nothing with that player before releasing him, was it a fair trade?

I can't control your stupidity in player usage but I can evaluate the value of the player you acquired. I can't do that until you use cash.

Do I need to use smaller words?

But you absolutely can evaluate the cash on the value of. the. cash.

Cash has different value to different people, depending on their particular situation and what they want/need do with it.

You can't apply a "one size fits all" valuation to cash.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/19/2016 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 2:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Do fair trades matter? Is that a stupid question?

Yeah, people give up stuff for nothing all the time. We're people paying a quarter a day to play a game on the internet. True motives for trades are unknown. That's why we have a veto process. As I pointed out with ericwoody, virtually everyone was sending him cash in their deals. His account was terminated for alias usage.

So, yeah, it matters if the trade is fair. And, if I can't judge whether or not it's fair, why should I approve it?

Not asking if it matters if the trade is fair. I'm asking if it matters whether or not you know what someone does with the $1m.

If a player is worth $1m in a trade, the trade is fair if guy getting the cash uses that money to sign a quality IFA or ****** it away on minor league free agents.

And I'm telling you I don't know if it's a fair trade until that 1m is used. If it sits unused all season, he got nothing.

And if I trade player for player and then do nothing with that player before releasing him, was it a fair trade?

I can't control your stupidity in player usage but I can evaluate the value of the player you acquired. I can't do that until you use cash.

Do I need to use smaller words?

But you absolutely can evaluate the cash on the value of. the. cash.

Cash has different value to different people, depending on their particular situation and what they want/need do with it.

You can't apply a "one size fits all" valuation to cash.

But it's not going to vary that much. There's only so much you can do with <$5m in this game.

Mike's saying, "without knowing what you do with that $1m, I can't be sure the deal is fair."

Which is bullshit. You can evaluate the deal along the lines of, "would I give up that player for $1m?" Or "what's the likely use of that $1m (or $500k if it's used in a bigger transfer)?"

It's a pretty narrow range of possibilities.