Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 2:53:00 PM (view original):
I left a WS winner behind because the commish traded rookie league garbage for AAA garbage. You know why? Because his deal allowed an owner to sign his first pick and a supplemental pick with the 15k in cash that was freed up. You know when that world plays it's next game? Never. It folded.

I see, 5 minutes after this, that BL posted how freeing up tiny amounts of cash can be accomplished in the exact manner I described.

Yep. Leads down a slippery slope. In this specific case, the world eventually folded. Perhaps the slope got slippery when the "Help a brother out" theme expanded.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 3:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/19/2016 3:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/19/2016 2:51:00 PM (view original):
So my point is that a trade in which a TC player is traded for a TC player and $5k cash might mean more to me than somebody else trading an average ML player for another average ML player and $5m cash.

The value of the $5k I'm receiving may be >>>>>>> the value of the $5m you're receiving in your trade. Because I'm using my cash to help sign a $30m top notch IFA, and you might be using your cash to sign a 38 year old RP off the scrap heap.

Tec...that's the essence of ANY trade. What you're giving me is worth more to me that what it's worth to you.

You could accomplish the same budget trick by trading a minor leaguer making $57k for one making $8k. That doesn't make the $8k player worth more than $5m.

That's true. But it doesn't involve trading cash, which is what this thread is about.

Which is my point. It doesn't make sense to forbid all cash trades.

Full circle.

?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 4:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 2:53:00 PM (view original):
I left a WS winner behind because the commish traded rookie league garbage for AAA garbage. You know why? Because his deal allowed an owner to sign his first pick and a supplemental pick with the 15k in cash that was freed up. You know when that world plays it's next game? Never. It folded.

I see, 5 minutes after this, that BL posted how freeing up tiny amounts of cash can be accomplished in the exact manner I described.

Yep. Leads down a slippery slope. In this specific case, the world eventually folded. Perhaps the slope got slippery when the "Help a brother out" theme expanded.

I had it typed up and then got stuck on the phone at work. Didn't see your post until I hit submit.

Regardless, I would veto a "help a brother out trade." I have no interest in helping another owner out just to help them out and I don't think anyone else should. But if I can take advantage of their desperation to sign their first round pick by extracting a good $27k prospect for a nothing $57k or $343k player, I'll do it.

But, if you're not involved in that trade, don't you think it looks like "help a brother out"? If so, shouldn't everyone else veto?

Exactly. A trade in which a good prospect is being traded for a POS is probably veto-worthy based on the players alone.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Nonetheless, this is pretty pointless. You have "I'll run my team as I see fit" people, "No, your dumbassery affects the entire world" people, "Cash is an asset" people, "Cash in trade is the devil" people and everything in between. Just join a world with like-minded people and everyone's happy.

I'll go back to this.

Just find the right world. It's out there. For now.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 4:28:00 PM (view original):
But, if you're not involved in that trade, don't you think it looks like "help a brother out"? If so, shouldn't everyone else veto?

Not if I'm getting back real value. I'm not doing him a favor. I'm extracting a price.

I don't see the difference between these two situations:

Scenario A: owner wants to sign 1st round pick, short funds. Trades 22 year old future ML relief pitcher for either cash or much cheaper prospect.

Scenario B: owner has pitcher go down for the year with injury while trying to make playoffs. Trades 19 year old very good position player prospect for mid-level, not great starter that's better than anything on the waiver wire or in his minors.

In both cases, the second owner is helping the first owner accomplish something. But they aren't doing it for free.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 4:28:00 PM (view original):
But, if you're not involved in that trade, don't you think it looks like "help a brother out"? If so, shouldn't everyone else veto?

Not if I'm getting back real value. I'm not doing him a favor. I'm extracting a price.

I don't see the difference between these two situations:

Scenario A: owner wants to sign 1st round pick, short funds. Trades 22 year old future ML relief pitcher for either cash or much cheaper prospect.

Scenario B: owner has pitcher go down for the year with injury while trying to make playoffs. Trades 19 year old very good position player prospect for mid-level, not great starter that's better than anything on the waiver wire or in his minors.

In both cases, the second owner is helping the first owner accomplish something. But they aren't doing it for free.

Here's my problem with this.

Why is the owner in scenario A short on funds such that he can't sign his 1st round pick? Sounds like poor financial planning/management to me. I don't feel a need to bail somebody out of a bad situation of their own making.

At least in scenario B, the owner in question is a victim of circumstances. **** happens.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 4:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 4:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 2:53:00 PM (view original):
I left a WS winner behind because the commish traded rookie league garbage for AAA garbage. You know why? Because his deal allowed an owner to sign his first pick and a supplemental pick with the 15k in cash that was freed up. You know when that world plays it's next game? Never. It folded.

I see, 5 minutes after this, that BL posted how freeing up tiny amounts of cash can be accomplished in the exact manner I described.

Yep. Leads down a slippery slope. In this specific case, the world eventually folded. Perhaps the slope got slippery when the "Help a brother out" theme expanded.

I had it typed up and then got stuck on the phone at work. Didn't see your post until I hit submit.

Regardless, I would veto a "help a brother out trade." I have no interest in helping another owner out just to help them out and I don't think anyone else should. But if I can take advantage of their desperation to sign their first round pick by extracting a good $27k prospect for a nothing $57k or $343k player, I'll do it.

Your situation seemed to change in your next post.

What happened to "a good $27k prospect for a nothing $57k or $343k player"?

Keyword is "nothing".

Posted by tecwrg on 8/19/2016 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 4:28:00 PM (view original):
But, if you're not involved in that trade, don't you think it looks like "help a brother out"? If so, shouldn't everyone else veto?

Not if I'm getting back real value. I'm not doing him a favor. I'm extracting a price.

I don't see the difference between these two situations:

Scenario A: owner wants to sign 1st round pick, short funds. Trades 22 year old future ML relief pitcher for either cash or much cheaper prospect.

Scenario B: owner has pitcher go down for the year with injury while trying to make playoffs. Trades 19 year old very good position player prospect for mid-level, not great starter that's better than anything on the waiver wire or in his minors.

In both cases, the second owner is helping the first owner accomplish something. But they aren't doing it for free.

Here's my problem with this.

Why is the owner in scenario A short on funds such that he can't sign his 1st round pick? Sounds like poor financial planning/management to me. I don't feel a need to bail somebody out of a bad situation of their own making.

At least in scenario B, the owner in question is a victim of circumstances. **** happens.

Again, I'm not bailing him out. I'm making him pay for his mistake.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 4:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 4:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 4:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 2:53:00 PM (view original):
I left a WS winner behind because the commish traded rookie league garbage for AAA garbage. You know why? Because his deal allowed an owner to sign his first pick and a supplemental pick with the 15k in cash that was freed up. You know when that world plays it's next game? Never. It folded.

I see, 5 minutes after this, that BL posted how freeing up tiny amounts of cash can be accomplished in the exact manner I described.

Yep. Leads down a slippery slope. In this specific case, the world eventually folded. Perhaps the slope got slippery when the "Help a brother out" theme expanded.

I had it typed up and then got stuck on the phone at work. Didn't see your post until I hit submit.

Regardless, I would veto a "help a brother out trade." I have no interest in helping another owner out just to help them out and I don't think anyone else should. But if I can take advantage of their desperation to sign their first round pick by extracting a good $27k prospect for a nothing $57k or $343k player, I'll do it.

Your situation seemed to change in your next post.

What happened to "a good $27k prospect for a nothing $57k or $343k player"?

Keyword is "nothing".

???

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 4:28:00 PM (view original):
But, if you're not involved in that trade, don't you think it looks like "help a brother out"? If so, shouldn't everyone else veto?

Not if I'm getting back real value. I'm not doing him a favor. I'm extracting a price.

I don't see the difference between these two situations:

Scenario A: owner wants to sign 1st round pick, short funds. Trades 22 year old future ML relief pitcher for either cash or much cheaper prospect.

Scenario B: owner has pitcher go down for the year with injury while trying to make playoffs. Trades 19 year old very good position player prospect for mid-level, not great starter that's better than anything on the waiver wire or in his minors.

In both cases, the second owner is helping the first owner accomplish something. But they aren't doing it for free.

A. Since we already know I'm vetoing the cash deal, you're trading a 22 y/o future ML RP for a cheaper PROSPECT. Now, unless you're using PROSPECT very loosely, there is value on both ends. I don't care if one prospect is more valuable than the other as long as both have BL potential. There is no "nothing" being moved.

B. Very good position player for mid-level, not great BL pitcher. Again, value for value. No "nothing".

These scenarios are different than the first one you laid out.

If you're taking advantage (your words) of another owner, and in the course of doing so putting every other team at a disadvantage by having a top pick signed who otherwise couldn't be, why wouldn't the other 30 owners veto? As tec (I think) noted, a trade of a useful player for a non-useful player should never make it through.

Scenario B is irrelevant. Both teams start and end with the same salary cap. The other 30 teams in the world are not put at a disadvantage. Twisting the discussion to paint those opposed to cash in trades as having to also be against any trade in which one team or the other benefits is ridiculous.

Here's the thing:

I veto virtually nothing. If you can use a guy on a 40 man roster at some point in his career, that's BL value. That's all I require. If you want to trade a 5 time CY winner for a LH 90 power bat with 4 contact, 48 VR and 52 eye, you go right ahead. You're a dumbass and, as long as you're not new to the world or have stated your intention to leave after the season, I hit "approve".

But I'm not approving the buying/selling of players. I listed three worlds in which it is/was a common practice and they're dead or crap. No thanks.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 4:28:00 PM (view original):
But, if you're not involved in that trade, don't you think it looks like "help a brother out"? If so, shouldn't everyone else veto?

Not if I'm getting back real value. I'm not doing him a favor. I'm extracting a price.

I don't see the difference between these two situations:

Scenario A: owner wants to sign 1st round pick, short funds. Trades 22 year old future ML relief pitcher for either cash or much cheaper prospect.

Scenario B: owner has pitcher go down for the year with injury while trying to make playoffs. Trades 19 year old very good position player prospect for mid-level, not great starter that's better than anything on the waiver wire or in his minors.

In both cases, the second owner is helping the first owner accomplish something. But they aren't doing it for free.

A. Since we already know I'm vetoing the cash deal, you're trading a 22 y/o future ML RP for a cheaper PROSPECT. Now, unless you're using PROSPECT very loosely, there is value on both ends. I don't care if one prospect is more valuable than the other as long as both have BL potential. There is no "nothing" being moved.

B. Very good position player for mid-level, not great BL pitcher. Again, value for value. No "nothing".

These scenarios are different than the first one you laid out.

I said prospect but I really just meant minor leaguer. A non-prospect minor leaguer.

My my bad for poor wording.