The value in A is the ability to free up budget space. That's my point.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 5:01:00 PM (view original):

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.

Then I veto A because there is value for no value.

B is still value for value.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 5:02:00 PM (view original):
The value in A is the ability to free up budget space. That's my point.

And my point is I need to see BL player value for BL player value.

Posted by joshkvt on 8/19/2016 4:58:00 PM (view original):
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.

Jesus christ.

A) I'm assuming that if I know about the other owner's desperation to shed salary (or trade for cash), then everyone else does too. So whatever I pay will be in line with market rate.

B) This is a game, but it's also a competition. When you're negotiating a trade do you say to yourself, "hmm let me structure my offer so as to make this trade as fair as possible?" Or do you try to extract as much value as possible from the other owner? I want to put every other team at a disadvantage.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 5:00:00 PM (view original):
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.

Under these guidelines, do you think you can free up cap space without cash?

I think you can. I've approved plenty of trades that I KNEW were cap space deals. But, in the end, one guy got a good player, the other guy got a 25th man and cap space. That's fine by me.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 5:02:00 PM (view original):
The value in A is the ability to free up budget space. That's my point.

And my point is I need to see BL player value for BL player value.

So you wouldn't care if I trade BL bench player making $1m for BL starting player making $7m and the other owner used the budget space to sign a big-time IFA that he otherwise wouldn't have been able to sign?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 5:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 5:00:00 PM (view original):
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.

Under these guidelines, do you think you can free up cap space without cash?

I think you can. I've approved plenty of trades that I KNEW were cap space deals. But, in the end, one guy got a good player, the other guy got a 25th man and cap space. That's fine by me.

OK, answered before asked.

Just seems like a weird place to draw a "this needs to be prevented to protect the world" line when the exact same outcome can be accomplished with a different mechanism.

Cash inclusions are for the stupid or lazy.

Again, I know what happens with players. You might misuse them but I can say "That's a BL player" and feel confident in it. I mentioned this earlier but 5m is cash is more valuable to an experienced owner than a n00b. It's just hard to judge the "true" value of cash until it's used. Therefore, I have no idea if the deal is fair.

I'll use Champions as the example. Experienced, successful owners only. No trade could be vetoed. Players could be sold. Essentially the wild west for trading. I'm not sure it made 10 seasons before disbanding. Because this is the internet, good worlds ensure the playing field is even. The start of that is 185m for everyone. The buying/selling of players is the easiest way to make the playing field uneven. The better owners will have an even bigger advantage. And the world will struggle.

You said "is the ability to be in charge of a team and run it the way you want to." Which is fine in a vacuum. But that could include losing games, intentionally, to owners who you favor. Outright tanking. Wrecking the future with stupid signings. Checking in once a month. Making really stupid trades. The list goes on.

And that's fine if the other 31 owners don't care. But it's hard to find a good world where 31 owners don't care what you're doing. That's because they don't exist. I said earlier that everyone has a line. "It's my team and I'll run it how I want to" will find that line for everyone if some of the above take place.

For what it's worth, I don't care much about cash in trades, bht the three leagues I'm in that are the toughest and that roll the fastest all have owners who swear by the rules. Truly laissez-faire leagues have a tendency to fall apart I think.

Tec: where does WAR come into all of this?