To Alley:

http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=3219564
bad player on 2 year 5mil deal

http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=4233609
career minor leaguer on a 327k deal

and 5million in CASH

To a different team than last time:

http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=4281940
career minor leaguer on a 327k contract  better known as PAUL SHAW

http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=2514217
Alleys one bad contract, 1 year 4.8mil (IT WILL KILL ME if boston uses the future 5mil cap space to resign this guy to a long term contract).

======================================

This is not an instant veto to me, as boston does gain 5mil off  of next years payroll. I have to look at it more thoroughly. My initial thought is that the 5mil this year means a hell of a lot more to Alley than 5mil next year means to Boston, however thats not for me to judge. Boston does gain something from this deal, which to me is all Im asking for when evaluating any deal, whether it involves cash or not.

Curious to see what the absolutely no cash team thinks of this one.

Pass.

A career minor leaguer and a bad contract for another career minor leaguer and a bad contract — Tanaka's slightly better with the worse contract because it has one more season, so that seems like a fairly even swap. The two minor-leaguers are similar. So what's the rationale for $5M thrown in other than to help someone out as a favor? If the deal would be considered fair with just the players being exchanged, wouldn't the $5M make it lopsided? If the cash doesn't prompt a veto, knowing that it would be used to sign a first-round pick makes the deal highly vetoable: Bad contract+minor-leaguer for bad contract+minor-leaguer+#1 draft pick. Regardless of the cash issue, can anyone make an argument that the players alleyviper is giving up are enough better that adding in a #1 pick makes it an even deal?

I think the use of "crowd" to describe those admantly opposed to any cash in a deal is an exaggeration. I'm not going back through every page of the other thread, but I believe there were only one or two who posted that philosophy. The majority of those who said the deal was veto-worthy said they look more closely at trades involving piles of cash. Personally, I'm opposed to more cash being exchanged than is necessary to cover trades, but I have only played in worlds with that stipulated in the rules so it's never been an issue.

Veto, because of the cash.  Won't even look at the players.

There's no cash in the trade, tecweird.

Yes there is. Read the whole thing.

And FWIW, the minor leaguer is a better pitcher, IMO.

I'm reading again, and I just see Shaw for Stone.

Hoggett! Clarity for the confused, please! And it may be me!

To Alley:

http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=3219564
bad player on 2 year 5mil deal

http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=4233609
career minor leaguer on a 327k deal

and 5million in CASH

Read the last line. 

Posted by stevehoggett on 7/29/2012 12:36:00 PM (view original):
To Alley:

http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=3219564
bad player on 2 year 5mil deal

http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=4233609
career minor leaguer on a 327k deal

and 5million in CASH

To a different team than last time:

http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=4281940
career minor leaguer on a 327k contract  better known as PAUL SHAW

http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=2514217
Alleys one bad contract, 1 year 4.8mil (IT WILL KILL ME if boston uses the future 5mil cap space to resign this guy to a long term contract).

======================================

This is not an instant veto to me, as boston does gain 5mil off  of next years payroll. I have to look at it more thoroughly. My initial thought is that the 5mil this year means a hell of a lot more to Alley than 5mil next year means to Boston, however thats not for me to judge. Boston does gain something from this deal, which to me is all Im asking for when evaluating any deal, whether it involves cash or not.

Curious to see what the absolutely no cash team thinks of this one.

5mil cash is in the deal, Not sure where you are missing it.

As for the response saying its an even trade without the cash. I would argue that it is not because Tanakas deal is 2years @ 5mil per, and Stones is 1 year @ 4.8mil.

Veto.

Sorry, I was reading between " To a different team than last time:" and the double line as the deal.

I noted the difference of a year in contract, but in my estimation Tanaka is a better pitcher. The better player having a worse contract makes it relatively even. Their splits are close, Stone has much better control and P1, and Tanaka has much better VEL/GB. I value CON, but the massive difference in VEL/GB makes Tanaka better. Even if Stone is equal to or slightly better, the difference is not close to the value of a #1, or any other use that could be made of $5M.

So Boston is spending $5 million in cash to avoid paying $5.4 million in future salary, right? Because those players are all turds, or maybe fringe turdish. That gets a veto from me.

Posted by tedwmoore on 7/29/2012 1:33:00 PM (view original):
So Boston is spending $5 million in cash to avoid paying $5.4 million in future salary, right? Because those players are all turds, or maybe fringe turdish. That gets a veto from me.

This is exactly how I assess the trade. Why do you view that as a veto? Do you think Boston should be compensated more or do you just think any trade involving the circumventing of a current years budget is worth a veto?

I don't think any trade circumventing the current year's budget should automatically be vetoed, but it warrants a close look. In this case, I'd be against bailing out a team that slashed its payroll to $45M, boosted Prospect to $30M, and still needs cash to sign its #1 pick. Being able to throw $28M at an IFA should come at a cost, and without a bailout from someone Mexico City's cost would be not signing the #1 pick. From Mexico City's perspective, both proposed trades boil down to giving up nothing of real value for a #1 draft pick.