Player for cash discussion Topic

tedwmoore
Posts: 323 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 81
Prospect
Posted by bwb53 on 7/27/2012 3:58:00 PM (view original):

Shaw for minor leaguer and 5m in cash. One side gets shaw, the other side gets 5m which he puts into signing prospect A,
 Shaw and 5m salaried minor leaguer for minor leaguer. One side gets Shaw, the other has 5m which he puts into signing prospect A. In each transaction, both sides have   the same capabilities post transaction. The only difference are the added  minor leaguers involved. There is no difference between giving 5m in cash, or taking 5m in salary. Both trades leave the teams with the same capabilities. If there was an advantage, one trade  would allow an owner  to do more than the other post trade. It'e the same.

This is bogus for two reasons:

(1) the advantage is not in being able to sign the daft pick post trade, the advantage is the increased cap room; which is particularly relevant because of

(2) trading salary instead of receiving cash changes the complexion of the trade and therefore the valuation of players involved. If I have a pool of cash sitting around, it is no sweat for me to either trade some of it away or else take on a one-year contract. But, if I am taking on a contract that exceeds the value of the cash I would otherwise offer (let's say $5 million), then I will either want more returning to me in terms of player value or I will want to reduce the value of the player(s) I am sending the other way. What I am getting at is that including salary constrains the actors in ways that cash does not, assuming the salary being traded does not exactly match the cash being requested, either because the salary assumed runs for more than one season (as opposed to the cash commitment which is a one-time expense) or because the salary is a greater (or lesser( sum than the cash needed by the other party. This difficulty of matching the value of cash with the value of a contract also constricts the trade market for the owner attempting to clear cap space. In other words, cash makes it easier, which in itself is an advantage over the option to trade away salary. And, of course, barring a horrible contract, any trading away of salary also reduces the team's ability to field a competitive team (yet another advantage).

So, yeah, they are not the same thing.
7/27/2012 4:13 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 3:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/27/2012 3:32:00 PM (view original):
You consider it a strawman, I do not.

The point is, if this is a widespread problem, or you can convince WifS by whatever means necessary that it can be, you should take it up with the creator of the game.   They make adjustments. 

If this is a one-off "They unfairly vetoed my deal!!!", nothing will be done.   Nor should it.

The bottom line is vetoes exist as does cash in trades.  Sometimes the two butt heads.   You either deal with it or you convince the makers to change it.  You've been around long enough to know that no amount of forum discussion will change minds.
"So I suggest you contact WifS and have them remove the power of veto.  Explain why vetoes aren't necessary.   If you can make a good point, I imagine they'll change it.  Good luck."

I never made the argument that the veto should be eliminated.  Hence, strawman on your part.

I agree completely with your last paragraph.
You questioned why one would veto based on the expected use of 5m in cash received.  To me, you're saying there's a problem with the process.  If you believe that to be true, work on changing the process.   You can try to do it with individuals, like me, or you can take it to the people who make the game.   Where do you think you'll have more luck?
7/27/2012 4:23 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by bwb53 on 7/27/2012 3:58:00 PM (view original):

Shaw for minor leaguer and 5m in cash. One side gets shaw, the other side gets 5m which he puts into signing prospect A,
 Shaw and 5m salaried minor leaguer for minor leaguer. One side gets Shaw, the other has 5m which he puts into signing prospect A. In each transaction, both sides have   the same capabilities post transaction. The only difference are the added  minor leaguers involved. There is no difference between giving 5m in cash, or taking 5m in salary. Both trades leave the teams with the same capabilities. If there was an advantage, one trade  would allow an owner  to do more than the other post trade. It'e the same.

Which owners have useless players with 5m left on their contract at mid-season?   The dumb ones. 
7/27/2012 4:25 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 4:13:00 PM (view original):
Mike, since you have the ear of Admin, tell them to get their act together regarding the height/weight of the players.  I am sick of guys who are 5'8", 165 lbs smacking 40 homers.
Bat speed is more important than height/weight.    Don't be a hater, Randy Newman.
7/27/2012 4:26 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Posted by bwb53 on 7/27/2012 3:58:00 PM (view original):

Shaw for minor leaguer and 5m in cash. One side gets shaw, the other side gets 5m which he puts into signing prospect A,
 Shaw and 5m salaried minor leaguer for minor leaguer. One side gets Shaw, the other has 5m which he puts into signing prospect A. In each transaction, both sides have   the same capabilities post transaction. The only difference are the added  minor leaguers involved. There is no difference between giving 5m in cash, or taking 5m in salary. Both trades leave the teams with the same capabilities. If there was an advantage, one trade  would allow an owner  to do more than the other post trade. It'e the same.

As was pointed out a while back, if it was done at the same point in the sesaon, this minor leaguer would need to have a 7.5 million dollar salary to clear 5 million.  And yes, in this situation, the practical result would be the same - but again, how often does this happen?  Taking on salary requires taking on a player, case does not.  And if you're trading a player, most of the time it's going to impact your team and the trading team in some way aside from just the finances.
7/27/2012 4:27 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

FWIW, I have always been against excessive cash.   However, in ABU, I had what I thought was fair deal vetoed.   So I said "F it" and decided cash was fine.   I quickly made a couple of deals while letting the other team pay my new players(meaning they covered their salary).   I won my division and left after the season.   That's extra 6.5m gave me the division and I didn't miss the players I traded because I was no longer in the league.  The whole "Pay their salary" thing is bad for HBD.  Paying more than the salary is even worse. 

7/27/2012 4:33 PM
jclarkbaker
Posts: 1920 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 11 125
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/27/2012 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/27/2012 3:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/27/2012 3:32:00 PM (view original):
You consider it a strawman, I do not.

The point is, if this is a widespread problem, or you can convince WifS by whatever means necessary that it can be, you should take it up with the creator of the game.   They make adjustments. 

If this is a one-off "They unfairly vetoed my deal!!!", nothing will be done.   Nor should it.

The bottom line is vetoes exist as does cash in trades.  Sometimes the two butt heads.   You either deal with it or you convince the makers to change it.  You've been around long enough to know that no amount of forum discussion will change minds.
"So I suggest you contact WifS and have them remove the power of veto.  Explain why vetoes aren't necessary.   If you can make a good point, I imagine they'll change it.  Good luck."

I never made the argument that the veto should be eliminated.  Hence, strawman on your part.

I agree completely with your last paragraph.
You questioned why one would veto based on the expected use of 5m in cash received.  To me, you're saying there's a problem with the process.  If you believe that to be true, work on changing the process.   You can try to do it with individuals, like me, or you can take it to the people who make the game.   Where do you think you'll have more luck?
I never questioned the process.  I question the individuals who have a zero tolerance policy as to cash in trades.  That one issue does not equate to me lobbying for the elimination of the veto system.  Those two are not even similiar.
7/27/2012 4:34 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

No, you questioned the individuals who want to know what happens with the cash in trade.   I don't have ZERO tolerance.   But I want to know where the money goes when it goes.    How else can I determine if the deal was fair?

On another RHBD experience, the commish traded a rookie league turd for a Triple A turd in Happy Jack.  That deal freed up 25k or so.  That allowed the owner getting the RL turd to sign two first round picks(he had the prospect but not the 16k in payroll).  Was that something that, on the surface, should have been vetoed?    I left a WS winner behind because it looks like collusion to me.

7/27/2012 4:39 PM
jclarkbaker
Posts: 1920 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 11 125
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/27/2012 4:39:00 PM (view original):

No, you questioned the individuals who want to know what happens with the cash in trade.   I don't have ZERO tolerance.   But I want to know where the money goes when it goes.    How else can I determine if the deal was fair?

On another RHBD experience, the commish traded a rookie league turd for a Triple A turd in Happy Jack.  That deal freed up 25k or so.  That allowed the owner getting the RL turd to sign two first round picks(he had the prospect but not the 16k in payroll).  Was that something that, on the surface, should have been vetoed?    I left a WS winner behind because it looks like collusion to me.

So by that theory, if you have a stud ML player making $10m and trade him for a stud prospect, I can veto that trade because you can use that extra money to sign a stud IFA?
7/27/2012 4:49 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
You can veto a trade for any reason you wish.  If nine other people don't also veto it, then your veto is like the tree that falls in a forest with nobody around to hear it.  It doesn't make any noise.
7/27/2012 4:53 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
What tec said.   I'm sure there are owners who veto every deal.   But no one ever knows because he doesn't have 9 others doing the same.
7/27/2012 5:04 PM
jclarkbaker
Posts: 1920 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 11 125
Prospect
I am aware that each individual member of the league can veto for whatever reason.  I am just trying to understand where you guys are coming from regarding the whole cash thing.  Because as we all know, this comes up about once every season or two in almost every league.
7/27/2012 5:09 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Depends on the world.  MG-Cannot exceed salary being moved or 1.5m.  Coop-Cannot exceed salary being moved.

In worlds that have no hard and fast rule, I use my discretion.   No buying/selling of players ever.   Excessive cash, meaning I deem it unnecessary to complete the deal, garners a veto.   Mostly, I play by the rules of the world.
7/27/2012 5:22 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Posted by deathinahole on 7/27/2012 1:53:00 PM (view original):
Mmm. No.

Trade a $5M player for a $10M player; both teams have a $185M cap, one increases their payroll by 5M, one decreases their payroll by $5M.

Trade a $5M player for a $5M player and $5M cash - both teams stay at the same level of payroll, team 1 has a $190M cap, the other has a $180M cap.

That $190M, in the right hands, has a distinct advantage over the rest of the leaguen because that extra $5M does not have to be payroll. It can be anything.
For jcb; I'm a zero tolerance guy, and it's this.

Or, to phrase it another way; if the season started, and one guy had $190M, and everyone else had $185M, would you submit a ticket to customer support to fix it?

So, why would I think it's ok through a trade?

If 9 others don't agree, life moves on.
7/27/2012 8:41 PM
jclarkbaker
Posts: 1920 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 11 125
Prospect
But the season doesn't start that way.  And if you are getting cash in a trade you are likely trading value to get it.

Anyway, Kinsella and Major Leagues are looking for a few.  Come join and we can continue this discussion.
7/27/2012 9:26 PM
◂ Prev 1...12|13|14|15|16...38 Next ▸
Player for cash discussion Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.