It's fine by me, but I would most likely not trade that pitcher for that player period,unless I needed cash tosign a better prospect.

1. It will not get vetoed.

2. Player A ( http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=3270650 ) who will get signed as an A comp this offseason + this year salary paid for)

for

Player B, ( http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=3270650 ) who could conceivably be a top 60 draft pick, but in my eyes would be a miss if I got him in the supplemental round, and I would try and turn him into a future B comp to get another shot at improving on that supplemental selection.

WW does not involve two teams(unless the team waiving is doing so to get a player to the worst owner).    And, if it's not a good player, he probably won't be claimed.   Trades involve two owners and, therefore, they can be collusive in nature.

Why don't people get that?   One owner doing something is entirely different than two owners doing something.

Ends versus means, the never ending debate.

If I know a team wants and can afford my player that I am trying to get rid of to raise cash. i waive him. If Ihave had a trade vetoed because of selling him for cash, I already know i can move him.I am not looking for anything but cash to spend. I don't want a player,so the waiver works out even better, as I get the full monied value. Just another end run around the no cash for player guys, except i get full value all the time.. The other guy is buying my player for cash, which is what I wanted to begin with. Designating is great for the players with optons left.

Often as not,someone who vetoed the trade because of the principled" no cash for a player" stance,claims ,buying a player for cash.

Posted by bwb53 on 7/28/2012 10:36:00 AM (view original):
If I know a team wants and can afford my player that I am trying to get rid of to raise cash. i waive him. If Ihave had a trade vetoed because of selling him for cash, I already know i can move him.I am not looking for anything but cash to spend. I don't want a player,so the waiver works out even better, as I get the full monied value. Just another end run around the no cash for player guys, except i get full value all the time.. The other guy is buying my player for cash, which is what I wanted to begin with. Designating is great for the players with optons left.

But in this scenario, if you waive the player making the large salary, you no longer have the player, so he must have had some value in order for someone to claim him (assuming no collusion).

In a trade where a player is sold, you get to keep the worthy high salaried (above player), and you get 5mil...so that player you trade for cash, better be worth 5 mil, not just a charity 5mil donation.

I still sold him for cash, something I couldn't trade for.

Yes but you lost the player.  If someone claimed him he had value.  If noone claimed him, he has no value. Now if you took the same unclaimed player and traded him for a garbage prospect, I would also veto that because in my eyes, a player who can not get claimed has negative value, there for something (following list)should have to go with that negative value player to make it a fair trade.

1. a prospect
2. cash
3. a returning poor contract

 You always lose the player when all you want is cash. You are not looking for another player,but for the prospect/player you need the cash for, or just get rid of the salary. I may be shrewed, i may be foolish. The trade had already been vetoed. i knew the trading partner wanted him, could afford him, so I achieved the same goal I wanted with the vetoed trade. It was ironic that on 2 of the few times I have done this, he was claimed by someone who vetoed  the trade because he didn't believe in trading players for cash. So much for principle.

Your scenario is different, if you posted the players involved I could give a more qualified opinion based on whether this player had value (it appears he did thats why he was claimed on waivers). In this threads scenario, Alley traded a player making a minor league salary for 5mil, that is different than waiving a 5mil salary of a player that is deserving of 5mil, since the waiving team is giving up value to clear cap space.

Posted by bwb53 on 7/28/2012 4:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 7/27/2012 4:11:00 PM (view original):
Maths is hard for bwb.

With $5M cash, you are getting $5M extra cap space. Period. With $5M salary difference in a trade, you are not. Period.

A team that reduces it's payroll by 5m does not increase cap space?  Where do you think that money goes? That is news to me .Logic is tough for deathinahole.Rather than repeat the mantra that all you cash naysayers  continue to do. tell us in detail what the cash trade for Shaw can do, that the contract trade for shaw can't do. Example. the cash side can  purchase  a higher priced free agent than the contract. That is false. They both can buty the same amount of contract. No advantage there. How about the waiver wire. can the cash trade produce more than the contract trade. No it can't. They are both the same. No advantage there either. How about transfers to the prospect budget. Can the cash trade transfer more than the contract? No it can't. They are both the same.  So just where is this supposed advantage show up. How about nowhere, because it doesn't exist.The definition of an advantage is there has to be one.Now if you think the cash trade can buy more post trade than contract trade, tell me how, and don't give me that lame math. Give me a real example using the  Shaw example.

Take a trade, any trade in your league, with cash.

Take the team that received the cash.
Add up all of the salary used, salary available up to the cap, and budgetted amounts for the other categories (prospect, coaching, etc etc)

Assuming they have not transferred any budget (and thus lost a million for every 2 transferred), is the total you are getting more than $185M? Why, yes, yes it is.

Assuming you are not a moron, can you do more with more than $185M than $185M? Why yes, yes you can.

Now we get into philosophy, where most people are ok with some of these deals, whereas I won't give anyone that competitive advantage. Make 'em transfer budget.

 He wasn't worth the contract to me, and that is how I got rid of it. Tried one way, was blocked, went another way.It is different because you can't do it with a prospect,unless it is a small amount that you need. It is however selling a player for cash, which supossedly gives an owner an " unfair advantage" and a way to get around the no cash crowd. I just thought it was humorous that someone who would.'t allow cash for player trades, would pay cash for that very same player. It didn't matter to me who coughed up the green. Blocking a trade because  someone is trying to raise cash, is often futile, because of the other ways to move a player and achieve the same goals.You have to use other means when moving a prospect,and trying to raise cash.

If there is an advantage of the  cash trade vs contract trade, how come the cash trade can do no more than the contract trade post transaction? if there were an advantage ,you could exploit it, but both are limited  at the same rate, and the players exchanged are essentially the same. It's a so called advantage that cannot be used, because it doesn't exist. After the trade, I can do no more under either method. I have the same prospect, and the same amount of buying power  at the end either way.

I really thought we were getting somewhere. It's like you're in grade 3 and a teacher is trying to teach you that  4 x 5 + 5 x 4 = 40 but you refuse to use BEDMAS so you think it equals 100.