Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/15/2009

A 78 rated player is a 78 rated player to everyone. His value to the league is as a 78 rated players. Nothing changes that.

800k to an owner who was incapable of setting his budget properly(a day is dedicated to this) is a big deal. 800k to an owner who does set his budget properly is nothing.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Because it's wrong. You're confusing player rating with player value. A 78 rated pitcher has less value to a team loaded with SP at the ML and AAA levels than it does to a team that only has 3 starters. I would agree that cash is more fluid than players, but to claim that player value is static is extremely naive


It's value to the WORLD not individual teams.

Seriously, think it out.

Quote: Originally Posted By gator993 on 6/15/2009
Setting the budget should be one of the most strategic parts of the game. Trading for cash makes it less important. Thats why many have a major issue with it. I agree with it, thats why I play in worlds where its not allowed.

I feel the worlds that allow it are easier to win and can build a superstar team much easier. But playing in those worlds are by choice and not against the rules, still comes down to preference.



There can be strategy in under budgeting hoping to sell players and there is strategy in over budgeting hoping to buy people. The 'strategy of budgeting' argument doesn't work.

Bottom line is players traded for cash happens in real life, so what wrong with it?

Quote: Originally Posted By kingjohndevi on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/15/2009

Even the people on your "side" of cash in trades think you're making a dumb argument.

and people on my side think you're making a dumb argument, how about you cut out the name calling mike


How is that calling names? Just report it and see what happens.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/15/2009A 78 rated player is a 78 rated player to everyone.  His value to the league is as a 78 rated players.  Nothing changes that.800k to an owner who was incapable of setting his budget properly(a day is dedicated to this) is a big deal.   800k to an owner who does set his budget properly is nothing.Why is this so hard to understand?

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By kingjohndevi on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/15/2009

Even the people on your "side" of cash in trades think you're making a dumb argument.

and people on my side think you're making a dumb argument, how about you cut out the name calling mike.



How is that calling names? Just report it and see what happens.

Quote: Originally Posted By tutmeister on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/15/2009

A 78 rated player is a 78 rated player to everyone. His value to the league is as a 78 rated players. Nothing changes that.

800k to an owner who was incapable of setting his budget properly(a day is dedicated to this) is a big deal. 800k to an owner who does set his budget properly is nothing.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Because it's wrong. You're confusing player rating with player value. A 78 rated pitcher has less value to a team loaded with SP at the ML and AAA levels than it does to a team that only has 3 starters. I would agree that cash is more fluid than players, but to claim that player value is static is extremely naive.



not to mention 78 rated anything looks different from player to player

you can have a pile of **** pitcher who has high stamina and splits with a control of 28 who is worthless at the ml level compared to a stud closer who can only throw an inning at a time

which is worth more?

I was simply using a number. I think everyone knows that a 78 overall can be two extremely different players.

Quote: Originally Posted By plague on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/15/2009
A 78 rated player is a 78 rated player to everyone. His value to the league is as a 78 rated players. Nothing changes that.

800k to an owner who was incapable of setting his budget properly(a day is dedicated to this) is a big deal. 800k to an owner who does set his budget properly is nothing.

Why is this so hard to understand?

That same player can have a different monetary value depending on many factors. For example a 38 year old 78 overall rated player will tend to have less value than a 28 year old 78 overall rated player.

Who said the owner was incapable of setting his budget properly? Maybe it was part of his plan, just like a owner who trades a prospect for a current major leaguer. Was he incapable of recruiting better talent X amount of seasons ago? Why should he be rewarded now?

Quote: Originally Posted By kingjohndevi on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By gator993 on 6/15/2009

Setting the budget should be one of the most strategic parts of the game. Trading for cash makes it less important. Thats why many have a major issue with it. I agree with it, thats why I play in worlds where its not allowed.

I feel the worlds that allow it are easier to win and can build a superstar team much easier. But playing in those worlds are by choice and not against the rules, still comes down to preference.




There can be strategy in under budgeting hoping to sell players and there is strategy in over budgeting hoping to buy people. The 'strategy of budgeting' argument doesn't work.

Bottom line is players traded for cash happens in real life, so what wrong with it?

that's known as 'unwise strategy'

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By tutmeister on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/15/2009

A 78 rated player is a 78 rated player to everyone. His value to the league is as a 78 rated players. Nothing changes that.

800k to an owner who was incapable of setting his budget properly(a day is dedicated to this) is a big deal. 800k to an owner who does set his budget properly is nothing.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Because it's wrong. You're confusing player rating with player value. A 78 rated pitcher has less value to a team loaded with SP at the ML and AAA levels than it does to a team that only has 3 starters. I would agree that cash is more fluid than players, but to claim that player value is static is extremely naive.



not to mention 78 rated anything looks different from player to player

you can have a pile of **** pitcher who has high stamina and splits with a control of 28 who is worthless at the ml level compared to a stud closer who can only throw an inning at a time

which is worth more?

I was simply using a number. I think everyone knows that a 78 overall can be two extremely different players.

i love you

Quote: Originally Posted By kingjohndevi on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By kingjohndevi on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/15/2009

Even the people on your "side" of cash in trades think you're making a dumb argument.

and people on my side think you're making a dumb argument, how about you cut out the name calling mike.



How is that calling names? Just report it and see what happens.

Your obviously harassing me at this point. I will report you if you do not lay off and stick to the discussion without trying to cut other users down. Thank you


I'm "harrassing" everyone at this point. You're "harassing" me. Everyone is "harassing" everyone. Report it.

Quote: Originally Posted By tutmeister on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By kingjohndevi on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By gator993 on 6/15/2009

Setting the budget should be one of the most strategic parts of the game. Trading for cash makes it less important. Thats why many have a major issue with it. I agree with it, thats why I play in worlds where its not allowed.

I feel the worlds that allow it are easier to win and can build a superstar team much easier. But playing in those worlds are by choice and not against the rules, still comes down to preference.




There can be strategy in under budgeting hoping to sell players and there is strategy in over budgeting hoping to buy people. The 'strategy of budgeting' argument doesn't work.

Bottom line is players traded for cash happens in real life, so what wrong with it?

that's known as 'unwise strategy'

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/15/2009

A 78 rated player is a 78 rated player to everyone. His value to the league is as a 78 rated players. Nothing changes that.

800k to an owner who was incapable of setting his budget properly(a day is dedicated to this) is a big deal. 800k to an owner who does set his budget properly is nothing.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Because it's wrong. You're confusing player rating with player value. A 78 rated pitcher has less value to a team loaded with SP at the ML and AAA levels than it does to a team that only has 3 starters. I would agree that cash is more fluid than players, but to claim that player value is static is extremely naive.



It's value to the WORLD not individual teams.

Seriously, think it out.

Quote: Originally Posted By kingjohndevi on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By tutmeister on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By kingjohndevi on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By gator993 on 6/15/2009

Setting the budget should be one of the most strategic parts of the game. Trading for cash makes it less important. Thats why many have a major issue with it. I agree with it, thats why I play in worlds where its not allowed.

I feel the worlds that allow it are easier to win and can build a superstar team much easier. But playing in those worlds are by choice and not against the rules, still comes down to preference.




There can be strategy in under budgeting hoping to sell players and there is strategy in over budgeting hoping to buy people. The 'strategy of budgeting' argument doesn't work.

Bottom line is players traded for cash happens in real life, so what wrong with it?

that's known as 'unwise strategy'

Again, who are you to judge


i can have an opinion about anything i damn well please. if that's judging, so be it

p.s. i'm not one of the people saying cash should never be allowed in trades. so i'm kinda on your side. just not for the reasons you're throwing out here

Quote: Originally Posted By kingjohndevi on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By gator993 on 6/15/2009

Setting the budget should be one of the most strategic parts of the game. Trading for cash makes it less important. Thats why many have a major issue with it. I agree with it, thats why I play in worlds where its not allowed.

I feel the worlds that allow it are easier to win and can build a superstar team much easier. But playing in those worlds are by choice and not against the rules, still comes down to preference.




There can be strategy in under budgeting hoping to sell players and there is strategy in over budgeting hoping to buy people. The 'strategy of budgeting' argument doesn't work.

Bottom line is players traded for cash happens in real life, so what wrong with it?

This is a salary cap game and MLB is not. Thats why thats not a good argument.

There is strategy in what you state but its an easier strategy to build a winner then a league that does not allow it. If you had to stick with a budget you set at day 1 through 90 days it is much more difficult then being able to trade for cash. Even if it is your strategy it also leads to an easier fix to teams that make a mistake.

Again if you enjoy that league go for it, I don'e and won't play in them. I enjoy the tougher challenge. I don't think either of us are going to change our minds.