My opinion, if someone is dumping salary or engaging in "tanking" they probably won't admit to it and will just give some bogus reasoning. In which case my original opinion of the trade will not change. So I save myself the time and effort of writing the trade chat

jptrainwreck has been to the playoffs 21 times and won two WS. I think he might have an idea of what he's doing. I don't understand why some owners feel like they need to become the hall monitor of leagues they have only been a part of for a few seasons.

So long-time members should be given "special" privileges when it comes to trade? They should be allowed to make deals that will bring about a veto for newer members? Do you really think that's a good idea?

Quote: Originally Posted By firemanrob on 2/13/2010
Just for the record, my stance is you trade ML players for other ML players or ML prospects. I just think anytime you trade an ML player for a career minor leaguer, regardless of the reasoning behind it that its unbalanced.

The problem is that not everyone looks at ratings the same way so what you consider a career minor league player I see as a viable ML short RP. You see a 55 control maybe the guy trading for him sees a 61 control. I really don't care much about GB/FB and great movement can make up for average or even below average control.

If you are looking for a trade to scrutinize I think you need a lot better evidence than that trade.

Also different worlds have different talent levels. I am in 1 world that is pitching poor and he would be a sure fire ML.

i'm not suggesting long time members should be given anything but the benefit of the doubt. Not be called to the mat in the public forum. This question should have been brought up within the league before ever getting to this.

If this game is supose to sim MLB then this stuf happens all the time. Hell, players have been traded for equipment before.

Someone moving salary and someone tanking are not the same thing. Sometimes you need to get rid of a contract to set yourself up for improvement.

Maybe there's a guy at AAA who isn't going into arb next year and is a similar pitcher.

Just as importantly, and its already been mentioned, people view ratings differently. I've had plenty of success with two pitchers with control around 50-55. That's whats nice about the game, there's more than one way to play.

HBD is not MLB. It's a simulation and some gameplay doesn't translate very well.

The problem with trading a 2.5m player who has become a "drain" on your team, for whatever reason, for a training camp pitcher is simple. If Team A can do, Team B can do it. Maybe Team A is doing it to get better today. Maybe Team B is stripping down his roster with no real desire to win games. Almost every tanker says "I'd doing the best I can with what I've got!" Well, if you trade away/refuse to sign any BL-talent, "doing the best you can with what you've got" doesn't mean you're not tanking.

Quote: Originally posted by brysoc on 2/14/2010i'm not suggesting long time members should be given anything but the benefit of the doubt. Not be called to the mat in the public forum. This question should have been brought up within the league before ever getting to this.

Says the man that totally tanked seasons 10-13. I mean seriously...

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 2/14/2010
HBD is not MLB. It's a simulation and some gameplay doesn't translate very well.

The problem with trading a 2.5m player who has become a "drain" on your team, for whatever reason, for a training camp pitcher is simple. If Team A can do, Team B can do it. Maybe Team A is doing it to get better today. Maybe Team B is stripping down his roster with no real desire to win games. Almost every tanker says "I'd doing the best I can with what I've got!" Well, if you trade away/refuse to sign any BL-talent, "doing the best you can with what you've got" doesn't mean you're not tanking.

It appears that Mike is against salary dumps because it may "hide" "tanking". I feel you can tell the difference. Trading off a quality ML player to clear salary is probably a "tanker dump" whether the player traded for is a borderline BL "pine brother" or a career minor leaguer - and warrants a veto. Clearing an overpaid major leaguer who has lost his starting job, even for a career minor leaguer can make perfect sense and probably is not a tanker dump. Placing arbitrary "rules" on who can and can not be traded makes little sense. Owners need to spend some time looking at the teams and asking does this apparently unbalanced trade make sense given the situation for both teams or is this a "tanker dump" or semi "collusion", then veto or not veto based on your best interpretation of probable intent. Ultimately all 32 owners are responsible for the health of a league and if they do not do their job reviewing trades the league will eventually become a "'tard league", regardless of what trading rule are in place, Any rule can be circumnavigated with a little effort. Apparent intent will shine through.

I'll refer to "Team A can do it, Team B can do it." I have no interest in letting one team make a move because "He's trying to get better" and telling another team they can't make a similar move because I can't figure out how it makes them better. We all pay to play. So, if it's BL-quality for BL-quality(current or future), there should be no problem. If it's BL-quality for crap, then you have to figure out why I'm doing it. I don't want you to be burdened with figuring out why I'm making moves. You might not understand.

I take vetoes and trading pretty seriously. Inconsistent policy seems to be the main cause of arguments in all worlds.

I'll use an example from one of my worlds to make a point. An owner apparently needed to create some cap space to make a move. So he traded one of those low DUR/STM pitchers, the 40 inning-types, making 2m for a training camp pitcher. The BL pitcher, no matter how limited he is in the regular season, is a nice playoff addition when you can afford a shorter staff. Well, as it turned out, the team that got the BL pitcher made the playoffs and, of course, had the pitcher on his playoff roster. The owner who got the TC pitcher missed the playoffs. While I'm pretty sure I know the intent of the deal, the reality of the deal is completely different. A non-playoff team traded a BL-quality pitcher to a playoff team for nothing. Is that good for a world?

And that's why I don't want 32 guys attempting to figure out if a deal is "good". Have trade rules, abide by them.

so one team got a 40 inning releif pitcher and the other team got some cap relief. maybe they needed it to sign a draft pick or an extra million to toss at an international. maybe the team moving the rp, just wanted to make room for a player coming off the DL. sounds like a perfectly logical deal.

one team traded an asset for another asset.

lets say in season 1 i sign an IFA for 5 million. in season 2 i change my mind about how useful he might be to my franchise, so i trade him for a training camp pitcher and 5 million. whats the harm in that deal?

So you think it's OK for non-playoff teams to load playoff teams up with players?

I guess that's why we're not in the same worlds.