"That's actually a very effective argumentative technique- make your point and the run the hell away so the other person doesn't get in their say.  Bonus points for repeating my advice."

Yeah, I thought it was actually very good advice.

To be sure though, I didn't really make a point in my previous post.

Interesting, deanod, I see it as the opposite.  The ability to trade or transfer cash creates more options and complexity in HBD.  There are many prices paid throughout the season, even right off the bat, in that as soon as budgets are set the value of a dollar decreases because there are much less places that I can allot it.
 

Cash is a transient and replishable asset.  You get a shiny new $185m every season just for showing up.  Not the same with players.

You're a replishable asset.

Posted by nfet on 9/6/2010 10:31:00 PM (view original):
Interesting, deanod, I see it as the opposite.  The ability to trade or transfer cash creates more options and complexity in HBD.  There are many prices paid throughout the season, even right off the bat, in that as soon as budgets are set the value of a dollar decreases because there are much less places that I can allot it.
 

It creates more options in a way that significantly de-values earlier processes.  I've been in positions where I had to create cap space to sign a very good draft pick that I didn't expect to land- I had to carefully pick and choose which ML'ers to move and how to replace their roles to create the money to sign my guy.  It was a pretty challenging process, and if I could have just sold some jerkoff prospects for a quick buck it would have been way too easy and lame.

It all depends what you want of the game- if you want simple, quick, and easy, then play in worlds where you can sell players/prospects.  But the game is inherently longwinded and complex, and leagues with more stringent rules also tend to attract higher quality owners.  So I prefer worlds that disallow it.

nfet ...why would u argue with the great and almighty OZ (Miket23)....

deanod, I think the problem there is more that someone would give you money for a jerkoff prospect & that the world wouldn't veto such a deal based on it being unbalanced.

I do agree though that the other decisions you mention are challenging, and I have no problem devaluing the earlier processes in favor of more in-season decisions of this type.  That's kind of my point.  The adaptive, problem solving decisions add more complexity and strategy to the game than the predictive types of decisions that some of these rules seem to promote.  I prefer worlds that tend to allow this, not because of quick and easy, but becaus eit's more complex and strategic.  

You might be right about which worlds attract which owners, but it might not be so clear cut.  I'd think that maybe such owners wouldn't want or need such restrictive rules that protect themselves from their own stupidity and bad trading.  Without such rules, a low quality world might get worse, but a high quality world could get much better.

Posted by soxyanks12 on 9/6/2010 11:43:00 PM (view original):
nfet ...why would u argue with the great and almighty OZ (Miket23)....

I got no problem with Mike.  His record is better than mine anyways, so anything I say can't really be a valid argument.

Why should it get vetoed?  You see the IFA's who go for $1-2M- they aren't very good and if you are selling somebody of that ilk for that much money, it's a fair trade, no?

Come on- you can't just turn my argument on its head without any logical backup.  It's much less strategic when you can spend haphazardly and always have an out to fill out your roster.  Prior to a recent draft, I had 3 late 1st rounders and 3 comp picks and had to decide whether I wanted to give them all up for a stud IFA SP for $20M- that was a tough strategic decision since I didn't have any expendable ML salaries to move.  That decision becomes drastically easier when I know I can sell a few $2M prospects and sign the draft picks that I like if I want to.

I don't think it's a fair trade.  IFAs don't belong to anyone...it's not a good comparison.  2mil doesn't have the same value for IFAs as it does to another owner, especially as the season moves forward.

My argument is backed-up the same as yours.  The only reason I'm turning yours on its head is because you stated your first.  I gave some reasons: more options means more complexity/flexibility; Predictive decisions vs adaptive/problem solving decisions.  Any "out" that you can claim is also a potential "in" where you can screw up your team in the short or long run.  Unless, of course, you're in a world where owners buy jerkoff prospects for good coin and those deals dont get vetoed because of unbalance.

In your last example, your decisions becomes easier if the prospect you're trading for cash isn't worth keeping.  And in that case, it doesn't sound like a fair deal for the guy giving up 2mil.  He's gotta think about how he's bettering your team, the competition, vs the worth of the guy he's getting compared to the IFA or FA he could sign.   And, if it's more of a case that the prospect isn't worth keeping only compared to the guy you will be able to afford with the extra 2mil....then there's your reward for budgeting well earlier and landing guys that you didn't expect with that extra money you spent in scouting.

Posted by nfet on 9/6/2010 10:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/6/2010 9:31:00 PM (view original):
You've only heard those arguments because you play in 'tard worlds.   I'd say "Step your your game and play in tougher worlds" but, looking at your record, they probably won't accept you.

well, regardless of worlds, I havent read much discussion about this issue in the forums, so maybe that's another reason why.  I actually do think i'm in very quality worlds now, maybe not so much before.  i do tend to take over horrible teams, as well, if one were to look past record alone.  

I did try to join one of your worlds once, but the guy who bailed after one season got voted in ahead of me.  The next season I declined your invitation to try again because I didn't want to add another team.

The discussions in the forum, when they happen, never go anywhere. You have people on both sides who *believe* it should be a certain way, whether than belief is based on logic or not.

90% of the arguments saying selling players is OK are based in some fashion on "it's my team, I'll do what I want" or "I can't claim to say what is best for another franchise" with a snippet here and there of "cash is a commodity, just like players, so it should be available in trades."

90% of the arguments against selling players (or cash in trades in general) are either "it's not realistic" or "it's a slippery slope, so if we allow cash in trades someone if going to have a team with a $250M payroll" (which is not an argument that most of it's proponents here use anywhere else as far as I can see), with a smattering of "cash is different than players because you everyone gets the same $185 every year and you don't get the same new players every year."

As I said, little productive comes out of the forum discussions when it comes to beliefs, when such discussions *do* occur.

Posted by nfet on 9/7/2010 1:06:00 AM (view original):
I don't think it's a fair trade.  IFAs don't belong to anyone...it's not a good comparison.  2mil doesn't have the same value for IFAs as it does to another owner, especially as the season moves forward.

My argument is backed-up the same as yours.  The only reason I'm turning yours on its head is because you stated your first.  I gave some reasons: more options means more complexity/flexibility; Predictive decisions vs adaptive/problem solving decisions.  Any "out" that you can claim is also a potential "in" where you can screw up your team in the short or long run.  Unless, of course, you're in a world where owners buy jerkoff prospects for good coin and those deals dont get vetoed because of unbalance.

In your last example, your decisions becomes easier if the prospect you're trading for cash isn't worth keeping.  And in that case, it doesn't sound like a fair deal for the guy giving up 2mil.  He's gotta think about how he's bettering your team, the competition, vs the worth of the guy he's getting compared to the IFA or FA he could sign.   And, if it's more of a case that the prospect isn't worth keeping only compared to the guy you will be able to afford with the extra 2mil....then there's your reward for budgeting well earlier and landing guys that you didn't expect with that extra money you spent in scouting.

When I say "jerkoff prospect" I'm referring to guys who have futures as big league players, but just don't figure to play a prominent role.  I have 2-4 comp picks most draft plus a few $3-6M IFAs to fill out my prospect payroll, and I place no value on most of them beyond future cheap ML filler, and generally use them as trade chips.  With 31 other owners in the league, it's only natural that at least 1 will overrate each guy.

All of your stuff sounds wonderful in theory, but it doesn't apply in reality.  Either way one side is going to benefit way too much- either the buyer is going to get a quality  prospect for $2-3M when his market value is way higher, or the seller is going to be able to sign his draft picks for an incredibly low opportunity cost.

Anyway, we're just going back and forth now, and we've all been down this road a million times.  I derive much more enjoyment out of leagues with stringent trade rules, you prefer leagues with lax trade rules.  I could write a 10 page essay on why the stringent leagues are more competitive with higher quality owners, but I'm sure you'll just reverse the arguments in your favor and it will be a grand waste of time.  So let's just agree that I'm right and you're wrong and move on (sorry- I HATE it when people say "let's just agree to disagree")

Those 10 pages kinda sound similar to the 999 other reasons.  Really, looking back, I don't think you actually made too many arguments for me to reverse...you kinda just labeled things challenging, complex, quick or easy.  I'll agree to our disagreeing though and not wasting much more time.  Good suggestion.

Posted by nfet on 9/6/2010 10:31:00 PM (view original):
Interesting, deanod, I see it as the opposite.  The ability to trade or transfer cash creates more options and complexity in HBD.  There are many prices paid throughout the season, even right off the bat, in that as soon as budgets are set the value of a dollar decreases because there are much less places that I can allot it.
 

Actually, I think the value of a dollar increases.   1/4 of the way thru the season, that 4m dollar player is only due 3m.   Now, in mind, the value the player can bring to your team is less since he only has 120 games left but the owner who had 3m leftover in payroll can now afford him.