"Eating a contract" Topic

strikeout26
Posts: 6524 (0)
Hall of Famer
129 1 47
Prospect
I will say that having a world likes to veto is normally a good thing. It normally means that the world is attentive. I have played in one of the worlds that feels that "its your team, do what you want with it" and they let owners make trades without ever vetoing anything. It was an awful world.
10/23/2010 3:40 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/23/2010 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I don't like deals where one teams gets current/future BL talent and the other gets "cap space".  
If there's no attempt to collude or tank, why should you have any say?

If one owner needs the money to better his team, and the other has money that won't be used for anything else, and betters his team by giving up that money, isn't that making the league better, and teams stronger?

Seems like your oversight is not only not benefitting your league, but hurting it.
10/23/2010 3:56 PM
philogenemay
Posts: 475 (0)
All Star
24 10
Prospect
Posted by isack24 on 10/23/2010 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/23/2010 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I don't like deals where one teams gets current/future BL talent and the other gets "cap space".  
If there's no attempt to collude or tank, why should you have any say?

If one owner needs the money to better his team, and the other has money that won't be used for anything else, and betters his team by giving up that money, isn't that making the league better, and teams stronger?

Seems like your oversight is not only not benefitting your league, but hurting it.
isn't that making the league better, and teams stronger?

That is exactly how I feel.


 

This trade would benefit both teams, so I don't understand the mentality of the veto used in this instance.

10/23/2010 4:37 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
The rationale appears to be that it should be vetoed because it wouldn't benefit the other teams in the league.  Sounds like we should start vetoing FA signings and draft picks, too.

If both organizations immediately get better from a trade, it's ludicrous to veto it.               
10/23/2010 4:40 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Just because two owners get what they want, it doesn't mean it's good for the world.

Three studs(declining but still studs), each with another year remaining on their deal, are traded at the deadline for a training camp pitcher.   Owner A gets his three studs that locks him in for the #1 seed.   Owner B is rid of what will likely be 46m in mostly useless players for the following season.  Win/win, right?  Except Owner A wins the WS and leaves the world because he also wants nothing to do with 46m in mostly useless players.

But, hey, both organizations were immediately better, right?   Must be OK.
10/23/2010 4:58 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect

Well that's a ridiculous example because no one is a "stud" capable of propelling a team to a WS win and then "useless" the next year.

Yes, I understand the point about people leaving, but that's the only reason to be hesitant to allow it.  The fact that the trade propels one team to win the WS at the expense of future seasons isn't a reason to veto a trade.  Teams do that all the time.  Alright, what if the person seeking the trade had already re-upped for next year; does that change you opinion?

10/23/2010 5:03 PM
philogenemay
Posts: 475 (0)
All Star
24 10
Prospect

Mike there is no way that you can argue that this trade is bad for this world. 
 

Sure, we can create elaborate and unrealistic scenarios, but let's talk about this trade.


Which goes to the heart of my inquiry. If a trade isn't bad for the world or a vet raping a newb, why veto?
10/23/2010 5:24 PM
strikeout26
Posts: 6524 (0)
Hall of Famer
129 1 47
Prospect
You guys have a combined seven seasons together. The more you play this game, the more that your views will change. I had the same view as you guys when I first started. It didnt take long to change when I watched the world that I was in at the time need 17 owners to roll because there were 2 teams with 120+ wins and 5 or 6 teams with 100+ losses. Now that I am in a good world with low turnover, I appreciate the fact that the world will veto the deals that you are talking about.
10/23/2010 5:25 PM
philogenemay
Posts: 475 (0)
All Star
24 10
Prospect
Posted by strikeout26 on 10/23/2010 5:25:00 PM (view original):
You guys have a combined seven seasons together. The more you play this game, the more that your views will change. I had the same view as you guys when I first started. It didnt take long to change when I watched the world that I was in at the time need 17 owners to roll because there were 2 teams with 120+ wins and 5 or 6 teams with 100+ losses. Now that I am in a good world with low turnover, I appreciate the fact that the world will veto the deals that you are talking about.
please explain how this is even remotely close to your example.

MY team is a 90+ win team, and I am the one that is supposedly losing too much in the deal.

EVEN IF that were true the worst possible outcome would be that my team becomes a .500 club and the other team becomes the 90+ win team.

There is no issue of a 120+ win team here.
10/23/2010 5:28 PM
strikeout26
Posts: 6524 (0)
Hall of Famer
129 1 47
Prospect
My point is that experienced owners veto these kinds of deals because they have seen what the eventual outcome is for the world. It becomes a slippery slope when you start selling players for crap. When is it a good idea to deal to veto a deal if trades can go through that have a current BL talent for a AA talent? This leads to a tard world eventually.

By the way, why the hell did you start the post if you didnt want honest replies. People in these forums dont sugar coat stuff for you.
10/23/2010 5:33 PM
pirateswin2
Posts: 108 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 25 2 175
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/23/2010 4:58:00 PM (view original):
Just because two owners get what they want, it doesn't mean it's good for the world.

Three studs(declining but still studs), each with another year remaining on their deal, are traded at the deadline for a training camp pitcher.   Owner A gets his three studs that locks him in for the #1 seed.   Owner B is rid of what will likely be 46m in mostly useless players for the following season.  Win/win, right?  Except Owner A wins the WS and leaves the world because he also wants nothing to do with 46m in mostly useless players.

But, hey, both organizations were immediately better, right?   Must be OK.
there is an easy way to prevent that without a veto,i f owner A) states in chat that he wants to clear space, and the best offer he gets is what you described, the you should not veto, if you never offered anything better, if you don't want someone else getting a good player, then offer something of value
10/23/2010 5:34 PM
strikeout26
Posts: 6524 (0)
Hall of Famer
129 1 47
Prospect
Also, there are plenty of worlds that allow deals like this. If you feel that they are okay, play in one of those. Warning: they tend to be the worlds that are very imbalanced and have high turnover rates. Coincidence? I dont think so.
10/23/2010 5:35 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
You're right.  I don't have a ton of experience.  But I have had the pleasure of playing in a good world without much turnover, and I doubt if I have the time or interest to pick up another team.  There are probably things about crappy worlds that I don't understand and never will.  But in a good world, with good owners, I don't see the problem.
10/23/2010 5:55 PM
strikeout26
Posts: 6524 (0)
Hall of Famer
129 1 47
Prospect
I dont know much about Cobbfather's turnover rate. I did see quite a bit of imbalance with quite a few 100+ win teams and quite a few 100+ losses teams, but I will take your world that it is a good world. I might have missed something when I did a quick glance, but I did not see any selling of players in Cobbfather. The most that I saw was some contracts being covered. Would a trade of BL talent for AA talent to get rid of a contract go through in your world?
10/23/2010 6:20 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
You might as well give up arguing about it. Its been argued for years and people are generally set in their belief and you are not going to change their belief.

I have never understood how these two trades differ.

Player X in 1 world has a salary of 1 million dollars

Player Y is the same exact player as player X but in another world except he has a salary of 5 million.

Prospect A has the same exact ratings in both worlds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to some people trading Player Y for Prospect A is acceptable.

Those same exact people will tell you that trading Player X and 4 million in cash for Prospect A is unacceptable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though both trades are the same exact players. and have the same exact impact on both teams budgets in both worlds, it somehow is too overwhelming for some people to compute.
10/23/2010 6:28 PM (edited)
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4...13 Next ▸
"Eating a contract" 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.