Posted by hbdgirl on 7/28/2012 10:15:00 PM (view original):
Wow, there are some real brain surgeons in this thread. $190M allows you to spend $190M. $185M allows you to spend $185M. $190M is more than $185M. $190M has an advantage over $185M. It's really not that difficult a concept.

So says the brain surgeon that doesn't understand you are giving up something to get that extra money.  Did you people ever go to school?

Oh, and there is simple and then there is your 2 cents.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/28/2012 10:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/28/2012 9:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/28/2012 9:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/28/2012 9:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 7/28/2012 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 7/28/2012 4:07:00 PM (view original):
You do realize that if you give away a contract that is 5 m, you are gaining 5m in cap space.

No. You can give away a $20M contract, and your cap is still $185M at the end of itm

Instead of looking like a moron, you might want to research what you are saying,

deathinahole doesn't understand that there are two numbers that matter: the cap and the amount you are on the hook for.  Both those numbers move depending on what you do.  And he doesn't understand that contracts are cash.  He has been given example after example of different deals that lead to the same outcome, but he still doesn't get it.  But don't worry, the "quality" leagues all think that way.

Question for you:

You have $2m left in your payroll budget, and no other budget available to transfer into it.

You're approaching the trade deadline and want to acquire a stud pitcher for the stretch run to the playoffs.  You find a trading partner willing to trade you an ace with around $7m (pro-rated) remaining for the season on his contract.  He throws in $5m to get you under the cap.

Are you unable to understand how that's more of an advantage than dealing with a situation in which cash cannot be dealt?

So, in your fantasy world, the guy you are trading with is just super nice, and he just "throws in $5m to get you under the cap"?  You are not giving up value to get that?  Right?  Is that really what you are saying?  Please, tell us.

I'm assuming you're trading value to get the player in question.  Otherwise, unless you play in a world that has it's collective heads up their *****, the trade gets vetoed.

I'll also assume that your trading partner is throwing in the $5m because he's throwing in the towel for the season and trading ML players for prospects.  He has no use for the cash this season.  Use it or lose it.

So I'll ask again: do you not see how acquiring a $7m contract in season is a lot easier if he's coming along with $5m in cash (a net cap hit of $2m), than it would be if you had to clear cap space beforehand?

How many of you would throw in $5 mill and ask for nothing?  

"He has no use for the cash".  So he places a value on it?  As does the person trading for the cash?

Then you get a $7m guy plus $5m, you free up more room.  You are getting more value than just that player.  So the person giving you the $5m should get more value in return.  The value for value question is all that matters.  If the trade is unfair, you veto.  But if you say, I need $5m to cover some salary, the other guy should say then I need this in addition.

Posted by joshkvt on 7/28/2012 11:16:00 PM (view original):
i don't see how terminology matters. We're talking about one owner helping another have more money to spend than everyone else in the league has. At least 3 owners here are fine with that, and many more are not. The former have a right to their opinion, and the latter have a right to veto any such deals. In this case, the combination of some owners opposing buying of players and others deciding that the player being sold is not worth the $5 million got the deal shot down. If Shaw were twice as good, the deal probably would have gone through even with vetoes from some who will never OK selling of players.

I am talking hypotheticals involving cash.  The trade in the initial post I would veto.  The pitcher sucks and $5m is too much.  But I veto based on the fairness of the trade, not just because cash is involved.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2012 8:23:00 AM (view original):
How many times can people say the same thing yet think they're making their point in a better manner?

I did this awhile ago and I imagine the results would be the same.    Check the cash deals in your world(or any world) where cash isn't restricted.   You'll likely find a few things:
1.  The better team is getting the cash.
2.  That same team will still be better in three seasons.
3,  One or both owners will be gone after five seasons.

IOW, the owner doling OUT cash usually isn't as good at HBD as the owner getting cash and despite his brilliant move to make a good team better, he won't get better at HBD than his trade partner.

That is complete BS.  

Posted by bripat42 on 7/29/2012 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 7/28/2012 11:40:00 PM (view original):
Thank you! Philosophy!

I wouldn't give you that advantage. Especially in a quality league where the difference between winning and losing is so razor thin, I'd nix anything, philosophically, that would give you more monetary tools.

If you took someone to the woodshed within the original $185M (again, assuming you are not bending over some noob), hats off to you. Trade rubber stamped.

I respect every other owner's right to use the veto tool as he sees fit. My philosophy on the veto tool, though, is not to use it unless there is clear evidence of collusion/cheating. Two owners making a deal that offends my own personal philosophy for how assets should be valued or how franchises should be built/rebuilt is not reason enough for me ever to veto.

Agree.  You must be in a non-quality league.

Posted by deathinahole on 7/29/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 7/29/2012 3:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 7/28/2012 11:12:00 PM (view original):
Really, 19 pages and we've barely touched on philosophy.

We are still on $190M is not better than $185M because you must have had to give something up to get there.

No your stuck on how 5m in cash can somehow buy more than 5m less in salary.

Give me an example. I want to be entertained.

You still don't get that there are two numbers that are important.  It's really sad.

Hypothetically, if the trade involved $1M instead of $5M, and you knew that $1M was enough for the recipient to sign his #1 draft pick after spending all his prospect money on an IFA, would you veto? In this instance (and the new trade posted by stevehoggett) it's clear that one owner is helping another; is that vetoable regardless of the amount of cash involved and the minimal differences in the piles of turd changing uniforms?

If the trade is fair, I am not vetoing.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/28/2012 10:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/28/2012 9:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/28/2012 9:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/28/2012 9:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 7/28/2012 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 7/28/2012 4:07:00 PM (view original):
You do realize that if you give away a contract that is 5 m, you are gaining 5m in cap space.

No. You can give away a $20M contract, and your cap is still $185M at the end of itm

Instead of looking like a moron, you might want to research what you are saying,

deathinahole doesn't understand that there are two numbers that matter: the cap and the amount you are on the hook for.  Both those numbers move depending on what you do.  And he doesn't understand that contracts are cash.  He has been given example after example of different deals that lead to the same outcome, but he still doesn't get it.  But don't worry, the "quality" leagues all think that way.

Question for you:

You have $2m left in your payroll budget, and no other budget available to transfer into it.

You're approaching the trade deadline and want to acquire a stud pitcher for the stretch run to the playoffs.  You find a trading partner willing to trade you an ace with around $7m (pro-rated) remaining for the season on his contract.  He throws in $5m to get you under the cap.

Are you unable to understand how that's more of an advantage than dealing with a situation in which cash cannot be dealt?

So, in your fantasy world, the guy you are trading with is just super nice, and he just "throws in $5m to get you under the cap"?  You are not giving up value to get that?  Right?  Is that really what you are saying?  Please, tell us.

I'm assuming you're trading value to get the player in question.  Otherwise, unless you play in a world that has it's collective heads up their *****, the trade gets vetoed.

I'll also assume that your trading partner is throwing in the $5m because he's throwing in the towel for the season and trading ML players for prospects.  He has no use for the cash this season.  Use it or lose it.

So I'll ask again: do you not see how acquiring a $7m contract in season is a lot easier if he's coming along with $5m in cash (a net cap hit of $2m), than it would be if you had to clear cap space beforehand?

How many of you would throw in $5 mill and ask for nothing?  

"He has no use for the cash".  So he places a value on it?  As does the person trading for the cash?

Then you get a $7m guy plus $5m, you free up more room.  You are getting more value than just that player.  So the person giving you the $5m should get more value in return.  The value for value question is all that matters.  If the trade is unfair, you veto.  But if you say, I need $5m to cover some salary, the other guy should say then I need this in addition.

1)  Are you contending that this doesn't happen?

2)  Are you unable to or just unwilling to answer the question?  Because you are clearly avoiding doing so

The question is, is such a trade fair? In other words, do you consider what the cash will be used for? Turd A for Turd B and $100,000 might be fair, but if it ends up being Turd A for Turd B and a #1 pick, it's a different equation.

For those who say they only veto in cases of collusion, is one owner handing another owner cash to sign a draft pick collusion, if there is no other justification for the cash?

Am I contending that what doesn't happen"  That some moron just throws in cash and doesn't ask for anything in return?  I am sure it does.  Said person is a fool.

As to vetoing, if the trade is fair, you let it go.  If it is not, you veto.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Am I contending that what doesn't happen"  That some moron just throws in cash and doesn't ask for anything in return?  I am sure it does.  Said person is a fool.

As to vetoing, if the trade is fair, you let it go.  If it is not, you veto.

At least as likely, said person is either an alias or expecting a return favor at some point. Either would be collusion. The trade would at least prompt me to do some digging to see what past trades the two teams have completed, and whether it's likely that they are exchanging scouting info (one at $0 ADV, the other at $20M, for example).

I would not call a player for cash deal collusion unless the trade is not fair.

You know, it's funny.  Some of the no cash trade guys admit that they use their veto to try to kill any deal that hurts them.  They further argue that getting cash is an advantage for the person getting it.  Is it not advantageous to kill a deal that may hurt you?

Posted by joshkvt on 7/29/2012 2:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Am I contending that what doesn't happen"  That some moron just throws in cash and doesn't ask for anything in return?  I am sure it does.  Said person is a fool.

As to vetoing, if the trade is fair, you let it go.  If it is not, you veto.

At least as likely, said person is either an alias or expecting a return favor at some point. Either would be collusion. The trade would at least prompt me to do some digging to see what past trades the two teams have completed, and whether it's likely that they are exchanging scouting info (one at $0 ADV, the other at $20M, for example).

Collusion is a veto.  However, when you start getting into situations where the words "likely"(twice), "alias", etc. are used, the likelihood is that collusion is not happening.  And if a trade is fair, can it be collusion?

Posted by deathinahole on 7/29/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 7/29/2012 3:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 7/28/2012 11:12:00 PM (view original):
Really, 19 pages and we've barely touched on philosophy.

We are still on $190M is not better than $185M because you must have had to give something up to get there.

No your stuck on how 5m in cash can somehow buy more than 5m less in salary.

Give me an example. I want to be entertained.

Been there done that. You didn't understand it Friday. You didn't understand Saturday. You won't understand today, or any day in the future.Probably that lack of understanding such a simple concept is one of the reasons why you have an overall losing record. Some gotta win some gotta lose.