Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 1:38:00 PM (view original):

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 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.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 2:20:00 PM (view original):
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?

Name names.   Who said "I use my veto to try to kill any deal that hurts me"?

Or just quote their post.

Posted by alleyviper on 7/26/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):
I made this point in WC and I'll express it here, too.

The idea of every team "only" having 185m to work with I think is given way too much credence by people who play this game.  I look at it this way: every world has a pool of $5.92 billion each season that is evenly distributed to the 32 teams, each gets 185m. It is then up to the 32 owners to take advantage of that 5.92b as they will.  Everyone in the world, every single owner, has the same opportunities to try and wrest some of that 5.92b from owners.  There is nothing unfair there, they all have the same 31 other owners to negotiate with, the same total pool to try and acquire as they will.  

It would be one thing if one owner were to somehow acquire an additional 5m from out of nowhere, 5m that the other 31 owners had no access to whatsoever.  THAT would be unfair.  As is, every owner has the same access and means to a chunk of the 5.92b pool beyond their initial 185m as every other owner has, which is entirely fair.  To say that every owner "only" gets 185 and has to live with it is to ignore that the world only has a set amount of money available that all 32 owners have equal access to.  There are no printing machines that can give one owner an unfair advantage over the rest of the world.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2012 2:57:00 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.

Again, you avoid answering the question.  SHOCKING!  Though typical in arguments such as these when the answer will undermine the position they are so vehemently trying to defend.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2012 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 1:38:00 PM (view original):

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.  

Check it.  I did a quick, random check of the world in question after I posted it.  Fact.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2012 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 1:38:00 PM (view original):

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.  

Check it.  I did a quick, random check of the world in question after I posted it.  Fact.

"I imagine the results would be the same". Fantastic. Let me know when that study gets published.

Posted by deathinahole on 7/27/2012 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Not bad. Just know what it is.

Don't think it's an advantage? Take a look at your own leagues, and figure out who's accummulated the most cash in trades over a long period of time and look at their records.

I'll start you off. Overeasy in Major Leagues, acquired $17M in extra cap space since he's entered that league.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2012 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 2:20:00 PM (view original):
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?

Name names.   Who said "I use my veto to try to kill any deal that hurts me"?

Or just quote their post.

 

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2012 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 2:20:00 PM (view original):
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?

Name names.   Who said "I use my veto to try to kill any deal that hurts me"?

Or just quote their post.

 

Homer nods.

I read one of deathinshole's posts incorrectly.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2012 2:57:00 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.

Again, you avoid answering the question.  SHOCKING!  Though typical in arguments such as these when the answer will undermine the position they are so vehemently trying to defend.

What question?

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2012 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2012 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 2:20:00 PM (view original):
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?

Name names.   Who said "I use my veto to try to kill any deal that hurts me"?

Or just quote their post.

 

Homer nods.

I read one of deathinshole's posts incorrectly.

So it wasn't even "some"?  It was just one and you misunderstood their post? 

How odd.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2012 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2012 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 2:20:00 PM (view original):
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?

Name names.   Who said "I use my veto to try to kill any deal that hurts me"?

Or just quote their post.

 

Homer nods.

I read one of deathinshole's posts incorrectly.

So it wasn't even "some"?  It was just one and you misunderstood their post? 

How odd.

I haven't read at a sixth grade level since nursery school. Hard to get back down to that level.