Cash in trades - Do worlds discourage it? Topic

deanod
Posts: 3152 (0)
Hall of Famer
115 18 1 118 1 52
Prospect
JV- the idea is that they gain a benefit of extra money at the expense of giving up more value in the trade.
6/15/2009 3:14 PM
unclevic
Posts: 12 (0)
All Star
1 13 3 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By gator993 on 6/15/2009
I never said trading for cash should not be allowed. I said it makes the game easier.


Sorry to be blunt, but that is just so much BS.
6/15/2009 3:16 PM
deanod
Posts: 3152 (0)
Hall of Famer
115 18 1 118 1 52
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by 98greenc5 on 6/15/2009inconsequental at the extremes ... potentially very consequential at the margintrading for a $8M FA to-be at the deadline, with "only" $3M or so to cover the rest of his season is really $8M, and might be buying one hell of a player ... or at least that one missing cog to put said team over the topand to get at the often mis-constured part of Mike's overall argument, it isn't the one trade in isolation ... if the same team makes the same sort of trade 5 times, will all 5 go through? ... or maybe two bottom dwellars make the trade 5 times and it goes through, but a team pushing for the playoffs makes the the 6th deal and it gets vetoed

If the team is making this trade 6 times without giving up any value in return, then you have a 'tard league and a savvy owner is going to find out how to rape players either way. But if he's giving up fair value and getting 6 players who are either all-stars or near that level, then he's going to decimate his farm system for a one year playoff push. No skin off my back.
6/15/2009 3:22 PM
unclevic
Posts: 12 (0)
All Star
1 13 3 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By deanod on 6/15/2009
Man, the 'tards who favor cash in trades really suck at formulating a coherent argument. Fortunately, they have me to do it for them.

Everyone has $185 mill to work with, but we all know that not all players are paid fairly. Actually, the majority of players are severely mispriced. If I have an army of young ML studs with < 3 years experience and no bloated contracts, I can kick everyone's *** with a $125 mill budget. Conversely, if I have no young talent and a bunch of aging fatass players making $8 mill a year, I may be hard pressed to compete with $220 mill. So at the end of the day, a shift of a few million in budgeting here and there is rather inconsequential.

You're welcome, illiterate 'tards.
The other side would argue that the goal is to build a team that shoots for one of those extremes and avoids the other. Allowing someone at one end to gain a benefit from their extra money at the expense of someone at the other end is counter-productive to the world.

Thanks, but you've contributed nothing.

Sorry to be blunt again, but neither of those arguments is particularly coherent. Of course, to be fair I should add that that is pretty consistent with the entire thread.
6/15/2009 3:23 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By deanod on 6/15/2009JV- the idea is that they gain a benefit of extra money at the expense of giving up more value in the trade
I agree with you. But the Budget Nazis continue to argue about the sanctity and importance of the budget process.

MikeT's and my argument boiled down to my belief that player value is fluid (like cash) vs MikeT's belief that it's static. Neither one of us was able to argue any further.
6/15/2009 3:24 PM
deanod
Posts: 3152 (0)
Hall of Famer
115 18 1 118 1 52
Prospect
Nope, mine definitely was.

Not sure who taught you how to read.
6/15/2009 3:24 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
unclevic with 2 more posts that add nothing to the conversation except to insult other owners ... thanks for stopping by!
6/15/2009 3:25 PM
kingjohndevi
Posts: 5 (0)
Veteran
7 2 21
Prospect
Its easy, if someone gives up 5 mil in cash just make sure they get something equal to what they could have bought with the money.





6/15/2009 3:25 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By unclevic on 6/15/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By deanod on 6/15/2009
Man, the 'tards who favor cash in trades really suck at formulating a coherent argument. Fortunately, they have me to do it for them.

Everyone has $185 mill to work with, but we all know that not all players are paid fairly. Actually, the majority of players are severely mispriced. If I have an army of young ML studs with < 3 years experience and no bloated contracts, I can kick everyone's *** with a $125 mill budget. Conversely, if I have no young talent and a bunch of aging fatass players making $8 mill a year, I may be hard pressed to compete with $220 mill. So at the end of the day, a shift of a few million in budgeting here and there is rather inconsequential.

You're welcome, illiterate 'tards.
The other side would argue that the goal is to build a team that shoots for one of those extremes and avoids the other. Allowing someone at one end to gain a benefit from their extra money at the expense of someone at the other end is counter-productive to the world.

Thanks, but you've contributed nothing.

Sorry to be blunt again, but neither of those arguments is particularly coherent.
You may be right, but if you read the entire thread you would understand both arguments.
6/15/2009 3:25 PM
kingjohndevi
Posts: 5 (0)
Veteran
7 2 21
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 6/15/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By deanod on 6/15/2009
JV- the idea is that they gain a benefit of extra money at the expense of giving up more value in the trade.
I agree with you. But the Budget Nazis continue to argue about the sanctity and importance of the budget process.

MikeT's and my argument boiled down to my belief that player value is fluid (like cash) vs MikeT's belief that it's static. Neither one of us was able to argue any further.



Players value is never static, not even the value of cash is static in this game. 5 mil during FA signing is worth more than 5 mil half way thorugh the season. 5 mil when there are no good IFAs isn't worth as much as when there is a great IFA out there. Arguing that the value of anything in this game is static is a losing argument.
6/15/2009 3:27 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By kingjohndevi on 6/15/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By deanod on 6/15/2009
JV- the idea is that they gain a benefit of extra money at the expense of giving up more value in the trade.
I agree with you. But the Budget Nazis continue to argue about the sanctity and importance of the budget process.

MikeT's and my argument boiled down to my belief that player value is fluid (like cash) vs MikeT's belief that it's static. Neither one of us was able to argue any further.




Players value is never static, not even the value of cash is static in this game. 5 mil during FA signing is worth more than 5 mil half way thorugh the season. 5 mil when there are no good IFAs isn't worth as much as when there is a great IFA out there. Arguing that the value of anything in this game is static is a losing argument.
Everybody agrees that the value of cash is fluid. The question is whether player's value is fluid or static from the perspective of the world. Giving an example of how cash is fluid is a waste of time.
6/15/2009 3:30 PM
unclevic
Posts: 12 (0)
All Star
1 13 3 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By gator993 on 6/15/2009
Setting the budget should be one of the most strategic parts of the game. Trading for cash makes it less important. Thats why many have a major issue with it.
Then they should have a major issue with any trade involving players of unequal salary ~~ the cash impact is just the same. And to be consistent, they should be against anything except an exactly equal (and therefore pointless) trade. At this point it becomes clear what nonsense it is to try to rail against trades that include cash. It's a ludicrous position to take.
6/15/2009 3:31 PM
danmam
Posts: 342 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 22 22 82
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
6/15/2009 3:34 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
here's something to debate that *might* help (or might just draw more ranting from the other side):

In my opinion, after the FA signing period, cash (in the form of payroll budget in excess of player salaries) does not have a whole lot of value

you can't buy any "good" FAs with it ... it is only worth 50% of what it used to be worth if you transfer it to prospects (and less than that if you didn't budget high on int'l scouting) ... you can't use it to buy down the out years of your own players (like a bonus could in the FA period)

you can use it to claim players off the wire ... although you would expect you aren't gettin 100% for the money, or the guy wouldn't have been waived

you can use it to absorb payroll in the form of talent coming to you

the one that bothers people: you can include it in a trade ... usually to bail the other side out from being short on payroll

since the cash you send actually has limited value (in my opinion based on the above), the cash you trade is "nothing" to you, but "something" to the other side ... trading nothing for something is perceived as bad for the world by some people
6/15/2009 3:36 PM
tutmeister
Posts: 0 (0)
Pro
9
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By unclevic on 6/15/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By gator993 on 6/15/2009
Setting the budget should be one of the most strategic parts of the game. Trading for cash makes it less important. Thats why many have a major issue with it.
Then they should have a major issue with any trade involving players of unequal salary ~~ the cash impact is just the same. And to be consistent, they should be against anything except an exactly equal (and therefore pointless) trade. At this point it becomes clear what nonsense it is to try to rail against trades that include cash. It's a ludicrous position to take


not true. cash can be used for other things. players cannot be transferred to prospect salary
6/15/2009 3:41 PM
◂ Prev 1...21|22|23|24|25...35 Next ▸
Cash in trades - Do worlds discourage it? 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.