Cash in trades - Do worlds discourage it? Topic

jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 6/15/2009

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

If you trade it (cash) to someone who's willing to give you something (player) for it, that is the definition of value.

6/15/2009 3:41 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
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.
Actually, it's just the opposite. $5m cash during the pre-season is worth $5m. But $5m cash at the halfway point of the season can allow you to pay the pro-rated remaining portion of a $10m contract you may want to acquire in a trade. $5m cash at the trading deadline (approximately 2/3 of the way through the season) can allow you to pay the pro-rated remaining portion of a $15m contract you may want to acquire in a trade.

So cash becomes more valuable as the season goes along. Which is why freely handing it out throughout the season can make quite a significant impact to the world as a whole.
6/15/2009 3:41 PM
danmam
Posts: 342 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 22 22 82
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by 98greenc5 on 6/15/2009here'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 valueyou 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 waivedyou can use it to absorb payroll in the form of talent coming to youthe one that bothers people: you can include it in a trade ... usually to bail the other side out from being short on payrollsince 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
Trading something you don't value highly (but someone else does) for something you value more highly is not bad for a world.

It's like saying a rebuilding team trading an overpaid vet for a prospect is bad for the world. Two teams benefit from trades like this, with no harm to the other 30.
6/15/2009 3:41 PM
deanod
Posts: 3152 (0)
Hall of Famer
115 18 1 118 1 52
Prospect
it's pretty much how i feel green, but it's more of a mutual transaction than a benefit.

midseason an owner is shopping an allstar making $8 mill a year and two owners are interested. One has $10 mill of cap space, the other has $500K. The guy with $10 mill offers a marginal prospect and can take on his salary, the other one offers a stud prospect but needs $4M cash to make the deal possible.

In this scenario, it seems that making the deal with $4M cash is beneficial to both parties in the deal.
6/15/2009 3:42 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
the ONLY teams that value getting cash in a trade are the teams that already spent all their budget this year, and now would also like to spend your's too
6/15/2009 3:43 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 3:46 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 6/15/2009
the ONLY teams that value getting players in a trade are the teams that already did all they could with their players this year, and now would also like to try your's too.

6/15/2009 3:46 PM
sweetsalve
Posts: 1213 (0)
Hall of Famer
129 1 98 300
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 6/15/2009
the ONLY teams that value getting cash in a trade are the teams that already spent all their budget this year, and now would also like to spend your's too

If you have enough player payroll to be shipping 5 million off to teams at the all star break, I would think you're the one who budgeted poorly
6/15/2009 3:47 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 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
Actually, I have read the entire thread, and I'll never get those minutes back. The value of those minutes may have been fluid, but that is moot. In fact, most of the thread is moot, if not blatant misstatement. Some of it was humorous, however, with its stridency and bluster, so it was not a total waste.

If anyone would care to step back and attempt a brief, logical summary of their position, it might serve to bring the conversation back to relevancy. (hint, hint)
6/15/2009 3:47 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
6/15/2009 3:49 PM
unclevic
Posts: 12 (0)
All Star
1 13 3 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By kingjohndevi on 6/15/2009Arguing that the value of anything in this game is static is a losing argument
Correct. Now, if someone would tie that in some relevant way to the subject of this thread ...
6/15/2009 3:49 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 3:51 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
here's another example of how trading cash *might* (again, because this is only my opinion) cheapen the budgeting process, and be a detriment to the world:

I budget a ton for player payroll

1) I can use that to bid against the world for FAs before the season, AND (of that doesn't materialize)

2) I can wait to see if a stud int'l shows up, then use 50% of that cash to bid on him, AND (if that doesn't materialize)

3) If I don't end up using it for either of those, I can just trade it to some other team who has already spent all his budget on 1 and 2 for whatever he's willing to give me for it, since it now has no more value to me
6/15/2009 3:51 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Fine, here's my recap:

1.) Market forces control player and cash value

2.) These forces make the values fluctuate during the season from both team and world perspective

3.) Veto can be used to regulate the market.
6/15/2009 3:52 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 3:52 PM
◂ Prev 1...22|23|24|25|26...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.