Quote: Originally Posted By sweetsalve on 6/15/2009

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

Quote: Originally Posted By tutmeister on 6/15/2009

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 salar

Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 6/15/2009

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

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

Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 6/15/2009
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

Quote: Originally Posted By unclevic on 6/15/2009Well, you can certainly do all those things, #1, 2 and 3. But you'll have to explain how that has any relevancy to cheapening the budgeting process, and how the budgeting process has any relevancy to the topic of this thread, for your assertions to be complete. Thanks

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By sweetsalve on 6/15/2009

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

kjd stated that maybe he would budget exactly that way with the intent of buying players for cash at some point during the season


Saying someone budgeted poorly or well is an opinion, not a fact, and adds nothing to solving the question proposed in this thread.

Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By unclevic on 6/15/2009
Well, you can certainly do all those things, #1, 2 and 3. But you'll have to explain how that has any relevancy to cheapening the budgeting process, and how the budgeting process has any relevancy to the topic of this thread, for your assertions to be complete. Thanks.

or I can just ignore your posts that never add anything to a conversation

Quote: Originally Posted By toddcommish on 6/15/2009
Topic: Cash in trades - Do worlds discourage it?

Answer: Some do. Some don't. There is a direct correlation between permissiveness towards large amounts of cash in trades to Tard World status.