Cash in trades - Do worlds discourage it? Topic

unclevic
Posts: 12 (0)
All Star
1 13 3 11
Prospect
Banning or limiting cash in trades has one advantage that I can see. It penalizes anyone who understands the subject as well as it is reflected in silent's essay above, and helps those who don't understand it. Such worlds become a good playground for people who need or just prefer a simpler game. There's nothing wrong with that.

As for the forums, if you don't understand a topic, you can just start your own thread and exchange juvenile bons mots with the other kids. Take a look at the Is this guy any good? thread for a good example of that. It's a hilarious thread of apparent kindergarteners trying to act so grown up, and setting off their Michael Jackson's Grown Up Alarm now and then. It may be a way to save face among the adoring legions of kids who thrive on such antics. In a sense, there is nothing wrong with that, either. One man's amusement is another man's tripe.

However, that thread doesn't help anyone actually understand the game any better. Much of the conversation in this thread can actually do that.
6/16/2009 1:50 PM
schuyler101
Posts: 257 (0)
Hall of Famer
113 6 21
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
6/16/2009 1:58 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By silentpadna on 6/16/2009If I say "I've got $5M on the market, who needs it?", I'm liable to get a better offer than a training camp pitcher...

But...to answer your question, sort of.....yes. However, in your reductio ad absurdum example, it's not likely to happen. There are opportunity costs for the cash. An owner can do one of 4 things with it:

1. Horde it through the end of the season and lose it.
2. Trade it for something of value.
3. Spend it for something of value (like for a scrap heap FA). This option should always outweigh a training camp pitcher option.
4. Move it to the prospect budget, pay the tax, and then spend it for something of value.

Other owners can determine what the opportunity cost for the cash is by establishing the market in trade. Cash is an asset you can choose to trade or buy. Market forces determine its value. As a shopper, I'd be looking for a discount on whatever I value..
one of the points Mike made in the thread parallel to this one is that cash doesn't have any value until it gets converted to a player (#3 or #4 in your list) ... if YOU can't convert it to a player, it becomes #1, and is worthless

by trading it, YOU have converted it to value (to you) ... but because we (the other 31 owners in the league) don't know what the recipient may do with it (as it has no value until used by HIM), we can't judge the "fairness" of the deal in question

in another absurd example, if you trade $5M for a stud prospect (the classic "buying a prospect" tade that more people are opposed to), YOU certainly got value for that prospect ... however, if the owner that got the cash simply it sitting there, and it becomes lost at the end of the season, the trade you made now seems unfair ... if the other guy used the $5M to sign a FA "worth" $5M, then we can (in retrospect) a trade of a prospect for a $5M vet, and can make a more accurate judgement of the "fairness" of the trade

but because cash is simply a fungible asset ... with value to the peddler of whatever he thinks ... value to the receiver for whatever he thinks ... but of unknown value to the other 30 owners ... cash in a trade makes evalaution by the owners deciding to veto or not a difficult, if not impossible, exercise
6/16/2009 2:02 PM
unclevic
Posts: 12 (0)
All Star
1 13 3 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 6/16/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By silentpadna on 6/16/2009
If I say "I've got $5M on the market, who needs it?", I'm liable to get a better offer than a training camp pitcher...

But...to answer your question, sort of.....yes. However, in your reductio ad absurdum example, it's not likely to happen. There are opportunity costs for the cash. An owner can do one of 4 things with it:

1. Horde it through the end of the season and lose it.
2. Trade it for something of value.
3. Spend it for something of value (like for a scrap heap FA). This option should always outweigh a training camp pitcher option.
4. Move it to the prospect budget, pay the tax, and then spend it for something of value.

Other owners can determine what the opportunity cost for the cash is by establishing the market in trade. Cash is an asset you can choose to trade or buy. Market forces determine its value. As a shopper, I'd be looking for a discount on whatever I value...
*1* one of the points Mike made in the thread parallel to this one is that cash doesn't have any value until it gets converted to a player (#3 or #4 in your list) ... if YOU can't convert it to a player, it becomes #1, and is worthless

by trading it, YOU have converted it to value (to you) ... but because we (the other 31 owners in the league) don't know what the recipient may do with it (as it has no value until used by HIM), we can't judge the "fairness" of the deal in question *2*

in another absurd example, if you trade $5M for a stud prospect (the classic "buying a prospect" tade that more people are opposed to), YOU certainly got value for that prospect ... however, if the owner that got the cash simply it sitting there, and it becomes lost at the end of the season, the trade you made now seems unfair *3* ... if the other guy used the $5M to sign a FA "worth" $5M, then we can (in retrospect) a trade of a prospect for a $5M vet, and can make a more accurate judgement of the "fairness" of the trade

but because cash is simply a fungible asset ... with value to the peddler of whatever he thinks ... value to the receiver for whatever he thinks ... but of unknown value to the other 30 owners ... cash in a trade makes evalaution by the owners deciding to veto or not a difficult, if not impossible, exercise *4*

*1* Actually, cash has value according to the context in which it exists. It doesn't need to be applied in any particular way to have context. The world, the season, the 32 teams, all of that is context. Cash, like any other commodity, has value in its context no matter how you apply it.

*2* As long as the other owners understand the context, you do have a window into the fairness of the exchange. You don't need to understand each owner's personal approach for that.

*3* The trade didn't change. The owner's failure to apply the cash he got doesn't change the trade.

*4* Again, you don't need to read the trader's mind to evaluate the fairness of the trade, you merely need to have some understanding of the context.
6/16/2009 2:12 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by 98greenc5 on 6/16/2009but because cash is simply a fungible asset ... with value to the peddler of whatever he thinks ... value to the receiver for whatever he thinks ... but of unknown value to the other 30 owners ... cash in a trade makes evalaution by the owners deciding to veto or not a difficult, if not impossible, exercise 

Exactly.

Which is why vetoing of trades because of cash doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

To me, to vote to veto any trade seems like a very big deal and should be RARE. I realize it may be extreme to some, but the
only reason I can see to give a veto vote is if it appears to be collusion. Any other reason seems like self-interest in disguise.


I'm open minded on that subject though, so I can certainly be convinced otherwise...I think. :-)
6/16/2009 2:13 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by schuyler101 on 6/16/2009It's not surprising that I agree with silentpadna though, I come from an economics background and it looks like he does as well

Actually, I'm just a wannabe. I do tech stuff to pay the bills and wish I would have done something else...but that's what mid-life crises are all about right?
6/16/2009 2:15 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 6/16/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By silentpadna on 6/16/2009
If I say "I've got $5M on the market, who needs it?", I'm liable to get a better offer than a training camp pitcher...

But...to answer your question, sort of.....yes. However, in your reductio ad absurdum example, it's not likely to happen. There are opportunity costs for the cash. An owner can do one of 4 things with it:

1. Horde it through the end of the season and lose it.
2. Trade it for something of value.
3. Spend it for something of value (like for a scrap heap FA). This option should always outweigh a training camp pitcher option.
4. Move it to the prospect budget, pay the tax, and then spend it for something of value.

Other owners can determine what the opportunity cost for the cash is by establishing the market in trade. Cash is an asset you can choose to trade or buy. Market forces determine its value. As a shopper, I'd be looking for a discount on whatever I value...
one of the points Mike made in the thread parallel to this one is that cash doesn't have any value until it gets converted to a player (#3 or #4 in your list) ... if YOU can't convert it to a player, it becomes #1, and is worthless

by trading it, YOU have converted it to value (to you) ... but because we (the other 31 owners in the league) don't know what the recipient may do with it (as it has no value until used by HIM), we can't judge the "fairness" of the deal in question

in another absurd example, if you trade $5M for a stud prospect (the classic "buying a prospect" tade that more people are opposed to), YOU certainly got value for that prospect ... however, if the owner that got the cash simply it sitting there, and it becomes lost at the end of the season, the trade you made now seems unfair ... if the other guy used the $5M to sign a FA "worth" $5M, then we can (in retrospect) a trade of a prospect for a $5M vet, and can make a more accurate judgement of the "fairness" of the trade

but because cash is simply a fungible asset ... with value to the peddler of whatever he thinks ... value to the receiver for whatever he thinks ... but of unknown value to the other 30 owners ... cash in a trade makes evalaution by the owners deciding to veto or not a difficult, if not impossible, exercise

It would seem that you could just question trades with cash and have both parties explain themselves. Of course they could lie about their intentions, but that would haunt them in their future dealings.
6/16/2009 2:17 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By silentpadna on 6/16/2009
Exactly.

Which is why vetoing of trades because of cash doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

To me, to vote to veto any trade seems like a very big deal and should be RARE. I realize it may be extreme to some, but the
only reason I can see to give a veto vote is if it appears to be collusion. Any other reason seems like self-interest in disguise.


I'm open minded on that subject though, so I can certainly be convinced otherwise...I think. :-)
but the rub is that cash could hide collusion (if that was an intent)

everyone realizes there must be collusion if a stud prospect is traded for a training camp pitcher ... ditto if I traded a prospect for a player making $5M, but due to an injury last year the guy is worthless now ... we could all see that the value given up is nowhere close to value received and suspect collusion and thus a veto

but if I wanted to collude with another owner, I could trade $5M for a stud prospect ... how are you supposed to examine that trade for veto, whether for collusion or whatever else?
6/16/2009 2:20 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
I don't think 5m would get a stud prospect in any world. That would likely invite a veto.
6/16/2009 2:22 PM
unclevic
Posts: 12 (0)
All Star
1 13 3 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By silentpadna on 6/16/2009

Quote: Originally posted by 98greenc5 on 6/16/2009

but because cash is simply a fungible asset ... with value to the peddler of whatever he thinks ... value to the receiver for whatever he thinks ... but of unknown value to the other 30 owners ... cash in a trade makes evalaution by the owners deciding to veto or not a difficult, if not impossible, exercise

Exactly.

Which is why vetoing of trades because of cash doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

To me, to vote to veto any trade seems like a very big deal and should be RARE. I realize it may be extreme to some, but the
only reason I can see to give a veto vote is if it appears to be collusion. Any other reason seems like self-interest in disguise.


I'm open minded on that subject though, so I can certainly be convinced otherwise...I think. :-)
I, too, think vetos should be very rare. I think there are other valid reasons for vetos, though. What is referred to in the forums as "trade rape" is one, the unconscionable taking advantage of a newbie by an unscrupulous vet. It is also in the interest of the collective owners in a world to prevent competitive imbalance created through trades that are just plain stupid, although a trade so egregiously stupid that it jeopardizes competitive balance would be extraordinary. In either of these cases I think the collective self-interest is justified.

I could also imagine a situation in which a new owner didn't realize the full arbitration/salary/contract implications of an accepted trade, discusses it with his trading partner and the trading partner agrees to drop the trade out of a sense of fairness. The only way to do that, I think, is for both to go on the League chat, explain what happened and ask that the trade be vetoed. This would be sort of a "mercy veto."

Cash might or might not play a part in any of those situations.
6/16/2009 2:23 PM
iain
Posts: 1864 (0)
Hall of Famer
35 1 1 18 1 278
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By silentpadna on 6/16/2009
Quote: Originally posted by 98greenc5 on 6/16/2009
but because cash is simply a fungible asset ... with value to the peddler of whatever he thinks ... value to the receiver for whatever he thinks ... but of unknown value to the other 30 owners ... cash in a trade makes evalaution by the owners deciding to veto or not a difficult, if not impossible, exercise

Exactly.

Which is why vetoing of trades because of cash doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

To me, to vote to veto any trade seems like a very big deal and should be RARE. I realize it may be extreme to some, but the
only reason I can see to give a veto vote is if it appears to be collusion. Any other reason seems like self-interest in disguise.


I'm open minded on that subject though, so I can certainly be convinced otherwise...I think. :-)
I've taken a somewhat opposite position on trades.

I believe the burden should fall on the trading owners to justify to me why I should approve their move.

Auto-approving trades can become a dangerous precedent, which leads to slippery slopes, and various other ominous-sounding analogies.

Vetos will always be a touchy subject, but I guess I'm one who would rather be the 10th veto than the 21st non-veto. Why? Because if 9 others have thought something fishy is going on, then there's likely something to discuss further.
6/16/2009 2:24 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By iain on 6/16/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By silentpadna on 6/16/2009

Quote: Originally posted by 98greenc5 on 6/16/2009

but because cash is simply a fungible asset ... with value to the peddler of whatever he thinks ... value to the receiver for whatever he thinks ... but of unknown value to the other 30 owners ... cash in a trade makes evalaution by the owners deciding to veto or not a difficult, if not impossible, exercise

Exactly.

Which is why vetoing of trades because of cash doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

To me, to vote to veto any trade seems like a very big deal and should be RARE. I realize it may be extreme to some, but the
only reason I can see to give a veto vote is if it appears to be collusion. Any other reason seems like self-interest in disguise.


I'm open minded on that subject though, so I can certainly be convinced otherwise...I think. :-)
I've taken a somewhat opposite position on trades.

I believe the burden should fall on the trading owners to justify to me why I should approve their move.

Auto-approving trades can become a dangerous precedent, which leads to slippery slopes, and various other ominous-sounding analogies.

Vetos will always be a touchy subject, but I guess I'm one who would rather be the 10th veto than the 21st non-veto. Why? Because if 9 others have thought something fishy is going on, then there's likely something to discuss further.

I agree with this. I'll drop a veto on a trade if it seems the least bit fishy.
6/16/2009 2:31 PM
moosep
Posts: 1496 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 1 1 24 2 36
Pro
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
6/16/2009 2:49 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by iain on 6/16/2009I've taken a somewhat opposite position on trades.I believe the burden should fall on the trading owners to justify to me why I should approve their move.Auto-approving trades can become a dangerous precedent, which leads to slippery slopes, and various other ominous-sounding analogies.Vetos will always be a touchy subject, but I guess I'm one who would rather be the 10th veto than the 21st non-veto.  Why?  Because if 9 others have thought something fishy is going on, then there's likely something to discuss further.

It could easily be a slippery slope to have a group of owners in a world veto trades so readily as well. Demanding an explanation could publicly reveal strategies of either of the parties without real reason to do so.

The veto tool is within the rules, just like trading cash is within the rules. Being that I've preached freedom in defense of cash trades, owners are also free to use the veto tool as they see fit. Are vetoes public? I'm not experienced enough yet to have seen a trade veto, nor have I voted to veto. If it's in the league record or reports somewhere I haven't yet noticed it.

6/16/2009 2:59 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
The only time individual vetos are public is when the at least 10 owners veto, effectively stopping the trade.
6/16/2009 3:03 PM
◂ Prev 1...27|28|29|30|31...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.