Quote: Originally posted by toddcommish on 6/16/2009You're missing a fundamental point here.  Cash is FIXED for a given year.  32 teams x $185M = $5.92B.  That's all the money there is to spend for all teams.If you trade, say, $5M in cash, you're essentially giving ONE team more than its fair share of cash, handicapping 31 other teams.  Now you can say, HGWHD by fleecing some newb or taking advantage of a tanker, but it's a league killer when you allow that kind of stuff since it unbalances a balanced game.Put it this way, how would YOU feel if your division foes all had $200M to spend, while you had $185M?  (Well, you'd feel like the Orioles, and feel like the system was unfair, and you'd likely bail)

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 6/18/2009
Two wild thoughts:

1) If unused player payroll cash in a season could carry over to the following season, would people be willing to pass it around so freely? What if only a percentage of unused cash could be carried over (50%, 25%, whatever)?

2) What if there was a penalty tax for cash in trades, like there is in budget transfers? Say you included $1m cash in a trade but the receiving team only received 50%, or 75%. Maybe the remainder of the cash went into a revenue sharing bucket to be distributed somehow.

Note: I'm not endorsing either of these options. Just throwing it out to see how changing the "value" of cash would influence the way folks treat it.

Another note: I realize option 2 is just plain stupid. But I'm including it for discussion anyway. I'm trying to think outside of the box.

Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 6/18/2009
I think #1 would just be another tool in the tank 'tard playbook ... as far as the import of that change in the scheme of trading cash, I think it just changes the "value" of cash to the "trading cash is just another resource" crowd ... and doesn't solve my issue of "the other owners judging the 'fairness/collusion' of the trade can't effectively judge cash until it is commited to player payroll

I think #2 is simple a different side of the same coin ... a change that restricts the movement of cash only changes the "value" of cash for the cash trades are OK crowd, and ditto the concern for the no cash trades crowd

Quote: Originally Posted By silentpadna on 6/16/2009
No alias. Just a newbie. Thanks for the kind words.

Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 6/18/2009
Do you take an in-depth look at each franchise involved in a trade (assuming no cash)? Or do you just look at the players?
I think it would be hard to judge the true fairness of a trade without looking at the franchises. If a contending owner loses his SS to injury and has no legit replacement in his system, he would be willing to give up better prospects than anyone else in the league. On the other side, an owner with an extra ML ready SS prospect would be willing to take less than any other owner in the league. Depending on the number of acceptable ML SS in the league, value could swing wildly from the perspective of the other owners approving or disapproving the trade. You would need to evaluate the franchises (as well as the overall level of talent) to make a realistic determination.

The reason I wasted all that space is that I believe that cash is similar. If you evaluate the franchises involved in a trade that includes cash, you should be able to figure out EXACTLY what the franchise intends to do with the cash (and why they're doing it).

Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 6/18/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 6/18/2009
Do you take an in-depth look at each franchise involved in a trade (assuming no cash)? Or do you just look at the players?
I think it would be hard to judge the true fairness of a trade without looking at the franchises. If a contending owner loses his SS to injury and has no legit replacement in his system, he would be willing to give up better prospects than anyone else in the league. On the other side, an owner with an extra ML ready SS prospect would be willing to take less than any other owner in the league. Depending on the number of acceptable ML SS in the league, value could swing wildly from the perspective of the other owners approving or disapproving the trade. You would need to evaluate the franchises (as well as the overall level of talent) to make a realistic determination.

The reason I wasted all that space is that I believe that cash is similar. If you evaluate the franchises involved in a trade that includes cash, you should be able to figure out EXACTLY what the franchise intends to do with the cash (and why they're doing it).

I understand your point ... my reply is that, with players, you can still do some evaluating, even if you don't look at overall context, which I will if a trade strikes me as odd at first) ... so in your example, as long all players involved have the potential to be MLB talent, I probably wouldn't veto ... if the guy who has too many MLB SSs gives one up for a career AA pitcher, even if the MLB SS isn't MLB level to him, I might see that as a "something for nothing" trade even in context (because one side is giving up a "something" that may be a "nothing" to the person giving it up)

I just can't get to the same place with cash, except in the situation where cash is needed to make a trade work under the cap ... and even then, too much cash (a purely subjective evaluation) concerns me

Quote: Originally Posted By silentpadna on 6/16/2009No alias. Just a newbie. Thanks for the kind words.

I've posted on a bunch of real baseball boards, political boards, blogs, all kinds of stuff with the same screen name. Used it for about 12 years now. Never here though. I do enjoy economic discussions. This game looks to be really really enjoyable.

I would not call my post informative - I really am still learning the game. It's really a lot more philosophical. There may well be real good reasons limit cash in trades. I'm open to that position - I just have not seen it articulated in a persuasive enough manner to change my initial view on it. It may be that after I play a number of seasons of this game that the wisdom that comes with experience may color my view some. I guess we'll see


IMO, you will do well in this game once you learn the ropes. As to those who assign phantom motives to your posts or accuse you of using aliases, that seems to be more their problem than yours. People tend to ascribe their own tendencies/faults to others because they can't imagine anyone thinking or acting differently than they do, and if they do they must have some kind of nefarious agenda. You shouldn't have any difficulty recognizing the type. To those who think i am referring to them, I probably am.

Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 6/18/2009
But I think you can, if you can ignore the whole "sanctity of the budget" argument. You just have to ask yourself the question "Is the talent the owner is giving up justified by the financial flexibility he receives in return?" It's a specific question that can be answered based on that owner's situation. It's also irrelevant from the other owner's perspective, since the assumption is that he doesn't need the money, and therefore isn't giving up anything.