Cash in trades - Do worlds discourage it? Topic

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.
6/18/2009 12:22 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 6/18/2009
said another way ... those of us who don't "need" cash would love nothing more than then having the guy with too much get stuck with it ... and those of us not in a cap bind would like nothing more than to see the guy who's in a cap bind get that way

so the cash trade bails both of them out of their binds, which at least has the scent of collusion

and I'm well aware that you could make the same analogy with players ... so, people with just enough SSs would love nothing more than to see the guys with too many get stuck with them, and the guys with too few get burned by not having enough ... but you would never see a guy with too many SS "gift" one to the guy with not enough for a training camp pitcher

but that is just the effect when a guy with not enough cash "gifts" a player to a guy with too much cash for the "proverbial nothing" of that to-be-useless cash

I understand your point, but this whole situation would be subject to market forces.

If you're an owner in a league that allows cash transactions, and you know that you can get something (fringe prospect or better) for extra cash, you'd budget a little extra cash each season. So would several other owners. This would "devalue" the cash at some point because an owner in need of cash would have several options. Then it would swing the other way, some owners would under-budget because they thought cash would be cheap (prospect-wise). Back and forth it would go until it "settled" within a range.

Of course if you have a lot of "one and dones" or noobs, the market could get out of whack. But that's where the vetos come in.

Like most things in this game, the success depends on good owners in a good world.
6/18/2009 12:26 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By danmam on 6/18/2009My problem with this "nothing for something" analogy as reasoning against cash trades is that trades like this happen all the time (in player-for-player trades).

That aging veteran role player on a rebuilding team is worth nothing to the rebuilding owner, but is worth something to a team in contention. Trading that vet for a prospect is "nothing for something" to the rebuilding owner but "something for something" to the contending owner
as a player, that vet is worth something to every team in the league (assuming he is MLB caliber and not just a salary albatorss) ... he's only worth "nothing" to the re-building team in the sense that the team isn't actively pursuing wins ... but that player is providing wins

cash does not have value to every team in the world ... it only has value to those teams that are in a cash bind or are looking to acquire a contract that exceeds their player payroll budget
6/18/2009 12:47 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 6/18/2009Of course if you have a lot of "one and dones" or noobs, the market could get out of whack. But that's where the vetos come in
my thought would be how do the vetos come in?

I can comprehend a view of "we're all adults, market forces dictate, let any two owners who agree on a deal make that deal" ... I don't agree with it, but I can see that people would

and my view is that I would like to use vetos to stop anything that looks "fishy" ... and I maintain, due to the fungibility and use it or lose it nature of cash, that I can't effectively see a collusive trade where cash is involved

how would you ever get to a veto in a cash deal (assuming you agree with the free use of cash in deals)?
6/18/2009 12:52 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 6/18/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 6/18/2009
Of course if you have a lot of "one and dones" or noobs, the market could get out of whack. But that's where the vetos come in.
my thought would be how do the vetos come in?

I can comprehend a view of "we're all adults, market forces dictate, let any two owners who agree on a deal make that deal" ... I don't agree with it, but I can see that people would

and my view is that I would like to use vetos to stop anything that looks "fishy" ... and I maintain, due to the fungibility and use it or lose it nature of cash, that I can't effectively see a collusive trade where cash is involved

how would you ever get to a veto in a cash deal (assuming you agree with the free use of cash in deals)?

I think it's a matter of excess. If a stud prospect or scrub was being traded for cash, the veto becomes obvious and a no-brainer. In between stud and scrub is where you have to evaluate.
6/18/2009 1:05 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 6/18/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By danmam on 6/18/2009
My problem with this "nothing for something" analogy as reasoning against cash trades is that trades like this happen all the time (in player-for-player trades).

That aging veteran role player on a rebuilding team is worth nothing to the rebuilding owner, but is worth something to a team in contention. Trading that vet for a prospect is "nothing for something" to the rebuilding owner but "something for something" to the contending owner.
as a player, that vet is worth something to every team in the league (assuming he is MLB caliber and not just a salary albatorss) ... he's only worth "nothing" to the re-building team in the sense that the team isn't actively pursuing wins ... but that player is providing wins

cash does not have value to every team in the world ... it only has value to those teams that are in a cash bind or are looking to acquire a contract that exceeds their player payroll budget

I disagree. An aging vet probably has no value to most of the teams in the league. Only a team in contention, with a need on his bench, and salary cap space, would value the player at all.
6/18/2009 1:09 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.
6/18/2009 1:35 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
dan/jv - when you start going down the road of "cash is OK but maybe will get vetoed" path (which is somewhere we haven't been the last 15 pages), then I think you get into MikeT's "consistency" problem

because cash is so fungible, when you do veto one of those cash deals, it might be tough to completely explain why this one was vetoed and the others weren't ... or maybe it makes complete sense to all the people that vetoed it, but not the people involved ... and Mike says he's read a lot of world chats where just such a thing has happened (I have to take his word for it)

and it is this inconsistent (or appearance of same) treatment of cash trades that is another issue for a "cash within reason" world
6/18/2009 2:06 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 6/18/2009

dan/jv - when you start going down the road of "cash is OK but maybe will get vetoed" path (which is somewhere we haven't been the last 15 pages), then I think you get into MikeT's "consistency" problem

because cash is so fungible, when you do veto one of those cash deals, it might be tough to completely explain why this one was vetoed and the others weren't ... or maybe it makes complete sense to all the people that vetoed it, but not the people involved ... and Mike says he's read a lot of world chats where just such a thing has happened (I have to take his word for it)

and it is this inconsistent (or appearance of same) treatment of cash trades that is another issue for a "cash within reason" world

I disagree. You could have just as easily said the same thing about BL player for BL player trades. A stud for a scrub would get quickly vetoed, but any other player for player trade would require some evaluation by the owners.

EDIT: FWIW, I'm sure a ton of player for player trades got vetoed in the beginning of this game while owners tried to figure out value.

6/18/2009 2:16 PM
gator993
Posts: 33 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 3 1 2 53
Prospect
whew...thought this thread was over.
6/18/2009 2:20 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
No, it just got more civil once a certain "Budget Nazi" .
6/18/2009 2:23 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tropicana on 6/13/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/13/2009

It was fine til you got there. Jinxer.

That's not what I heard about the early days...Sounds like it's reverting back to form.

And danmam, the standard is to not allow it. To allow it sometimes and not others isn't a standard at all -- you do realize that, right?



tropicana = man of vision?
11/13/2009 11:41 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
But that's not why I sought out a "cash" thread.

I recently amended my personal cash rules in one world to the world standard due to a vetoed deal. I thought the veto was inconsistent(who doesn't think that way about their deal?) and still had a need. So, feeling that I was treated unfairly, I said "My personal cash rules are gone. I'll play by the world rules and I need a pitcher or two!"

I've acquired a SP and two RP while someone else pays the tab. Improving your team is a snap when you do it that way.

So my belief that cash is the root of all HBD evil has been confirmed. Carry on.
11/13/2009 11:47 AM
sergei91
Posts: 5950 (0)
Hall of Famer
13 2 2 275 115
Prospect
*carries on*
11/13/2009 11:59 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I can always count on you.
11/13/2009 12:01 PM
◂ Prev 1...30|31|32|33|34|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.