Rules are rules - Page 4 - Hardball Dynasty

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

I have to add, that during the entire discussion, not one person said "That's not a rule!" So I have to believe I'm not the only person who thought/thinks it was/is a rule.

8/1/2010 5:29 PM

soxfan121

Posts: 82 (0)

Hall of Famer

61

Prospect

So the rule is:

Any $ included in a trade must meet the following criteria: a.) less than $1.5M total, b.) must cover salary/salaries of players included in the trade, and C.) be at least $50K LESS than any salary covered, or the total amount of the contract being prorated while the trade review process is completed, whichever is greater.

That's easy to remember.

8/1/2010 7:01 PM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Different worlds, different rules. But, if the rule is "No more cash than salary", I think it behooves the traders to make it easy on the folks who can veto. To me, that would mean "If they open the proposal on the 23rd hour, the cash should be less than the salary". If others want to make it tough on the people determining the fate of the deal, so be it. Just doesn't seem like a good idea.

Or, if you prefer, if you can't remember the rules, don't play in worlds with rules.

8/1/2010 7:32 PM

tecwrg

Posts: 18997 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 166 32 129

Prospect

I'm late to this thread because I've been away for the past five days on vacation.

But my 2¢: if there's a rule "no more cash than salary", that rule is in place for a reason. And if two owners in a trade are cutting it so close that the 24 hour approval period is going to cause the rule to be violated, then they were attempting to dance around the spirit of the rule to begin with. So shame on them. Enforce the rule.

8/2/2010 7:15 AM (edited)

TheJester74

Posts: 63 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 3 1 53

Prospect

If a career 29 year old Hi-A minor leaguer with 34OVR rating and his $27K contract is enough to sway a legit trade from accept to veto there is a problem with the system of judging how trades are vetoed.

8/2/2010 1:50 AM

mitchrapp

Posts: 807 (0)

Hall of Famer

106 20 14 109

Prospect

Not if worlds have rules. At first it's a Hi-A $27k player. Then it's a Hi-A $27k player and a Rookie $8k player. Then it's AA $38k player. Where does it stop?

8/2/2010 4:37 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

I'm not sure a 34OVR and $27K contract have anything to do with the issue. Sounds like another type of trade to me. But, as mitch said, if there's a rule in place where such a deal should be vetoed, there's a rule in place.

8/2/2010 7:05 AM

TheJester74

Posts: 63 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 3 1 53

Prospect

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/2/2010 7:05:00 AM (view original):
I'm not sure a 34OVR and $27K contract have anything to do with the issue. Sounds like another type of trade to me. But, as mitch said, if there's a rule in place where such a deal should be vetoed, there's a rule in place.

I've seen it play out in world with strict rules about you can't pay more than a players salary and due to timing of acceptance it ended up a team paid $10K more than the players salary and owners got upset. I personally think those rules show a lack of faith in judgment of the owners to veto, but I abide by the spirit of the rule in the leagues I'm in. Personally I feel it was trying to stop the teams from trading a guy making $1.1 for a prospect and you see $3.5M cash go by. I'm not going to play math detective to expose some trade-deadline deal that overpaid a players salary by less an a useless minor leaguer.

8/2/2010 7:56 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

8k allows the signing of a draft pick. I think we know the value of a high draft pick. So I wouldn't say 8k is 'useless". I wouldn't say 7k is "useless" if the owner already has 1k.

Personally, I think it was designed to stop the sale of players. As in "Give me your top prospect and I'll pay this guy's salary and give you 2m extra." Of course, if you only apply it to those specific cases, then you open the door for a lot of judgement calls. "Well, he's not a top prospect and we just made a calculation error by 10k!" Which, as we now know, could allow an owner who's poor at budgeting the opportunity to sign the #1 overall pick in the draft.

8/2/2010 8:06 AM (edited)

TheJester74

Posts: 63 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 3 1 53

Prospect

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/2/2010 8:06:00 AM (view original):
8k allows the signing of a draft pick. I think we know the value of a high draft pick. So I wouldn't say 8k is 'useless". I wouldn't say 7k is "useless" if the owner already has 1k.

Personally, I think it was designed to stop the sale of players. As in "Give me your top prospect and I'll pay this guy's salary and give you 2m extra." Of course, if you only apply it to those specific cases, then you open the door for a lot of judgement calls. "Well, he's not a top prospect and we just made a calculation error by 10k!" Which, as we now know, could allow an owner who's poor at budgeting the opportunity to sign the #1 overall pick in the draft.

OR he could just trade a useless AAA guy for a Lo-A guy that have little to no value and nobody vetos and it has the same affect. Believe me any scenario that you can come with I can come up with a contract scenario that is same net difference and that would always get approved. The "Limit Cash in Trade" disciples always seem to forget that a players contract is a major part of his value and by adjusting that value with cash it affects the balance of a trade. Blindly vetoing trade just based on cash is like saying "I veto any trade for a player that has 90OVR rating because too many people get ripped out trading superstars"

8/2/2010 9:05 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Not in worlds I commish, he can't. Believe me, I thought up every scenario you can think of and have attempted to make a rule that puts an end to the nonsense. Of course, I think attempting to commish a league is like attempting to stop PED use. There are always loopholes and someone will find them. So you're just chasing them and trying to shut them down before they become too big of a problem.

In short, I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out the best way to "use" the system. If it's something WifS can prevent, I send a ticket asking them to do so(like abuse of the 40 man roster). If it's something that's more "personal" in how I want to play the game, I float it as a rule and, if the world is receptive, it becomes a rule.

8/2/2010 9:11 AM

sportsboy010

Posts: 1417 (0)

Hall of Famer

12 7 180

Rookie

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/1/2010 3:48:00 PM (view original):
1, I beg to differ. A) trop was told, the season before I joined, that he could not "sell" a prospect. That would only happen if cash exceeded salary. B) A similar trade with more cash than salary was vetoed last season. C) I could be mistaken, because I could have confused Hamilton with the half dozen other worlds I looked into before joining, but I'm pretty sure sportsboy said it was a rule. If he had said "No, we don't care about that", I'm certain I would have stricken Hamilton from the list of potential worlds. So, I think, one of us is wrong. Especially since the deal in question was vetoed and the similar deal, the one you put together after the veto, was not.

2, It was 400k when the deals were vetoed. You can check for yourself. I can also find some use for 400k althought that's irrelevant.

3. I agree. It wasn't hard to do. Could have saved a lot of time had it been done the first time.

ill clarify this for both of you. trop was told he could not "sell" a prospect by support. his trade was vetoed because it was a bad/unfair trade. it was also vetoed because of what his intentions were. so you ask, how do you know what is intentions were? well, he made his intentions known publicly on the world chat so it was really pretty simple. he did not like a trade that had gone through previously so he said he was going to sell all of his players. support told him he could not do that. for the most part, that was the extent of that issue. as for last season, i do not remember the deal in question but i will take your word for it. as for rules in this world, one owner brought this up in the forum during the discussion between the both of you, but i have been trying to put a set of rules in place for several seasons now, including the last 2+, and i have gotten absolutely no response from ANYONE. not one person has said anything to me in support of rules in either the world chat or in trade chat. it was ignored like i never said anything. so, if everyone would like to provide some insight, i am completely in favor of putting some rules in "writing". because of this, we have never had any rules in place other than what is provided by whatifsports. i do not remember being asked those 2 questions when you were looking to join but it could just be slipping my mind. tanking was pretty much not a problem in this world and if it ever became an issue it was taken care of as soon as allowed by support. i hope this at least partially helps in your debate...

8/2/2010 12:14 PM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Well, trop said he was told he couldn't sell a prospect by the world. And the veto pretty much confirms it. Myabe I read more into it than I should have.

As for rules and lack of response, it's your duty as commish to organize such a thing. If no one responds, post a set of rules you'd like to see implemented. If no one responds to that, send a sitemail to every owners with your rules, clearly state that there were no objections when you suggested them and implement them for next season. Document this with CS and, BAM!!!, there are rules. I shouldn't have to tell you how to commish but, since you said you don't care if your trades with bad teams make them worse for the future, I'm not surprised that I do.

Lastly, I asked those questions of every commish before I joined. As I said, I could have gotten two worlds mixed up and joined Hamilton despite a negative response and/or no response. I don't think so but it's not impossible.

8/2/2010 1:01 PM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

And, just so you know, I did ignore your "set of rules" posts(there were a couple of responses but you didn't acknowledge them). I pick my fights in worlds I don't commish. The guy screaming about everything gets ignored pretty quickly. We had 100+ exchanges about tankers in trade chat last season. This season I've started a "crusade" about what I think are questionable trade practices. As one of your sycophants pointed out, I'm not the commish. So I'm not going to comment on every issue.

8/2/2010 1:09 PM

sportsboy010

Posts: 1417 (0)

Hall of Famer

12 7 180

Rookie

i didnt scream about anything. i simply asked if everyone would like to implement some rules/guidelines. when i get no responses, i leave it as is. btw, there were just about no responses. maybe 1 person said its a good idea but then they left it at that. i asked for input from people and got no responses. if no one wants anything, thats fine. it was a simple question. if you choose to ignore it, then so be it.

8/2/2010 1:13 PM

Forums

Rules are rules Topic

Search Criteria