Besides, he's not giving money anyway. He's giving cap space, and screwing the other 30 owners.

Which is why my will should be forced upon the HBD community, because they don't understand how they are screwing up their own game.

So what you're saying is, people should be thanking you for this.  Correct?

Not only thanking me, but blessing my children with long life.

Dissenting opinion:  I think we should keep the ability to trade cash.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/7/2011 9:04:00 AM (view original):
So one is "entitled" to have sex with a prostitute?   I bet wives around the world will disagree.

I freaking KNEW I shouldn't have used that word. This reminds me of a joke racist joke I heard a long time ago. Somebody says "I will kill 25 (Mexicans, Jews, blacks, Canadians, pick your race) and one clown." His friend asks "why the clown?" And he replied, "see, I told ya he wouldn't care about the 25 (insert race)."

This is officially the most pointless argument in Wis forums. You are either for cash or againdt it and there is no changing anybody's mind.

I'm for it.

No, the line isn't that clear.   Everyone, save death, seems to be for cash to an extent.   The extent is where the problem starts.   And everyone is against cash at some point.   The limit is the debate.

Bingo. Thus, the solution is to just eliminate it.

Thanks boog!

What if you couldn't swap csh per say but you could cover part of the player contract. For instance I trade player A who has 4x3 left on his contract. I say hey if you give me a little better prosect I will pick up 1 million x3. The cash comes from my budget and doesn't give them anything.

Posted by unsub on 4/20/2011 12:03:00 PM (view original):
What if you couldn't swap csh per say but you could cover part of the player contract. For instance I trade player A who has 4x3 left on his contract. I say hey if you give me a little better prosect I will pick up 1 million x3. The cash comes from my budget and doesn't give them anything.

And if you bail from your world, it's OK to have the next owner paying parts of future years budget to another franchise?

It is the way the game is currently designed. If I sign a FA to any contract I am doing the very same thing. I really don't mind cash in trades as long as its reasonable and to make the caps work. I am just tossing it out there. I try to keep teams that I am not keeping from future budget pains I know some people are new and some people don't care but I think that if you can gain some equity through your play the other owners can see that.

It's less about what you're doing to your team and more about what you're doing FOR the other team and TO the rest of the world.

Pay your buddies' players for the next 4 seasons and bail on the world.

I could also trade my "buddy" all my prosectes for his high priced players. Went ever you take over a franchise there is something wrong with  it in some way because its not the way you would have done it. Most of the time its better to be on the hook for 1 milionx3 than the full 12. I really dont think any more than 25% or maxed at 2 million a year should be aloud or similiar giuld lines. Its really a passing thought as I was reading through all the posts. The way I posted it there would bo no money handed over to the other franchise and only one team play with a disadvantage and a slight one at that. Again just brainstorming a bit and I think that it may be better than the current system.

You absolutely could.  But, since you know how to cheat, why would anyone be willing to give you another tool?