Had it been in the form of taking on a bad contract ,instead of  offering cash, it would have passed. It's the same thing, but it would have passed.

Does he have a bad contract worth at least $5 million to a player that he wouldn't miss at all if he left?

Don't know

Because unless every part of that is true, it's definitely NOT the same.  And I should also include that the player with the bad contract would have to not be useful for the team trading for him.

How is it different? One guy gets 5m to spend on prospects, and one gets Shaw either way.the player contract is  worthless because the player is toast. Itisa  bad 5m contract so the player is not much.

Shipoopis angle is similar to others in the league. While the other argument says this is not a simple trade. It is not a situation where one team wins and one team loses and it does not affect the rest of the league.  Because there is money involved and previous money allowed Alley to overbid other teams for an IFA, (Thus affecting other teams), now hes getting more money to also sign a pick.

In my opinion, every dollar over the 185mil starting point has a much higher value than the equal dollar amounts from the original 185m. I am alright with money being traded, its a commodity, but it should be for a player of value. Someone whom anyone in the league could be offered in a trade and say, ya I could use him at some point, either now or in a future trade.

Posted by bwb53 on 7/26/2012 1:48:00 PM (view original):
How is it different? One guy gets 5m to spend on prospects, and one gets Shaw either way.the player contract is  worthless because the player is toast. Itisa  bad 5m contract so the player is not much.

If the contract in question is quite literally deadweight, then it would be basically the same, because all my conditions would be met.  And I'd probably veto that trade too.   Unless you're an idiot, you probably don't have a contract like that on your roster, you probably just have some guys who contributing to your team but are overpaid.  Which means the guy who was just giving up cash would actually be getting some additional value for his $5 million by taking on the contract instead - and the guy who was just giving up Shaw is now also giving up something else that has some value to his team.

Except that it does not create a competitive imbalance just because you place a lower value on Shaw and a higher value on the extra money.  Both owners in the trade saw value for themselves.  It is not up to any of us to impose our value of the player or cash upon them. 

It is not a competitive imbalance because every owner has the same opportunity to create exactly the same situation for themselves.  It is not the same as in real-life where the competitive imbalance is caused by the Yankees or Dodgers, for example, having streams of revenue available to them that teams such as the A's or Mariners could never even hope to dream of.  Everyone starts with the same $185 mil, and has exactly the same opportunities open to them to manage and even increase their budgets.  It is not an unfair advantage at all, because anybody could do the same thing.

People get contracts like that from players that were good,but have declined, or they were inherited. A certain number will see cash as an automatic veto no matter the circumstance. A good percentage of those would look at the bad contract and say the guy was foolish for taking it on, but that he has the right to be foolish., and would not veto. They don't recognize it as the same. You only need 2-3  to have a differnt opinion concerning buying contracts, and providing cash to change the outcome of a trade. I know, because I have done it more than once.

And by the way, there was another ridiculously lopsided trade in Mike Greenwell, earlier in the season, which was the hot topic.  I stayed out of that conversation, but did not veto it either...and either did the rest of the world, as the trade (which I saw as far more lopsided than this one) went through.  Again, I didn't veto that one (nor would I) because it is NOT MY PLACE to impose my value of a player on anybody else.

I think that the other issue people are having is that it is not against the rules to make a trade like this one. It is also a public league so there are no set rules against it. There have also been much greater lopsided trades in the world that haven't been vetoed. 

I

Since you bring up real baseball...Theres a reason MLB does not allow draft picks to be traded...It is very similar as to why cash is a highly regarded substance and most trades involving it are highly scrutinized. Look at all other leagues, the smart teams acquire draft picks from teams that consistently finish near the bottom. Trading of draft picks is usually a bad result for anyone who loses the pick in the deal.

In this game, cash is like our draft picks. It should be highly regarded and owners who understand this concept are often against trades that involve cash being moved for what they deem to be unfair value.

Posted by shipoopi on 7/26/2012 1:47:00 PM (view original):
In my opinion, it is ridiculous and extremely arrogant to veto a trade based on your own evaluation of a player's worth.  It is tantamount to telling the owners involved in the trade "You do not have the right to evaluate players for yourself, and because I have decided that player is not worth that amount it means you are wrong".  If a player makes a bad trade, they make a bad trade and it will bite them in the *** down the road.  It is NOT up to you to misuse your veto power to tell someone else they've evaluated a player wrong.  Vetos should only be used when a trade was clearly not negotiated in good faith (i.e. collusion, newbie fleecing).  This trade was negotiated in good faith between two owners who saw their own value in the deal.  And the owner who gave up the $5mil has said on the world chat that he saw value in Shaw, so who the eff are you to tell him that even though he paid the same amount to play as you did that he is not allowed to evaluate players his own way?  He's a vet, not like he's a rookie getting fleeced here.

You're saying that, as long as it's not a noob involved, there's no point at which you think it's okay to step in as long as you don't think the trade was collusive?  There are plenty of veterans that have proven to suck at evaluating value, and allowing others to take advantage of that isn't good for the long term health of the league.

 

BTW - if I made a trade this trade in a collusive fashion, I'd say I saw value in Shaw when questioned about it, wouldn't I? 

But again...I say that it is not up to you to decide for another owner what is fair or unfair value to them.  Unless it is a rookie that you are saving from him or herself, it is up to them to decide what value they place upon it, and that is the right they acquire when they put their $25 in WIS' hands.