And?

You just used the "It's his team, he can run it how he wants" excuse to justify trading for 12 DH's.

He's trading for equal value. Didn't you say that?

Yes.

I just have a hard time believing your "elite" leagues would allow a team to trade the farm for 12 DH's. Especially using the "It's his team" excuse.

By the way, if value is the only issue here, then these cash trades shouldn't be getting vetoed.

What's the "value" of 5m? Right now, it's 3% of a budget. That's all I know.

And, yes, my "elite" leagues allow teams to trade equal value without question. You're expected to field a competitive team however you can. If it means you have to try to win 14-12 games, it is what it is.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2009What's the "value" of 5m?   Right now, it's 3% of a budget.  That's all I know.  And, yes, my "elite" leagues allow teams to trade equal value without question. You're expected to field a competitive team however you can.  If it means you have to try to win 14-12 games, it is what it is. 

The value of $5 million is determined by the market. Simple as that. Same as the value of a player is determined by the market. A world with very little pitching will value an elite SP higher than a world saturated with it. A league with several teams that need $5 million will determine the value.

Well, for one, Team A has sent 2.5 million more in scenario two than they spent in scenario one, plus, one would assume, ALSO has to take on ML RP's salary which is going to be at least 327K. Most likely more.

So, there's at least two differences. Not to mention that you're talking about budgeting across two seasons in scenario one and just one in scenario two....but again, I wouldn't expect you to understand these things since they are more difficult concepts than "There are different types of trades," something that you couldn't figure out.

Incorrect. The value of a player is easily seen. The ratings are right there. Not so with cash.

You can field a full BL team for 8.175m. You can field 61% of your team, free of charge, by getting 5m from another owner. Do the math.

Quote: Originally posted by tropicana on 6/13/2009Well, for one, Team A has sent 2.5 million more in scenario two than they spent in scenario one, plus, one would assume, ALSO has to take on ML RP's salary which is going to be at least 327K.  Most likely more.  So, there's at least two differences.  Not to mention that you're talking about budgeting across two seasons in scenario one and just one in scenario two....but again, I wouldn't expect you to understand these things since they are more difficult concepts than "There are different types of trades," something that you couldn't figure out.  

Let's assume the IFA signed in season 10 was signed after $5 million were transfered to the prospect budget. So each IFA was signed for, effectively, $5 million. And I understand it affects budgeting across 2 seasons.

But how, exactly, does a trade like this hurt the world?

Just because there's an unwarranted stigma attached to cash trades doesn't mean they actually, in reality, have a negative effect on a world's competitive balance.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2009Incorrect.  The value of a player is easily seen.   The ratings are right there.  Not so with cash.You can field a full BL team for 8.175m.   You can field 61% of your team, free of charge, by getting 5m from another owner.  Do the math. 

What's your point?

By the way, it's not too hard to determine the value of cash. The IFA market does it. The FA market does it. Why can't the trade market do it?

Except they do. Otherwise WifS wouldn't give us all 185m budgets or limit 5m in a trade.

Of course, WifS is partly to blame. If you're gonna allow 5m in a trade with the program, you're inviting problems because people are going to decide "too far" with no set guideline.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

In my two worlds (22 combined seasons), we don't have concrete rules on cash in trades, but here is what will happen for the following examples:

1 - Owner A has run out of cash just before the Amateur Draft and begs for mercy. Owner B shows pity and sends 500k to A for a non-prospect catcher who can call pitches.

The trade will go through, although "A" will take some flack in the forum for poor budgeting.

2 - New Owner A has taken over a rebuilding team with 6 top prospects and, shortly after budgeting is complete, posts that he will trade any and all prospects for $5mil each. Owner B immediately agrees to buy the best prospect for $5mil.

The trade will be vetoed. Well over a dozen veteran owners will believe that selling all prospects will make the team worse (no matter how the proceeds are used), won't trust "A" to stick around long enough to repair the damage in future seasons, and don't like the odds of getting a good owner to take over an even weaker franchise. This deal definitely hurts the world in more than one way.

3 - Owner A fleeces inexperienced Owner B in a trade (talent-wise) and also gets "B" to throw in $2mil in cash.

Vetoed. Even without the cash, several owners would probably veto and post about "predatory" practices, but having the money go "in the wrong direction" guarantees the veto.

4 - Mid-season, Owner A trades a good $6mil player (with team option for next year) plus $4.5mil to Owner B, who needs cash, for a good prospect. The values of the players (current for vet, projected for prospect) are about equal and the pro-rated salary remaining for the veteran is $3mil.

This one probably gets approved, but could be jeopardized if an Owner X vetoes early, messes up the math, and posts that $10.5mil (or $7.5mil) is going in one direction. If that happens, then someone else (most likely A/B) must respond quickly that the net is really $1.5mil, which would be the cost of next year's option buyout.

I will grant that the vetoes in #2 and #3 are made easier by having new/inexperienced owners involved, but cash-for-prospects is a hot button and would be unpopular even with a long-time owner. In #3, if Owner B had been around for 10 seasons and had had some success, the deal might slip through with a "Manny being Manny" treatment.