Posted by strikeout26 on 10/25/2010 4:17:00 PM (view original):
In my opinion, they are the exact same trade. Adding the turd is just a loophole to get around worlds that don't allow cash in trades.

Exactly.

Yea, that's fine too. Not my way of thinking, but I see it.

Any extenuating circumstances that would make you reconsider? Owner inherited the team, receiving team actually has a use for the player but it's overpriced, etc etc.?

Posted by deathinahole on 10/25/2010 4:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 10/25/2010 4:05:00 PM (view original):
To make it simpler for you......

In S1, you have a $180M budget because you screwed up previously.  The trade gets you an additional $5M of budget.

In S2, you have a $185M budget.  The trade gets you an additional $5M of budget.

What's the difference?

No.

S1, you have $185M budget, $5M of which you tossed to a turd.
S2, you have $185M budget, $5M of which you tossed to a turd.

If you accept cash in trade, you have $190M of budget, $5M of which you tossed to a turd. If I and 9 others veto, you need to deal with your $5M turd, or transfer budget.

I don't care that you tossed payroll to a turd. You are not getting more budget than me.

That is the philosophical issue, from which you can agree or disagree.

I think you've really hit a wall in your brain.

In both scenarios, another team gives you $5M more of budget than you had before the trade.

Ah, my bad. S1 and S2 I read as season 1, season 2. I did a WTF.

Cash in trades adds to a person's cap. Moving player salary does not.

Strikeout is getting into the semantics of whether he's do the former, but it does not increase/reduce the cap. It increases/reduces the amount of payroll you have available under the cap.

Posted by mhulshult on 10/25/2010 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Sorry, that was in response to green's "the difference as I see it (and just my opinion) is that in deal #1 (no cash) all the money is "spent" and can't be converted to something else."  The $5MM you're getting can't be converted into something else.

It's already been converted into "something else".

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/25/2010 4:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mhulshult on 10/25/2010 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Sorry, that was in response to green's "the difference as I see it (and just my opinion) is that in deal #1 (no cash) all the money is "spent" and can't be converted to something else."  The $5MM you're getting can't be converted into something else.

It's already been converted into "something else".

Exactly.  There was the implication that the cash received in the other deal can be converted into something else.  I was pointing out that it already had been converted.  That team can do no additional transactions with the money received.

Too late. Barn door closed, horses are out. The money allowed the trade. Because, you gave him a $190M cap. Doesn't matter that there are no additional transactions, because the trade itself is the additional transaction.

Which is the same transaction that would have taken place had you transferred a turd instead of cash (which you are okay with, though you wouldn't have made the trade yourself).

If that payroll that is being transferred were unallocated, meaning I have no idea how it's going to be spent, then I have an issue with it.  If I see that it's a current ML player for future ML players, and the money is needed to make the deal happen, then it's okay in my book (with the caveat listed on the first page of this discussion).

The philosophical sticking point to me is the cap. If you do not give someone more cap that what they started out with, and it's a baseball trade (which, of course, gets subjective, but lets say there's a win/win in the deal), then fine by me.

If someone doesn't like that trade, then fine by me.

If someone is ok with giving someone a larger cap than the rest of the league and understands that what cash in trades do, then fine by me. I won't be in that league long, but as long as the concept is understood and still accepted with that knowledge.

Good discussion.  I understand your point, but think it's silly.

I think you understand my point, but think it's silly.

No. Disagree, yes, and fundamentally so, but I don't think it's silly.

I think death's example really makes it difficult to argue his point.  At the end of the day, there isn't much difference.   The only sticking point is there aren't a lot of useless 5m players floating around(which, at mid-season, means he's a 10m player).    To me, finding that player who doesn't mean much to you but has a big salary means you have to "work" a deal.   Just throwing 5m cash into a deal seems to be the stupid/lazy way to do things.  I don't like to reward stupid/lazy.  

Most owners can't make that deal happen because they don't have a 5m worth of turd laying around in AAA. 

I just realized where I think a lot of people get hung up. 

On one side people see the $185M as a hard cap - (nobody gets to go over it)
On the other side is the view point that you are allotted $185M and you do with it what you want (cash is an asset)

WifS, by allowing users to go over $185M, has by default defined it as the latter.

Keep in mind that, before I threatened to sell my entire team to the highest bidder in S1 of Aaron, WifS had no limit on cash in trades.   So, let's not say "WifS knows best" and leave it at that.