They already have the cash tool to "cheat." You know what maybe another way would be that you can only trade cash after FA end. That way the extra cap space in not nearly as valuable. Unless your trading for another player... I guess knowing if some one is a cheat in the first place would be a great start.

I guess you missed the topic of the thread:   Removal of cash from trade offers

No "if", no "well, in this case"...off with it's head.

And this, because the debate should rage on. And boog saved my kids.

At the very least, disallow cash in trades until after the general FA period has concluded.

Late to the party but it is sort of idiotic to just ban it entirely.  If you want to play in a world where it is disallowed, fine.  Some people like it and the option should be available for them in their worlds.

This happens with every friggin' issue...  people want to remove all flexibility an owner has.  I have seen so many posts or world chats denouncing cash in trades, tandem pitching (which we let them partially kill with the PC settings), tanking (I join in bashing this one because I think it is lazy...  but it is a strategy nonetheless.  I just try and avoid worlds that let it happen) and probably a slew of other things I am just forgetting right now.  Everyone always wants to come up with some new change to the game that takes away another owner's ability to think outside the box and/or try to give himself an advantage.  It is a game and it is about creating an advantage for yourself.  

You also have stuff on the other end where people want all these new additions that basically has the computer do everything for you (manage minors, hire coaches, blah blah blah).  People also just want to pick a few players they like and not do any management to try and maximize that team's output.  I realize this part is a little off topic but it falls in the same realm to me...  which is that a lot of users want to make this a dummy's game that ANYONE and EVERYONE can win and not just the people who work to earn their wins.  This is how society regressed to the point that every little kid gets a trophy, cheapening those that went to the kids who earned their wins.

If they want to add a bunch of customization for commissioners to allow him/her to establish hard rules (in the system rather than just explained), fine.  I will stick to worlds that allow owner freedom like I do now.  If we allow the vocal minorities to ruin this game by taking away all the freedoms of owners in every world and essentially turn this game into SimLeague Baseball (where you basically just check scores and do nothing else), then they can count me out.  Options are the magic.

I hate to put a damper on your speech but death's initial post was meant to rile people up and I simply followed his lead.    While many of us despise cash in trade, most of us recognize it as a necessary evil.  Personally, I've begun to play within the world's rules rather than put myself at a disadvantage by using my own set limits.

Anyway, cash won't be eliminated. 

No damper.  I think it is still applicable, although it may not reach the full audience here (not that anyone cares).  I just fear the world where this game loses individuality and turns into one of the SimLeague games where I just check the box scores once or twice a day.

Sort of puts a damper on your first sentence when you recognize that the OP was simply trying to incite people.

Robusk basically turns "cash is for the stupid and lazy", which it is, into "you're violating my right to be stupid and lazy"

"you're violating my right to be stupid and lazy"

The Tea Party in a nutshell.

Posted by deathinahole on 9/14/2011 6:59:00 PM (view original):
Robusk basically turns "cash is for the stupid and lazy", which it is, into "you're violating my right to be stupid and lazy"

You are an idiot.  You haven't demonstrated you even know how to play this game yet think you should have a heard voice on how it should be governed.  It makes sense that you want to limit options in the game because you want to simplify it so any idiot can win.  Your comments are not educated ones.  The way the game currently exists, all you have to do is not be "stupid and lazy" to win.  Your very proposal caters to the stupid and lazy.

MikeT thinks we are taking the posts too siriusly.

Posted by robusk on 9/14/2011 11:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 9/14/2011 6:59:00 PM (view original):
Robusk basically turns "cash is for the stupid and lazy", which it is, into "you're violating my right to be stupid and lazy"

You are an idiot.  You haven't demonstrated you even know how to play this game yet think you should have a heard voice on how it should be governed.  It makes sense that you want to limit options in the game because you want to simplify it so any idiot can win.  Your comments are not educated ones.  The way the game currently exists, all you have to do is not be "stupid and lazy" to win.  Your very proposal caters to the stupid and lazy.

If you would take the time to actually think about it, you would realize that the elimination of cash from trades actually makes the game much more challenging.

No.  Some people may budget differently but I disagree it would make the game less challenging.  All it would really do is limit the number of trade partners you have.  Regardless of how anyone feels about one particular feature though, I feel that removing options and/or abilities that owners hurts the game.

Look at two examples:  The pitch count rule so it is harder to use relievers as starters (40 PC minimum; less control over who gets to pitch that game...  I once saw a great owner lead his team to like 7 championships in a row starting most playoff games with relief pitcher...  I thought it was genius) killed a big part of tandem pitching.  The second change that comes to mind is the Rule V change where certain players are automatically protected.  The Rule V is crap now and mostly a waste of time (rare bottom of the bench guy in most cases it is used).  If owners are too lazy or forgetful to protect their players, owners who are not should be able to scoop them up.

Again, what I am saying is I want more features/abilities/options...  not less.