Posted by shipoopi on 7/26/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
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.

There are two major reasons why a league goes down the toilet

1. People do not manage the trade veto in cases where an experienced player takes an inexperienced player to the woodshed

2. People misunderstand cash as being "cash" instead of being increase to the original $185M cap (ie. in the case of the $5M cash deal, the receipient now has a $190M cap)

Your statement displays a lack of understanding of either.

That's not to force my hardline cash opinion on people (which is, I won't give any player a higher cap than myself, thus I veto all cash deals). But at least have an understanding of the mechanics before you make a decision.

Posted by bwb53 on 7/26/2012 2:01:00 PM (view original):
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.

Posted by AlCheez on 7/26/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):

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.

Posted by shipoopi on 7/26/2012 2:08:00 PM (view original):
"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?"

That's exactly what I'm saying.

"There are plenty of veterans that have proven to suck at evaluating value..."

And that's not anybody's problem but their own.  They pay their $25 the same as you do, and they have the right to decide for themselves, for good or for bad.  You can't possibly think it's right to steal that right from them by vetoing the trade based on their evaluations being (in your opinion) wrong.

Evaluations aren't really always a matter of opinion - there are FACTS involved here.  And if you let an idiot run his franchise into the ground with bad trades, it's bad for the league for multiple reasons.  I don't play in a vacuum relative to the other owners in the league.  What they do impacts what I'm getting out of my $25 as well.

To deathinahole:

1) This was not an inexperienced player.  He has something like 8 seasons behind him.  His valuations of players are his own business.

2) If an owner has an opportunity to gain an extra $5 mil on his cap, it is not creating an unfair advantage because you have exactly the same opportunity within the rules.  You can't say something is unfair just because you didn't take advantage of the same opportunity to do something that we ALL have the opportunity to do.  Just because it gives someone else a $190 cap to your $185, it also means that someone else has $180 and you could have taken that opportunity but you didn't.  It doesn't mean that the other guy gained an unfair advantage.  Ridiculous.

Posted by shipoopi on 7/26/2012 2:04:00 PM (view original):
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.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/26/2012 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shipoopi on 7/26/2012 2:04:00 PM (view original):
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.

Ah, yes.  The "I paid my $25, I can do whatever I want with my team" argument.

The problem with that is that you don't run your team in a vacuum.  You play in a world with 31 other owner.  So what you do with your team that you paid $25 for might have an adverse affect on 31 other people who also paid $25 for their teams.

Posted by bwb53 on 7/26/2012 2:14:00 PM (view original):
Bad contracts are used to achieve the same goal as straight cash. Been there, done that, and had very little grousing in the process.