Cash in trades - Do worlds discourage it? Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Are you saying it can't be done? If someone does it are they "going too far"?
6/13/2009 5:40 PM
danmam
Posts: 342 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 22 22 82
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2009Except 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. 
Thanks for explaining exactly why cash trades have a negative effect on a league's competitive balance. "Except they do." With no evidence.

I'm not going to argue that a team receiving $100 million in trade money is going to have a competitive advantage. But what you don't seem to understand is that you absolutely CAN draw a line. Who says you can't? I think it's you, tropicana, and a couple other from the vocal minority who says that.
6/13/2009 5:41 PM
cbriese
Posts: 919 (0)
Hall of Famer
765 102 201
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By oriolemagic on 6/13/2009No, I dont see the issue.. If you were able to build up 100M in excess payroll and you USE that 100M on players then what is the issue? You effectively traded away players to get additional cash to get better players. Nobody still has answered my underlining question - what is the problem with the situation you just described. Why do people feel it is unfair to the rest of the league. My sense is they feel it is unfair because they now dont have a shot at the top IFA... If this is the case, that is being selfish.. The team who made the trades obviously had to give up talent to get that much money back. They gave up the talent with the end goal of building up their farm system. How is this any different then trading that talent away for young prospects? I strongly believe if the trade is fair (and this could include additional money) then nobody should have an issue with it. What am I missing?

Also - just so its known, I wasnt involved in these trades, im just trying to understand what others are thinking
Charlie O. Finley agrees with you.
6/13/2009 5:43 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By danmam on 6/13/2009
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2009
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.
Thanks for explaining exactly why cash trades have a negative effect on a league's competitive balance. "Except they do." With no evidence.

I'm not going to argue that a team receiving $100 million in trade money is going to have a competitive advantage. But what you don't seem to understand is that you absolutely CAN draw a line. Who says you can't? I think it's you, tropicana, and a couple other from the vocal minority who says that


All I'm saying, and I'll I've said, is that you have to be consistent. You can't allow a certain type of deal to go thru 5 times and veto it the 6th time.

You are claiming "too far" and "kept in line" are legitimate ways to approve/veto deals. I think this is a dumbass way to work things. And I'm saying owner 6, who gets an identical deal vetoed, has every right to screw the league in any manner possible. I wouldn't blame him one bit. I'd encourage him to do it.
6/13/2009 5:46 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
The thing is that you're agreeing with me in that it can be a problem. You're willing to wait for the problem to surface. I'm saying "Be proactive. Don't let the possibility of a problem exist."
6/13/2009 5:48 PM
danmam
Posts: 342 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 22 22 82
Prospect
That makes sense. However, there are two things I'd like to point out:

1) You keep bringing up a scenario in which 5 separate owners trade for cash, and when the 6th owner tries doing it, it gets vetoed, simply because owners believe it's "going too far." However, I don't see how this scenario "goes too far" or hurts the league's balance. 6 teams getting $5 million in no way hurts the world's balance. It's when 1 team gets a huge amount of cash that the balance is in danger. And I don't think anyone would have a problem vetoing the 5th deal for cash a single owner makes. The owner who is getting the deal vetoed has nothing to complain about: it's not like other owners are being allowed to get 5+ deals through.

2) Almost any scenario that involve true danger of competitive imbalance is highly, highly improbable. I mean, seriously, how likely is it that an owner completes 7 or 8 deals, each sending him $5 million? By throwing out all cash deals, you're also not allowing the myriad of cash deals that in no way harm the world's balance to go through: for example, a rebuilding team needing just $2 million to be able to sign their top prospect, or a team in competition "buying" a 27-year old RP making the ML minimum for $3 million from a rebuilding squad. These trades don't harm the league in any way. If anything, they help decimated squads get back on their feet and help the balance.
6/13/2009 5:57 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
1. That wasn't my scenario. One owner was getting the cash. The other 6 were sending it to him. Not that it matters.

2. "Almost" and "improbable" have no place in this discussion. I'm attempting to discuss black/white while you're dealing in shades of gray.
6/13/2009 6:00 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
At the end of the day, I'm saying "No. This cannot happen. Ever." You're saying "Well, it's OK for a little while. Not sure when it won't be OK but I'll let you know when you get there."

Seriously, which situation would YOU rather deal with when attempting to make a trade?
6/13/2009 6:01 PM
deanod
Posts: 3152 (0)
Hall of Famer
115 18 1 118 1 52
Prospect
My feelings are that trades should be a zero sum game. Every team starts with $180 mill, but there is no level playing field, some teams have more value in their system than others.

So if you are making a cash trade where the money received is a fair value for the talent that you are giving up, then you are not gaining any unfair advantage by playing with a $182 million (or whatever) budget. Especially given that you have to pay 50 cents on the dollar to turn it into prospect payroll, I have no problem with it.

That being said, it's very difficult to identify a fair value for midseason cap space and a lot of cash trades turn out to be extremely 'tarded up. And that is where issues with cash trades arise, IMO.
6/13/2009 6:07 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/13/2009
At the end of the day, I'm saying "No. This cannot happen. Ever." You're saying "Well, it's OK for a little while. Not sure when it won't be OK but I'll let you know when you get there."

Seriously, which situation would YOU rather deal with when attempting to make a trade?

And if one of your Worlds established the "black-and-white rule" of "No trades where OVR are more than one point difference. This cannot happen. Ever."

My World, on the other hand, says "Well, some trades with more than a 1 point difference in OVR are OK. Not all. Some may not be OK, but I'll let you know when you get there."

Seriously, which situation would YOU rather deal with when attempting to make a trade?

Simple, which you are being, has its place, but it is NOT always the better way to have things be. This is one of those other cases where flexibility in trading - as a general rule - does more for the "good of a World" than the "evil" you imagine in your doomsday fears.
6/13/2009 6:09 PM
cbriese
Posts: 919 (0)
Hall of Famer
765 102 201
Prospect
World Shtickless has had a very competitive world for 12 seasons, and we have always allowed cash to be included in trades. If it is inappropriate or egregious, it's likely to get vetoed. We have never had an issue with cash in trades causing much of a disruption. In fact, I cannot recall any league I have been in where cash-based trades were abused.

There are myriad reasons to include cash, some of which don't necessarily involve mistakes in budgeting. I've seen very good sandwich picks come back and demand $4M to sign, and it's difficult to budget for that (in a competitive league). So you may need to add $2M to your prospect budget. You have three choices:

1) Trade a player with a $7M salary for a minimum salary ML player. The $7M player is probably slightly better (certainly better now) than the minimum salary player, but perhaps on the decline, while the other guy still has a lot of potential. These kinds of prospect-for-veteran trades are always done in the pre-season, so having the same trade completed mid-season should not be an issue.

2) Trade a good minor-league prospect to a team for a little more than $4M in cash. This is more likely to get vetoed, because people are touchy about cash, but in reality it is still trading something of value (a prospect) for something else of value (cash, which is likely to be turned into another prospect).

3) Simply refuse to meet the sandwich pick's demands, and maybe you get a compensatory pick in next year's draft.

I see no difference between 1) and 2). I think they're both legitimate. I think you look at trades on a case-by-case basis, deciding whether or not to veto on the individual trade's merits. However, I think we'll see a good number of "suck it up, buttercup, and go with choice number three" replies.
6/13/2009 6:09 PM
danmam
Posts: 342 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 22 22 82
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/20091.  That wasn't my scenario.  One owner was getting the cash.  The other 6 were sending it to him.   Not that it matters.2.  "Almost" and "improbable" have no place in this discussion.  I'm attempting to discuss black/white while you're dealing in shades of gray.
I think the PROBLEM is that you're attempting to discuss things in black and white while in reality everything IS in shades of gray.

Just as you approach every player-for-player trade on a case-by-case basis, you should approach every cash trade the same way. I realize they're not exactly the same, but they're not as different as you guys are making them out to be. It CAN work on a case-by-case basis. I've seen it.
6/13/2009 6:10 PM
danmam
Posts: 342 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 22 22 82
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
6/13/2009 6:11 PM
cbriese
Posts: 919 (0)
Hall of Famer
765 102 201
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By danmam on 6/13/2009
Exactly. This is what I've been trying to say for several pages now. Black and white is not always the best way to view things.
Especially since everything is a shade of grey. Which, you know, you said before.
6/13/2009 6:15 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By danmam on 6/13/2009
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2009
1. That wasn't my scenario. One owner was getting the cash. The other 6 were sending it to him. Not that it matters.

2. "Almost" and "improbable" have no place in this discussion. I'm attempting to discuss black/white while you're dealing in shades of gray.
I think the PROBLEM is that you're attempting to discuss things in black and white while in reality everything IS in shades of gray.

Just as you approach every player-for-player trade on a case-by-case basis, you should approach every cash trade the same way. I realize they're not exactly the same, but they're not as different as you guys are making them out to be. It CAN work on a case-by-case basis. I've seen it


In Hometown? Where there's been several problems?
6/13/2009 6:15 PM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7|8...35 Next ▸
Cash in trades - Do worlds discourage it? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.