Cash in trades - Do worlds discourage it? Topic

Quote: Originally Posted By deanod on 6/13/2009
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By deanod on 6/13/2009I don't really see the value of knowing whether a deal will be approved or not as soon as you hit the button. You'll have a good idea in a couple of hours and know for sure in 24



It's called "not wasting time".


personal time? or HBD cycle time


Whichever you prefer. If someone lowballs me in a trade offer, I stop negotiating. I spend way too much time here but I'm not going to spend it negotiating trades that won't happen.
6/13/2009 6:38 PM
Mike, here is my question for you:

Let's say you are in a league that lets semi-rapey deals where owners send marginal prospects for quality but highly paid ML vets go through on a regular basis. You make a deal trading three marginal prospects for a 28 yr old MVP candidate and expect it to go through based on the history. The rest of the league sees a difference between acquiring an MVP candidate and a quality vet and vetoes it.

Are you upset? Do you think there needs to be a preventative measure for a situation like this?
6/13/2009 6:40 PM
Too wordy. I'm in several leagues that allow semi-rapey deals. Almost all deals go thru unless they're stupid ridiculous or include more cash than salary.

The rest of your scenario is lost on me. Re-phrase if my answer is insufficient.
6/13/2009 6:43 PM
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2009Whichever you prefer.   If someone lowballs me in a trade offer, I stop negotiating. I spend way too much time here but I'm not going to spend it negotiating trades that won't happen.

it shouldn't take too much time to negotiate a rapey deal. it generally involves one party accepting a lowball offer off the bat.

if there's a trade like mine and cbriese which isn't rapey either way but against the spirit of the league, it took all of 2 minutes to rectify.
6/13/2009 6:44 PM
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2009Too wordy.  I'm in several leagues that allow semi-rapey deals.  Almost all deals go thru unless they're stupid ridiculous or include more cash than salary.The rest of your scenario is lost on me.   Re-phrase if my answer is insufficient.

you're in a league where semi-rapey deals go through. you make a deal that appears semi-rapey to you but the rest of the league finds it uber-rapey and vetoes.

would this upset you?
6/13/2009 6:45 PM
You can't trade BL quality for training camp pitchers. Too rapey. Even if both teams are happy with the deal.
6/13/2009 6:46 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By deanod on 6/13/2009
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2009
Too wordy. I'm in several leagues that allow semi-rapey deals. Almost all deals go thru unless they're stupid ridiculous or include more cash than salary.

The rest of your scenario is lost on me. Re-phrase if my answer is insufficient.

you're in a league where semi-rapey deals go through. you make a deal that appears semi-rapey to you but the rest of the league finds it uber-rapey and vetoes.

would this upset you


I'm not in any leagues that allow uber-rapey. I don't think I could make a deal that I deem semi-rapey without knowing that I'm lying to myself.
6/13/2009 6:47 PM
Mike, you've backpedaled pretty far. Your reasoning now rests on "If Trade A goes through, and my trade is similar to Trade A, mine should go through."

Like deanod pointed out, if Trade A was a bad trade, why should Trade B go through?
6/13/2009 6:47 PM
yet it still took 2 minutes to fix. and i probably would have been better off with the training camp guy since i'm going to have to DFA tanaka at some point soon.
6/13/2009 6:47 PM
But I know what you're getting at. The trade in Greenwell. I didn't think it was uber-rapey. It was vetoed by 6 owners who said they'd veto any deal I made. Owners who would turn around and make uber-rapey deals amongst themselves. It's called collusion and, yes, it ****** me off.
6/13/2009 6:49 PM
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
6/13/2009 6:49 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By danmam on 6/13/2009Mike, you've backpedaled pretty far. Your reasoning now rests on "If Trade A goes through, and my trade is similar to Trade A, mine should go through."

Like deanod pointed out, if Trade A was a bad trade, why should Trade B go through


I've not backpedaled one bit. If Trade A is allowed, Trade B-Z(if similar) should be allowed.

WTF about that is backpedaling?
6/13/2009 6:50 PM
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2009But I know what you're getting at.   The trade in Greenwell.   I didn't think it was uber-rapey.   It was vetoed by 6 owners who said they'd veto any deal I made.  Owners who would turn around and make uber-rapey deals amongst themselves.  It's called collusion and, yes, it ****** me off.

i actually had forgotten about that. we've already discussed this to death so i think we can leave it out of this particular thread without having any problems.
6/13/2009 6:51 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By deanod on 6/13/2009

different people have different ideas of where to draw the line between semi-rapey and uber-rapey. it seems that gray areas are inevitable with trade vetoes.

sounds like we need to add some new rules to MG

As I said before, MG did just fine for 11 seasons before you joined. MG would do just fine without you in season 13.

MG trades go thru if they don't include excess cash or aren't BL-quality for training camp pitchers. Always have, always will.
6/13/2009 6:52 PM
that is in large part due to the fact that you have yet to recruit somebody dumb enough to get uber-raped in a deal.
6/13/2009 6:54 PM
◂ Prev 1...6|7|8|9|10...35 Next ▸
Cash in trades - Do worlds discourage it? Topic

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.