Cash in trades - Do worlds discourage it? Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Perhaps. But it is what it is.
6/13/2009 6:55 PM
danmam
Posts: 342 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 22 22 82
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2009
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?

Maybe "backpedaled" wasn't the best term. But your reasoning for flat-out rejecting all cash deals has gone through the "You don't know the value of cash, so how can you trade it for players" stage and the "$5 million is over 60% of the minimum ML payroll" stage and finally landed on the "Trade A is similar to mine and it went through, you absolutely can't veto my trade" stage. Which I find poor, poor reasoning and not a legitimate reason at all to allow a trade through. Just because rapey Trade A gets through doesn't mean rapey Trade B should. If that was the case, a single rapey trade getting through in a world would basically send that world to 'tarddom right away.
6/13/2009 6:58 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/13/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By danmam on 6/13/2009
Mike, we all know that if you go too far in cash trades there are bad consequences. However, if you've got a world with owners who are not willing to let it go that far (who each draw their own line, as you put it) cash trades are kept under control, but still allowed. And it is not detrimental to the world at all. They're not ALL evil.



It's the "kept under control" part that's the problem. If 9 owners have completed deals and my exact type of trade is vetoed, I'd dump all my players. And I'd encourage ANYONE who encounters a similar situation to do the same. Ruin the league as best you can because it's already 'tarded up beyond help. Leave your mark.


My first response to you. You can look it up.

Are you sure my reasoning has changed?
6/13/2009 7:01 PM
deanod
Posts: 3152 (0)
Hall of Famer
115 18 1 118 1 52
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2009Perhaps.  But it is what it is.

Thus far, at least.

Let's say somebody in the league has a bad acid trip, becomes a real life 'tard, and trades an MVP candidate for charles tanaka and eugene hernandez.

Then we would have to go out of bounds on the veto policy, right?
6/13/2009 7:01 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 7:02 PM
danmam
Posts: 342 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 22 22 82
Prospect
But it's still ****-poor reasoning.
6/13/2009 7:05 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
The league might. I wouldn't. But the owner in question probably wouldn't be asked back unless he was able to compete despite his dumbassery.

Two things:
1. I won't change my veto policy in-season without good reason*.
2. I won't hesitate to remove a dumbass from a league I commish.

*Good reason-Owner is obviously attempting to destroy his team(his first deal or two will still get thru). Owner has stated that he will not be back next season.

6/13/2009 7:05 PM
deanod
Posts: 3152 (0)
Hall of Famer
115 18 1 118 1 52
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2009The league might.  I wouldn't.   But the owner in question probably wouldn't be asked back unless he was able to compete despite his dumbassery.Two things:  
1.  I won't change my veto policy in-season without good reason*.
2.  I won't hesitate to remove a dumbass from a league I commish.*Good reason-Owner is obviously attempting to destroy his team(his first deal or two will still get thru).  Owner has stated that he will not be back next season.   


firm but fair.

our veto policies clearly don't align but if nothing else you're consistent about it.
6/13/2009 7:09 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Clearly. And that's all I ask. Be consistent.
6/13/2009 7:14 PM
danmam
Posts: 342 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 22 22 82
Prospect
I guess I have no problem with consistency. I don't think it's necessarily wrong.

I just take issue with those who claim that "inconsistent" vetoes (or actually looking at the merits of a trade rather than approving/vetoing it based on a vague label) is wrong and detrimental to a league.
6/13/2009 7:31 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
The "merits of a trade" shouldn't change. That's what I'm arguing. Trade 1 and Trade 1a, if similar, should both be approved or vetoed. No "This has gone too far. I gotta keep it under control" for trade 1a.
6/13/2009 7:50 PM
tropicana
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
184 13 588 202 293
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By deanod on 6/13/2009that is in large part due to the fact that you have yet to recruit somebody dumb enough to get uber-raped in a deal
I don't know, you're in the league....
6/13/2009 8:54 PM
cjlancaster
Posts: 27 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 19 27 66
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/13/2009
Here's the problem(try to follow along):

Player A makes a trade and gets 5m more in cash in the deal . Player B, C and D get in on the action because they have extra payroll. So you're prepared to tell Player E that he can't take advantage of the same deal because "it's going too far"?

Sorry, Player E has EVERY RIGHT to do EVERTHING in his power to ruin the league.



This may be the dumbest thing I have ever read. You don't like a league, drop it. Don't ruin it for the other 31 people. If you are in an hoenstly unfair situation, I'm sure that many owners will drop at the end of the season and the world will die. Mikey, can you honestly be advocating this kind of behavior?
6/13/2009 8:59 PM
deanod
Posts: 3152 (0)
Hall of Famer
115 18 1 118 1 52
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
6/13/2009 9:00 PM
torrone
Posts: 494 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 4 28 191
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/13/2009
Here's the problem(try to follow along):

Player A makes a trade and gets 5m more in cash in the deal . Player B, C and D get in on the action because they have extra payroll. So you're prepared to tell Player E that he can't take advantage of the same deal because "it's going too far"?

Sorry, Player E has EVERY RIGHT to do EVERTHING in his power to ruin the league.



I'm sorry Mike, but your condescending attitude is a bit much at times. NO ONE has a right to ruin a league just because things aren't being done the way you think they should be. Anyone who intentionally sets out to ruin a league should find something else to do with their time & money. They are too immature to be involved in something even as frivolous as this.
6/13/2009 9:10 PM
◂ Prev 1...7|8|9|10|11...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.