Hypothetically, why shouldnt a owner be allowed to sell a player?  For the purposes of discussion, the sale of a player occurs where a owner recieves $1 dollar or more than the cost of the replacement player.  In asking this question I am making two assumptions: 1) no newbies or trade raping is allowed, 2) the world is one that does not have many one-and-done type owners or requires a long term commitment.  For those who will say it encourages tanking: imposes a minimum win requirement to stay in the world.       
.
Here is a few reason to allow the sale of players of prospects:
1) MLB, NBA, NFL all allow it.  
2) Cash is an asset just like players and propsects 
3) greater roster flexibility and trade flexibility
4) propsects can be put to there most productive use (I need a 3rd baseman and your real deep on AAAA type players, there is no FA of any MLB value.  You value the cash more than I value the 3rd basemen available as FA). 
5) its fun

another scenario.... after signing draft picks, I have only 2 or 3 mil left in prospect budget but an IFA I want comes around and I need 5-6mil to get him. Shouldn't I be able to "sell" you a player so I can get the extra 5 mil I'd need to sign the player I want?

First, you can't make the 2nd assumption.  There are no "long term requirements" or guarantees that an owner isn't going to be a "one and done" or simply leave after the season if he's been around since inception.   Those just cannot be guaranteed.   I could leave every world I'm in, including the two I commish, without a word and sign up tomorrow as EdK28.   What recourse do the other 31 owners have?  So throw that out now.

I'll get to Second when I get a few more minutes.  

I generally agree that selling players should be allowed.  In my experience the selling is often done so that money can be invested in draft picks or IFAs, which only help the franchise in the long term.  There are lots of things owners can do that are not in the long-term interest of the franchise (backloaded FA contracts, all money in payroll with no scouting budget).  Why should this be prevented?

um hello? WIS allows up to 5 million in a trade - they allow you to sell players, but just cap it at a moderate number.
The only time selling players should not be allowed is if your league has agreed upon a rule against it. Even then, it can be tough. I had an instance where I agreed on a trade with cash involved that would exactly cover a salary, but by the time it went through a few cycles had run and it was getting a few extra dollars back - so what? to insist that being one dollar off even if you have a rule in place is kinda lame. Any money under about 100k is as good as a wash anyhow.

Second, and I assume you will not dispute the First, here's scenario #1:

You have decided that you're leaving a world for whatever reason.  You sell your prospects to your buddy as he has cap space and you want to make one last run. You need the cash for FA.  You take the cash and outbid everyone else for older players by offering it as bonus money(because you can't backload deals due to future payroll restrictions).   You finish however you finish and leave the world.   Your team is old and has no prospects.   Your buddy is loaded for the future.  Without the sale of your prospects, this does not happen.  What recourse does the world have?

And, no, it doesn't have to be collusion although it could be.  You were simply selling your prospects to the highest bidder.  It just so happened that one owner have 40m in cap space so he bought your top 8 prospects.

More to come.

Jeez.  100k allows an owner to sign 12 draft picks.   Draft picks are not a "wash".

Posted by csherwood on 8/2/2010 2:12:00 PM (view original):
um hello? WIS allows up to 5 million in a trade - they allow you to sell players, but just cap it at a moderate number.
The only time selling players should not be allowed is if your league has agreed upon a rule against it. Even then, it can be tough. I had an instance where I agreed on a trade with cash involved that would exactly cover a salary, but by the time it went through a few cycles had run and it was getting a few extra dollars back - so what? to insist that being one dollar off even if you have a rule in place is kinda lame. Any money under about 100k is as good as a wash anyhow.

I guess I should have been clearer, I was asking why so many league feel its necessary or desirable to make a rule limiting trades to the salaries involved?    

I disagree with selling players, becuase it is not a free market. You assign money to sign IFA's, Draft picks and Free agents and everyone has a bid they cna make on these players. There is a system in place. Selling your players to other teams should not be allowed becuase everyone does not get a chance to "Buy" your players. Owners have not set aside money to buy players from other teams, so the one or two teams that have money to buy your players get an advantage becuase they misbdugeted somewhere. WIS allows you to do alot of dumb things that does not mean it is right.  

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/2/2010 1:55:00 PM (view original):
First, you can't make the 2nd assumption.  There are no "long term requirements" or guarantees that an owner isn't going to be a "one and done" or simply leave after the season if he's been around since inception.   Those just cannot be guaranteed.   I could leave every world I'm in, including the two I commish, without a word and sign up tomorrow as EdK28.   What recourse do the other 31 owners have?  So throw that out now.

I'll get to Second when I get a few more minutes.  

The recourse the other owners have is to not allow a unknown user into their leagues.  Play a few seasons in some open leagues and you could get back in.  But, that should be enough to prevent you from benefiting from the deal. 

Scenario #2:   Cash has no value until it's used.   An 84 player is an 84 player(yes, I'm just using a single number so let's just say 84 is better than 83 and worse than 85 for simplicity's sake).   5m is cash isn't anything until it's used.   Maybe you don't use it at all.  You traded for it so you could bid on an IFA and your bid failed.  You got nothing for your prospect.   When it's money you start with, so be it.   I have no say in your 185m.   WifS has given me a say when it's $1 more than 185m.  So, because I don't know what you're doing with this extra cash, I'm uncomfortable with you giving up a prospect to get it.   Obviously, it's impossible for me to judge a trade when I don't know if both owners received value.  

Posted by new on 8/2/2010 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/2/2010 1:55:00 PM (view original):
First, you can't make the 2nd assumption.  There are no "long term requirements" or guarantees that an owner isn't going to be a "one and done" or simply leave after the season if he's been around since inception.   Those just cannot be guaranteed.   I could leave every world I'm in, including the two I commish, without a word and sign up tomorrow as EdK28.   What recourse do the other 31 owners have?  So throw that out now.

I'll get to Second when I get a few more minutes.  

The recourse the other owners have is to not allow a unknown user into their leagues.  Play a few seasons in some open leagues and you could get back in.  But, that should be enough to prevent you from benefiting from the deal. 

What does that do to rectify a situation that already happened?    Who's to say I want back in that world as EdK28?   The damage I could inflict is done.  You have no recourse if I decide to drop a world.    None.

Posted by new on 8/2/2010 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by csherwood on 8/2/2010 2:12:00 PM (view original):
um hello? WIS allows up to 5 million in a trade - they allow you to sell players, but just cap it at a moderate number.
The only time selling players should not be allowed is if your league has agreed upon a rule against it. Even then, it can be tough. I had an instance where I agreed on a trade with cash involved that would exactly cover a salary, but by the time it went through a few cycles had run and it was getting a few extra dollars back - so what? to insist that being one dollar off even if you have a rule in place is kinda lame. Any money under about 100k is as good as a wash anyhow.

I guess I should have been clearer, I was asking why so many league feel its necessary or desirable to make a rule limiting trades to the salaries involved?    

It's called the 13th Amendment.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/2/2010 2:15:00 PM (view original):
Second, and I assume you will not dispute the First, here's scenario #1:

You have decided that you're leaving a world for whatever reason.  You sell your prospects to your buddy as he has cap space and you want to make one last run. You need the cash for FA.  You take the cash and outbid everyone else for older players by offering it as bonus money(because you can't backload deals due to future payroll restrictions).   You finish however you finish and leave the world.   Your team is old and has no prospects.   Your buddy is loaded for the future.  Without the sale of your prospects, this does not happen.  What recourse does the world have?

And, no, it doesn't have to be collusion although it could be.  You were simply selling your prospects to the highest bidder.  It just so happened that one owner have 40m in cap space so he bought your top 8 prospects.

More to come.

The same thing can and does happen with trades.  I trade all my propects for vets and he is loaded and I get old.    What is the recourse for the world? 

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/2/2010 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by new on 8/2/2010 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/2/2010 1:55:00 PM (view original):
First, you can't make the 2nd assumption.  There are no "long term requirements" or guarantees that an owner isn't going to be a "one and done" or simply leave after the season if he's been around since inception.   Those just cannot be guaranteed.   I could leave every world I'm in, including the two I commish, without a word and sign up tomorrow as EdK28.   What recourse do the other 31 owners have?  So throw that out now.

I'll get to Second when I get a few more minutes.  

The recourse the other owners have is to not allow a unknown user into their leagues.  Play a few seasons in some open leagues and you could get back in.  But, that should be enough to prevent you from benefiting from the deal. 

What does that do to rectify a situation that already happened?    Who's to say I want back in that world as EdK28?   The damage I could inflict is done.  You have no recourse if I decide to drop a world.    None.

If your only looking to damage a world there is nothing that can be done.  We havent eliminated the draft, waivers, releases, FA, budgeting...ectera and they all can be used to damage a world.