Removal of cash from trade offers Topic

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
It does seem to be one of the two biggest arguments in the forums.    The other is tanking.  

We do everything we can to eliminate tanking.  If that happens, there will be no further arguments about tanking.

ADMIN can eliminate cash in trade right now and eliminate those arguments.  There was no cash limit in S1 of Aaron.  ADMIN hadn't thought out the repercussions until I pointed them out.   So they made the 5m rule.   They can make a zero tolerance rule and eliminate a lot of arguments in the forums and within the worlds themselves.
3/31/2011 8:34 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
I've suggested that there be a page that the commish can update at the beginning of each season, maybe on budget day, where he can set certain limits on various types of things for the upcoming season.  One of the limits was cash in trades.  $0 to $whatever.
3/31/2011 9:12 AM
shobob
Posts: 3404 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 370
Prospect
Why not make it so that no cash sent in a trade can exceed the salary of the traded player?
3/31/2011 4:28 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
tufft
Posts: 959 (0)
Hall of Famer
65
Prospect
Not allowing cash in trades makes as much sense as not allowing prospects to be traded for ML players.

I would gladly play at a huge disadvantage of $182M every season if I was allowed to swap $3M for the #1 draft pick of the previous season the day the a new season started.

According to deathinahole, that would give a big advantage to the owner who got rid of that useless #1 pick and picked up $3M extra.

Anybody want to get in a world with me where I can swap $3M for your top prospect every season?

4/1/2011 4:46 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Sure, I'll sell you all my prospects.    Then, before they reach the BL, I'll have hopefully have made a couple of nice playoff runs and move on to another world.   You'll get to search for an owner who wants an old, expensive team with no prospects.  Win/win, right?

4/1/2011 8:03 AM
tufft
Posts: 959 (0)
Hall of Famer
65
Prospect
Mike,

My point exactly. You could say the same thing about me trading an ML player for that prospect.

By your logic, that should be against the rules, too.

Deathinahole,

I think there's about to be an opening in Branch Rickey.  Why don't you take it and we'll make this trade every season? We'll have to get the other owners' OK, and you'll have to let me rank your top 30 draft picks (so you can't play any games.)

I expect that you won't agree to this. And if you did, the deal might get vetoed. Which would show that in most worlds, the veto system is probably the best one there's going to be to stop unbalanced trades.

I've read enough posts from both of you to know there's no changing your mind on this. Just wanted to post against your position, on the slight chance WIS thinks most of us agree with you.

4/1/2011 4:45 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Anyone have a clue what he's babbling on about?
4/1/2011 7:40 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by tufft on 4/1/2011 4:45:00 PM (view original):
Mike,

My point exactly. You could say the same thing about me trading an ML player for that prospect.

By your logic, that should be against the rules, too.

Deathinahole,

I think there's about to be an opening in Branch Rickey.  Why don't you take it and we'll make this trade every season? We'll have to get the other owners' OK, and you'll have to let me rank your top 30 draft picks (so you can't play any games.)

I expect that you won't agree to this. And if you did, the deal might get vetoed. Which would show that in most worlds, the veto system is probably the best one there's going to be to stop unbalanced trades.

I've read enough posts from both of you to know there's no changing your mind on this. Just wanted to post against your position, on the slight chance WIS thinks most of us agree with you.

Incorrect.  That is not your point exactly.
4/2/2011 8:38 AM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Posted by boogerlips on 4/2/2011 2:27:00 AM (view original):
It makes sense to send cash in a trade that includes an overpaid player. The receiving team isn't at an advatage if the cash sent is similar to the amount the player is being overpaid relative to his market value. What his "market value" is, is subjective but thats what vetoes are for. If you can't get owners to veto an unfair cash trade then that world deserves what it gets.
I don't place a qualification on the players in the trade.
$185M cap. Work within it.

4/2/2011 12:02 PM
shobob
Posts: 3404 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 370
Prospect
I don't think we need to do away with cash in trades.  There is a good use of cash in trades.  Playoff bound teams can "load up" with expiring contracts in exchange for prospects.  The same prospects that they acquired through type A/B compensation from letting the players with expiring contracts walk.  It can be a cycle that doesn't necessarily lead to imbalanced talent levels.  The good teams get their playoff boosts, the poor teams load up on prospects, plus get good drafting position, and rid themselves of bad contracts.
4/2/2011 2:06 PM (edited)
1|2|3...10 Next ▸
Removal of cash from trade offers 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.