Posted by strikeout26 on 3/31/2020 4:06:00 PM (view original):
To play the contrarian, Babe Ruth was sold for $1.5M in today's money.

Hmmm

No question there are major differences between HBD and MLB. I have no problem with worlds that don't want any constraints and where realism is irrelevant. For HBD worlds that prefer to emulate MLB the best they can, avoiding the selling of prime players to get another $2M for that $40M IFA battle is one way to keep things more realistic and avoid the race to the bottom.

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/31/2020 4:06:00 PM (view original):
To play the contrarian, Babe Ruth was sold for $1.5M in today's money.

... in 1919, BEFORE major league baseball instituted the role of Commissioner in 1920, in part to prevent things like that, and players throwing games, from happening.

Posted by damag on 3/31/2020 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/31/2020 4:06:00 PM (view original):
To play the contrarian, Babe Ruth was sold for $1.5M in today's money.

... in 1919, BEFORE major league baseball instituted the role of Commissioner in 1920, in part to prevent things like that, and players throwing games, from happening.

Lol, yeah I know. I needed a mental break from work and felt like arguing. I'm actually against cash in trades in principal.

Posted by opie100 on 3/31/2020 5:03:00 PM (view original):
No question there are major differences between HBD and MLB. I have no problem with worlds that don't want any constraints and where realism is irrelevant. For HBD worlds that prefer to emulate MLB the best they can, avoiding the selling of prime players to get another $2M for that $40M IFA battle is one way to keep things more realistic and avoid the race to the bottom.

MLB teams trade for international pool $$

Personally, I don't have a problem with cash trades, or trades in general, if it's between two experienced owners. The only time I scrutinize on trades if it involves an owner with less than 3 season's experienced. I look at those closely. But I wouldn't automatically veto the trade involving cash if I thought neither side was being exploited.

Over the years, I have learned that vetoed trades are the biggest producer of drama in HBD worlds, and I now try to avoid those worlds that have a lot of that drama.

Posted by bjschumacher on 3/31/2020 8:33:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I don't have a problem with cash trades, or trades in general, if it's between two experienced owners. The only time I scrutinize on trades if it involves an owner with less than 3 season's experienced. I look at those closely. But I wouldn't automatically veto the trade involving cash if I thought neither side was being exploited.

Over the years, I have learned that vetoed trades are the biggest producer of drama in HBD worlds, and I now try to avoid those worlds that have a lot of that drama.

Agree to a certain extent. It is typically not the World that has the drama, it is one or a few owners within the World that create the drama. For instance, I can't stand the guy that sends me seven trade offers a season where I send him my best three players and he sends me one MLB guy and two AAAA guys. It isn't necessarily that he is wasting my time, it is that he is wasting my time AND I know that he isn't only sending those offers to me, he is sending them to many other owners. So, he is wasting the time of many owners in the league.

I also can't stand the guy that cherry picks one of the better teams in a World and then in his first season within that World, he pulls off lopsided trades with a brand new HBD owner that needs to be vetoed. This is either taking advantage of a new owner and should not be tolerated, or he is trading with himself while using an alias which is against the rules.

It could be small sample size, but with my experience in this game, it is not a World that is dramatic, but a small amount of owners whose behavior creates drama.

I think the major sentiment that I have gathered above is that if you are not a fan of cash trades, stay out of Worlds that don't have rules against them. Whereas, if you are in a World that allows cash trades, don't be afraid to use them to improve your team because you can bet that the majority of the other owners in the league are going to do the same thing.

Just catching up on this discussion. I agree with the sentiment that comparing the HBD simulation with RL MLB isn't going to get us anywhere or we go down a huge rabbit hole (e.g. coach hiring process, amateur draft process where you rarely get an ML talent outside of the first round, DL trick, arb3+LT trick, etc.). I see this more as a digital tabletop/board game and the key to the game is the parameters we all agree to with the initial $185M budget allocation. The core strategy is how you allocate that budget to enable the strategic things you want to do in a particular season. When an owner doesn't effectively do that and needs more money to sign a draft pick or to sign an IFA, I see that as a strategic error in that particular season cycle. The actual transaction of player for money isn't the issue IMO; it's what the earlier budgeting decision afforded strategically. Maybe it was signing an extra FA or two and pushing the budget to the limit. Maybe it was allocating more to Col/HS scouting so you see the best players in the draft instead of allocating enough to do the actual signing. I'm cool with player trades for cash if a league allows it, but it generally seems to tear at the foundation strategy of the game.

That said, life continues. I don't lose any sleep if I see a deal like that go down.

I don't play anymore but I'm bored and read this. You talked about the strategic error that happens. They still pay for that error on the backend by having to give whatever asset they give.

I think worlds should have to have explicit rules about cash trades or they should go through. There's too much subjectivism in a lot of HD worlds which creates bias and therefore unfairness.

Fair points all. Agree on rules helping with clarity.

Could be you’re right about paying a penalty by giving up a prospect; I haven’t seen enough cash for player trades to assess what kind of return $5m might get. The few I have seen involve a team using excess money positioned to end up dead for a mediocre prospect. There is also no guarantee owners stick around, so we likely end scrutinizing these kinds of things more than is reasonable as a result.

So it goes.

Usually if the 5m is expected to be dead, it means it is very late in the season and then it means that they will get a lot less of a return for it because it wouldn't be of value for the other team.

Absolutely agree about late trades and dead money. But I'm confused. It looks like you may be debating me for some reason by pointing out something you may think I didn't get. Is it because I said the few trades for money I have seen were made at the end of the season involved what would likely be dead money? I assume I lack other examples because I have limited HBD experience and/or I'm randomly in worlds where folks frown on cash-for-player trades. Now, if you want to have a debate about this or another topic, I'm happy to do it, but I certainly was not (and am not) trying to argue with you. If we wanted to go that route, a great place to start would be to explore my belief HBD is a game about how you spend money. That's why I think the initial budget allocation is a key foundation piece and is something I am against messing with. The one time I ran out of money to sign my top draft prospect I traded a ML asset to dump the contract and transfer money to prospect. Still hurts today but I painted myself into a corner. I have no illusions I have deep insight to share amidst a wealth of folks smarter than me and with deeper knowledge of the game than I will ever have. That's part of why I'm a lurker on the forum and try to soak up what others have to offer. I still consider myself a newbie.

If I'm misreading things and you were gently trying to educate me, my apologies. I'm cooped up with small kids while trying to work during this COVID-19 stuff. It ain't easy.

I would assume most worlds frown upon cash for player trades, but I'm not positive. And I'm like you. If I screw up my budget, I trade away a player under contract to free up the money. It has hurt the couple of times that I have had to do it, but it was my screwup.

Posted by CheezyWriter on 4/5/2020 5:59:00 PM (view original):
Absolutely agree about late trades and dead money. But I'm confused. It looks like you may be debating me for some reason by pointing out something you may think I didn't get. Is it because I said the few trades for money I have seen were made at the end of the season involved what would likely be dead money? I assume I lack other examples because I have limited HBD experience and/or I'm randomly in worlds where folks frown on cash-for-player trades. Now, if you want to have a debate about this or another topic, I'm happy to do it, but I certainly was not (and am not) trying to argue with you. If we wanted to go that route, a great place to start would be to explore my belief HBD is a game about how you spend money. That's why I think the initial budget allocation is a key foundation piece and is something I am against messing with. The one time I ran out of money to sign my top draft prospect I traded a ML asset to dump the contract and transfer money to prospect. Still hurts today but I painted myself into a corner. I have no illusions I have deep insight to share amidst a wealth of folks smarter than me and with deeper knowledge of the game than I will ever have. That's part of why I'm a lurker on the forum and try to soak up what others have to offer. I still consider myself a newbie.

If I'm misreading things and you were gently trying to educate me, my apologies. I'm cooped up with small kids while trying to work during this COVID-19 stuff. It ain't easy.

right there with you, my friend.

I can appreciate the above.