Thanks for bumping this thread. It was one of the funniest in recent years. Some of the "logic" propounded is truly amazing at first, then hilarious as you realize the point the guy is trying to make.

Thanks for your endorsement, Mr. "I hide behind my alias so nobody will know who I am".

As usual, you've added a lot of insight.

Wait...let's not overlook the fact that I was right about something...

no, let's overlook that

I don't think we should. tropicana being right is like a total eclipse. It rarely happens and, when it does, the animals get confused.

More importantly, one of the "cash in trade is evil" people crossed over to the Dark Side and now can speak from experience.

I set out to get a solid 2/3-type pitcher. I was using my self-imposed guideline of 1.5m or no more than 50% of the salary. I found a trade partner who was overbudget and needed cap space to sign the 31st and 36th players drafted. I made a deal, under my cash guidelines, that favored me in talent swapped but gave him his cap space. It was vetoed. I decided to play by the world guidelines concerning cash to fill my pitching need. Got my SP(3-0 in three starts with a 1.23 ERA) by accepting 5m in cash to go with the 5.1m in salary I was taking. This cap room to upgrade my bullpen. Found another taker, who agreed to pay 1.5m of the 2.2m in salary I was adding, and picked up two relievers.

I needed a SP and ended up replacing 3 underperforming pitchers by letting someone else pay their salaries. I've still got 2m in cap space so I can still upgrade somewhere else.

I see why the cash advocates like it. It's a great way to improve your team. But it makes budgeting virtually pointless and the game very, very easy. There's no way to know how this will turn out, we're not at the A/S break, but I do know my team is substantially better. It should be. Someone else is paying for 12% of my players.

Do you think you had to give up a better prospect to get them to pay more of the salary?

Nope. If you believed the majority of the world, I had no legit prospects on my roster. I disagreed but I was having a tough time finding trading partners until I waived my personal cash restrictions.

I just wanted to dump the last two years of the contract, so while the prospects weren't great, they were okay and worth losing the contract for a team that can't win.

I love those "I walked on water, look at me, Mom" posts.

MikeT23, honest question looking for an honest answer....

How do personally assess the value of the things you gave up in exchange for "someone else paying for 12% of your players"?.

In exchange for getting Gonzalez, a 34yo SP , rated OVR 81, for essentially nothing this year, you picked up an obligation for $18.6M in his yr 35 and 36 seasons, and you gave up the following HiA prospects:

- a 21 yo OVR 71 hitter in yr 2 ($8M IFA)
- a 24 yo OVR 68 hiiter in yr 2 (Rnd 1 pick)
- a 20 yo OVR 52 pitcher in yr 1 ($6M IFA).

(I didn't dissect the other trade for the 2 RPs).

You are in first place, and playing for this year. Your team, this year, definitely got better. But you did give up some future value of significance, no?

2nd Question. In what way do cash trades make 'budgeting virtually pointless'. Yes, $s move, and one person's player budget goes up, and one goes down. But is this functionally different than the transfer process built into HBD? In most leagues I've peered at, a majority of owners move money during the year. Many of those moves are for sums of $5M or more.

Yes, a large tax is paid, but, if the budget process is sacrosanct, then why allow any transfers at all?

Gonzalez has a team option for his last season. With 20m in training, his decline shouldn't come until AFTER his option year. But, if he starts to tumble earlier, there is the 2.3m buyout.

The first two hitters are LF/1B/DH types. Both should make the bigs but Martin is going to have a tough time establishing himself at those positions. He'll be a servicable player but, once he starts asking for 4m a season, he's probably done. Fox should be an outstanding hitter. He'll have long career at 1B/DH. The third player was a SS. He'll be a top flight fielder but won't hit at the BL-level. For me, he'd have 4 year BL career as D-Spec. In all likelihood, I gave up 7000 career AB. But, if you believe the vetoers who refused to even make an offer when I announced that I would trade ANY THREE PROSPECTS for a good 2 or 3 type SP, I had no prospects worth having. Their words not mine. So, it's 7000 AB or nothing. Of course, there's no guarantee that I'll re-up so it's entirely possible I gave up absolutely nothing regardless of talent exchanged.

I'll assume your 2nd question was made in jest. I think we could agree that there are plenty of horrible HBD owners. So what they do is irrelevant. And you can only include 5m in trades. Not sure how you got the "or more".

WifS allows a lot of things. Doesn't mean they're good for the game. But, when you transfer money from one budget to another, you pay a 50% fee. So even WifS believes there's something to Budget Day.

Quote: Originally Posted By eayappert on 11/16/2009MikeT23, honest question looking for an honest answer....

2nd Question. In what way do cash trades make 'budgeting virtually pointless'. Yes, $s move, and one person's player budget goes up, and one goes down. But is this functionally different than the transfer process built into HBD? In most leagues I've peered at, a majority of owners move money during the year. Many of those moves are for sums of $5M or more.

Yes, a large tax is paid, but, if the budget process is sacrosanct, then why allow any transfers at all

I'll take your question as serious. It is a sensible question.

It certainly is quantitatively different because of the 50% tax. It can be viewed as qualitatively different as well, in that a simple budget transfer involves only one team, an internal budget manipulation if you will, while trades involving cash involve two teams in opposite manner.

Obviously budgeting never becomes "virtually pointless" nor anything near that. Don't forget that some of the people who say that are the same people who insist they don't even know the value of a dollar.

The season is almost over.

Before I allowed someone to pay the salaries for three of my players, I was 42-34. I'm 52-30 since and have clinched the 2 seed.

.634 vs .552

Yep, having someone else pay your players seems to be the way to play this game.

Seems crazy that no one on the "Cash in trades is good" side wants to discuss this.