An analogy:

Take two parking lots with 185 spaces available at $1 each but there are 10 spaces in each that are worth $10.  Both lots will end the day with $275 if they both work to the max and park 185 cars.
 
Take the same two lots but now limit the cars at 185 and move to a field with unlimited spaces but only 10 cars that will pay $10.  Now there are only 370 cars available but how it ends up getting distributed changes.  If Lot 1 said to Lot 2, "I'll send you 5 $10 cars if you send me 50 $1 cars.  Now Lot 1 is parking 230 cars while Lot 2 is only parking 140 but they are both banking $275.  The "cap" of 185 spaces was flexible but the value each lot got in return was the same.

I can't remember why I dove into this, but my point being value doesn't translate directly to cash.

It's confusing, but in this analogy Lot spaces = HBD $$ and the money in this analogy = HBD player value

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/25/2010 5:52:00 PM (view original):
Keep in mind that, before I threatened to sell my entire team to the highest bidder in S1 of Aaron, WifS had no limit on cash in trades.   So, let's not say "WifS knows best" and leave it at that.

I totally agree with that - not saying WifS knows best - just saying that they've unwittingly defined the cap.

WifS has also allowed us the ability to say "No thank you" to deals we don't like.    So they've also unwittingly defined the cap in another way.

All 185M budgets are equal, but some 185M budgets are more equal than others.

I think there is also a major difference in trading cash and eating a portion of a contract.  Say instead, you want  to trade Player D who is making 5M (the overpaid AAA guy) for Player E, who is of similar value but signed at 327K.  If you saw the trade of
 
Player D making 1M
for
Player E making 327k

You'd likely accept, as two owners are swapping AAAA-type players.  But WIS doesn't give you the option to directly "eat" a contract in the way you would for a buyout or release (in which you are paying your player NOT to play for you).  The only way you can indirectly eat the contract is by offering cash.

Player D making 5M
Send 4M in cash
for
Player E making 327k

In what way is the 2nd trade any different than the 1st trade?

The end result is no different.  However, when you allow such things, and most worlds do, you open doors that can't be closed. 

If the 5m player is a stud SP and the 327k player is a decent set-up guy, you've changed the balance of the world.   If the guy getting the stud SP has the cap room, there's really no reason to object(I'd simply call the owner giving up the SP a dumbass and move on).   He took his budget and left himself so room to play.   However, if 80% of that salary is getting paid by someone else, he didn't plan for crap and is simply getting a helping hand from another owner.   Is that helping hand collusion?   Only two people know.  But 32 owners know that one owner now has 189m in budget.   And a lot of people find this objectionable.

You have to keep in mind that trade A isn't the same in all worlds.  Some worlds are well-run and you don't have owners trading studs for duds for no reason.  Some worlds are not so well-run and you have experienced owners bending over n00bs/aliases on a regular basis.   I think people tend to forget this and apply the fictional scenarios to their world(s) only.

i'll admit that after the first page, I mostly skimmed.... but I'll throw in my 1/50th of a dollar.

I'm of the opinion that as long as ALL the following clauses are met, then cash in trades is fine:

1. No pre-existing rule in your world which supersedes this entire discussion
2. The trade makes sense from a baseball standpoint
3. The trade will not go through without additional cash
4. Cash does not exceed the amount of salary changing hands

Would using a crappy, overpaid turd be a more elegant solution?  Sure.  But many of us don't overpay turds to begin with, making them scarce in most good worlds.

Posted by deathinahole on 10/25/2010 5:01:00 PM:
The philosophical sticking point to me is the cap.

It sounds like your complaint is not with the transaction, but with WIS' bookkeeping of it. If they recorded the deal like this:

Team 1 cap: $185,000,000
Team 2 cap: $185,000,000 ($5,000,000 paid to players not on roster)

rather than:

Team 1 cap: $190,000,000
Team 2 cap: $180,000,000

your objection disappears.

Bingo. Although my mind exploded trying to think if it would actually work.