No, it really does.   I will not allow anyone to argue that it doesn't.    Our trades we've discussed in this thread CANNOT HAPPEN if we don't have someone pay the vast majority of the salaries coming our way.  Unless, of course, you had an expendable 5m player.  I did not.   Without question, my trades do not happen without the cash inclusion.   That made it easy to make the deals.

I will correct myself for your economic inner being.   Cash has no CURRENT value.   It has potential/risk in it's future use/misuse.

Well, I guess you can argue anything you'd like.   Can't really stop you.   But I'll point out how silly it is. 

By the way, I went back and checked something yesterday.   We had a cash problem in S1 of Steinbrenner(a rule was made to prevent it from happening again).   One owner received about 32m in cash.   In S1, there were 21 trades involving cash.  In 12 of those deals, the owner doling out the cash left after S1.    Much like I predicted, that side of the world has an owner turnover problem because the team getting the 32m built a super team with a 217m budget.   The bottom feeders lost hope and moved on. 

That's what you get for naming a world Steinbrenner.

Your correction is close to the mark, at least to me.  Cash's current value is related to its future value.  In finance, it's termed present value.  Present value is generally a discounted value of future cash flows.  The present value of an annuity (a stream of payments over a defined time period) is less than the sum of the payments themselves.  The discount represents the risk, usually inflation, against the future values.

When cash is involved in a trade, the risk is that you get it, but cannot use it.  For the one sending it in the trade, the salary is covered because the trader may not have a need for it (thus reducing their own risk of losing unused cash at the end of the season) and covering the cash of a traded salary brings back better value.  For the one receiving the cash, it can either be used immediately for another purpose, or it may help to afford the player's salary, or be held (with risk of non-use) for some later purpose.

In all of those scenarios, it is a valuable working part of exchanging value.  It has value whether or not it is converted.  It's value is determined already within the trading and market context.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/12/2011 8:21:00 AM (view original):
By the way, I went back and checked something yesterday.   We had a cash problem in S1 of Steinbrenner(a rule was made to prevent it from happening again).   One owner received about 32m in cash.   In S1, there were 21 trades involving cash.  In 12 of those deals, the owner doling out the cash left after S1.    Much like I predicted, that side of the world has an owner turnover problem because the team getting the 32m built a super team with a 217m budget.   The bottom feeders lost hope and moved on. 

This is the pragmatic argument for limiting cash, which I can live with even thought I don't agree with the theory of it.  It is an example of a majority of the world not necessarily understanding how cash's value works.  The market for it was obviously distorted.

This situation does not prove that cash in deals are unfair.  It only proves that a misunderstanding of how the economics of the situation can be bad for a world.

Obviously, because we don't have real ramifications for our actions - we're not hired or fired based on financial performance or our teams - these distortions can happen when there are no restrictions.

Posted by silentpadna on 4/12/2011 8:35:00 AM (view original):
Your correction is close to the mark, at least to me.  Cash's current value is related to its future value.  In finance, it's termed present value.  Present value is generally a discounted value of future cash flows.  The present value of an annuity (a stream of payments over a defined time period) is less than the sum of the payments themselves.  The discount represents the risk, usually inflation, against the future values.

When cash is involved in a trade, the risk is that you get it, but cannot use it.  For the one sending it in the trade, the salary is covered because the trader may not have a need for it (thus reducing their own risk of losing unused cash at the end of the season) and covering the cash of a traded salary brings back better value.  For the one receiving the cash, it can either be used immediately for another purpose, or it may help to afford the player's salary, or be held (with risk of non-use) for some later purpose.

In all of those scenarios, it is a valuable working part of exchanging value.  It has value whether or not it is converted.  It's value is determined already within the trading and market context.

I think you're trying too hard to apply real-life economics to HBD. 

5m in my bank account has value because tomorrow will come.   And, if it doesn't, my heirs will get it.   5m in unused payroll when the season ends has no HBD value.   When the world rolls, it disappears. 

I'm sure this is not an economist's term but HBD is a closed market/economy.   There is 5.92B to distribute.  You cannot make more(although you can utilize less).  This is not true in the real world. 

Posted by silentpadna on 4/12/2011 8:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/12/2011 8:21:00 AM (view original):
By the way, I went back and checked something yesterday.   We had a cash problem in S1 of Steinbrenner(a rule was made to prevent it from happening again).   One owner received about 32m in cash.   In S1, there were 21 trades involving cash.  In 12 of those deals, the owner doling out the cash left after S1.    Much like I predicted, that side of the world has an owner turnover problem because the team getting the 32m built a super team with a 217m budget.   The bottom feeders lost hope and moved on. 

This is the pragmatic argument for limiting cash, which I can live with even thought I don't agree with the theory of it.  It is an example of a majority of the world not necessarily understanding how cash's value works.  The market for it was obviously distorted.

This situation does not prove that cash in deals are unfair.  It only proves that a misunderstanding of how the economics of the situation can be bad for a world.

Obviously, because we don't have real ramifications for our actions - we're not hired or fired based on financial performance or our teams - these distortions can happen when there are no restrictions.

I think several of us believe there was some "funny business" but that leads back to page 1 where I said it opens the door to collusion.    In this particular case, everyone was excited to have a new team and deals were being made.   I was the only one who noticed that a few owners were sending cash to one owner in every deal.  Of course, I was labeled a dick for bringing it up but everything I said would happen did happen. 

Another way it can be abused is by two owners paying salaries, when needed, for their partner.   You and I could enter an agreement where we trade players and cover salaries when one competes and the other doesn't.   No one would blink if I sent you a couple of aging players and 5m for a prospect.   Then you could return the favor in 2-3 seasons when I'm competing and you're not.   We've already acknowledged that most people continue to trade with owners they've dealt with before.   It would go unnoticed and, beyond our secret agreement, we're not breaking rules.

I think what these arguments always come down to is that, IN THEORY, allowing cash in trades is fine. In fact, I do think it adds an interesting layer of strategy as it is one more asset to plan for and consider. In fact, I would say that the fact that it is strategic is what makes it harmful to a world. An owner who really understands the nuances of trading cash and is willing to exploit less experienced/skilled owners can really do so. An owner who is willing to bend the collusion rules a bit can give himself a huge advantage with little cash deals here and there as previously mentioned.

As MikeT has mentioned, the value of players being traded is very apparent. If you have an owner who is hellbent on trade-raping noobs, it is pretty easy to spot those trades and get them stopped. If you have an owner who is continuously looking to exploit cash deals, he can usually get the majority of his trades through.

Posted by isack24 on 4/11/2011 6:09:00 PM (view original):
Pstrnutbag44: You don't have to side with anyone on the merits, because that's not what we're talking about.

You're concluding that because you can't trade one player for only cash, that it was WiS' intention to ban player + a lot of cash for a player.  I'm simply pointing out that that is an incorrect logical conclusion, especially in light of the information that Mike gave us regarding their previous changes.

There's a legal principle that I think is applicable here.  When a court interprets a law and the legislature subsequently amends the law without modifyinf the court's interpretation, the presumption is that the legislature acquiesed in and approved of the court's interpretation. 

Here, some leagues (the court) have interpreted the rule as allowing a player + cash for player deal.  WiS (the legislature) modified the rule to limit the amount of cash that can be used.  The presumption, then, would be that WiS was aware of what people were doing (which is actually pretty clear in this case), and approved of it.

If they wouldn't have approved, they would have banned it.  End of story.

isack: Instead of debating your opinion vs. mine, do I suggested and send a ticket asking why that happens. Please. For the sake of discussion and enlightenment. Why not be FULLY informed, instead of just guessing or inferring what you think is the interpretation. You see, there IS a defenitive answer, and I have offered you the path to it several times....send a ticket. Be concrete on exactly WHY, then come back to the discussion fully armed with the knowledge available to you.

Isn't this a literal case of code vs. culture? The game code allows certain choices. In the user community there is controversy whether the full range of choice in relation to including cash in trades ought to be exercised. Further, WIS allows private worlds to formulate restrictions that are not part of the game code.

WIS is clearly agnostic on the subject of including cash in trades Their moral yardstick is whether a choice helps sell the game to as many people as possible. They presumably haven't determined that cash in trades gets in the way of selling the game, but have made it possible to accomodate all points of view.