Josh,
 
I agree with your logic entirely, however there is another factor to consider. It definitely helps out Boston who is receiving cap relief next year.

Of course I think Boston isn't receiving enough, I think any team dealing with a team in Mexicos situation should be asking for a prospect almost as good as the first round pick they will sign. Afterall Mexico's choice is give up this very good prospect and sign the great one, or lose the great one and keep the very good one. Having said this, is it up to me to veto because I think Boston got a less than fair trade and didn't hose Mexico?

Agreed except that it would not be hosing MC, which gains the costliest IFA and its #1 pick and loses one good prospect. If Boston were getting a solid prospect back, or a strong middle reliever, etc., it would be a more balanced trade looking at the big picture (i.e. not ignoring what the $5M would be used for). Whether it's for you to judge the values is personal preference. Those who only veto for collusion might veto on that suspicion, those opposed to any cash in trades would veto, and everyone else would decide on the merits, which might largely depend on whether they substitute #1 pick for $5M when making that determination.

It's a little unusual in that Boston is probably making out OK by spending now to save later, while MC is coming out way ahead, gaining a #1 pick without giving up anything of real value (with a current payroll of $45M, adding $5.4M next season is no hardship). I'd be surprised if this deal got 10 vetoes, unless it were a reaction to all the attention in the forums.

I was drunk and probably approved the trade. I think that anyone sending cash off should include a prospect if said player is not going to be a real contributor to the team receiving him. Alley screwed up his budget and that's on him. But, at least this trade isn't as blatant as the other one. I'm just not sure why Boston does this.

Posted by stevehoggett on 7/29/2012 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tedwmoore on 7/29/2012 1:33:00 PM (view original):
So Boston is spending $5 million in cash to avoid paying $5.4 million in future salary, right? Because those players are all turds, or maybe fringe turdish. That gets a veto from me.

This is exactly how I assess the trade. Why do you view that as a veto? Do you think Boston should be compensated more or do you just think any trade involving the circumventing of a current years budget is worth a veto?

This trade looks borderline collusive to me. No reason for Boston to make this trade except to help out a buddy. $5.4 million in future salary is almost nothing (about 3% of total franchise budget), and a high draft pick is worth a ton in expected future production.

Well no its definitely not collusive. It does however point to the fact that most owners simply don't understand how valuable cash is for someone trying to sign a draft pick and how much more they could get out of the team trying to acquire money. If this were me I'd get the 5mil off next years cap and player who will make a couple of all-star games in the future. Someone with 75s across the board on offense, or a pitcher with minimums of 70 in splits and control, and pitches.

How can you say it definitely is not collusive? I'm not saying it is, but do you have a way to know that one owner didn't send the other a message offering to return the favor down the road? Even if WIS searched the chat and sitemail messages to confirm no collusion, nothing prevents two owners from sharing email addresses.

And I agree completely on the take regarding value being exchanged. It's either a suspicious deal or just a bad one. A skeptic would say that the chances of one owner who doesn't understand the value of cash and another who desperately needs cash happening to come together with such a fortuitous trade is unlikely.

Josh, I don't think your way of analyzing the trade is fair.  Unless 2 simultaneous trades go out between the same 2 teams, I don't really think it's fair to look at any given deal outside of a vacuum.  You keep wanting to toss in a first-round draft pick, but it's not a first-round draft pick.  It's $5 million.  Period.  Sure one team will turn that into a first-round draft pick, but Boston's not giving up a first-round draft pick.  In fact, if they don't have a significant international budget at this point in the season the only thing they're really giving up with that $5 million is the competitive advantage associated with another team (which I'm assuming isn't in the same division) signing a first-round pick.  Realistically, there is likely very little Boston can do with $5 million at this point in the season; in fact, in a vacuum I think the $5 million(ish) they'll now have to go out and sign free agents next season (based on the contract swap) is probably the most valuable asset in this trade.  I don't think it's an unfair trade at all, and the only thing that makes it look unfair is the outside information that one team is going to use this cash to sign a first-round pick.  I think Boston is getting something they want out of it, and that's all I'm looking for in a trade.

Put more simply, which is inherently more valuable: $5 million at the beginning of the season, or $5 million 2/3 of the way through?  I would think nearly 100% of coaches would pick pre-season, when it can be budgeted as desired and used on players or prospects at any time.

FWIW, my stance on cash for players may not be as hardlined as most, but I don't really think this qualifies as cash for players anyway.  It's really cash for cash.  Cash now for cash later.  I don't see that as the same thing.

I would take cash 2/3 of the way through the season all day long. 5mil 2/3s way through the season is worth 67% more.

Posted by stevehoggett on 7/30/2012 7:12:00 AM (view original):
I would take cash 2/3 of the way through the season all day long. 5mil 2/3s way through the season is worth 67% more.

Not sure about "all day long", but I do agree with this point.

Cash in the pre-season is extremely valuable during the free agency period, because that's where most of it is spent.  After free agency is over (and even after spring training is over), cash has less value as there are basically just scraps to choose from in the FA pool. 

But as the season goes on, cash can certainly buy you more.  Where $5m can only buy you a $5m contract at the beginning of the season, it can buy you a $10m contract (pro-rated) at the halfway mark, and a $15m contract (pro-rated) as you approach the trade deadline.

Cash also maintains 100% of it's value throughout the entire season in terms of prospect (draftee and IFA) bonuses.

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/30/2012 3:31:00 AM (view original):
Josh, I don't think your way of analyzing the trade is fair.  Unless 2 simultaneous trades go out between the same 2 teams, I don't really think it's fair to look at any given deal outside of a vacuum.  You keep wanting to toss in a first-round draft pick, but it's not a first-round draft pick.  It's $5 million.  Period.  Sure one team will turn that into a first-round draft pick, but Boston's not giving up a first-round draft pick.  In fact, if they don't have a significant international budget at this point in the season the only thing they're really giving up with that $5 million is the competitive advantage associated with another team (which I'm assuming isn't in the same division) signing a first-round pick.  Realistically, there is likely very little Boston can do with $5 million at this point in the season; in fact, in a vacuum I think the $5 million(ish) they'll now have to go out and sign free agents next season (based on the contract swap) is probably the most valuable asset in this trade.  I don't think it's an unfair trade at all, and the only thing that makes it look unfair is the outside information that one team is going to use this cash to sign a first-round pick.  I think Boston is getting something they want out of it, and that's all I'm looking for in a trade.

It's not outside information. If an owner is asking me for the maximum cash allowed in a trade, my first step will be a visit to the budget summary. When I see that the asking owner has a ridiculously low payroll, boosted Prospect to $30M and then spent $28.5 of that on a stud IFA, I'm going to take a wild guess that he needs the money for a #1 pick. Boston might not need the $5M, but the fact is that receiving $5M will allow the other team to sign a significant player. In my opinion, that's part of the consideration when evaluating the trade. Boston does get something from the trade, but in my opinion it's nothing close to what the other team gets from the trade.

You're certainly free to look just at the trade in front of you, but I'm equally free to look at what the $5M might be used for. And if I'm skeptical about a deal, I can also look back at trading history between the two teams. Nothing unfair about it.

I agree exactly with what Josh said. In this trade, its obvious Boston gets something, But if I were to ask myself....would I give up 5mil next year to sign a star prospect this year...hell yes I would...would I give up more than 5mil next year...hell yes I would....

The entire trade is a wash, it basically comes down to is 5mil more valuable this year (50% of the way through the year)  than it is next year. Yes of course it is. Is it worth enough to make it unfair though, is the question.

Is it really up to me to make sure Boston hung Mexico over the railing by his feet to try and extract every bit of value  from him?

PS - 5 hours until we find out if it passed or not. I would be surprised if this one were vetoed, unless there are 10+ hardline anti-cash owners.

I agree Steve, I expect it will pass. The first trade was awful enough that if it were in my world I'd alert other owners and it would become a topic of discussion. This one, I'd veto it but wouldn't call it outrageous.

Update: The trade was approved. Now if the undecided first round pick comes back with a demand raise from 2.4m to 3mil, it will be very interesting.