Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:35:00 AM (view original):
 You can do the same  if you negotiate a 4.8 m reduction in payroll,You haven't shown the advantage of one over the other. Demonstrate in the cash and contract  trades listed above.They start out exactly thesame. What can on do post trade, that the other can't do post trade?

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:35:00 AM (view original):
 You can do the same  if you negotiate a 4.8 m reduction in payroll,You haven't shown the advantage of one over the other. Demonstrate in the cash and contract  trades listed above.They start out exactly thesame. What can on do post trade, that the other can't do post trade?

Posted by silentpadna on 4/11/2011 10:33:00 AM (view original):
"The 2nd place team did the same thing 2 seasons ago to keep me in 2nd that year."

BTW, that was me, and for the record, I had no issue with it.  I approved his deal. 

Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:35:00 AM (view original):
 You can do the same  if you negotiate a 4.8 m reduction in payroll,You haven't shown the advantage of one over the other. Demonstrate in the cash and contract  trades listed above.They start out exactly thesame. What can on do post trade, that the other can't do post trade?

With an $86m payroll budget, you can acquire and pay up to $86m worth of player salary.  With an $81m payroll budget, you can only acquire and pay up to $81m worth of player salary.

I cannot explain it more simply than that.  86 > 81.

You are focusing on cap space, which is the difference between player payroll budgeted and player payroll spent.  In both of your examples, the "net" result is exactly the same.  But you end up with a higher payroll budget in one example than you do in the other.  Combined with the other 8 budget categories, you now have $190m worth of assets (taking each player contract at face value) as opposed to 30 other owners who have $185m and the other guy who only has $180m.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:35:00 AM (view original):
 You can do the same  if you negotiate a 4.8 m reduction in payroll,You haven't shown the advantage of one over the other. Demonstrate in the cash and contract  trades listed above.They start out exactly thesame. What can on do post trade, that the other can't do post trade?

With an $86m payroll budget, you can acquire and pay up to $86m worth of player salary.  With an $81m payroll budget, you can only acquire and pay up to $81m worth of player salary.

I cannot explain it more simply than that.  86 > 81.

You are focusing on cap space, which is the difference between player payroll budgeted and player payroll spent.  In both of your examples, the "net" result is exactly the same.  But you end up with a higher payroll budget in one example than you do in the other.  Combined with the other 8 budget categories, you now have $190m worth of assets (taking each player contract at face value) as opposed to 30 other owners who have $185m and the other guy who only has $180m.

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):
That is inaccurate. You can trade  a minor leager whose contract has outlasted his ability.4 seasons ago, he could play ML,, but now he is AA  stuff making a big salary

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):
That is inaccurate. You can trade  a minor leager whose contract has outlasted his ability.4 seasons ago, he could play ML,, but now he is AA  stuff making a big salary

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2011 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):
That is inaccurate. You can trade  a minor leager whose contract has outlasted his ability.4 seasons ago, he could play ML,, but now he is AA  stuff making a big salary

If this is in response to my post, you are incorrect.  I didn't make a stupid signings that ended with a 4.8m player in the minors. 

As I said, I didn't have 4.8m in expendable player to trade.  I needed the cash to make the deals.  

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:35:00 AM (view original):
 You can do the same  if you negotiate a 4.8 m reduction in payroll,You haven't shown the advantage of one over the other. Demonstrate in the cash and contract  trades listed above.They start out exactly thesame. What can on do post trade, that the other can't do post trade?

With an $86m payroll budget, you can acquire and pay up to $86m worth of player salary.  With an $81m payroll budget, you can only acquire and pay up to $81m worth of player salary.

I cannot explain it more simply than that.  86 > 81.

You are focusing on cap space, which is the difference between player payroll budgeted and player payroll spent.  In both of your examples, the "net" result is exactly the same.  But you end up with a higher payroll budget in one example than you do in the other.  Combined with the other 8 budget categories, you now have $190m worth of assets (taking each player contract at face value) as opposed to 30 other owners who have $185m and the other guy who only has $180m.

I'm just asking you to demonstate how this would work in the trades .t.They had the same purchaing pwer before, and the same purchasing power after. You say there isan advantage,I'm asking you to put that advantage into practical application.. So far, you haven't..

Posted by deathinahole on 4/11/2011 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):
That is inaccurate. You can trade  a minor leager whose contract has outlasted his ability.4 seasons ago, he could play ML,, but now he is AA  stuff making a big salary

You are confusing worth vs. budget.

Read what he is saying. $190M is greater than $185M. End of story. Philosophy sorts itself out after that. Value of contract, etc...moot. Someone has $190M. Everyone else has $185M. Period.

Posted by isack24 on 4/11/2011 10:07:00 AM (view original):
That wasn't your conclusion.  Your conclusion was that adding salary to a player-for-player trade is against the intended rules.  That's an assumption, and a relatively unsupported one.

You can trade a player for a player and add however much cash you have.  They could have limited that if they wanted.  They could have limited the amount of cash to the amount of salary needed to make the deal go through under the salary cap.  They didn't.  Unless you find a statement of intent from the programmers, I'm going to assume that they wanted to let us do what we wanted within the confines of their allowances, which would be to trade a player for a player and include whatever salary we want.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2011 11:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:35:00 AM (view original):
 You can do the same  if you negotiate a 4.8 m reduction in payroll,You haven't shown the advantage of one over the other. Demonstrate in the cash and contract  trades listed above.They start out exactly thesame. What can on do post trade, that the other can't do post trade?

With an $86m payroll budget, you can acquire and pay up to $86m worth of player salary.  With an $81m payroll budget, you can only acquire and pay up to $81m worth of player salary.

I cannot explain it more simply than that.  86 > 81.

You are focusing on cap space, which is the difference between player payroll budgeted and player payroll spent.  In both of your examples, the "net" result is exactly the same.  But you end up with a higher payroll budget in one example than you do in the other.  Combined with the other 8 budget categories, you now have $190m worth of assets (taking each player contract at face value) as opposed to 30 other owners who have $185m and the other guy who only has $180m.

I'm just asking you to demonstate how this would work in the trades .t.They had the same purchaing pwer before, and the same purchasing power after. You say there isan advantage,I'm asking you to put that advantage into practical application.. So far, you haven't..

With respect to cap space, there is no advantage.  I clearly stated that above ("the "net" result is exactly the same"). 

Again, I'll flat-out ask you directly . . . do you not understand the difference between cap space and budget?  Because I'm really not interested in discussing this any further with you if you cannot or will not grasp the difference between the two.

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 11:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 4/11/2011 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 4/11/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):
That is inaccurate. You can trade  a minor leager whose contract has outlasted his ability.4 seasons ago, he could play ML,, but now he is AA  stuff making a big salary

You are confusing worth vs. budget.

Read what he is saying. $190M is greater than $185M. End of story. Philosophy sorts itself out after that. Value of contract, etc...moot. Someone has $190M. Everyone else has $185M. Period.

I'm just asking to put this so called advantage to work in a practical manner. He hasn't, maybe you can do it.

• Most obvious, you wouldn't be able to do the trade without having to move budget from coaching or prospect
• Because you couldn't, either the trade doesn't get done, or you are leaving more payroll budget available at the beginning of the season to allow for deal making, or you are making that deal later in the season when the prorated amount works.
• Because you couldn't, you need to make that decision, "do I eat into my prospect payroll, or do I walk away from the deal?"
• Because you couldn't, you are not making that 5 yr $20M offer at the beginning of the season because you cannot have "that's ok, I'll just get someone to throw cash in a trade" to wiggle out of it when it alll goes bad in year 4 and 5

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 4/11/2011 11:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 4/11/2011 10:07:00 AM (view original):
That wasn't your conclusion.  Your conclusion was that adding salary to a player-for-player trade is against the intended rules.  That's an assumption, and a relatively unsupported one.

You can trade a player for a player and add however much cash you have.  They could have limited that if they wanted.  They could have limited the amount of cash to the amount of salary needed to make the deal go through under the salary cap.  They didn't.  Unless you find a statement of intent from the programmers, I'm going to assume that they wanted to let us do what we wanted within the confines of their allowances, which would be to trade a player for a player and include whatever salary we want.

My conclusion was what now? Pardon me, but I was VERY straightforward. I was talking about prospects for cash, as the title of the thread implies. If it's the intent of the deal, then yes, working around the rules is EXACTLY what is happening. How do you figure it isn't? That scenario I laid out is not complicated whatsoever....and if you want your statement of intent, I have offered it to you several times. Send a ticket asking why the scenario I lay out plays out like it does, you will get your "statement of intent" directly from the horse's mouth.