I completely agree, plague. I find it ridiculous that cash trades have such a stigma attached to them, when in reality their effect is very similar to player-for-player trades.

Take 2 players.

Player A. has a 8 million dollar salary.

Player B. Same exact ratings, age, etc, as player A but has a 375k salary.

Do both players have the same trade value? If you were trading those 2 players would you expect to get the same in return?

i throw in cash if i'm trying to get rid of a bad long term contract - i'd rather throw in cash than another player

Quote: Originally Posted By trobone on 6/15/2009
i throw in cash if i'm trying to get rid of a bad long term contract - i'd rather throw in cash than another player

And therein lies the crux of the problem.

It's much easier to throw around cash in trades, because cash has an imminent expiration date (the end of the current season) if you have no use for it. If you throw in all your excess cash in trades, it's not like it's lost to you forever . . . you get a fresh $185m next season to start over. Almost as if cash grows on trees.

If you throw in prospects in trades, that's not a renewable resource. He's gone.

Cash makes decisions easy. Too easy. This is a game that should not reward or encourage easy decisions.

The stupid or lazy should find no reward.

At the end of the day, cash is fluid. In HJ, 800k just saved an owner's season. He had 22 players making BL money(50 games into the season). He had 100k in payroll with prospect money at the minimum. He had no way to promote anyone til game 110 or so. Injury and/or fatigue would have killed his season. Now, with that 800k, he can fill out his BL roster.

And, by the way, he went big into FA this year. 8 ML FA signings. So, he took FA away from other teams by overbidding(based on his budget) and painted himself in a corner. Problem solved by simply getting less than a million in cash in trade.

The best laid plans....

Do you really believe that the owner haphazardly threw together his budget? Isn't it more likely that he planned to go heavily into FA and a couple got a little more expensive than he planned?

Seems like he took one of a few avenues available in the game to help himself out.

If you can afford $30k on a new car and you end up getting talked into buying a $45k car by the dealer, whose fault is that? Is it the dealers fault?

Where's the personal responsibility in overspending? Why is there an expectation that you can and should be bailed out of a mistake caused by your own irresponsibility?

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 6/15/2009
If you can afford $30k on a new car and you end up getting talked into buying a $45k car by the dealer, whose fault is that? Is it the dealers fault?

Where's the personal responsibility in overspending? Why is there an expectation that you can and should be bailed out of a mistake caused by your own irresponsibility?

Really, really bad and overexagerrated analogy.

I'll use your premis, but modify for accuracy.

You budget 30K for a new car. Turns out the best deal you can make is for 32K. Since you need/want the car you pay it. Now, you need to figure out where to get the additional 2K. You could sell an asset (player/prospect), not buy something esle (another FA), or run a deficit/borrow (not available in HBD). Not a perfect analogy since cash is a different asset in RL, but you're the one who picked the subject.

I think the whole cash in trades argument is stupid. There is no salary cap in the MLB, there is oner here, throwing cash into a deal is no less realistic than not throwing cash in a deal, so get over it. Its simply a way to work around the least realistic part of this game.

The bottom line with either example . . . you have overspent your budget.

You are now short on cash to make other moves you want or need to make due to conscious choices you have made. You are looking for somebody to bail you out of your irresponsibility in spending your budget appropriately by sending you cash.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 6/15/2009
The bottom line with either example . . . you have overspent your budget.

You are now short on cash to make other moves you want or need to make due to conscious choices you have made. You are looking for somebody to bail you out of your irresponsibility in spending your budget appropriately by sending you cash.

But what doeas the budget matter? There is no budget in MLB, so if someone has money to spare and a team needs money, then moving it around makes the game more realistic, because the team that wants to spend gets to spend.

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 6/15/2009
The bottom line with either example . . . you have overspent your budget.

You are now short on cash to make other moves you want or need to make due to conscious choices you have made. You are looking for somebody to bail you out of your irresponsibility in spending your budget appropriately by sending you cash.

So what's the difference between fixing the problem by trading a player making 1m for a prospect and trading the same level of player making 327K for a prospect and cash?

Is this about budgeting properly or restricting the ways of fixing mistakes?

Quote: Originally Posted By plague on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally posted by tecwrg on 6/15/200
The bottom line with either example . . . you have overspent your budget.

You are now short on cash to make other moves you want or need to make due to conscious choices you have made. You are looking for somebody to bail you out of your irresponsibility in spending your budget appropriately by sending you cash.[/QUOTE]

Do you veto trades that package money to pay for a players salary? For example a coach trades a player with a 5 million salary to another coach for a prospect, but in order to make the trade work that first coach must add in 5 million in salary. Do you allow that trade or veto because 5 million in cash was included in the trade?

A point. Why must it be called irresponsible? Why can't it just be part of the coaches plan? A bailout would be if you get something for nothing. If someone is giving up something of value to get something of value it can not be called a bailout

If the owner needed a $5m player during the season, he should have allocated money in his budget to accomodate that. Instead, he now gets to play the season with a $190m budget while everybody else plays with $185m.

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By plague on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally posted by tecwrg on 6/15/2009
The bottom line with either example . . . you have overspent your budget.

You are now short on cash to make other moves you want or need to make due to conscious choices you have made. You are looking for somebody to bail you out of your irresponsibility in spending your budget appropriately by sending you cash.[/QUOTE]


Do you veto trades that package money to pay for a players salary? For example a coach trades a player with a 5 million salary to another coach for a prospect, but in order to make the trade work that first coach must add in 5 million in salary. Do you allow that trade or veto because 5 million in cash was included in the trade?

A point. Why must it be called irresponsible? Why can't it just be part of the coaches plan? A bailout would be if you get something for nothing. If someone is giving up something of value to get something of value it can not be called a bailout.

If the owner needed a $5m player during the season, he should have allocated money in his budget to accomodate that. Instead, he now gets to play the season with a $190m budget while everybody else plays with $185m.

No, there's one other owner who's only playing with $180m.