Player for cash discussion Topic

iain
Posts: 1864 (0)
Hall of Famer
35 1 1 18 1 279
Prospect
I would not use this thread to try to promote any worlds.

You'll only drive away those who don't agree with your opinions.

Or maybe that's the point.

If only there was a forum for recruiting new owners..............
7/27/2012 10:54 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Jcb - if only I could understand the way a zero tolerence guy thinks!
Zero tolerence guy - this is how I think
Jcb - Why do you think that way?
Zero tolerance guy - ....
7/28/2012 12:31 AM
bwb53
Posts: 111 (0)
Hall of Famer
128 401
Prospect
Posted by deathinahole on 7/27/2012 4:11:00 PM (view original):
Maths is hard for bwb.

With $5M cash, you are getting $5M extra cap space. Period. With $5M salary difference in a trade, you are not. Period.
A team that reduces it's payroll by 5m does not increase cap space?  Where do you think that money goes? That is news to me .Logic is tough for deathinahole.Rather than repeat the mantra that all you cash naysayers  continue to do. tell us in detail what the cash trade for Shaw can do, that the contract trade for shaw can't do. Example. the cash side can  purchase  a higher priced free agent than the contract. That is false. They both can buty the same amount of contract. No advantage there. How about the waiver wire. can the cash trade produce more than the contract trade. No it can't. They are both the same. No advantage there either. How about transfers to the prospect budget. Can the cash trade transfer more than the contract? No it can't. They are both the same.  So just where is this supposed advantage show up. How about nowhere, because it doesn't exist.The definition of an advantage is there has to be one.Now if you think the cash trade can buy more post trade than contract trade, tell me how, and don't give me that lame math. Give me a real example using the  Shaw example.
7/28/2012 4:16 AM (edited)
bwb53
Posts: 111 (0)
Hall of Famer
128 401
Prospect
Shaw for minor leaguer and 5m cash     This would be the cash side
Shaw and AAA player with 5m in contract for minor leaguer    This would be the contract side
7/28/2012 2:13 AM (edited)
bwb53
Posts: 111 (0)
Hall of Famer
128 401
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/27/2012 4:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bwb53 on 7/27/2012 3:58:00 PM (view original):

Shaw for minor leaguer and 5m in cash. One side gets shaw, the other side gets 5m which he puts into signing prospect A,
 Shaw and 5m salaried minor leaguer for minor leaguer. One side gets Shaw, the other has 5m which he puts into signing prospect A. In each transaction, both sides have   the same capabilities post transaction. The only difference are the added  minor leaguers involved. There is no difference between giving 5m in cash, or taking 5m in salary. Both trades leave the teams with the same capabilities. If there was an advantage, one trade  would allow an owner  to do more than the other post trade. It'e the same.

Which owners have useless players with 5m left on their contract at mid-season?   The dumb ones. 
Those who take last place teams for a challenge , or those who just join a league and pick a last place team. I picked 4 last place teams, and 3 of the had minor league players with contracts ranging from 4m to 17m. one of those is the career leader in the world in home runs, but age and injuries got the best of him before the contract ran out. That answer your question? I have also purchased bad contracts as those to acquire very good  talent.
7/28/2012 2:22 AM
bwb53
Posts: 111 (0)
Hall of Famer
128 401
Prospect
Posted by AlCheez on 7/27/2012 4:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bwb53 on 7/27/2012 3:58:00 PM (view original):

Shaw for minor leaguer and 5m in cash. One side gets shaw, the other side gets 5m which he puts into signing prospect A,
 Shaw and 5m salaried minor leaguer for minor leaguer. One side gets Shaw, the other has 5m which he puts into signing prospect A. In each transaction, both sides have   the same capabilities post transaction. The only difference are the added  minor leaguers involved. There is no difference between giving 5m in cash, or taking 5m in salary. Both trades leave the teams with the same capabilities. If there was an advantage, one trade  would allow an owner  to do more than the other post trade. It'e the same.

As was pointed out a while back, if it was done at the same point in the sesaon, this minor leaguer would need to have a 7.5 million dollar salary to clear 5 million.  And yes, in this situation, the practical result would be the same - but again, how often does this happen?  Taking on salary requires taking on a player, case does not.  And if you're trading a player, most of the time it's going to impact your team and the trading team in some way aside from just the finances.
 This guy gets it. It does happen, i ought to know because I have done it, and more than once. I am not the only one either.
7/28/2012 2:49 AM
bwb53
Posts: 111 (0)
Hall of Famer
128 401
Prospect
Posted by tedwmoore on 7/27/2012 4:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bwb53 on 7/27/2012 3:58:00 PM (view original):

Shaw for minor leaguer and 5m in cash. One side gets shaw, the other side gets 5m which he puts into signing prospect A,
 Shaw and 5m salaried minor leaguer for minor leaguer. One side gets Shaw, the other has 5m which he puts into signing prospect A. In each transaction, both sides have   the same capabilities post transaction. The only difference are the added  minor leaguers involved. There is no difference between giving 5m in cash, or taking 5m in salary. Both trades leave the teams with the same capabilities. If there was an advantage, one trade  would allow an owner  to do more than the other post trade. It'e the same.

This is bogus for two reasons:

(1) the advantage is not in being able to sign the daft pick post trade, the advantage is the increased cap room; which is particularly relevant because of

(2) trading salary instead of receiving cash changes the complexion of the trade and therefore the valuation of players involved. If I have a pool of cash sitting around, it is no sweat for me to either trade some of it away or else take on a one-year contract. But, if I am taking on a contract that exceeds the value of the cash I would otherwise offer (let's say $5 million), then I will either want more returning to me in terms of player value or I will want to reduce the value of the player(s) I am sending the other way. What I am getting at is that including salary constrains the actors in ways that cash does not, assuming the salary being traded does not exactly match the cash being requested, either because the salary assumed runs for more than one season (as opposed to the cash commitment which is a one-time expense) or because the salary is a greater (or lesser( sum than the cash needed by the other party. This difficulty of matching the value of cash with the value of a contract also constricts the trade market for the owner attempting to clear cap space. In other words, cash makes it easier, which in itself is an advantage over the option to trade away salary. And, of course, barring a horrible contract, any trading away of salary also reduces the team's ability to field a competitive team (yet another advantage).

So, yeah, they are not the same thing.
The contract is for a worthless player. That is why you get him, because he has little, or no value, and the other team is happy to be rid of him. The goal is the prospect, the contract is the money used to acquire the prospect, instead of cash.The cap room is the same either way. That makes it the same. You are correct about multi year contracts. They can be much worse than cash, since cash is a one time thing.
7/28/2012 3:47 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
I tend to stay away from these debates, other than stating my position and moving on, because it's become like a religious or political debate.  Many people are polarized to one end of the other, and no amount of discussion is going to sway the other side to move an inch from their position.

In the end . . . just find a world that has the same cash philosophy as you do, and play there.
7/28/2012 8:35 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/27/2012 3:32:00 PM (view original):
You consider it a strawman, I do not.

The point is, if this is a widespread problem, or you can convince WifS by whatever means necessary that it can be, you should take it up with the creator of the game.   They make adjustments. 

If this is a one-off "They unfairly vetoed my deal!!!", nothing will be done.   Nor should it.

The bottom line is vetoes exist as does cash in trades.  Sometimes the two butt heads.   You either deal with it or you convince the makers to change it.  You've been around long enough to know that no amount of forum discussion will change minds.

You mean like this?

7/28/2012 8:51 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Yep.
7/28/2012 9:01 AM
stevehoggett
Posts: 302 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 38 45
Prospect
I have taken a look at historical trades in my leagues and the historically elite teams are constantly receiving cash in trades. The only time these elite owners give up cash is to move a poor long term contract (that they probably received in order to gain an elite player / prospect).

This of course is the same old chicken, egg dance we've bene doing. If an owner can convince someone to give him cash, is it not kudos to him? Yes I think it is kudos to him, as I am an advocate of trading cash, however I evaluate any trade with cash very thoroughly. Even if its a trade involving cash covering the cost of a salary. I weigh the long term benefits to the franchise trading the contract and cash of shedding the contract.
7/28/2012 9:13 AM
bwb53
Posts: 111 (0)
Hall of Famer
128 401
Prospect
I just do this end run around these no cash, no way, no how, cash is evil, cash gives you an unfair advantage guys. Worked every time so far. They think your crazy for taking on the contract., and mostly don't realize, that you just bought a player . I wonder what they think about the waiver wire. Maybe they always waive their best players to get the unfair advantage that selling players for cash gives them.
7/28/2012 9:45 AM
stevehoggett
Posts: 302 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 38 45
Prospect
Waiving a player is not the same thing.

Doing a salary dump is also not the same thing.

IMO- a player moving cash in a trade, has to clearly receive something beneficial to them. Whether it be future cap space (because they ate 5mil of a 4 year 50mil contract), or a player of positive value (a vet on a good contract, or a prospect with a future major league career).

FWIW- if team A traded a useless 5mil contract to team B for a useless prospect, I would also veto this trade, as I would not see how team B benefits from taking on a useless contract.
7/28/2012 9:53 AM
bwb53
Posts: 111 (0)
Hall of Famer
128 401
Prospect
Selling/ buying a player for cash.
7/28/2012 9:57 AM
stevehoggett
Posts: 302 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 38 45
Prospect
BWB, what do you think of the latest trade in our league, it involves a small amount of cash 1.5m to cover the salary I believe.
7/28/2012 10:00 AM
◂ Prev 1...13|14|15|16|17...38 Next ▸
Player for cash discussion Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.