Gonzos (team 1) trade 188-189 K's card to

soxyanks for 50-52 SB's card.

Quote: Originally Posted By gonzos on 4/05/2010
Gonzos (team 1) trade 188-189 K's card to

soxyanks for 50-52 SB's card.

Confirmed

equal values to teams trading is BS...even the $ out or I veto every time.

Yea be careful todd, I had mine vetoed a few times last league because of the salary difference

Quote: Originally posted by gonzos on 4/05/2010equal values to teams trading is BS...even the $ out or I veto every time.

So you'll only OK a trade if an owner gets back twice what he considers fair value? With that 1888 card toddleduc's team is already going to be strong. Why insist that he get stronger, or take an $8M player to stash on his bench that would help the other team be more competitive? In a league with salary caps ranging from $100M to $140M or more, if dollar value is the only consideration, does that mean the teams with the lower caps should not bother playing?

Surely you've played with Mr. Share-the-Wealth in enough leagues to know toddleduc cares more about having a good, competitive league than in trying to build a powerhouse.

im not gonna OK a trade where one team is trading 17 million in salary to another team who is trading back 9.



9 and 17 are not equal.

VETO.

you do what you want....

i veto unequal trades.

don't try to explain why it is fair for both teams...i don't care at all.

I appreciate the discussion and the Public Relations effort, josh lol. It's good to get the idea out on the table now.

Essentially it's a trade of 1 good pitcher for one good hitter. If we do the trade, I'd be eating $8 mil or so in salary that I'd have to put on the team in the $17 million Buffington for a return of $9 million in O'Doul or Simmons.

* Seems like a philosophical difference of perspective in approaching player value. Money spent doesn't necessarily equal value to a team. I'm just asking you all to think outside the box. Maybe if I any of us make any trades of unequal value we'll have to sitemail the League Owners first to see if we have the less than 6 veto votes. The last thing teams need is to plan on making a trade of strength (we have lots of pitching) for a need (hitting). Last thing I need is 2,500 innings and no hitters, lol.

also...who is resposible for the extra cap money?

someone would need to buy an extra salary card probably.

Quote: Originally Posted By toddleduc on 4/05/2010
*****************
TRADE
*****************

* Once the season starts- toddleduc agrees to trade Charlie Buffington- 1888 (P) to besterateam for either y O'Doul- 1929 (OF) or Al Simmons- 1929 (OF)

There's a salary difference- $17 mil to $9 mil-- but please fellas, don't veto the trade based on Salary. Both players have equal value to the teams trading them.

* besterateam- if you change your mind, get a better offer, or just want to hold off for a while & see- no big deal, bro. My team can roll with what we have if no deal is made.

Sorry home skillet. i will be vetoing as well.

pretty much any trade where you have to explain why I shouldn't veto...

I'm gonna veto.

I fail to see your logic gentleman... Please explain what the big agregious deal is?

What does it matter how much money a player is costing? Maybe besterateam can trade me something useless to placate you like an $8 million wrench or something equally worthless... I'm not sure what the harm in trading a $17 mil pitcher for a $9 million hitter is. If I want to take the salary cap hit, then I should be allowed to do so...

If someone wants to make me a better offer, than fine. Otherwise, I need to use the Pitchers I have to get the best hitters I can. I'm not sure how taking away my free market ability to trade my Pitchers for Hitting is fair to me, fair to besterateam, or anyone else in a similar situation. It's simple supply & demand. I have Pitchers available for hitting. Plain & simple. If anyone has a better offer, then bring 'em to the table. Otherwise, please let the free market do its thing...

The claim that the equality of a trade depends entirely on the salaries involved is ridiculous. Equality of a trade depends on the value of the players traded, and salary does not track the value of the players perfectly, or well at all in some cases.

That approach would seem to imply that this is a fair trade:

1919 Babe Ruth: 641 PAs, 322/456/657, for a 1.114 OPS -- $8,478,968

for

1893 Duke Esper: 420 IP, .306 opponents average, 1.79 whip, 79 HR+ -- $8,519,255

Clearly, Esper's salary is high due to his innings, but they are terrible innings and terrible innings have very little value in a league at this cap. Ruth's massive OPS in a pitcher's year, on the other hand, has very much value in this league. Equalish salaries, unequal value, and such a trade clearly should be vetoed. A fair trade would be Esper for someone with significantly less value than Ruth. Such a player may well have a much lower salary than Esper (say, something like Mark Teixera's partial year with the Angels? good LHP half of a platoon at 1B for 3.2 million?).
So unequal salaried trades definitely can be fair. Whether this one is fair I don't know cuz I haven't looked at it.

You simply can't (sensibly) make your veto decisions based simply on salary.

I wont be vetoing any trades since this league is all about piecing different parts together, if it works for the two players involved and its at the beginning of the year there should be no problems... it is not like a trade down the stretch where someone who is out of contention is trying to give an advantage to another guy whose in the hunt...

i can't believe they think this deal is unfair and will veto it toddleduc...i really hope this goes through cause i'l be short some innings if not..

Quote: Originally Posted By steveymer on 4/05/2010The claim that the equality of a trade depends entirely on the salaries involved is ridiculous. Equality of a trade depends on the value of the players traded, and salary does not track the value of the players perfectly, or well at all in some cases.

That approach would seem to imply that this is a fair trade:

1919 Babe Ruth: 641 PAs, 322/456/657, for a 1.114 OPS -- $8,478,968

for

1893 Duke Esper: 420 IP, .306 opponents average, 1.79 whip, 79 HR+ -- $8,519,255

Clearly, Esper's salary is high due to his innings, but they are terrible innings and terrible innings have very little value in a league at this cap. Ruth's massive OPS in a pitcher's year, on the other hand, has very much value in this league. Equalish salaries, unequal value, and such a trade clearly should be vetoed. A fair trade would be Esper for someone with significantly less value than Ruth. Such a player may well have a much lower salary than Esper (say, something like Mark Teixera's partial year with the Angels? good LHP half of a platoon at 1B for 3.2 million?).
So unequal salaried trades definitely can be fair. Whether this one is fair I don't know cuz I haven't looked at it.

You simply can't (sensibly) make your veto decisions based simply on salary.

Well put...