Posted by silentpadna on 3/29/2011 12:51:00 PM (view original):

To me there is one reason, and one reason only, why cash-in-trades is a bad idea.  While in theory, I have absolutely no problem with it and I've argued in favor of every single point I'm sure hoser1 may come up with to defend them, in practice it can serve to destroy worlds.

In fact, Mike and I and several others went round and round for 20+ forum pages 18 or so months ago and there are people that are adamantly for it and adamantly against it.  There are merits to both sides.  Overall, pragmatism won out with me over theory.  So while I won't concede that cash-in-trades are a bad thing in and of themselves, I will concede that in the context of revolving ownership, and choice of owners to abandon worlds at any time and just go to others opens the door for bad situations.  Not the least of which is the other owners investing time and money into their franchises and then getting stuck in a world that no one will join.



 

I agree with this.  It takes a strong, veteran-laden world to handle cash in trades.

Posted by jvford on 3/29/2011 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/29/2011 2:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 3/29/2011 12:50:00 PM (view original):
Of course you can do that anyway by swapping a pinch runner in the ML for a pinch runner in the minors.

Not if people pay attention.   Such a thing led to my departure from HJ.   I think you were thrown out of that world.

Uh, no.  IIRC, you left HJ because of a cash deal getting through.

And while you're incorrect about my departure as well, I'm not sure what either have to do with the current topic.

Of course, you could just be trying to start an argument.  In which case, my bad for replying.

You don't recall correctly.    Two minor league pitchers were exchanged.  Neither had any BL potential but one was making 55K and the other 27k(or something along that line).   Nonetheless, my thought was "Why is this happening?"   I looked at it and the owner giving up the cheaper pitcher was cap tight.  While he had the bonus money, he didn't have the cap space to sign his first round pick and a supplemental pick.    If you'd like to check for accuracy, the deal was between rugrat and iain.

I mentioned your departure because it applies to your response.  You were acting like a dick.   The commish either suggested you leave and you complied or you were forcible removed.  I wasn't there but it was mentioned to me.    The relevance to this thread is that your reply was dick-like.  

Hope this help you understand.

Oh, I get it.  Pointing out a scenario that gives the same result as what your complaining about is 'dick-like'.  But your reply isn't. 

I'm not sure why you're obsessed with my time in HJ and the reason for my departure, but you're still wrong (despite the fact that something was 'mentioned' to you).

You pointed out a scenario incorrectly.  I corrected you because you were there at the time.   I'll just assume you misremembered.

As for your departure, iain asked in the "Ask MikeT23" thread if your removal was a win/win.    I checked the chat and, yep, you were being a dick about something trivial.   Pretty par for the course.

This is pointing out an alternate scenario that gives the same result as selling a prospect:

"Of course you can do that anyway by swapping a pinch runner in the ML for a pinch runner in the minors."

This is being a dick:

"Not if people pay attention.   Such a thing led to my departure from HJ.   I think you were thrown out of that world."

Understand?

It was correcting you and giving you an example.   Did you check for accuracy?

Anyway, when owners make a "meaningless" trade, anyone paying attention can probably figure out why.   So swapping a pinch runner making 327k and a pinch runner making 55k should raise an eyebrow.   Your alternate scenario has been refuted. 

Not to get back on topic or anything, but vetoing the trade in the OP's scenario could also be seen as harming the World overall, since (without the trade) the overall talent level in the World drops, compared to what it would be with the trade.

Personally, I'm not sure I mind Worlds with a few fewer slam dunk superstars, but some owners require top talent at every position.

Wouldn't the owner who put all his prospect money into the IFA suffer the most due to this lack of top level talent?    Doesn't that seem about right?  After all, that IFA gets signed one way or the other. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/29/2011 3:58:00 PM (view original):
Wouldn't the owner who put all his prospect money into the IFA suffer the most due to this lack of top level talent?    Doesn't that seem about right?  After all, that IFA gets signed one way or the other. 

The draft pick does not get signed one way or the other.

For those who cry "best interests of the World" to justify the veto, that is something that should be considered, since without the draft pick, the overall level of talent in the World suffers, on the whole. And surely those who veto or not based on the "best interests of the World" don't argue that a World bereft of 1st round talent is the the best circumstance.

I would.   Would you like me to make that argument?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/29/2011 4:12:00 PM (view original):
I would.   Would you like me to make that argument?

I absolutely would. But choose your words carefully because you'll look like a fool when I quote them and you're forced to backtrack and say "no, no, that's not what I meant, only what I said."

Or is your "argument" going to situation-specific here and you're not really going to make the argument that "a World bereft of 1st round talent is the the best circumstance"?

I feel like that would be the M.O. - say you are going to do one thing and then twist it into another.

Can I answer now?

Talent is talent.   If a world has five 90s(I'm just using a single number for simplicity), twenty two 80s, and seventy seven 70s, the world will play on just the same as zero 90s, fifteen 80s and sixty three 70s.   The higher numbers will have more, or less, value based on how many similar players there are but a world with no "1st round talent" will not fold up and die.  It will just play differently.   Sort of like what we have right now with 180 worlds playing with varying levels of talent.

Are you going to argue that any of your 4 worlds would collapse if no first round picks were signed in one season?

As for situation-specific, the world will have one less "1st round talent".   I defy you to find me one world with one draft where every first round pick was signed.

I'm guessing it could have happened but seriously doubting that it ever did.

  I thought that HBD was supposed to be close to managing a MLB franchise? I know I've seen my Washington Nats sell players to other franchises. I've never seen or heard MLB GM's go off on a tangent or have fits over the matter. They just keep doing business as normal, not the same for HBD owners though!

  The definition of a trade is the exchange of goods for money, or goods for goods. I still stand by my statement that it is my $185 million, I want to spend it anyway I want to. I might have missed out on that Intl Free agent, and I still want to use my money elsewhere. I think managers should be allowed to be creative with their cash, HBD allows the transferring of funds to a couple areas, maybe they should open up the transfer to all areas of the budget. For example: Allow the money to be transfered to scouting budgets and such.