Cash in trades - Do worlds discourage it? Topic

jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By gator993 on 6/15/2009



Im in one league that does allow it. It is an easier league to win and build a dominant team. Thats just stating the truth. I didn't say that worlds that don't allow extra cash being traded is better then the others just that it gives more of a challenge. If you feel thats taking a shot at you and your worlds that a you problem.
Too many variables to make that make that statement and expect it to be taken as anything other than opinion.
6/15/2009 11:16 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 6/15/2009


Jeez. A 78 player in a world is a 78 player. Nothing changes this. His value, to the world, will not change because of injury or development. He is still a 78.

You're still confusing rating with value. You cannot completely separate team and world value (economics 101). The value of a player to a team changes more quickly than his world value, but the world value still does change.

Cash has no value until it's assigned. It can be used well or poorly but it has no value until assigned.

Cash has a starting value immediately after budgets are set when there is a finite amount of cash available. It's value then fluctuates throughout the season.

You're confusing player value with the value he brings to individual teams.

See above. I can re-educate you on economics if you so desire.


1. Separating value is easy. An apple is an apple to the world. Nothing turns it into a steak dinner. An apple to me(team) is a snack. An apple to a starving man(team) is his first meal in three days. Not sure how that works in your economics class.

2. Cash has no value until it's used. None. Nothing changes this.

3. Rather than offer me an economics class perhaps you should take a comprehension class.
6/15/2009 11:17 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
In the end, the entire "cash in trades" comes down to a religious war with zealots on both sides of the issue. There's no common ground on which to base a discussion, so this entire thread is a pointless exercise in futility.
6/15/2009 11:18 AM
tutmeister
Posts: 0 (0)
Pro
9
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 6/15/2009In the end, the entire "cash in trades" comes down to a religious war with zealots on both sides of the issue. There's no common ground on which to base a discussion, so this entire thread is a pointless exercise in futility


i said that several pages ago, just in different words
6/15/2009 11:18 AM
gator993
Posts: 33 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 3 1 2 53
Prospect
as did I
6/15/2009 11:24 AM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/15/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 6/15/2009



Jeez. A 78 player in a world is a 78 player. Nothing changes this. His value, to the world, will not change because of injury or development. He is still a 78.

You're still confusing rating with value. You cannot completely separate team and world value (economics 101). The value of a player to a team changes more quickly than his world value, but the world value still does change.

Cash has no value until it's assigned. It can be used well or poorly but it has no value until assigned.

Cash has a starting value immediately after budgets are set when there is a finite amount of cash available. It's value then fluctuates throughout the season.

You're confusing player value with the value he brings to individual teams.

See above. I can re-educate you on economics if you so desire.



1. Separating value is easy. An apple is an apple to the world.Nothing turns it into a steak dinner. An apple to me(team) is a snack. An apple to a starving man(team) is his first meal in three days. Not sure how that works in your economics class.

But if everyone has extremely fertile cows, while most apple harvests turn bad, no one would be willing to give up an apple for a steak dinner. Value changed on a WORLD scale. Get it?

2. Cash has no value until it's used. None. Nothing changes this.

If everyone leaves 20m in payroll available going into the season, cash will have different value than if everyone has 1m in available payroll. The fact that most don't perceive this value at this point doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

3. Rather than offer me an economics class perhaps you should take a comprehension class.

Take a step back and look at your arguments. You'll see where you missed.
6/15/2009 11:27 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Actually, I'm done with this thread. Either you get it or you don't. Nothing is going to change until your idea of right/wrong bites you in the ***.
6/15/2009 11:30 AM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/15/2009
Actually, I'm done with this thread. Either you get it or you don't. Nothing is going to change until your idea of right/wrong bites you in the ***.

Cop out.
6/15/2009 11:32 AM
kingjohndevi
Posts: 5 (0)
Veteran
7 2 21
Prospect
surprised?
6/15/2009 11:35 AM
tutmeister
Posts: 0 (0)
Pro
9
Prospect
pleasantly
6/15/2009 1:49 PM
deanod
Posts: 3152 (0)
Hall of Famer
115 18 1 118 1 52
Prospect
Man, the 'tards who favor cash in trades really suck at formulating a coherent argument. Fortunately, they have me to do it for them.

Everyone has $185 mill to work with, but we all know that not all players are paid fairly. Actually, the majority of players are severely mispriced. If I have an army of young ML studs with < 3 years experience and no bloated contracts, I can kick everyone's *** with a $125 mill budget. Conversely, if I have no young talent and a bunch of aging fatass players making $8 mill a year, I may be hard pressed to compete with $220 mill. So at the end of the day, a shift of a few million in budgeting here and there is rather inconsequential.

You're welcome, illiterate 'tards.
6/15/2009 2:48 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By deanod on 6/15/2009Man, the 'tards who favor cash in trades really suck at formulating a coherent argument. Fortunately, they have me to do it for them.

Everyone has $185 mill to work with, but we all know that not all players are paid fairly. Actually, the majority of players are severely mispriced. If I have an army of young ML studs with < 3 years experience and no bloated contracts, I can kick everyone's *** with a $125 mill budget. Conversely, if I have no young talent and a bunch of aging fatass players making $8 mill a year, I may be hard pressed to compete with $220 mill. So at the end of the day, a shift of a few million in budgeting here and there is rather inconsequential.

You're welcome, illiterate 'tards
Jesus. You're calling this a "coherent argument" for cash in trades?

You're basing this on the idea of bad contracts making for an unlevel playing field. Well, if you have bad contracts on your team it's because of one of the following three reasons:

1) You gave out the bad contract . . . your mistake, suck it up.

2) You traded for the bad contract . . . your mistake, suck it up.

3) You took over a team in which some previous dumbass owner did #1 or #2 . . . .too damn bad for you, suck it up. That's part of the game.
6/15/2009 3:03 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
inconsequental at the extremes ... potentially very consequential at the margin

trading for a $8M FA to-be at the deadline, with "only" $3M or so to cover the rest of his season is really $8M, and might be buying one hell of a player ... or at least that one missing cog to put said team over the top

and to get at the often mis-constured part of Mike's overall argument, it isn't the one trade in isolation ... if the same team makes the same sort of trade 5 times, will all 5 go through? ... or maybe two bottom dwellars make the trade 5 times and it goes through, but a team pushing for the playoffs makes the the 6th deal and it gets vetoed
6/15/2009 3:04 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By deanod on 6/15/2009Man, the 'tards who favor cash in trades really suck at formulating a coherent argument. Fortunately, they have me to do it for them.

Everyone has $185 mill to work with, but we all know that not all players are paid fairly. Actually, the majority of players are severely mispriced. If I have an army of young ML studs with < 3 years experience and no bloated contracts, I can kick everyone's *** with a $125 mill budget. Conversely, if I have no young talent and a bunch of aging fatass players making $8 mill a year, I may be hard pressed to compete with $220 mill. So at the end of the day, a shift of a few million in budgeting here and there is rather inconsequential.

You're welcome, illiterate 'tards
The other side would argue that the goal is to build a team that shoots for one of those extremes and avoids the other. Allowing someone at one end to gain a benefit from their extra money at the expense of someone at the other end is counter-productive to the world.

Thanks, but you've contributed nothing.
6/15/2009 3:06 PM
deanod
Posts: 3152 (0)
Hall of Famer
115 18 1 118 1 52
Prospect
Actually tec, part of the game is the option of including up to $5 mill of cash in trades. If I am willing to give up value from my ML roster or farm system in order to acquire a vet player who is paid for with cash, I do not see any problem with it.

Also, what is the difference between these two deals:

A) Prospect for highly paid pro + $5 mill cash.
B) Prospect plus washed up high A quality player making $5 mill for highly paid pro.
6/15/2009 3:11 PM
◂ Prev 1...20|21|22|23|24...35 Next ▸
Cash in trades - Do worlds discourage it? 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.