let me try this another way ... and this may end up being my last attempt to make a point, because I don't seem to be getting anywhere

Three facts (at least I would hope we can agree these are facts):

1) cash cannot win games ... only players (and coaching to the extent they impact player development) win games
2) cash must spent on scouting/coaching/medical or be converted to players (at some point) to win games
3) cash not spent at the end of the season has ZERO value

-------------------------------------------

the budgeting process at the beginning of the season is an exercise in deciding how to deploy all your cash ... there is a reason the game makes you choose where to deploy your cash at beginning of the season, and reasons there is limited ability to move cash between categories after budgets are set ... as such, budgeting is important

once you spend all your payroll budget, you should have to give up payroll to acquire payroll ... taking cash in a deal both bails out out from not budgeting enough cash for payroll, and bails out the other team for having budgeted too much for payroll ... and I understand that it helps both teams out, but it makes the budgeting process less important if you can find someone else who budgeted poorly

and I understand that it gets complex when a team with no cap trades for a veteran making $8M and gives up a stud prospect (who will no doubt be "worth" $8M a year some day) and cash gets tossed in to make the deal work ... but if you need to get cash from somebody else to make it work, than you didn't budget enough to allow your fanchise to have an $8M stud

now, take the same trade, but instead, you send the stud and a waiver-cleared guy making $5M for the $8M vet ... no cash involved ... I have no problem with that deal ... and maybe that is a contradictory position ... but I see this deal as a creative solution to a problem rather than the "simple" answer of sending cash

and I know this is all opinion, and it doesn't make it fact ... but that is the best I can do for arguing against cash in trades

after reading some posts while typing mine, let me say this:

rather than "budgeted poorly," how about "prior plans for using player cash didn't materialize the way I envisioned on budget day"

Quote: Originally Posted By unclevic on 6/15/2009Wow, todd, someone hacked into your computer and made you sound like an idiot. Or, if that was actually you typing that, would you care to define "Tard World," defend the appropriateness of such a phrase, explain the relevance of any concept anywehere in your post to the discussion that has been going on in this thread ... or just crawl back to whatever hole it was that you came from? Thanks.

Ahhh, but you failed to notice (not a big surprise) that I referred to "Tard World status", which uses the standards set by others, and isn't necessarily implying any of my personal feelings.

If you look up the world ratings published by various owners and/or follow the boards that identify "Tard Worlds", you'll find the correlation. In fact, the correlation is likely NOT a true correlation since one of the true harbingers of a "Tard world" is one where large amounts of money are exchanged.

greenc, we have been over that, I think. "In any trade involving players of unequal salary, the cash impact is just the same as including a like amount of cash in a trade of equally paid players." It is inconsistent to favor one type of trade and condemn the other. Correct?

Quote: Originally posted by 98greenc5 on 6/15/2009let me try this another way ... and this may end up being my last attempt to make a point, because I don't seem to be getting anywhereThree facts (at least I would hope we can agree these are facts):1) cash cannot win games ... only players (and coaching to the extent they impact player development) win games
2) cash must spent on scouting/coaching/medical or be converted to players (at some point) to win games
3) cash not spent at the end of the season has ZERO value-------------------------------------------the budgeting process at the beginning of the season is an exercise in deciding how to deploy all your cash ... there is a reason the game makes you choose where to deploy your cash at beginning of the season, and reasons there is limited ability to move cash between categories after budgets are set ... as such, budgeting is importantonce you spend all your payroll budget, you should have to give up payroll to acquire payroll ... taking cash in a deal both bails out out from not budgeting enough cash for payroll, and bails out the other team for having budgeted too much for payroll ... and I understand that it helps both teams out, but it makes the budgeting process less important if you can find someone else who budgeted poorlyand I understand that it gets complex when a team with no cap trades for a veteran making $8M and gives up a stud prospect (who will no doubt be "worth" $8M a year some day) and cash gets tossed in to make the deal work ... but if you need to get cash from somebody else to make it work, than you didn't budget enough to allow your fanchise to have an $8M studnow, take the same trade, but instead, you send the stud and a waiver-cleared guy making $5M for the $8M vet ... no cash involved ... I have no problem with that deal ... and maybe that is a contradictory position ... but I see this deal as a creative solution to a problem rather than the "simple" answer of sending cashand I know this is all opinion, and it doesn't make it fact ... but that is the best I can do for arguing against cash in trades

I guess some like it static, others like it fluid.

I prefer the fluid situation because I am insane in the membrane and constantly look to improve my team.

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

Quote: Originally Posted By unclevic on 6/15/2009
Wow, todd, someone hacked into your computer and made you sound like an idiot. Or, if that was actually you typing that, would you care to define "Tard World," defend the appropriateness of such a phrase, explain the relevance of any concept anywehere in your post to the discussion that has been going on in this thread ... or just crawl back to whatever hole it was that you came from? Thanks.

Ahhh, but you failed to notice (not a big surprise) that I referred to "Tard World status", which uses the standards set by others, and isn't necessarily implying any of my personal feelings.

If you look up the world ratings published by various owners and/or follow the boards that identify "Tard Worlds", you'll find the correlation. In fact, the correlation is likely NOT a true correlation since one of the true harbingers of a "Tard world" is one where large amounts of money are exchanged.

Ahhh, but I do notice that you have not defined the term "Tard World," merely passed the buck to others who have also not defined it ... certainly not made nor even attempted any justification of the use of an offensive phrase ... and made no attempt to make any of it relevant to this thread. All you have done is monkey-see-monkey-do repeat an offensive phrase. Had your mother taken the time or shown the love to wash your mouth out with laundry soap when you were at an impressionable age, you would apparently have been the better for her efforts.

But I'm afraid we digress ...

Quote: Originally Posted By unclevic on 6/15/2009greenc, we have been over that, I think. "In any trade involving players of unequal salary, the cash impact is just the same as including a like amount of cash in a trade of equally paid players." It is inconsistent to favor one and not the other. Correct

the only difference I can come up with (and maybe it doesn't matter to anybody but me) is the "timing" of the economics

cash seems like a "quick fix" type of bailout (for lack of a better word) ... tossing in a player making more than he's "worth" to square the current year payroll might have the same economic impact, but it seems different for me ... although I concede that I can't fully articulate why

Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 6/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By unclevic on 6/15/2009
greenc, we have been over that, I think. "In any trade involving players of unequal salary, the cash impact is just the same as including a like amount of cash in a trade of equally paid players." It is inconsistent to favor one and not the other. Correct?

the only difference I can come up with (and maybe it doesn't matter to anybody but me) is the "timing" of the economics

cash seems like a "quick fix" type of bailout (for lack of a better word) ... tossing in a player making more than he's "worth" to square the current year payroll might have the same economic impact, but it seems different for me ... although I concede that I can't fully articulate wh

Fair enough. "It is just my opinion" is certainly a more insightful and honest answer than a lot of the posts in this thread. Well stated.

I have a theory why- because all of the 'tards have made and advocated cash trades for so long that your mind is literally incapable of accepting the idea that it can be an OK solution.

I really don't blame you for it either. Sometimes, I want to jump on the no cash bandwagon, too.

does this work?

trading player contracts (regardless of how the contract realtes to "value") is the trading of cash previously commited to players

at some point, you (or some owner) decided to commit cash (maybe future cash) to that player ... maybe it was a bloated out year you knew would be an albatross ... maybe the guy got injured 2 years ago and isn't worth the contract now ... but a contract is the commitment of cash to payroll

cash traded is still cash in the hands of the new owner ... it hasn't been commited to a contract yet ... maybe that makes no sense

I think I see what you're saying- because the cash has been previously assigned instead of appearing from thin air it is acceptable.

You should go with my theory instead, though.

Quote: Originally Posted By deanod on 6/15/2009
I have a theory why- because all of the 'tards have made and advocated cash trades for so long that your mind is literally incapable of accepting the idea that it can be an OK solution.

I really don't blame you for it either. Sometimes, I want to jump on the no cash bandwagon, too.

Wow, you managed to shame yourself, your folks who taught you so poorly and everyone who objects to including cash in trades, all in just one brief post. Awesome.

Not quite...I just called my mom and she says she's still proud of me.

Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 6/15/2009does this work
trading player contracts (regardless of how the contract realtes to "value") is the trading of cash previously commited to players

at some point, you (or some owner) decided to commit cash (maybe future cash) to that player ... maybe it was a bloated out year you knew would be an albatross ... maybe the guy got injured 2 years ago and isn't worth the contract now ... but a contract is the commitment of cash to payroll

cash traded is still cash in the hands of the new owner ... it hasn't been commited to a contract yet ... maybe that makes no sens

Relax, you don't need to justify your opinion. It's all yours, no matter who agrees and no matter whether you can articulate it. A dollar "committed" is still one dollar, just as is one that is not "committed." A dollar bill lying Washington face up is just the same as one lying Washington face down.

Quote: Originally Posted By deanod on 6/15/2009Not quite...I just called my mom and she says she's still proud of me

You just shamed her again. Tsk, tsk, you're on a roll.