Cash in trades - Do worlds discourage it? Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By oriolemagic on 6/13/2009



I stopped right here. You have a team full of players that someone else is paying for AND 100m to do with what you choose. If you don't see the problem, I can't help you.

Have a good day.

[/QUOTE]


That is not a fair argument, because there is no way you could get 100M on top of your team salary, which would probably end up being 170M. In order to get 170M back in trades you would probably have to give up every player worth anything in your farm system. If you do that your just stupid because you cant roll that 100m into next season.

In reply to the person who said its an easy bailout of your poor budgeting, thats not true. You are giving away a talent to get that money. Its far from free. If you want to make that argument, then saying trading a minor league pitcher for a major league pitcher to help during the stretch run is just a bailout for the team making the stretch run because they did not properly plan for needing that extra pitcher..

You can turn it into 50m prospect. That should get you some pretty good internationals to kickstart your depleted farm system.

Seriously, if you don't see the problem, I can't explain it to you.
6/13/2009 3:45 PM
danmam
Posts: 342 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 22 22 82
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By danmam on 6/13/2009I don't really understand your post. Could you rephrase please?Sure.If you allow one trade to go thru, you can't veto an identical trade later on because you decide "it's gone too far".Consistent veto policy.   Plain and simple.

First of all, if you're talking about vetoing a trade between two owners ("owner C" and "owner D") that is very similar to a trade that went through between two other owners ("owner A" and "owner B"), I don't see why that necessarily would need to be vetoed. If 2 (or 4, or 6) different teams acquire $3 million each, I don't see how that really hurts the league. It's not like one team is gaining a huge advantage on the rest of the world.

If you're talking about a single team acquiring $3 million (or $5 million) per trade in 3 or 4 or more trades, and eventually one of those trades gets vetoed, that's not necessarily inconsistent veto standards. You don't have to have a standard along the lines of "I will/will not veto any cash trade" to be consistent. Your consistency could lie along the lines of "I will veto any trade that I feel gives one team an unfair competitive advantage, or hurts the world as a whole."

Now, you ask, where is the line drawn? That's up to each owner to decide. But as long as each owner cares about the world (or at least a majority of them do), and vetoes when things get out of hand, cash trades can work and won't be detrimental to the league.
6/13/2009 3:51 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Here's the problem(try to follow along):

Player A makes a trade and gets 5m more in cash in the deal . Player B, C and D get in on the action because they have extra payroll. So you're prepared to tell Player E that he can't take advantage of the same deal because "it's going too far"?

Sorry, Player E has EVERY RIGHT to do EVERTHING in his power to ruin the league.
6/13/2009 3:58 PM
danmam
Posts: 342 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 22 22 82
Prospect
But why is player E's trade "going too far"? If 4 teams have added extra payroll, one more team doing the same isn't in any way, shape, or form hurting the competitive balance of the league. What's the problem with that?

I think too many owners have been conditioned to think that any shifting of payroll, in any way, hurts the league. But how does it hurt the league (at least in this instance)?
6/13/2009 4:02 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I don't know. You're the one setting the loose rules on "too far". I'm just providing examples.

FWIW, Player A is getting the cash.
6/13/2009 4:04 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Your post:



Quote: Originally Posted By danmam on 6/13/2009

Mike, we all know that if you go too far in cash trades there are bad consequences. However, if you've got a world with owners who are not willing to let it go that far (who each draw their own line, as you put it) cash trades are kept under control, but still allowed. And it is not detrimental to the world at all. They're not ALL evil.

6/13/2009 4:05 PM
tropicana
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
184 13 588 202 293
Prospect
Note to self -- stay out of leagues with danmam and oriole...
6/13/2009 4:14 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
FWIW, if a world wants to adopt a "Do what you want, it's your team" attitude, good for them. I won't play in it but, if the rules are the same for everyone, there shouldn't be any ********(or vetoes).
6/13/2009 4:19 PM
danmam
Posts: 342 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 22 22 82
Prospect
Mike, you provided the example of going too far, in your post about the guy receiving $100 million in 20+ trades. That's obviously too far, and that upsets the competitive advantage. But how does letting 5 teams get $5 million hurt the league?

My point is, just because cash trades CAN hurt a league (when taken too far), doesn't mean they should all be flat-out banned. As long as you've got half-decent owners who realize this, they're not a problem.
6/13/2009 4:23 PM
tropicana
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
184 13 588 202 293
Prospect
How about 1 team getting 5 million each from 5 teams? Is that too much? Is 5 million from 6 teams too much? I mean, it's only 5 million more, just 20%. How about 5 million from 7 teams?? thats only about 16-17% more...

Or, how about 1 team getting 5 million 5 times from ONE team? Is that ok? I mean, by your logic, it's basically the same thing.

You see what the problem is here? This is the can of worms you've opened, and you can't just say, "Hmm, that didn't feel right." You have to have a rule. And to say something like, well, five of those trades is ok, but a sixth isn't is intellectually dishonest.
6/13/2009 4:27 PM
danmam
Posts: 342 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 22 22 82
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by tropicana on 6/13/2009Note to self -- stay out of leagues with danmam and oriole...
You'll find that the majority of owners (yes, even solid, successful, veteran owners) don't have a problem with cash trades as long as they're checked so they don't go too far.

But the minority is very outspoken, and has managed to attach a stigma to cash trades so that they're seen as only happening in 'tard worlds, when in reality that's not the case, nor should it be.
6/13/2009 4:27 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Goddam, you're dense. You tell me "too far" and I'll tell you why it's wrong to let one deal go thru and then veto a similar deal under the "keeping it under control" umbrella.
6/13/2009 4:27 PM
tropicana
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
184 13 588 202 293
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tropicana on 6/13/2009
How about 1 team getting 5 million each from 5 teams? Is that too much? Is 5 million from 6 teams too much? I mean, it's only 5 million more, just 20%. How about 5 million from 7 teams?? thats only about 16-17% more...

Or, how about 1 team getting 5 million 5 times from ONE team? Is that ok? I mean, by your logic, it's basically the same thing.

You see what the problem is here? This is the can of worms you've opened, and you can't just say, "Hmm, that didn't feel right." You have to have a rule. And to say something like, well, five of those trades is ok, but a sixth isn't is intellectually dishonest.

6/13/2009 4:28 PM
tropicana
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
184 13 588 202 293
Prospect
Hey Mike, Happy Jack is now officially Tardy Jack. Thanks for getting me in there, jesus.
6/13/2009 4:32 PM
danmam
Posts: 342 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 22 22 82
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by tropicana on 6/13/2009How about 1 team getting 5 million each from 5 teams?  Is that too much?  Is 5 million from 6 teams too much?  I mean, it's only 5 million more, just 20%.  How about 5 million from 7 teams??  thats only about 16-17% more...Or, how about 1 team getting 5 million 5 times from ONE team?  Is that ok?  I mean, by your logic, it's basically the same thing.  You see what the problem is here?  This is the can of worms you've opened, and you can't just say, "Hmm, that didn't feel right."  You have to have a rule.  And to say something like, well, five of those trades is ok, but a sixth isn't is intellectually dishonest.
Now tell me, exactly, WHAT is wrong with vetoing the 2nd or 3rd trade in which a team receives cash? You've got some mystical standard of absolute, non-flinching consistency that you've absolutely GOT to meet in order for a veto to be legitimate in your eyes.

Things don't work that way in HBD. When you see a player-for-player trade, do you have an absolute standard as to whether you're going to veto that trade or not? If the player Team A is sending away has an overall rating 5 or more points lower than the player Team B is sending away, is that an automatic veto? Well, if it's not, then you're vetoing inconsistently, by your standards. (overall rating was just used as an example here, to show how impractical your standards are)

I think you approach vetoes in a much more practical way. You look at a trade on a case-by-case basis. If you feel that it is fair and upholds the league's competitive balance you let it go through. The same holds true for trades involving cash. You don't need a set-in-stone standard, just half a brain, to realize when a trade is hurting a world.

6/13/2009 4:35 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...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.