Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2011 10:02:00 AM (view original):
booger makes a good point.    Team C may have made a bad signing.   Now, because he's willing to pay part of the current salary, he's being bailed out of his poor decision.  Why should he be helped?

You can inherit a bad signing (and usually you do) when you take on a team.

Posted by shobob on 4/3/2011 7:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2011 10:02:00 AM (view original):
booger makes a good point.    Team C may have made a bad signing.   Now, because he's willing to pay part of the current salary, he's being bailed out of his poor decision.  Why should he be helped?

You can inherit a bad signing (and usually you do) when you take on a team.

I guess you don't get to look at the team and plan for whatever is thrown your way.   That's what I'd do.

Posted by boogerlips on 4/3/2011 7:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2011 6:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by boogerlips on 4/3/2011 1:39:00 PM (view original):
How is sending money with an overpaid player a bailout? If you're overpaying a player by 4mil, you've wasted 4mil. If you send that player to another team along with 4mil, you've wasted 4mil. The end result is the same financial situation that each team had before the trade. Which is the point. Cash is needed to make the exchange fair.
Bailing an owner out of a bad contract, would be accepting a trade without cash being sent.

"overpaying a player by 4mil".

Please explain how you can determine that a player is overpaid by $4m, as opposed to being overpaid by $2m or $1m, or even $1.

This is a picture of an obtuse angle.                                                        This is a picture of tecwrg. See any similarities?                    

                                                                                                                                  

So tecwrg and former (I think) GD coach obtuseangle are one and the same?  Why play different games with different names?

Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2011 6:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by boogerlips on 4/3/2011 1:39:00 PM (view original):
How is sending money with an overpaid player a bailout? If you're overpaying a player by 4mil, you've wasted 4mil. If you send that player to another team along with 4mil, you've wasted 4mil. The end result is the same financial situation that each team had before the trade. Which is the point. Cash is needed to make the exchange fair.
Bailing an owner out of a bad contract, would be accepting a trade without cash being sent.

"overpaying a player by 4mil".

Please explain how you can determine that a player is overpaid by $4m, as opposed to being overpaid by $2m or $1m, or even $1.

Are you unable to answer this question?

I'll take that as "No, I am not able to answer the question".

If you think brick walls can ask questions, you've got bigger problems than cash in trade debates.

I asked a brick today "is 189M greater than 185M" and it said "of course. What dumbass wouldn't know that?"

the only thing about cash in trades that I don't like is when a team has enough money to take on the player and they get cash anyway.  If you have $7 million player salary free, then you don't need cash to take on a $5 million contract.  I've seen it where a guy with 7m free space takes on a 5m player plus 2m cash.  I don't like that.  If you only have 2m free then yes, you are entitled to 3m cash.  If i have the 5m player but would rather have the prospect(s) instead, hell yes I'll give you 3m cash to cover the salary.  But I'm not giving you money if you don't NEED it.

Entitled?  How is anybody "entitled" to receive cash in a trade?

I knew the word "entitled" would cause a stir when I made that post.  The answer is because a lot of people are willing to offer it.

So one is "entitled" to have sex with a prostitute?   I bet wives around the world will disagree.