Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 12/10/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By gman981981 on 12/09/2009
One's ML record should improve greatly after giving up prospects for ML talent also. I'm for cash trades even if I haven't done many of them. The value of cash and players may be debatable, but I think it has a measurable value so I'm ok with it being traded. I haven't read through the details of your trade, but if your trade was unfair, I would say that you should have given up more in prospects, or gotten less money.
I think budgeting still matters, acquiring cash in a trade should just mean that you have to give up better prospects to get the ML guy and the cash.
You should probably read up on the details.
I turned my team from a maybe WC team into a division winner by having someone else pay for 3 of my players. Yes, I gave up some prospects but, by and large, the entire world was saying I had nothing of value in my system(I disagree but whatever) and wouldn't trade with me. So, if you believe I had nothing of value to deal, I got three free players.
It's a great way to build/replenish a team.
Just playing devil's advocate here Mike. I think what the pro-cash advocates would say here is this: forget everyone else in the World's opinion of your prospects. From your own admitted perspective, you gave up prospects of some value to get the ML players + cash. From your own admitted perspective, you sacrificed pieces of your team's future to improve its present, which is what we do whenever we trade prospects for players.
The fact that the other players in your World were saying your prospects were of no value and then didn't veto any of these deals would seem to be the odd part of all of this. The pro-cash advocates would probably say that either:
A) You really did have prospects of value (just as you thought!), and upon closer inpection they changed their opinion of your prospects and hence didn't veto.
B) Your prospects were in fact poor, these were bad trades, and many of the World's owners were asleep at the veto switch.
C) The other owners in your World under-valued the veteran players you were getting, and thus your advantage was not cash-in-trades but rather a better eye for useful talent. Or
D) You gave up prospects that weren't great, got back players that weren't great, and your turnaround has to do, either in large part or in whole, with something other than the guys you acquired. Perhaps strength of schedule, a hot prospect callup, an injury to a division rival's key player, simply a slump followed by a hot streak, or the latest sim update, which I'm guessing occurred sometime close to the middle of your season and perhaps played to your team's strengths. This is basically a variation on the "small sample size" argument.
Or I suppose (E) A combination of these factors.
I'm not sure what I think about it, but I'm pretty sure this is what the pro-cash advocates would say about your team and its turnaround.