I said I was teasing. now go answer my question in your thread

You must be thrilled being forced to have health insurance in your near future. 

I already have health insurance through my employer thanks

That is good to hear. 

death seldom makes a good point and I'm not even sure it's in this thread.    There is 5.92B to distribute.   If you were to start a world with 4 teams having 225m and 4 teams having 140m to use with other 24 teams staggered somewhere in the middle, no one would join.   Along the lines of what SP said wrt socialism, some owners might actually need the 85m advantage to compete but there's no way, in HBD, to make sure those guys get the extra budget teams.   Anyway, my point is everyone has a breaking point as to where a budget advantage is "too much".    It's just not the same for everyone.

Which makes you wonder why people are fans of the real MLB.  No one would join HBD if it was really structured like MLB.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/31/2011 7:13:00 PM (view original):
It's odd that you're incapable of separating real world issues from an internet game economics.    I'd have thought you smarter than that.  I'm forced to break up with you.  Gimme back my letter jacket.

I'm not incapable of separating them.  I just don't want to.

And your chess team letterman's jacket shrunk in the wash.

The more the 'no money in trades' guys make their case, the funnier it gets.

How come trading a ML player for a prospect is OK, but trading cash for a prospect is not?

Both are trading away today's assets for future returns.

As soon as someone can make a case why one trade is OK and the other not, I'll take this argument seriously.

Mike & Deathhole can restate the same points over and over and over and over all they want.  It doesn't make them any more correct.

IMO different worlds having different rules is a great idea.  If 32 people want to play in a world with no money trades, good for them. Would be nice if WIS made that an option.  And that would make as much sense as a rule that you can't trade ML-ready players for prospects.  I wouldn't play in that world, but more power to the 32 people that want to.

IMO strategy option out of the game for all worlds does not seem like a good idea.

MIke & Deathhole aren't going to change their minds.  But if nobody voices another opinion, WIS might think they speak for most owners and implement something that would make the game less challenging.

Posted by silentpadna on 4/1/2011 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/31/2011 7:13:00 PM (view original):
It's odd that you're incapable of separating real world issues from an internet game economics.    I'd have thought you smarter than that.  I'm forced to break up with you.  Gimme back my letter jacket.

I'm not incapable of separating them.  I just don't want to.

And your chess team letterman's jacket shrunk in the wash.

I wasn't talking to you.

Posted by tufft on 4/2/2011 1:34:00 AM (view original):
The more the 'no money in trades' guys make their case, the funnier it gets.

How come trading a ML player for a prospect is OK, but trading cash for a prospect is not?

Both are trading away today's assets for future returns.

As soon as someone can make a case why one trade is OK and the other not, I'll take this argument seriously.

Mike & Deathhole can restate the same points over and over and over and over all they want.  It doesn't make them any more correct.

IMO different worlds having different rules is a great idea.  If 32 people want to play in a world with no money trades, good for them. Would be nice if WIS made that an option.  And that would make as much sense as a rule that you can't trade ML-ready players for prospects.  I wouldn't play in that world, but more power to the 32 people that want to.

IMO strategy option out of the game for all worlds does not seem like a good idea.

MIke & Deathhole aren't going to change their minds.  But if nobody voices another opinion, WIS might think they speak for most owners and implement something that would make the game less challenging.

I think I can speak for death when I say "We're just hoping you'll take this argument seriously one day.   That's why we live."

Posted by tufft on 4/2/2011 1:34:00 AM (view original):
The more the 'no money in trades' guys make their case, the funnier it gets.

How come trading a ML player for a prospect is OK, but trading cash for a prospect is not?

Both are trading away today's assets for future returns.

As soon as someone can make a case why one trade is OK and the other not, I'll take this argument seriously.

Mike & Deathhole can restate the same points over and over and over and over all they want.  It doesn't make them any more correct.

IMO different worlds having different rules is a great idea.  If 32 people want to play in a world with no money trades, good for them. Would be nice if WIS made that an option.  And that would make as much sense as a rule that you can't trade ML-ready players for prospects.  I wouldn't play in that world, but more power to the 32 people that want to.

IMO strategy option out of the game for all worlds does not seem like a good idea.

MIke & Deathhole aren't going to change their minds.  But if nobody voices another opinion, WIS might think they speak for most owners and implement something that would make the game less challenging.

It's a philosophical debate.  Nobody is demanding or expecting the option is taken away from the game.  They're just making very valid points about how it can (and does) screw up the short-term (and long-term) competitive balance of worlds.

Owners who think cash in trades, and trading top prospects for a TC pitcher and $5m, is perfectly acceptable should play in worlds with 31 owners who all feel the same way.

Owners who feel differently should play in worlds with other owners who are like-minded.

>>>Nobody is demanding or expecting the option is taken away from the game. <<<

If you look in the Suggestions section, you'll see that they are.

>> it can (and does) screw up the short-term (and long-term) competitive balance of worlds <<

Agreed.  It's possible, and I'm sure it's happened.

Here are some other things that can (and do) screw up the short-term (and long-term) competitive balance of worlds.

- trading prospects for vets

- trading vets for prospects

- letting new owners who might not (yet) be very good at the game join any world

- allowing long-term owners who have .400 winning percentages to continue to play

- allowing owners who have number crunched the game for years to play, as most people probably haven't done that so the long-time math majors have an advantage.

- allowing commissioners to control who joints worlds, as they can let in friends or alias that cooperate.

- Type A/B compensation. Once imbalance happens, that helps make it permanent.

- Allowing tanking for many seasons to build up pile of high draft picks.

- Allowing owners that have been in a world for many season to set Adv Scouting at 0 and have their scout projections from previous seasons.

And I'm sure I left some favorites off the list.

Nobody has made a case that money in trades is any more of a problem than any of these.

I don't think anyone who's thought this through thinks money in trades can't possibly cause problems.

What the people who want to make 'no money' a rule aren't thinking through is allowing money in trades is the fastest way to fix a team that's been damaged by any of the above.

Posted by tufft on 4/2/2011 12:44:00 PM (view original):
>>>Nobody is demanding or expecting the option is taken away from the game. <<<

If you look in the Suggestions section, you'll see that they are.

>> it can (and does) screw up the short-term (and long-term) competitive balance of worlds <<

Agreed.  It's possible, and I'm sure it's happened.

Here are some other things that can (and do) screw up the short-term (and long-term) competitive balance of worlds.

- trading prospects for vets

- trading vets for prospects

- letting new owners who might not (yet) be very good at the game join any world

- allowing long-term owners who have .400 winning percentages to continue to play

- allowing owners who have number crunched the game for years to play, as most people probably haven't done that so the long-time math majors have an advantage.

- allowing commissioners to control who joints worlds, as they can let in friends or alias that cooperate.

- Type A/B compensation. Once imbalance happens, that helps make it permanent.

- Allowing tanking for many seasons to build up pile of high draft picks.

- Allowing owners that have been in a world for many season to set Adv Scouting at 0 and have their scout projections from previous seasons.

And I'm sure I left some favorites off the list.

Nobody has made a case that money in trades is any more of a problem than any of these.

I don't think anyone who's thought this through thinks money in trades can't possibly cause problems.

What the people who want to make 'no money' a rule aren't thinking through is allowing money in trades is the fastest way to fix a team that's been damaged by any of the above.

I'm not saying I'm in favour of not allowing cash to be traded, but quite often cash in trades is used to allow people to sign picks/make roster moves after they blew their wad on an IFA, or budgeted foolishly.  That's what vetoing is for.

Exactly.  Too often cash is used to bail people out of holes they dug themselves into.  They set a prospect budget, then blow it all on an IFA, then don't have enough to sign their first round picks. 

To make an analogy, it's kind of like not being able to pay your mortgage because you just spent all your money on a 42" plasma TV.  I can't imagine many people can look on while their co-worker or neighbor frequently makes poor financial decisions like that and not formulate an opinion on their common sense.  Yet, in HBD, it's not just OK, but it's frequently enabled by others willing to pass cash around freely.

I don't think we need to do away with cash in trades though.  In a good world, such shenanigans are vetoed.  There is a good use of cash in trades.  Playoff bound teams can "load up" with expiring contracts in exchange for prospects.  The same prospects that they acquired through type A/B compensation from letting the players with expiring contracts walk.  It can be a cycle that doesn't necessarily lead to imbalanced talent levels.