Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2012 6:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2012 4:46:00 PM (view original):
Thus the rules limiting cash inclusion in some worlds.

I'm still waiting for jclark to provide some examples proving that the better team gets cash, the better team is still better 3 seasons later and that one or both owners are gone after 5 seasons.

Oh, I see.  You think you win arguments by putting forth a theory, and then your opponent has to prove it false.  No, you see, that is what someone does who either knows he cannot prove his theory, has grave doubts about proving it, or is just too damn lazy to prove it.  Or, even more sadly, thinks that such a tactic makes his argument better.

Sorry, you refuted it.  I've already confirmed it.   I'm telling you, if you don't think it's right, to simply check worlds with heavy cash trading.  You'll see it.  You won't come back and say "Yeah, you're right" because it shoots your argument all to ****.   But I am right.   Anyone who disagrees can check it.

You've already confirmed it?  Really?  How many leagues did you review in this study?  What's the sample size?

Are you aware of the immense flaw right from the get go?  That one team is better than the other?

"I am right.  Anyone who disagrees can check it."  Again, great argument.  Fantastic.  So convincing.  You're literally a joke.  You go from making a straw man argument to this argument.  It is as if the only class you have ever taken is "Poor debating techniques 101".

Win totals indicates who's better, right?  Check it.   Then, we you see I'm right, STFU.  

First one I checked from Kinsella.

15	Chicago White Sox	jnewfry	$0	Welington Rojas	Rob Ramirez	Magglio Martinez
15	Cleveland Indians	drichter	$5.0M	Diego Wilfredo	Norm Clayton	-

Both are still there 5 seasons later.  Who has the better record since the 5m giveaway?

 You had to make some transaction.If you what you gave up for the 5m was worth less, you're ahead. If he was worth more, then you are behind.

Since I'm sure you'd rather not say:

15	Chicago White Sox	jnewfry	$0	Welington Rojas	Rob Ramirez	Magglio Martinez
15	Cleveland Indians	drichter	$5.0M	Diego Wilfredo	Norm Clayton	-

Kinsella	CLE Indians	15	$62.7M	57-105 (.352)	4	-
Kinsella	CLE Indians	16	$58.2M	75-87 (.463)	2	-
Kinsella	CLE Indians	17	$63.5M	74-88 (.457)	4	-
Kinsella	CLE Indians	18	$51.4M	62-100 (.383)	4	-
Kinsella	CLE Indians	19	$62.8M	63-99 (.389)	4	-

Kinsella	CH2 White Sox	15	$69.0M	100-62 (.617)	1	X
Kinsella	CH2 White Sox	16	$70.9M	113-49 (.698)	1	-
Kinsella	CH2 White Sox	17	$74.8M	115-47 (.710)	1	-
Kinsella	CH2 White Sox	18	$76.2M	95-67 (.586)	1	-
Kinsella	CH2 White Sox	19	$88.5M	99-63 (.611)	1	-

Too difficult to figure out?

I'll help.  One guy wins a WS and averages over 100 wins per season.  The other is averaging about 95 losses per season since giving out 5m    Good trade?

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 9:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2012 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 5:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2012 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Let me try again.

It's near the trade deadline.  You have $2m of available cap space.  You find a trading partner who is willing to trade you a stud ML pitcher who has $7m still left on his contract this season for a stud prospect of comparable projected ratings.  You need to cover the difference of $5m of cap space.

What is easier: (a) accepting $5m cash from the trading partner (assuming he is willing to do that because he really covets the stud prospect), or (b) clearing $5m cap space on your own via a separate deal before you make the deal outlined above?

What is easier because of time constraints is doing the deal and getting the $5m.  But is the deal as you indicated fair?  I would say probably not.  If the ML pitcher has comparable ratings to the projected ratings of the prospect, I am getting the better deal.  It probably gets vetoed.  Not because I cannot cover the salary, but because I am not giving up anything to get that $5m.

See?  Now was that so difficult, to admit that accepting cash in deals is the lazy man's way to circumventing cap problems?

Next question: is having an effective $190m budget with $10m of available cap space the same as having a $185m budget with $10m of available cap space?

Dumping a high priced ML player for prospects is pretty damn easy.  So I really don't know what point you're trying to make.

Is it the same?  No.  Do you have the exact same amount of money to use.  Yes.  Cap space is all that matters.  Because you give up value to increase that cap number.  There is no windfall.

"Dumping a high priced ML player for prospects is pretty damn easy."

Is it?  You can take any player on your team with a high salary and trade him for comparable prospects at will?

Also, $190m budget with $10m cap space is NOT the same as $185m budget with $10m cap space, because that additional $5m budget has been spent somewhere.  So where did it go?

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2012 9:14:00 PM (view original):
I'll help.  One guy wins a WS and averages over 100 wins per season.  The other is averaging about 95 losses per season since giving out 5m    Good trade?

BTW, he got 5.3m in trades in S19 and lost the WS.   He's pretty good at getting others to help him win.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2012 9:14:00 PM (view original):
I'll help.  One guy wins a WS and averages over 100 wins per season.  The other is averaging about 95 losses per season since giving out 5m    Good trade?

Congratulations.  Fantastic sample size.  And you completely fail to address any other variables.  The other major flaw of your "study".

Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2012 9:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 9:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2012 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 5:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2012 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Let me try again.

It's near the trade deadline.  You have $2m of available cap space.  You find a trading partner who is willing to trade you a stud ML pitcher who has $7m still left on his contract this season for a stud prospect of comparable projected ratings.  You need to cover the difference of $5m of cap space.

What is easier: (a) accepting $5m cash from the trading partner (assuming he is willing to do that because he really covets the stud prospect), or (b) clearing $5m cap space on your own via a separate deal before you make the deal outlined above?

What is easier because of time constraints is doing the deal and getting the $5m.  But is the deal as you indicated fair?  I would say probably not.  If the ML pitcher has comparable ratings to the projected ratings of the prospect, I am getting the better deal.  It probably gets vetoed.  Not because I cannot cover the salary, but because I am not giving up anything to get that $5m.

See?  Now was that so difficult, to admit that accepting cash in deals is the lazy man's way to circumventing cap problems?

Next question: is having an effective $190m budget with $10m of available cap space the same as having a $185m budget with $10m of available cap space?

Dumping a high priced ML player for prospects is pretty damn easy.  So I really don't know what point you're trying to make.

Is it the same?  No.  Do you have the exact same amount of money to use.  Yes.  Cap space is all that matters.  Because you give up value to increase that cap number.  There is no windfall.

"Dumping a high priced ML player for prospects is pretty damn easy."

Is it?  You can take any player on your team with a high salary and trade him for comparable prospects at will?

Also, $190m budget with $10m cap space is NOT the same as $185m budget with $10m cap space, because that additional $5m budget has been spent somewhere.  So where did it go?

It is amazing that you keep missing the big elephant in the room:  you are giving up value to get the extra cap space.  It doesn't just appear out of no where and then you have extra money to spend.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 3:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by alleyviper on 7/26/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):
I made this point in WC and I'll express it here, too.

The idea of every team "only" having 185m to work with I think is given way too much credence by people who play this game.  I look at it this way: every world has a pool of $5.92 billion each season that is evenly distributed to the 32 teams, each gets 185m. It is then up to the 32 owners to take advantage of that 5.92b as they will.  Everyone in the world, every single owner, has the same opportunities to try and wrest some of that 5.92b from owners.  There is nothing unfair there, they all have the same 31 other owners to negotiate with, the same total pool to try and acquire as they will.  

It would be one thing if one owner were to somehow acquire an additional 5m from out of nowhere, 5m that the other 31 owners had no access to whatsoever.  THAT would be unfair.  As is, every owner has the same access and means to a chunk of the 5.92b pool beyond their initial 185m as every other owner has, which is entirely fair.  To say that every owner "only" gets 185 and has to live with it is to ignore that the world only has a set amount of money available that all 32 owners have equal access to.  There are no printing machines that can give one owner an unfair advantage over the rest of the world.

You confused them with this one.

I will quote alleyviper again.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 10:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2012 9:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 9:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2012 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/29/2012 5:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2012 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Let me try again.

It's near the trade deadline.  You have $2m of available cap space.  You find a trading partner who is willing to trade you a stud ML pitcher who has $7m still left on his contract this season for a stud prospect of comparable projected ratings.  You need to cover the difference of $5m of cap space.

What is easier: (a) accepting $5m cash from the trading partner (assuming he is willing to do that because he really covets the stud prospect), or (b) clearing $5m cap space on your own via a separate deal before you make the deal outlined above?

What is easier because of time constraints is doing the deal and getting the $5m.  But is the deal as you indicated fair?  I would say probably not.  If the ML pitcher has comparable ratings to the projected ratings of the prospect, I am getting the better deal.  It probably gets vetoed.  Not because I cannot cover the salary, but because I am not giving up anything to get that $5m.

See?  Now was that so difficult, to admit that accepting cash in deals is the lazy man's way to circumventing cap problems?

Next question: is having an effective $190m budget with $10m of available cap space the same as having a $185m budget with $10m of available cap space?

Dumping a high priced ML player for prospects is pretty damn easy.  So I really don't know what point you're trying to make.

Is it the same?  No.  Do you have the exact same amount of money to use.  Yes.  Cap space is all that matters.  Because you give up value to increase that cap number.  There is no windfall.

"Dumping a high priced ML player for prospects is pretty damn easy."

Is it?  You can take any player on your team with a high salary and trade him for comparable prospects at will?

Also, $190m budget with $10m cap space is NOT the same as $185m budget with $10m cap space, because that additional $5m budget has been spent somewhere.  So where did it go?

It is amazing that you keep missing the big elephant in the room:  you are giving up value to get the extra cap space.  It doesn't just appear out of no where and then you have extra money to spend.

Again, you avoid answering the questions.

Why is that?

Quoting a failed attempt at justification is always a good plan. This argument is essentially anyone can persuade another owner to do him a favor, so there's nothing wrong with me doing it. There's simply no way to argue with a straight face that the player values warrant a $5M cash gift, and gift is the only appropriate word for it.

The elephant in the room is the source of the 5m cash,and how it was accrued. The other side of the transaction that netted the 5m.