Too bad jrd_x is no longer around.  I'm sure he would have added some of his unique and helpful insight.

I think bwb just grudgingly got it, because he just deleted a scenario that would have proved him wrong.

I feel we'll never know, but I'll take the small maybe sort of victory.

Really, all he needs to do is start a trade with russillini in Bench, who already has $10M in extra cap room pre season. If he doesn't see $195M there, he never will.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hbdgirl on 7/30/2012 4:43:00 PM (view original):
True. But on its own, the idea of giving another owner $5M more than everybody else while bringing my total budget down to $180M is pretty unappealing. I'd have to be getting a screaming deal to agree to that.

Holy ****.  I literally cannot believe what I am reading.

Sigh.......

Question, jclark. And yes, I'm getting philosophical. There is also a follow up question/point depending on how you answer this:

Do you see the $185M as a budget given to you, or a cap the league imposes?

Isn't the correct answer "WifS gives me a 185m budget and the tools to increase it.   They also give the league the tools to impose a 185m cap"?

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2012 5:24:00 PM (view original):
So you're trying to free up 10m?   You're trading a 5m player and getting 5m in cash?

Either way, I have no problem with you waiving a good 5m player.   Knock yourself out.   There's no "I'll help you out" factor in play. 

No, iam trading a 5m  player who is fairly valued and a 27k player for a 27k player both 27k are minor leaguers forever.. the player is being flat out sold . the trade is very unbalanced in talent, but I get the dough I need for whatever, and he gets the player he wants.

Posted by bwb53 on 7/30/2012 8:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2012 5:24:00 PM (view original):
So you're trying to free up 10m?   You're trading a 5m player and getting 5m in cash?

Either way, I have no problem with you waiving a good 5m player.   Knock yourself out.   There's no "I'll help you out" factor in play. 

No, iam trading a 5m  player who is fairly valued and a 27k player for a 27k player both 27k are minor leaguers forever.. the player is being flat out sold . the trade is very unbalanced in talent, but I get the dough I need for whatever, and he gets the player he wants.

So no exchange of cash involved? Great. It'll get vetoed because it's not balanced, but like you said, just waive him then. Different problem that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2012 7:33:00 PM (view original):
Isn't the correct answer "WifS gives me a 185m budget and the tools to increase it.   They also give the league the tools to impose a 185m cap"?

Yes, thats correct. But I'm asking more, why is this 185M limitation here, if this pretend game was real. Is it because the league has a salary cap? Or because ownership told you "Your budget is 185m, that's all I can spend." (and it just so happens thats true of every team).

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/30/2012 9:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 7/30/2012 8:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2012 5:24:00 PM (view original):
So you're trying to free up 10m?   You're trading a 5m player and getting 5m in cash?

Either way, I have no problem with you waiving a good 5m player.   Knock yourself out.   There's no "I'll help you out" factor in play. 

No, iam trading a 5m  player who is fairly valued and a 27k player for a 27k player both 27k are minor leaguers forever.. the player is being flat out sold . the trade is very unbalanced in talent, but I get the dough I need for whatever, and he gets the player he wants.

So no exchange of cash involved? Great. It'll get vetoed because it's not balanced, but like you said, just waive him then. Different problem that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Now drop the the 27k players from both sides and sub 5m on the buyer side, and tell me the difference? Yes I know it is a trade that cannot be made because there has to be a player on both sides, but this is the same thing.

Posted by bwb53 on 7/30/2012 9:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/30/2012 9:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bwb53 on 7/30/2012 8:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2012 5:24:00 PM (view original):
So you're trying to free up 10m?   You're trading a 5m player and getting 5m in cash?

Either way, I have no problem with you waiving a good 5m player.   Knock yourself out.   There's no "I'll help you out" factor in play. 

No, iam trading a 5m  player who is fairly valued and a 27k player for a 27k player both 27k are minor leaguers forever.. the player is being flat out sold . the trade is very unbalanced in talent, but I get the dough I need for whatever, and he gets the player he wants.

So no exchange of cash involved? Great. It'll get vetoed because it's not balanced, but like you said, just waive him then. Different problem that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Now drop the the 27k players from both sides and sub 5m on the buyer side, and tell me the difference? Yes I know it is a trade that cannot be made because there has to be a player on both sides, but this is the same thing.

You have an additional $5M of cap space you didn't have before in the other trade. They're actually nothing alike. Either that or I'm not understanding what you're saying.

Posted by bfkfraser on 7/30/2012 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 1:13:00 PM (view original):
I hope you guys all hire accountants.  Because they have an understanding of assets, liabilities and equity.

As an accountant, I will assure you this is less about accounting and more about keeping the competitive balance.    When you set your $185M budget, you made choices.   These choices gave you advantages in some areas and disadvantages in others based upon your team makeup, strategy, and direction.   When you send money to another coach, you give said coach the ability to alleviate some of his/her disadvantages by giving them money over the 185M.   This is  not only an advantage over your team, but all of the 30 other teams not involved.   It allows a coach to shortfall an area of his/her budget if he/she expects to get cash later to make up for it.  Hence, people saying 190>185.   Not surprisingly, many of these coaches have learned this already from experience.

I will cast a veto on any trade that includes cash in excess of the difference in salaries.  If the cash is less than the difference in salaries, then I may or may not cast a veto vote depending on various circumstances including, but not limited to, the time of season, and the amount of cash

When you trade someone a ML SP, you give that coach the ability to alleviate his disadvantage in ML SP.  This is not only an advantage over your team, but all 30 other teams.  It allows a coach to shortfall his/her ML starting pitching if he/she expects to get a SP later to make up for it.

Wow, that was easy.

Now, explain what advantage there is to getting $5m in cash, as opposed to cutting $5m in liabilities.

Posted by hbdgirl on 7/30/2012 5:49:00 PM (view original):
Not quite. Your payroll and cap are $100M. You trade the player for $5M and receive $5M cash. Your payroll goes down to $95M and your cap goes up to $105M. You now have $10M available. If you waive the player your payroll goes down to $95M and your cap stays at $100M leaving $5M available. See now?

Bwb must have missed this post ....

Posted by toddcommish on 7/30/2012 7:00:00 PM (view original):
50 more pages to catch up to the Lefty 2B thread....

There was 50 pages on lefty 2b?  Seriously?

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 9:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bfkfraser on 7/30/2012 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 1:13:00 PM (view original):
I hope you guys all hire accountants.  Because they have an understanding of assets, liabilities and equity.

As an accountant, I will assure you this is less about accounting and more about keeping the competitive balance.    When you set your $185M budget, you made choices.   These choices gave you advantages in some areas and disadvantages in others based upon your team makeup, strategy, and direction.   When you send money to another coach, you give said coach the ability to alleviate some of his/her disadvantages by giving them money over the 185M.   This is  not only an advantage over your team, but all of the 30 other teams not involved.   It allows a coach to shortfall an area of his/her budget if he/she expects to get cash later to make up for it.  Hence, people saying 190>185.   Not surprisingly, many of these coaches have learned this already from experience.

I will cast a veto on any trade that includes cash in excess of the difference in salaries.  If the cash is less than the difference in salaries, then I may or may not cast a veto vote depending on various circumstances including, but not limited to, the time of season, and the amount of cash

When you trade someone a ML SP, you give that coach the ability to alleviate his disadvantage in ML SP.  This is not only an advantage over your team, but all 30 other teams.  It allows a coach to shortfall his/her ML starting pitching if he/she expects to get a SP later to make up for it.

Wow, that was easy.

Now, explain what advantage their is to getting $5m in cash, as opposed to cutting $5m in liabilities.

Dumbest. Post. Ever.

As bfkfraser said, "veto any trade that includes cash in excess of the difference in salaries" seems like a very reasonable stance to me. 

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/30/2012 9:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 7/30/2012 7:00:00 PM (view original):
50 more pages to catch up to the Lefty 2B thread....

There was 50 pages on lefty 2b?  Seriously?

No no... 80