If there's a prospect budget cap, it mitigates the following two situations a little. But these are two scenarios I've seen play out more than once.

1/ A big IFA has just shown up. It's later in the season. Say two teams are going back and forth bidding for him, one of the teams reaches his limit. Suddenly one of those teams tries to sneak a trade in under the radar with an extra two mil that seems unrelated to the players involved. Seems to me that owner is just trying to free up cash to end run the other owner. Sure, many of you say that's fair game, I say no.

2/ Owner blows too much cash on IFA early in season, drafts a player in amateur draft he can no longer afford. Suddenly he's trying to make trades mid season that have nothing to do with how his team is performing. Like I said earlier, why should the rest of the league help him get players he can't afford?

But in that situation the team will have to give up a player in order to get that extra million or so. And it's not like the other team will just hand over millions of dollars for a player neither of you are going to use. In that situation I see it as I am willing to give up this decent player for a couple million dollars because I need to sign my draft pick. The consequence of not having enough money to sign the draft pick is having to trade a decent player for the cash. The other team is willing to give up extra cash they probably won't use to acquire this decent player to help their team.

I can see the issue if $5-10 million is exchanged for a player or if the player is absolutely worthless. But, if the player actually helps the team who is giving a couple million for, I don't have the issue with it.

Posted by frymaster99 on 8/19/2016 9:48:00 AM (view original):
You seem to have skirted anything kartchy or myself said.
If it's the end of ST when all good FAs are gone, and there's a prospect budget cap limit that everyone knows about and can budget 10 extra million in player payroll for, how is cash in a trade giving an advantage to the receiving team? I'm asking honestly because I don't see how, at that stage in the season, you'd think an extra 2-3 million in someone's player payroll will offer that winning edge.

Why would you want cash if you weren't going to find a way to use it?

Posted by kartchy on 8/19/2016 10:27:00 AM (view original):
But in that situation the team will have to give up a player in order to get that extra million or so. And it's not like the other team will just hand over millions of dollars for a player neither of you are going to use. In that situation I see it as I am willing to give up this decent player for a couple million dollars because I need to sign my draft pick. The consequence of not having enough money to sign the draft pick is having to trade a decent player for the cash. The other team is willing to give up extra cash they probably won't use to acquire this decent player to help their team.

I can see the issue if $5-10 million is exchanged for a player or if the player is absolutely worthless. But, if the player actually helps the team who is giving a couple million for, I don't have the issue with it.

Your "worthless" is my defensive catcher I desperately want. Or maybe that 88/93 BR/Speed guy I want on my playoff roster who is single digits in every hitting category. I can find a use for virtually every player except training camp pitchers.

Right, so if they're not worthless, there is value lost by a team trading him and value gained by the team getting him. Just like there is cash lost by one team and cash gained by the other.

I know the value of a defensive catcher. I don't know the value of 1m you receive in cash until you use it. How do I know it's a fair trade?

Nonetheless, this is pretty pointless. You have "I'll run my team as I see fit" people, "No, your dumbassery affects the entire world" people, "Cash is an asset" people, "Cash in trade is the devil" people and everything in between. Just join a world with like-minded people and everyone's happy.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 12:27:00 PM (view original):
I know the value of a defensive catcher. I don't know the value of 1m you receive in cash until you use it. How do I know it's a fair trade?

Does it matter?

Kartchy's point is a good one. No one is giving up $5m for nothing, ESPECIALLY pre-budget or right after budgets are set. So if you're getting cash back, you're giving up value.

And since you can't get more that $5m per deal and if you use that money on anything other than payroll, you lose half of it, I don't see this as an issue that can wreck a world.

Do fair trades matter? Is that a stupid question?

Yeah, people give up stuff for nothing all the time. We're people paying a quarter a day to play a game on the internet. True motives for trades are unknown. That's why we have a veto process. As I pointed out with ericwoody, virtually everyone was sending him cash in their deals. His account was terminated for alias usage.

So, yeah, it matters if the trade is fair. And, if I can't judge whether or not it's fair, why should I approve it?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 12:27:00 PM (view original):
I know the value of a defensive catcher. I don't know the value of 1m you receive in cash until you use it. How do I know it's a fair trade?

Does it matter?

Kartchy's point is a good one. No one is giving up $5m for nothing, ESPECIALLY pre-budget or right after budgets are set. So if you're getting cash back, you're giving up value.

And since you can't get more that $5m per deal and if you use that money on anything other than payroll, you lose half of it, I don't see this as an issue that can wreck a world.

You certainly can give up $5m for nothing. Or at least, for not much.

Let's say you only budget for the draft, you put nothing into your IFA budget. A bad FA period leaves you with a ****-ton of unspent cash left in your budget with nowhere else to spend it, especially after the draft has come and gone. You now have a "use it or lose it" mentality with that cash, and will be more willing to freely give it to somebody else while accepting little in return, because getting something/anything back from your leftover cash is better than not spending it and just losing it at the end of the season.

I think it boils down to: Can cash trades be fair in the right deal? Sure, but there are too many examples of abuse to justify the their use. World's were it is common turn into stratified layers of haves and have nots. Established vets who practice them in these worlds maintain their dominance by selling to new players. Kind of like trade rape by a thousand cuts (using the trade history Mike posted as example), if that makes sense. Owners who have been around a few years start to notice the pattern and either become part of the vets who practice this, reinforcing the behavior, or they bolt. And then of course it's one more tool for alias accounts to abuse.

In a vacuum a particular cash trade may be fair (to all parties: buyer, seller, and the other owners) but in practice they have a net negative impact on the world.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Do fair trades matter? Is that a stupid question?

Yeah, people give up stuff for nothing all the time. We're people paying a quarter a day to play a game on the internet. True motives for trades are unknown. That's why we have a veto process. As I pointed out with ericwoody, virtually everyone was sending him cash in their deals. His account was terminated for alias usage.

So, yeah, it matters if the trade is fair. And, if I can't judge whether or not it's fair, why should I approve it?

Not asking if it matters if the trade is fair. I'm asking if it matters whether or not you know what someone does with the $1m.

If a player is worth $1m in a trade, the trade is fair if guy getting the cash uses that money to sign a quality IFA or ****** it away on minor league free agents.

I'm no longer fond of trashing worlds or particular owners so the 2nd half of this does not make me comfortable.

1. Champions was a world full of established, successful owners. Owners who had dominated their 'tard worlds and wanted to see what they'd do against other 'tard world dominators. No vetoes, all trades valid. This included selling players. Bet you can't tell me who is still in that world. You know why? The "anything goes" approach led to a failed world.

2. Gleeman has played 66 full seasons in Gleeman/Gleeman2. The worlds accept new owners with no experience and Gleeman utilizes the buy/sell players strategy. He has won 22 of 66 world series. I have no idea if he buys/sells with first time owners but he wins a lot of games.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/19/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2016 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Do fair trades matter? Is that a stupid question?

Yeah, people give up stuff for nothing all the time. We're people paying a quarter a day to play a game on the internet. True motives for trades are unknown. That's why we have a veto process. As I pointed out with ericwoody, virtually everyone was sending him cash in their deals. His account was terminated for alias usage.

So, yeah, it matters if the trade is fair. And, if I can't judge whether or not it's fair, why should I approve it?

Not asking if it matters if the trade is fair. I'm asking if it matters whether or not you know what someone does with the $1m.

If a player is worth $1m in a trade, the trade is fair if guy getting the cash uses that money to sign a quality IFA or ****** it away on minor league free agents.

And I'm telling you I don't know if it's a fair trade until that 1m is used. If it sits unused all season, he got nothing.

The prevailing argument in favor of cash in trades seems to be that it doesn't matter. That's a horribly weak argument since, if it didn't matter, those in favor of it wouldn't care. If my every-last-dollar $20M bid for a top IFA loses out to a $21M bid by someone who was handed an extra $2M in cash, it matters. If I lose a playoff game to a player the opponent could only afford because he was given $5M extra in cash, it matters. The original question was what's wrong with it, to which the answer is it gives some teams a higher budget than others. Most worlds do not have cash-in-trade rules other than limiting it to contract value, so it's easy enough to play in leagues where gifts are allowed. That doesn't mean someone is wrong to oppose such deals, unless there is also a rule banning vetoes or trade discussion in WC.