ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: Canada8999 on February 15, 2010, 04:58:47 PM
-
Per some concern over a recent trade, we should discuss whether or not regulations should be placed upon the trading of cash. I'll throw out an initial proposal:
The amount of cash received in a trade cannot exceed the net increase in salary received.
-
i believe cash can only be used for a player with a big contract.
-
I agree, we already have revenue sharing in place, plus we are looking at ways to expand salary based on performance. Teams sending large sums of cash to other teams for players gives further competitive advantage to larger market teams. Any money that changes hands should be for covering contracts of the players changing teams only. Or sending money to cover draft bonuses if picks are exchanged.
-
Teams sending large sums of cash to other teams for players gives further competitive advantage to larger market teams.
Not if the cash amount is greater than the value of the replacement player that the receiving team is able to land.
-
As has been suggested a few times now, I'll append this note on draft picks:
The amount of cash received in a trade cannot exceed the net increase in salary received, where the next increase in salary is determined as:
[Total salary received + Total slot bonus for picks received] - [Total salary sent + Total slot bonus for picks sent]
-
I don't think that cash should be able to be traded under any circumstance unless that cash is applied to the contract of a player being obtained in a trade. I think if you allow for players to be bartered for cash you enter into a whole new realm of problems regarding deferred cash payments in future years, flat out purchasing of a player by a large market team (which they can already do in free agency) and I'm sure there are many other issues that could arise but they elude me at this time.
-
As has been suggested a few times now, I'll append this note on draft picks:
The amount of cash received in a trade cannot exceed the net increase in salary received, where the next increase in salary is determined as:
[Total salary received + Total slot bonus for picks received] - [Total salary sent + Total slot bonus for picks sent]
I like your proposal, but I don't think this would have changed the Marlins-Red Sox deal.
-
I like your proposal, but I don't think this would have changed the Marlins-Red Sox deal.
It means that Boston would not have been able to send any cash, since they were the ones taking on net salary.
-
I'll agreed with Kris, the only instance cash should be exchanged is to compensate with a player's salary.
-
Can someone please explain why it's a bad idea to trade cash for players?
-
Can someone please explain why it's a bad idea to trade cash for players?
I don't think it is a bad idea, and I don't necessarily think we need a rule. This is where the TC's roll becomes critical in making sure that trades have balance and good intent. Why not trust the TC? They have been doing a good job so far making sure trades are legit. I would say the general rule of thumb is you have to give more than just cash to obtain a player.
-
When cash is included in a deal, is that cash tied to the player's contract? For example:
Team A trades Player 1 to Team B, along with 5M in cash.
Team B then later trades Player 1 to Team C - do they NEED to send the 5M, or can they chose to keep it?
My interpretation was that cash included in a deal may be because of a players contract, but was still independent (similar if trading cash for picks, where there is no contract to associate, or receiving cash form RS). Dan has told me that this is not how the rule has been enforced in recent transactions, and that teams have been forced to move the received cash onto the next team.
Thoughts?
Note: I thought I remembered seeing cash on teams that was received for players they no longer owned, but I can't seem to find any of those such examples (may have been a 2009 contract).
-
that happened with a trade earlier in year with rockies and myself i got hudson but he didnt send cash he got to me. But in trade we just made cash was sent both was as following player
-
Jeff check your page, you got the cash. I just missed it the first time when processing the trade. That cash has gone through 3 teams now. So if another team is paying for someone's salary, and that player gets moved, the cash should stay with the player(contract). It has been that way since I started in the league. To name a few players that have passed through my team... Tim Hudson, Scott Rolen, Carlos Zambrano also comes to mind. Otherwise we are just moving cash. A contract is a contract, and it stays with the player. If we change what has been currently done, then there was nothing wrong with the Hanley/ Bosox trade, since we will all just be sending money to other teams. I vote for cash stays with the contract. It has worked this far.
-
After having seen postings for this type of transaction by other teams, I would like to know if it is legal to sell a draft pick for cash. Is there a limit to how much cash you can receive for a pick?
-
After having seen postings for this type of transaction by other teams, I would like to know if it is legal to sell a draft pick for cash. Is there a limit to how much cash you can receive for a pick?
I think I forgot to respond to your PM Roy. It is legit to sell a draft pick for cash. The TC will decide if the cash amount is unfair for the draft pick. Remember, the TC can vote unbalanced trades through as long as they are not too egregious.
-
I don't think that cash should be able to be traded under any circumstance unless that cash is applied to the contract of a player being obtained in a trade. I think if you allow for players to be bartered for cash you enter into a whole new realm of problems regarding deferred cash payments in future years, flat out purchasing of a player by a large market team (which they can already do in free agency) and I'm sure there are many other issues that could arise but they elude me at this time.
I think Kris brings up a very valid point, and with the latest trade between the Pirates and Jays, this should be brought up again. We have had every trade involving straight cash being in trades come up for debate.
It seems that this idea is more trouble than it is worth, to the point where Dan has expressed his views on the trade publicly.
I don't think the matter of whether a trade is fair or not should take precedent on whether the practice is a good one for the league. It has seemed to split a good lot of us.
I would recommend we scrap the idea of trading cash, unless it is tied to a player.
-
I second on Jake's point on eliminating the trading of cash unless it is tied to a player's contract and is not more than the annual salary of that player.
Daniel and I will rework our deal.
-
How about trading existing debt, is that a possibility? Just want to make everything clear here. also what will happen to other money deal already approved or processed?
-
I think Kris brings up a very valid point, and with the latest trade between the Pirates and Jays, this should be brought up again. We have had every trade involving straight cash being in trades come up for debate.
It seems that this idea is more trouble than it is worth, to the point where Dan has expressed his views on the trade publicly.
I don't think the matter of whether a trade is fair or not should take precedent on whether the practice is a good one for the league. It has seemed to split a good lot of us.
I would recommend we scrap the idea of trading cash, unless it is tied to a player.
I agree, but have a few questions:
Can I send PlayerA and pay all of his salary, and receive PlayerB with no cash received for his salary (with the other team net shedding salary)? Or is the max I can send with PlayerA the difference between the salaries of A and B?
Can I send cash to pay for the bonus of a draft pick? Pick 1-1 is nice, but it's a lot nicer if someone sends me the 7M to cover the bonus.
How can cash be paid for future years? Do I need to pickup the same amount of a players salary in each season, or can I vary the amount paid as I chose?
I'm not super opinionated on any of these, but think they are some of the immediate questions that will be asked.
-
I agree, but have a few questions:
Can I send PlayerA and pay all of his salary, and receive PlayerB with no cash received for his salary (with the other team net shedding salary)? Or is the max I can send with PlayerA the difference between the salaries of A and B?
Can I send cash to pay for the bonus of a draft pick? Pick 1-1 is nice, but it's a lot nicer if someone sends me the 7M to cover the bonus.
How can cash be paid for future years? Do I need to pickup the same amount of a players salary in each season, or can I vary the amount paid as I chose?
I'm not super opinionated on any of these, but think they are some of the immediate questions that will be asked.
Can you give me an example of your first question Ben? I'm a bit confused by it, sorry. :-\
On question two, I didn't think we were basing bonus's on the overall pick, but the player taken? Could you be referring to that?
On question three, I don't see a problem with paying, for instance, $5 million to a team one year, and $2.5 the next for a player. We do it when releasing contracted players anyway.
:koolaid:
-
Attaching cash to picks gets ugly. I think we have all agreed on this.
-
I don't think it is a bad idea, and I don't necessarily think we need a rule. This is where the TC's roll becomes critical in making sure that trades have balance and good intent. Why not trust the TC? They have been doing a good job so far making sure trades are legit. I would say the general rule of thumb is you have to give more than just cash to obtain a player.
In my trade with the Rockies, I am giving my top prospect pitcher, my two top prospect outfielders, and a starting third baseman. For a star first baseman and some draft picks. AND we agreed on it. We surely don't have malicious intent. Now the league is just deciding that I can't trade some money in the future to obtain A) Miguel Cabrera and B) have an abundance of low and middle round picks in 2010's Rookie Draft.
Is it the fairness? Isn't fairness the basis upon which trades should be judged?
-
The trade isn't the problem, but the precedent that it sets. We are restricting the trading of cash to be less than or equal to a player's contract.
RC?
-
Why is this a bad precedent? Personally, I think the Cabrera deal was a great move for the Rockies. They got huge cap relief, one great young pitcher and arguably the Red Sox best prospect. I think it's a disservice to trade negotiations and small/mid-cap teams to disallow cash considerations. If this isn't legal maybe we should re-think having big market and small market caps, why not institute a fixed cap for all teams? I don't support fixing caps for all teams but rather pose the question because the rationality for disallowing this appears to be big market team's ability to gain talent by buying players.
-
Why is this a bad precedent? Personally, I think the Cabrera deal was a great move for the Rockies. They got huge cap relief, one great young pitcher and arguably the Red Sox best prospect. I think it's a disservice to trade negotiations and small/mid-cap teams to disallow cash considerations. If this isn't legal maybe we should re-think having big market and small market caps, why not institute a fixed cap for all teams? I don't support fixing caps for all teams but rather pose the question because the rationality for disallowing this appears to be big market team's ability to gain talent by buying players.
I surely see your point M.J. I think this is one of those issues that separates fantasy baseball from MLB. Simplifying the cash considerations to just the player's contract keeps some train wrecks contained.
-
:bump:
-
I surely see your point M.J. I think this is one of those issues that separates fantasy baseball from MLB. Simplifying the cash considerations to just the player's contract keeps some train wrecks contained.
I agree. MJ, when we were simply trading cash tied to players during the 2009 season and up until January, trades went along quite smoothly, and, as far as I can remember, no trades were ever really complained about (except for one, but that was my fault). Once we implemented trading cash without it being tied to a player, trades went haywire. Not so much in the fairness of the trades, but that many of them had a lot of members scratching their heads.
In the end, it really brought about a lot of confusion, and I think we in the RC were to blame for rushing the idea to the league.
I'm going off of the 'don't fix what isn't broken' theory. We had a lot of success with how things were being transacted prior to implementing cash considerations not tied to players, or simply put, buying players and picks.
As Kris(Kdoc) said, it opens up a Pandora's box of issues, and they really need to all be worked out before we decide to implement it.
-
I'll agree with Jake on this one...
-
I second Jake
-
It looks like we have enough votes (four) to reinforce the fact that cash should only count toward a player's contract (and cannot be more than it).
-
I don't support the addition of cash transfers in deals, because I believe that it furthers the advantage of the big market teams. I searched for the MLB rule on cash limits, but there doesn't appear to be a hard and fast one. During the Bowie Kuuhn era, I faintly recall that the limit was $1 million. I know there is still a low threshold of this in real life, because the vast majority of deals involve trading 1 bad contract for another. For example, the Milton Bradley for Carlos Silva deal may have involved about $5 million.
-
I don't support the addition of cash transfers in deals, because I believe that it furthers the advantage of the big market teams. I searched for the MLB rule on cash limits, but there doesn't appear to be a hard and fast one. During the Bowie Kuuhn era, I faintly recall that the limit was $1 million. I know there is still a low threshold of this in real life, because the vast majority of deals involve trading 1 bad contract for another. For example, the Milton Bradley for Carlos Silva deal may have involved about $5 million.
I believe the current MLB rule is that all trades with an excess of $1M in cash changing hands must be approved by the commissioner.
-
I believe the current MLB rule is that all trades with an excess of $1M in cash changing hands must be approved by the commissioner.
Hmm, should we adopt this?
-
Well, already having a TC that MLB doesn't have - we have more need for approval. Also, I think we all agree that the commish can step in at any point to void a trade if needed, outside of the TC's judgment.
-
Well, already having a TC that MLB doesn't have - we have more need for approval. Also, I think we all agree that the commish can step in at any point to void a trade if needed, outside of the TC's judgment.
Sounds good... I think we have something more along the lines of a guideline then a rule. This guideline should be put in the rules to help GMs know what is generally accepted though.