"Bought" Players

[kq76]

I would like to know why most online leagues have it in their rules that you cannot purely buy a player, that there must be a player on both sides of the deal. If team A is sending an all-star to team B in exchange for millions of dollars and a scrub single A player that most likely will never make it to the bigs, how is that different from buying a player?

I'm not asking because I want do this. I'm just asking because I'm making up my own rules page and I just don't see the need for it, but maybe I'm missing something.

[holyroller]

Neither of my leagues have a rule against it. We do have rules capping the amount of cash one team may send to another in any deal. My logic, and the logic of MLB, would be that it gives large market teams too much of an advantage over small market clubs. YMMV.

[gcsii99]

I always thougth that these rules were there to make things easier on the commissioner. With at least 1 player involved on either side the trade would seem to be a lot simpler to execute using OOTP's trade screen. I do think I heard something about creating a player named "Cash" (or #1 Draft PicK) so that trades with only one player involved would be easier to run (and keeps the player history accurate).

[kq76]

Great responses guys! I think I'll be adding both ideas, thanks.

[JimiP]

Also inside the game one cannot just send a player to someone else...in order to process the trade one needs to have another player for the game to trade for.
Tha was the thinkin behind the rule in WTL, also same regarding draft picks, but with implementation of BOSI anything is possible.

[UKSubs]

Aside from the fact you have to make a dummy trade to trade a player straight up for cash, I thought the reason you wouldn't want to allow the selling of players is that there is no easy way to determine what a player should be sold for.

I would think there is a danger that an owner wouldn't quite understand that cash is generally not the most precious resource that a team can accumulate and trade a couple of very good players for a large pile of cash. That leaves the league with a very poor, but very short term rich team. Players could be bought with the new cash, but you almost certainly can't get enough cash for a player to replace them with a similarly talented player over a long period of time. At least with players and draft picks, the team gets something tangible on their roster that helps towards the future and doesn't leave you with a ruined team in your league that no one wants to own.

[Randall]

I think cash for player deals can help, in SOME circumstances...

1) You're a mediocre team, not playoff bound. You have a 36 year old player, and you're tight on cash. You "sell" that player to a potential playoff team. They make the playoffs, you get cash you need to help you in the next FA.

2) You are tight on cash, you have a player you won't be able to afford to resign. You trade another player (again, most likely older), to free up salary, and add the cash needed to resign your potential FA.

3) You've got the playoffs locked up in July. You have 5 OFers (or 6 if you're in a DH league). You also are tight on cash, so you "sell" your extra OF to free up some cash, sign a crappy extra OFer off of FA, since he won't get many AB's anyways. you downgrade at a position you don't really need any production from, you get cash, and somebody else gets a decent OFer.


I would think "selling" a young player, is almost never advisable, but I can thinkl of many scenarios where selling an older guy would help both sides.

I think the amount of cash a player is worth is debateable, it depends on the league finances (are most teams loaded or poor?, etc...), your finances, etc...

[Cyclone792]

Originally posted by gcsii99
I always thougth that these rules were there to make things easier on the commissioner. With at least 1 player involved on either side the trade would seem to be a lot simpler to execute using OOTP's trade screen. I do think I heard something about creating a player named "Cash" (or #1 Draft PicK) so that trades with only one player involved would be easier to run (and keeps the player history accurate).

In the leagues I've been in, this rule has been in place to make it easier on the commish. I have always used "Trade Bait" as a player name in those types of deals, but I this idea better of actually designating specifically - be it cash, draft picks or whatever - what each player was traded for.