Proposal to Ban Loans - Discussion thread

**GrendelKhan** · March 25th, 2005, 01:17 AM

A deal is a deal.

IF the two owners found the deal to be attractive to each other, they will do it. If that means say throwing in a bench player for a short loan with no extra interest, what is the problem?

There really isn't in any way shape of form. There is give and take in any deal, and a Good deal is WIN - WIN.

I really haven't seen anything of substance in any kind of "arguement" against Loans. I do see a nasty case of sour grapes. And got hit with rather insulting insinuation earlier, that I had a lot of issue with.

Balance? Let's look at the DEAL that sparked this jealousy.

R'lyeh recieved $15mil in loan Immediately - GAIN
Chapel Hill sent $15mil Immediately - LOSS

R'lyeh sends $5mil per season for 5 seasons - LOSS
Chapel Hill receives $5mil per season for 5 seasons - GAIN

But KP has the arguement that My loss is manageable - DOH! that was the idea... in any DEAL you want to make your losses as manageable as possible. Do you go into a trade/deal with the idea - I need to make sure I don't gain any ground.... I want to balance out my situation, but just shuffle players around.

Now let's look at what Chapel Hill GAINS. well, if you have noticed he is running small market economy, with little income (compared to "top" teams) and little expenses. That $5mil per season for 5 seasons? Well it pays for his operations for 5 seasons, for the little loss (to him) of reducing starting capitol.

I guess you shouldn't look for DEALS that are good for you, or that are in a WIN - WIN situation. Someone will get jealous and will cry.

I just traded and Added a second high calibre SG to my team, there has to be soemthing wrong with the deal, because I didn't send a SF to HJ, or a PG that won't foul out to KP.

Let's keep things on the table and on the level.

-- That as the intent with the complete scenario, blowing a gasket and getting worked up later...

Sour Grapes.

**kidpreacher** · March 25th, 2005, 03:25 AM

So let me get this right a loan of cash is fine, but a loan of a player is not. If trading players is the same as a cash loan. Then isn't loaning a player the same as trading for cash. TC, if it is wrong to loan a player than it is wrong to loan cash. The advantage is the same. I lose said player for a certain amount of time. I gain cash and the player is then repaid to me at the due time. Sounds the same as your logic.
The owner who gets the said player gets an immediate gain with a minimal loss in cash, but he loses the player later thereby causing a significant loss. I say if we allow loans of cash, I should be able to rent a player.

**hornetjohn** · March 25th, 2005, 06:18 AM

There is a reason Scott banned loans - 'nough said.

GK - that is ridiculous to insinuate that this has anything to do with trading SF's or PG's. Practically everyone in this league got an offer from me - and I scoured every team for a SF so that I could move Blandon from SF to SG. This pathetic attempt is just sad.

Any previous loan would not be affected by any rule change - but it would destroy any argument of precendent for future attempts at loans. There would be no argument - this league can at any time change any of it's rules by a majority vote - that has been agreed upon.

**TuringComplete** · March 25th, 2005, 06:54 AM

I've heard people say that Scott banned loans, but I can't find it.

He's said that loaning players is not allowed: http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ult...&f=1930&t=1099

Please show me where Scott said cash loans are banned.

**TuringComplete** · March 25th, 2005, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by kidpreacher:
So let me get this right a loan of cash is fine, but a loan of a player is not. *snip* I say if we allow loans of cash, I should be able to rent a player.

I think you make a valid point. They are the same in principle, and as long as interest is being paid (cash or another player) for the use of the player it would seem like a valid use of the loan rule. I seriously doubt it will have much effect given the trade deadline and the hard salary cap, but if you want to have the league vote on loaning players, set it up!

**diluted** · March 25th, 2005, 04:34 PM

i dont see how if this was to go through that it could hold any creedence ... weve already put our loan in motion and wont be backing out of it, and others that go to do can argue precedent ...

**Phil D** · March 25th, 2005, 10:06 PM

I did not object to the loan that was discussed on the forum.
I am not in favor of loans as a general practice.

**hornetjohn** · March 25th, 2005, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by TuringComplete:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by kidpreacher:
So let me get this right a loan of cash is fine, but a loan of a player is not. *snip* I say if we allow loans of cash, I should be able to rent a player.

I think you make a valid point. They are the same in principle, and as long as interest is being paid (cash or another player) for the use of the player it would seem like a valid use of the loan rule. I seriously doubt it will have much effect given the trade deadline and the hard salary cap, but if you want to have the league vote on loaning players, set it up!<hr /></blockquote>Note to anyone voting for loans:
(picture of concerned 35-ish male)

if loans are approved - there will be a push to vote for "renting" players. This would lead to all kinds of trouble.

(pictures of homeless people, coughing child with tattered shirt, nuclear explosion)

Imagine you are in a tough race for the playoffs

(picture of your star player with Gatorade sweat)

and all of the sudden some team that has one star and is trying to lose to get the first round pick next year "rents out" their best player to your rival team.

(picture of George Steinbrenner and goons beating up single mother)

This would be a severe problem - the richest teams could just rent all the best players that are on the worst teams.

Just another reason to vote No! on Measure 6 "Loans - brought to you by "People for Fairness in League 40"

**GrendelKhan** · March 25th, 2005, 11:07 PM

Nope, I don't buy it. It tastes too much like Susan Sommers walking around starving kids, when you know she's eating donuts on her break from the camera.

Tryinig to attach "renting" players to Loans is "sad" in HJ's words. Butthat happens when you don't have a valid argument against Loans.

All deals will change the "balance" of the league. That is in the nature of deals. You are generaly attempting to get better in your situation, in one way or another.

I don't see the Issues with Loans. It honestly appears more to be soemone that is envious of what someone else did, then a legitimate opposition.

How far do we wnat to take trying to control deals?

Will you want totake it to only position for the same position? So there is balance? Only age for age? PGs can't be traded since the legaue is weak in PG right now? What restrictions would suit your needs?

What restrictions would suit your needs?

How do you want the league to bend for you?

[ March 25, 2005 07:08 PM: Message edited by: GrendelKhan ]