|
|
Post by Milwaukee Bucks on Jul 3, 2006 19:42:24 GMT -5
detroit only had ratliff and dunleavey (restricted) becoming free agents - of course he would push for the rfa and 1 ufa, he can keep his players while he competition can't, it's smart gming on his part. you dont mind this rule either because you also have nothing to lose, you have no good free agents, and next year you will be able to benefit from this new rule. of course people that ar elosing players are going to be upset about a new rule and especially when they made trades based on the rules in place!
|
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 3, 2006 19:43:15 GMT -5
this isnt a war so dont make it into one. you have to do what i said earlier cleveland, think outside the box. put yourself as the bobcats GM, the jazz GM. look at it from their perspective. you have to realize they cant improve if teams like you max out every decent free agent that hits the market with your bird rights and allowed to go over the cap rules. Think about it and put yourself in their situation for a minute. If they want to be competitive we have to make it harder then to just be able to max any of our players that become free agents. Actually this won't help me much since I won't be able to max guys out this year, and with only hill expiring, and all my young guys getting raises, I might not even have max out money next year. I just think it will make the league more fun, and will mimic the effect of the luxury tax in making the league more realistic. |
|
|
|
Post by Player Agent 3 [Clippers] on Jul 3, 2006 19:43:25 GMT -5
I voted for option 4 because I think this league should be about decision making not easy thinking of lets just sign everybody b/c there is no reason to let them go. I think it is the best compromise between the two options and would be the most beneficial to our league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 3, 2006 19:45:58 GMT -5
6 to 6 tie between keeping it and changing it
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Jul 3, 2006 19:46:23 GMT -5
why does everyone keep saying that? lol, i dont want to keep dunleavy! if he hits past a certain point (which is a low amount of money) i am no longer bidding for him! and ratliff i want to keep because when and if he left i wouldnt have a center, but again if he gets past a certain amount of money i dont want to keep him that much either.
oh and i voted for the RFA OR UFA. Not both, its the choice one. If i went over the cap to resign Ratliff I couldnt resign Dunleavy unless with my MLE and vice versa.
When I thought these out i never thought about my team Milwaukee, why do you think I keep saying put yourself in their shoes? i didnt think about my team i thought about the league as a general and thought what would be best.
|
|
|
|
Post by Milwaukee Bucks on Jul 3, 2006 19:46:44 GMT -5
this isnt a war so dont make it into one. you have to do what i said earlier cleveland, think outside the box. put yourself as the bobcats GM, the jazz GM. look at it from their perspective. you have to realize they cant improve if teams like you max out every decent free agent that hits the market with your bird rights and allowed to go over the cap rules. Think about it and put yourself in their situation for a minute. If they want to be competitive we have to make it harder then to just be able to max any of our players that become free agents. every decent free agent does get extensions in real life though. nene played 3 minutes this season and got 6 years $60 million contract. do you see prince or shaq leaving their teams in real life? new rule proposal: how about if free agents leave their teams in real life, they have to leave their team on here? |
|
|
|
Post by Milwaukee Bucks on Jul 3, 2006 19:49:20 GMT -5
well thinking about my team, it wont matter, i only have jeffries, but thinking about the league - what would happen in the nba if they changed major rules right before allowing free agency to begin, after teams had been planning around those rules? you can't change it this year, but plan ahead to make those changes next year, when their are actually good free agents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 3, 2006 19:50:00 GMT -5
every decent free agent does get extensions in real life though. nene played 3 minutes this season and got 6 years $60 million contract. do you see prince or shaq leaving their teams in real life? new rule proposal: how about if free agents leave their teams in real life, they have to leave their team on here? Go to the other thread and look at the list we put up of guys who are stars or boarderline stars who have switched teams in the last few years as free agents it's pretty huge. ANd as for your proposal, it doesn't seem to make much sense with the team situations in real life so different from in this game, at least with these proposals teams have a shot to resign a guy, they just will sometimes have to make a decision for which guy they prefer to keep, just like in real life they have to decide who they can afford and who they can't EDIT- Ok I don't buy this, planning around a rule gets you screwed arguement, because there are plenty of teams who planned around last years system who got screwed a few weeks ago when it was decided that there would be a max. Teams who gave guys big money last year got screwed by the max, teams who cleared tons of cap room got screwed too. So if people will get screwed with another cchange... tough, that's life, someone is going to get screwed either way, the question is which is the better solution going forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Jul 3, 2006 19:50:56 GMT -5
nahh i dont really like or see the point on that rule.
you guys keep trying to make this as real and close to the NBA as possible. there is something you have to realize, this isnt the NBA. I want to make it as close to the NBA too, but there are exceptions. In the NBA 50 million trades dont happen in the offseason, outrageous free ageny money isnt thrown around, and superstars generally dont leave their teams like you said. This league thrives on trades and change. Therefore we have to accept that and adapt to our strengths.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers on Jul 3, 2006 19:52:59 GMT -5
You have to look at it from my point of view. Trades I made half a year ago were tied to the rule in place now. If we start changing a rule right before FA like Charlotte and some others are trying to do it would ruin plans made months ago. It makes absolutley no sense to all the sudden change a rule like this NOW!! I will not be voting in this poll because I don't think it's right. Real GM's don't make a poll on whether Lebron should have to switch teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Milwaukee Bucks on Jul 3, 2006 19:53:49 GMT -5
why dont we base it on each teams payrolls then? knicks can afford to shell out 120 million and bobcats are unwilling to spend over 40
|
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 3, 2006 19:55:14 GMT -5
why dont we base it on each teams payrolls then? knicks can afford to shell out 120 million and bobcats are unwilling to spend over 40 great plan, everyone over the cap sends San antonio $1 cash for every million they are over the cap, just like the luxury tax in the NBA, then that money is redistributed among the teams |
|
|
|
Post by Milwaukee Bucks on Jul 3, 2006 19:58:51 GMT -5
we should stick with the rules in place, and those that dont like them should find a new league to suit their needs.
new owners are expecting to come in here and win the championship that these people have been playing for years to win. do you think the real bobcats expected to win it all last year, no, they built for the future. if some of you gms would quit doing stupid moves and build for the future, try to win it next year atleast, we wouldn't have this problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Milwaukee Bucks on Jul 3, 2006 20:05:51 GMT -5
for those teams under the cap this year, looking to add free agents, think about the other teams.... why would they want to lose their talent for nothing? get screwed out of the hard work they put in to adding all that talent?
if the rules dont get changed, atleast work on a sign and trade instead of bitching about it. in a S&T talent doesnt have to be distributed evenly because the original team doesnt really want to resign that player to a huge contract. you can give up less than you are receving. think about it. you have to give a ltitle to get. we arent going to change the rules in your favor, what do you have to give up by doing this while we are giving up our stars?
|
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 3, 2006 20:15:12 GMT -5
I think we should do it this year, because looking at all the teams in the league, no one would get screwed, the worst case scenario for anyone is that if bidding goes to high san antonio might have to choose between Terry and mohammed, and denver might have to choose between Nene and Wilcox, even then there is no guarantee that they couldn't resign both. If we put it in now it will have been in place a full year next offseason, and we won't be having the same debate next year, and teams who have lots of upcoming free agents would be able to trade accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Milwaukee Bucks on Jul 3, 2006 20:19:24 GMT -5
we can put it in at the end of the offseason and not have this debate. if you think nobody has anything to lose, then nobody can gain anything from it either, leave it the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 3, 2006 20:22:52 GMT -5
Noone has some big star to lose, but the point is the inherent unfairness of the system, if we institute this change after the off season we should also hold off on the max contracts until after the off season. We shoudl either make all the changes needed to make the system work, or no changes from last year at all, we can't make a change that benefits the top teams only, and hold off on the change that evens it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Milwaukee Bucks on Jul 3, 2006 20:24:25 GMT -5
theres a big difference..
07 rule changes was announced in april..
this proposal was announced 2 days after free agency is supposed to begin
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Jul 3, 2006 20:26:50 GMT -5
bucks i disregard anything you say ater your trade offers. In the NBA why hasnt detroit maxed out ben wallace? Why isnt anyone getting the max? Why dont we just end free agency then and eliminate cap. I mean I have no chance at getting a star any way with my cap space so what's the point of having it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Jul 3, 2006 20:27:30 GMT -5
Makes no difference really, it was announced well after the trading deadline, so teams would have all the same free agents whether that rule was changed or not
|
|
![Player Agent 3 [Clippers] Avatar](http://www.amincousa.com/zcart/images/nba/nba-n24.gif)
