|
|
Post by Dallas Mavericks on Nov 25, 2006 20:48:06 GMT -5
if we do vote to do a fantasy draft, we need to go all out...we cant just keep 2 or 3 players...that would defeat the purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Nov 26, 2006 1:18:55 GMT -5
Then again, this is a GM League. We are pretending to be real GM's, not to act like it is a game, but as it is our job to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Nov 26, 2006 1:29:32 GMT -5
List of people who have still not voted:
Boston Celtics
New York Knicks
Golden State Warriors
Phoenix Suns
Seattle Supersonics
Minnesota Timberwolves
It is 12-12, this is a very close poll. These people better vote soon!
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Nov 26, 2006 1:34:07 GMT -5
One idea I have if the vote is in favor of keeping the same teams, is that we limit the number of teams. Get rid of some weaker, inactive teams. Increase the talent in the free agent pool. Increase competition.
We could start something where we deter teams from tanking to get good picks by setting up a system where at the end of each season, the 3 teams with the worst record in each conference are removed, which would be 6 teams a season, it would even out the talent each year and may the best survive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Raptors on Nov 26, 2006 11:15:15 GMT -5
One idea I have if the vote is in favor of keeping the same teams, is that we limit the number of teams. Get rid of some weaker, inactive teams. Increase the talent in the free agent pool. Increase competition. We could start something where we deter teams from tanking to get good picks by setting up a system where at the end of each season, the 3 teams with the worst record in each conference are removed, which would be 6 teams a season, it would even out the talent each year and may the best survive. SAS I am going to vote for the Fantasy Draft thing. But how is it fair for the teams who may come back like a month or 2 after to see 1st to lose their best players like Pierce of BOS and then lose their teams for no reason, that doesn't really promote competition, that promotes something else it promotes a political word that begins with "D" and I think you know what word that is. |
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Nov 26, 2006 13:59:49 GMT -5
One idea I have if the vote is in favor of keeping the same teams, is that we limit the number of teams. Get rid of some weaker, inactive teams. Increase the talent in the free agent pool. Increase competition. We could start something where we deter teams from tanking to get good picks by setting up a system where at the end of each season, the 3 teams with the worst record in each conference are removed, which would be 6 teams a season, it would even out the talent each year and may the best survive. SAS I am going to vote for the Fantasy Draft thing. But how is it fair for the teams who may come back like a month or 2 after to see 1st to lose their best players like Pierce of BOS and then lose their teams for no reason, that doesn't really promote competition, that promotes something else it promotes a political word that begins with "D" and I think you know what word that is. They lost their teams for a reason, they had the worst record, and were fired, but this time nobody will be hired to replace them. This league won't last forever, but this method would atleast increase competition for up to 6 years, and you can continue each season as long as you are a winner. It promotes a win-now mentality. It might hurt a team like Utah, building for the future, but if his team survives the first year, and lets say the three worst teams in that conference end up being Hornets, Sonics, and Memphis, he could add people like Aldridge, Morrison, Prince, Barbosa, Miller, Crawford, Davis, Jackson, Livingston, etc through free agency, because their will be less people competing for them, the original teams can't resign them, and the other teams are most likely over the cap. |
|
|
|
Post by Houston Rockets on Nov 26, 2006 14:40:33 GMT -5
SAS I am going to vote for the Fantasy Draft thing. But how is it fair for the teams who may come back like a month or 2 after to see 1st to lose their best players like Pierce of BOS and then lose their teams for no reason, that doesn't really promote competition, that promotes something else it promotes a political word that begins with "D" and I think you know what word that is. They lost their teams for a reason, they had the worst record, and were fired, but this time nobody will be hired to replace them. This league won't last forever, but this method would atleast increase competition for up to 6 years, and you can continue each season as long as you are a winner. It promotes a win-now mentality. It might hurt a team like Utah, building for the future, but if his team survives the first year, and lets say the three worst teams in that conference end up being Hornets, Sonics, and Memphis, he could add people like Aldridge, Morrison, Prince, Barbosa, Miller, Crawford, Davis, Jackson, Livingston, etc through free agency, because their will be less people competing for them, the original teams can't resign them, and the other teams are most likely over the cap. Thats not fair, the teams that are good don't have to trade so how is a GM supposed to make his team better?? He can't make his team win? |
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Nov 26, 2006 14:47:15 GMT -5
They lost their teams for a reason, they had the worst record, and were fired, but this time nobody will be hired to replace them. This league won't last forever, but this method would atleast increase competition for up to 6 years, and you can continue each season as long as you are a winner. It promotes a win-now mentality. It might hurt a team like Utah, building for the future, but if his team survives the first year, and lets say the three worst teams in that conference end up being Hornets, Sonics, and Memphis, he could add people like Aldridge, Morrison, Prince, Barbosa, Miller, Crawford, Davis, Jackson, Livingston, etc through free agency, because their will be less people competing for them, the original teams can't resign them, and the other teams are most likely over the cap. Thats not fair, the teams that are good don't have to trade so how is a GM supposed to make his team better?? He can't make his team win? Because you make smart trades with people who are willing to trade, you survive the first round of elimations and pick up a ton of great players in the offseason. If the Bucks get eliminated, and Dwight Howard and Chris Paul are free agents, everyone has a chance at getting them. |
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Nov 26, 2006 14:51:11 GMT -5
This is what I think:
im not so sure on it. while it provides excitement and meaning, and increases competition, it just doesnt seem right. on top of being unfair, when you mention not realistic, this is as unrealistic as it gets. I would have to think about it more, but Im not so high on that idea.
Im leaning towards keeping the teams together, altering FA rules to allow more movement. Institue a hard cap of maybe 70-75 mil. RFA follow the same rules (allowed to go over the cap to sign your RFA) EXCEPT if it exceeds the hard cap. UFA not allowed to go over medium cap? lol i dont know, but im thinking something like this:
Regular Cap: $60,000,000
Medium Cap: $65,000,000-$68,000,000
Hard Cap: $70,000,000-$75,000,000
You cannot resign your RFA if your cap would exceed the hard cap. You cannot resign your UFA if it exceeds the medium cap. Every team from $55,000,000 in cap space to $65,000,000 (or the hard cap minus 5 mil) gets the MLE and LLE, and you can use it so long as you do not exceed the hard cap.
Anyway I just thought of this right now, and we have a very long time until we have to make a decision so we have time to improve or get new ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Nov 26, 2006 14:54:43 GMT -5
well i guess as you said, this isn't realistic, it's a game. we cant really expect it to be completely realistic, might as well change some things to enhance it and make it more exciting.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Nov 26, 2006 15:17:13 GMT -5
Also, I'm not saying this is how it is going to be. I just like the idea, and wouldn't mind doing it, but I wouldn't consider it without the majority approval
|
|
|
|
Post by Miami Heat on Nov 26, 2006 15:30:25 GMT -5
i really dont like the eliminate teams idea. It just seems wrong, and unfair. Those teams need to find ways to get back to the top. There is a very strong FA class coming out, and if we plan out FA right, then it should be fine and keep everything competitive
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Nov 26, 2006 15:34:34 GMT -5
It doesn't seem so fair to me that I'm already over the cap so I'll have to sit back this offseason and watch as I lose Lebron and Wade without compensation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miami Heat on Nov 26, 2006 15:40:32 GMT -5
i understand that, i will have to lose either Billups or Bosh, and i cant do anything about it or get any compensation for it, it will be better for the league in my opinon
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Nov 26, 2006 15:52:58 GMT -5
i understand that, i will have to lose either Billups or Bosh, and i cant do anything about it or get any compensation for it, it will be better for the league in my opinon True, but still, losing EITHER Billups OR Bosh does not compare to losing BOTH LeBron AND Wade. |
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Hawks on Nov 26, 2006 16:00:11 GMT -5
losing lebron and wade will be huge, and losing bosh would be huged too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Nov 26, 2006 16:17:28 GMT -5
i understand that, i will have to lose either Billups or Bosh, and i cant do anything about it or get any compensation for it, it will be better for the league in my opinon True, but still, losing EITHER Billups OR Bosh does not compare to losing BOTH LeBron AND Wade. You could save cap now...and keep one. Prepare for it. And I agree with Miami. San Antonio, you wouldnt be in as big a whole as me. I am at 80 million dollars in cap with Hinrich and Diaw becoming FA. I wouldnt be able to sign either AND I have to get rid of Garnett or Kobe. Its just apart of the game. If I lose them, thats just apart of the game, oh well, make trades and do with what you got. I think me and Miami are on the same page with this debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Nov 26, 2006 16:19:12 GMT -5
Because losing players and everything, watching my team get on the decline, while it would be hard, would only motivate me to do better and continue to climb back to the top.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Nov 26, 2006 16:23:54 GMT -5
True, but still, losing EITHER Billups OR Bosh does not compare to losing BOTH LeBron AND Wade. You could save cap now...and keep one. Prepare for it. And I agree with Miami. San Antonio, you wouldnt be in as big a whole as me. I am at 80 million dollars in cap with Hinrich and Diaw becoming FA. I wouldnt be able to sign either AND I have to get rid of Garnett or Kobe. Its just apart of the game. If I lose them, thats just apart of the game, oh well, make trades and do with what you got. I think me and Miami are on the same page with this debate. I'd say I'm in a worse hole. I have $95,000,000 in cap right now, so to be able to resign James and Wade at $15,000,00 each I'd have to completely ruin this season, where I think I have a chance to win it all. |
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Nov 26, 2006 16:24:42 GMT -5
Nothing is official yet though, lets see where this poll takes us. We still need 3-5 more votes before it's over.
|
|
