|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 4:58:39 GMT -5
Post by Adelaide on Jan 23, 2007 4:58:39 GMT -5
Please excuse me if im taking this the wrong way Spence but why the hell am I accused of tanking. I put up a block no one replies. It's not my fault if no one in the league wants to post in my block. Many GM's when they do offer deals they offer jack shit so if it's making a deal that I'm not comfortable to prove myself as a non-tanker then I am in the wrong place. I don't like being brought into situations where there is no need for me to be in and its a slap on the face to be accused of shit like that. I don't bench my starters, I play everyone where I think they should be played and I don't like to switch things to fast I like to see how they go for a while and ride out for a bit. Yeah I ask for a comp on my pace and all that shit once in a while just to get an idea of something I should be running.
Listen Spence, I would think of myself as a tool if I purposely was trying to tank. If you want to defend DJ go ahead be my guest I could care less but I have been in this league too long to be brought into a situation where I haven't even poked my nose and used as a scapegoat to help take the heat off of someone else who other GM's have a problem with.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 5:36:31 GMT -5
Post by Adelaide on Jan 23, 2007 5:36:31 GMT -5
Alright and on a side note can we please get rid of the Asian women with there titties flopping around drinking there milk and shit. We all know DJ you love asian women possibly because you yourself are asian but I'm under the impression that you are either a chronic masterbator or a rapist with all the amount of Asian women whose pictures you post and its freaking the living shit out of me. We should work out a system so everyone is happy DJ we will give you a certain day and call it "DJ Day" and on that day you can post as many asian pictures as you want and then we will have White Women day on one day and Black Woman day (just remind me not to check the boards) and hispanic women day, eastern european woman day maybe pacific islander day if were lucky so we can get diversity because I dont think many people can take more asian women anymore
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 10:01:46 GMT -5
Post by The X-Factor on Jan 23, 2007 10:01:46 GMT -5
lol i agree with pig. DJ makes it pretty blatant hes tanking i.e. making post pad blocks instead of an actual trade block am i wrong but arent rules in place to disallow tanking? this is what i meant when gms can get around rules
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 11:09:58 GMT -5
Post by duce on Jan 23, 2007 11:09:58 GMT -5
1 million for each win. 5 million for a division title. 5 million for a championship. You must always have more cash on hand then your total payroll. Each year your payroll would be subtracted from your income. If you are negative then you cannot resign your own FAs, or sign new FAs to anything above the minimum. Any surplus in money can be rolled over to the next year. i really don't like this system... maybe because it would specifically screw me based on this year... but i gotta believe i won't be the only person in this situation and i certainly am not tanking(nor am i accusing anyone else of tanking or saying tanking is wrong, i dont even care). but the fact is if we had that rule, i'd be in serious danger is losing foyle... especially if i buy out tracy hill which i was seriously considering doing for the last couple of sims... it's not so much that the pacers are getting screwed as it is that if it could happen to me it can happen to others too.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 11:16:13 GMT -5
Post by KruPaxson on Jan 23, 2007 11:16:13 GMT -5
1 million for each win. 5 million for a division title. 5 million for a championship. You must always have more cash on hand then your total payroll. Each year your payroll would be subtracted from your income. If you are negative then you cannot resign your own FAs, or sign new FAs to anything above the minimum. Any surplus in money can be rolled over to the next year. i really don't like this system... maybe because it would specifically screw me based on this year... but i gotta believe i won't be the only person in this situation and i certainly am not tanking(nor am i accusing anyone else of tanking or saying tanking is wrong, i dont even care). but the fact is if we had that rule, i'd be in serious danger is losing foyle... especially if i buy out tracy hill which i was seriously considering doing for the last couple of sims... it's not so much that the pacers are getting screwed as it is that if it could happen to me it can happen to others too. sure it makes it harder on teams but this would eliminate ridiculous free agent offers and if you had cap make it easier to aquire a solid free agent not to mention if you lost out on a player you would be a lock for lotto and most likely be able to rebuild within a season via free agency
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 11:26:22 GMT -5
Post by duce on Jan 23, 2007 11:26:22 GMT -5
and i love those benifits, but the drawback is right in front of my face and i can't say i like it.
i consider the FA offers i made reasonable based on the player stats and ratings and i came into the season looking to win, to find out my players are simply not as good as i thought. so now if the rule was in effect and i failed to win 40 games then i lose my 2nd best player. there are other ways this could happen too... what if KG got injured for 20-25 days?
also what if a western conference team makes the playoffs as a 6th seed because they decided to make a trade and take on money to "make a run for it". are we seriously going to punish teams that are trying to win in order to limit tanking and overspending(when we already have a cap rule that was just fine)?
it's just my view that the rule proposed is seriously flawed as of right now, it's nothing against anyone but i don't think people will like it... though they'd certainly live with it and adjust i'm sure.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 11:37:56 GMT -5
Post by Bender on Jan 23, 2007 11:37:56 GMT -5
i blame pig for everything . it's obvious that bad ass billy gunn sucked at life. by the way your new facebook photo is gay
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 11:51:11 GMT -5
Post by KruPaxson on Jan 23, 2007 11:51:11 GMT -5
and i love those benifits, but the drawback is right in front of my face and i can't say i like it. i consider the FA offers i made reasonable based on the player stats and ratings and i came into the season looking to win, to find out my players are simply not as good as i thought. so now if the rule was in effect and i failed to win 40 games then i lose my 2nd best player. there are other ways this could happen too... what if KG got injured for 20-25 days? also what if a western conference team makes the playoffs as a 6th seed because they decided to make a trade and take on money to "make a run for it". are we seriously going to punish teams that are trying to win in order to limit tanking and overspending(when we already have a cap rule that was just fine)? it's just my view that the rule proposed is seriously flawed as of right now, it's nothing against anyone but i don't think people will like it... though they'd certainly live with it and adjust i'm sure. you made totally reasonable offers for the exception of tracy hill and thats fine everyone always kicks themselves in the ass for something like that but you can easily buy him out this season, which I would(see how i help people in my division). Also remember that the salary cap is going to increase some soon so this would open alot of money up and would eliminate most of the scenarios that you fore mentioned. It would really be an intriguuing aspect of the game in my opinion because it add another element in order to suceed. NBA teams struggle with balance and financial success all the time and I think this would be great element to prevent winning and losing in a sense. You would have to be truely great to make a dynasty.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 11:54:20 GMT -5
Post by jahallstar on Jan 23, 2007 11:54:20 GMT -5
Tanking is when you don't start your best lineup because you are trying to lose. That should be against the rules.
If you simply trade away your good players for picks or something so you lose that is no problem.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 11:57:29 GMT -5
Post by duce on Jan 23, 2007 11:57:29 GMT -5
and i love those benifits, but the drawback is right in front of my face and i can't say i like it. i consider the FA offers i made reasonable based on the player stats and ratings and i came into the season looking to win, to find out my players are simply not as good as i thought. so now if the rule was in effect and i failed to win 40 games then i lose my 2nd best player. there are other ways this could happen too... what if KG got injured for 20-25 days? also what if a western conference team makes the playoffs as a 6th seed because they decided to make a trade and take on money to "make a run for it". are we seriously going to punish teams that are trying to win in order to limit tanking and overspending(when we already have a cap rule that was just fine)? it's just my view that the rule proposed is seriously flawed as of right now, it's nothing against anyone but i don't think people will like it... though they'd certainly live with it and adjust i'm sure. you made totally reasonable offers for the exception of tracy hill and thats fine everyone always kicks themselves in the ass for something like that but you can easily buy him out this season, which I would(see how i help people in my division). Also remember that the salary cap is going to increase some soon so this would open alot of money up and would eliminate most of the scenarios that you fore mentioned. It would really be an intriguuing aspect of the game in my opinion because it add another element in order to suceed. NBA teams struggle with balance and financial success all the time and I think this would be great element to prevent winning and losing in a sense. You would have to be truely great to make a dynasty. krup if i buy him out then it counts against my cap this season for an extra 8 million dollars i thought? if salary cap increases then wouldn't that make it even more difficult? people would spend more money and have to win like 50 games if they were anywhere near cap right? you make a great point, it would be hard to become a great team, which i like... there's no doubt that the benifits to this are very promising. i can't say i like it still but if it were adjusted more then maybe i would(maybe a little more money per win?).
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 12:15:20 GMT -5
Post by Adelaide on Jan 23, 2007 12:15:20 GMT -5
who edited my post
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 12:27:33 GMT -5
Post by Adelaide on Jan 23, 2007 12:27:33 GMT -5
Tanking is when you don't start your best lineup because you are trying to lose. That should be against the rules. If you simply trade away your good players for picks or something so you lose that is no problem. Thanks for the definition Merriam-Webster.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 12:33:53 GMT -5
Post by jahallstar on Jan 23, 2007 12:33:53 GMT -5
Tanking is when you don't start your best lineup because you are trying to lose. That should be against the rules. If you simply trade away your good players for picks or something so you lose that is no problem. Thanks for the definition Merriam-Webster. I figure you need all the help you can get at figuring stuff like this out.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 12:39:42 GMT -5
Post by Spencer on Jan 23, 2007 12:39:42 GMT -5
Pig your talent level, and your win-loss total has been out of whack. And for the first part of the year you made no changes. Thats why your name came up with tanking. I really dont see why it wouldnt.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 12:48:53 GMT -5
Post by Adelaide on Jan 23, 2007 12:48:53 GMT -5
So anyone who starts out rocky and wants to let it slide for a bit to see if its just a fluke is somehow tanking?
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 12:50:01 GMT -5
Post by The X-Factor on Jan 23, 2007 12:50:01 GMT -5
So anyone who starts out rocky and wants to let it slide for a bit to see if its just a fluke is somehow tanking? Yup.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 12:52:15 GMT -5
Post by Adelaide on Jan 23, 2007 12:52:15 GMT -5
Thanks for the definition Merriam-Webster. I figure you need all the help you can get at figuring stuff like this out. Yeah considering I was talking about it back on page 1.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 12:57:08 GMT -5
Post by Adelaide on Jan 23, 2007 12:57:08 GMT -5
Pig your talent level, and your win-loss total has been out of whack. And for the first part of the year you made no changes. Thats why your name came up with tanking. I really dont see why it wouldnt. Spence my SL was normal, my options were all fine I think there is a fine line from someone trying to tank then someone whose 2 and 3 options have terrible shooting percentages and want to see if they heat up.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:02:34 GMT -5
Post by Spencer on Jan 23, 2007 13:02:34 GMT -5
Pig your talent level, and your win-loss total has been out of whack. And for the first part of the year you made no changes. Thats why your name came up with tanking. I really dont see why it wouldnt. Spence my SL was normal, my options were all fine I think there is a fine line from someone trying to tank then someone whose 2 and 3 options have terrible shooting percentages and want to see if they heat up. Someone who loses with good talent, and makes no DC changes is someone I consider to be tanking. You dont have to agree with it, but that scenario is tanking IMO.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:05:26 GMT -5
Post by Dan on Jan 23, 2007 13:05:26 GMT -5
He is purposley tanking to get more talent and the problem with this is he doesnt trade to get his team better overall and doesnt do much of anything. I could let my team suck this year again but I didnt because I want to win and I traded and got some solid players. DJ is clearing tankings and thats fucking stupid. What spencer is doing is not the same because spencer does not have the talent that dj has and I think that this is bullshit. I dont care what he really claims he is doing its all a bunch of crap if you ask me and pisses me off.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:07:12 GMT -5
Post by Adelaide on Jan 23, 2007 13:07:12 GMT -5
Spence my SL was normal, my options were all fine I think there is a fine line from someone trying to tank then someone whose 2 and 3 options have terrible shooting percentages and want to see if they heat up. Someone who loses with good talent, and makes no DC changes is someone I consider to be tanking. You dont have to agree with it, but that scenario is tanking IMO. Whatever, it wasnt my intention to tank if it came out like that lets just all sim in peace.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:10:26 GMT -5
Post by Spencer on Jan 23, 2007 13:10:26 GMT -5
Bottom line once again....Tanking rules state that you must play your best players, and use your best scorers as options. Other then that you can do whatever you want to win or lose.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:12:30 GMT -5
Post by Dan on Jan 23, 2007 13:12:30 GMT -5
Its still bullshit IMO and shows no gming skills at all. Anyone can lose.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:15:17 GMT -5
Post by Adelaide on Jan 23, 2007 13:15:17 GMT -5
Bottom line once again....Tanking rules state that you must play your best players, and use your best scorers as options. Other then that you can do whatever you want to win or lose. So how did I tank then when I had my best starters in and my best scorers as options.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:16:34 GMT -5
Post by Spencer on Jan 23, 2007 13:16:34 GMT -5
Bottom line once again....Tanking rules state that you must play your best players, and use your best scorers as options. Other then that you can do whatever you want to win or lose. So how did I tank then when I had my best starters in and my best scorers as options. People are saying DJ is tanking because he is losing. Im saying you were in the same boat earlier this season. What you did, and what DJ is doing is not illegal.
|
|