|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:23:46 GMT -5
Post by Dan on Jan 23, 2007 13:23:46 GMT -5
DJ has tanked for three years spence, this will be the fourth year... So why does it make it right for him to just keep doing it, and then dominate the league because he tanked for so many years. Its bullshit and it shows how much skill dj has as a gm.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:25:06 GMT -5
Post by Spencer on Jan 23, 2007 13:25:06 GMT -5
DJ has tanked for three years spence, this will be the fourth year... So why does it make it right for him to just keep doing it, and then dominate the league because he tanked for so many years. Its bullshit and it shows how much skill dj has as a gm. So its okay to do it 1 or 2 years, but 3 years is too much? I understand the frustration, but maybe instead of getting pissed why not think of some scenario where a new rule, or a new idea would change how things work? This is the reality.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:25:49 GMT -5
Post by Adelaide on Jan 23, 2007 13:25:49 GMT -5
Im not trying to be a dick at all but you just said 5 seconds ago that someone who is losing and dosent switch their DC thats considered tanking but now its considered tanking only if you dont play your best guys and best options, I just want to know what the deal is for future reference so I don't get this label again.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:27:00 GMT -5
Post by Dan on Jan 23, 2007 13:27:00 GMT -5
DJ has tanked for three years spence, this will be the fourth year... So why does it make it right for him to just keep doing it, and then dominate the league because he tanked for so many years. Its bullshit and it shows how much skill dj has as a gm. So its okay to do it 1 or 2 years, but 3 years is too much? I understand the frustration, but maybe instead of getting pissed why not think of some scenario where a new rule, or a new idea would change how things work? This is the reality. The thing is his team actually did suck then like your team that sucks now their is nothing you can do but maybe try and trade. But if that doesnt work you will suck. He has the talent and the players to actually be 500 and he just doesnt want to be so he can grab another player. Its just wrong. If his team sucked no one would care but when you have tmac, ak and redd on their you should be winning more than 10 games. 0-10 in last 10 games. give me a break
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:30:34 GMT -5
Post by Spencer on Jan 23, 2007 13:30:34 GMT -5
Im not trying to be a dick at all but you just said 5 seconds ago that someone who is losing and dosent switch their DC thats considered tanking but now its considered tanking only if you dont play your best guys and best options, I just want to know what the deal is for future reference so I don't get this label again. Pig. Im not the one that is confusing the definaition of tanking. Aaron and Dave are saying DJ is tanking. As the BBS rules state, BBS is not tanking. As the BBS rules state you were not tanking. As the BBS rules state, I am not tanking. In real life to tank is to lose on purpose. IMO you were tanking early in the year. I am tanking. DJ is tanking. Hopefully this clears it up for you.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:31:33 GMT -5
Post by Spencer on Jan 23, 2007 13:31:33 GMT -5
So its okay to do it 1 or 2 years, but 3 years is too much? I understand the frustration, but maybe instead of getting pissed why not think of some scenario where a new rule, or a new idea would change how things work? This is the reality. The thing is his team actually did suck then like your team that sucks now their is nothing you can do but maybe try and trade. But if that doesnt work you will suck. He has the talent and the players to actually be 500 and he just doesnt want to be so he can grab another player. Its just wrong. If his team sucked no one would care but when you have tmac, ak and redd on their you should be winning more than 10 games. 0-10 in last 10 games. give me a break Youre re stating your initial stand point. I get it Dan. But that doesnt change my decision. I get your upset. Come up with a solution, dont tell me over and over again how much it sucks, I already know you think it sucks.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:39:10 GMT -5
Post by Adelaide on Jan 23, 2007 13:39:10 GMT -5
Spence, I know what tanking is I just need to know what your version of tanking is. So far I have gotten two different versions of the definition of tanking from you and Im confused on which one is the real one.
"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."
"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 13:40:24 GMT -5
Post by Spencer on Jan 23, 2007 13:40:24 GMT -5
Pig. Im not the one that is confusing the definaition of tanking. Aaron and Dave are saying DJ is tanking. As the BBS rules state, BBS is not tanking. As the BBS rules state you were not tanking. As the BBS rules state, I am not tanking. In real life to tank is to lose on purpose. IMO you were tanking early in the year. I am tanking. DJ is tanking. Hopefully this clears it up for you. I cant explain it more then this. If you dont understand this, I am unable to communicate it more clearly.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:42:35 GMT -5
Post by KruPaxson on Jan 23, 2007 13:42:35 GMT -5
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?). just to clear this up for you duce. if you buy out hill this year add up all the years of his contract and put it under this year....it will be gone by next season and you are in no danger of going 25+mil over which if you look in the rules section would be a loss of mle i think. If you look at my roster I bought out wang and you can see his salary under my year 1 and i cut thomas and his salary went form yr 1 and 2 so you can see his salary under yr 2. '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?" in direct response to this...just because you have more money doesn't mean you need to spend more money. With harsher rules inforced on winning involved with salary you would see teams be more strategic with their spending if not they will live or die with the consequences...hopefully this clarifies some of your questions
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:47:00 GMT -5
Post by Spencer on Jan 23, 2007 13:47:00 GMT -5
This rule wouldnt be imposed right now if it is imposed. Itd start next year.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 13:58:19 GMT -5
Post by Adelaide on Jan 23, 2007 13:58:19 GMT -5
Pig. Im not the one that is confusing the definaition of tanking. Aaron and Dave are saying DJ is tanking. As the BBS rules state, BBS is not tanking. As the BBS rules state you were not tanking. As the BBS rules state, I am not tanking. In real life to tank is to lose on purpose. IMO you were tanking early in the year. I am tanking. DJ is tanking. Hopefully this clears it up for you. I cant explain it more then this. If you dont understand this, I am unable to communicate it more clearly. Spence I understand perfectly what your saying......You were saying I was tanking I asked why and you said "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." And I was like alright yeah I was losing and not making DC changes so what I'll let it go but then you come back 8 minutes later and say "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. " I am confused because I don't know which one is the real one because the latter contradicts the first one.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 14:01:42 GMT -5
Post by aaronjh on Jan 23, 2007 14:01:42 GMT -5
Well. This only changes everything.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 14:07:10 GMT -5
Post by duce on Jan 23, 2007 14:07:10 GMT -5
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?). just to clear this up for you duce. if you buy out hill this year add up all the years of his contract and put it under this year....it will be gone by next season and you are in no danger of going 25+mil over which if you look in the rules section would be a loss of mle i think. If you look at my roster I bought out wang and you can see his salary under my year 1 and i cut thomas and his salary went form yr 1 and 2 so you can see his salary under yr 2. '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?" in direct response to this...just because you have more money doesn't mean you need to spend more money. With harsher rules inforced on winning involved with salary you would see teams be more strategic with their spending if not they will live or die with the consequences...hopefully this clarifies some of your questions i get the rules, and thanks for the "suggestion" of buying him out even though i said i was seriously considering it before that... lol, i know ur tryna help but i know the rules, the question was rhetorical. but about what you're saying about spending money... are you trying to say that people shouldn't do whatever they can within cap space to try to win? because i can't agree with that. if it becomes part of the rules that you have to play that way then i will abide of course, but why even have a cap rule if we're gonna enforce this million-dollar-per-win thing? i mean i get the rules dude, but i'm saying you were using cap-room-increase to support your argument and quite honestly it doesn't support it at all... and i understand that you think people shouldn't overspend but i think you'll find that it's not going to happen that way and it will lead to complaints, could be wrong, just my thought on it. ------------- spencer, it doesn't make sense to me that if a team happens to be in a paralelled situation to mine, where they are hardly over cap at all, that they would lose their second best player just because of a few unfortunate circumstances, and then be forced to build from the beginning. i'm in need of starters as it is and if one is taken away then i'm in serious shit for a long time. there's obviously no way i'm going to win 40 games. i know this doesn't apply to this year but it's definitely going to happen in the future to gm's imo. i haven't overspent, the only 2 contracts i have over 4.1M are from the creation draft - in which i actually traded most of the contracts i got from that draft away(davis, phills, jordan...). i feel like this could happen to anybody. so i guess i'm asking you to not put the rule in, but i trust your decisions.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 14:19:23 GMT -5
Post by KruPaxson on Jan 23, 2007 14:19:23 GMT -5
just to clear this up for you duce. if you buy out hill this year add up all the years of his contract and put it under this year....it will be gone by next season and you are in no danger of going 25+mil over which if you look in the rules section would be a loss of mle i think. If you look at my roster I bought out wang and you can see his salary under my year 1 and i cut thomas and his salary went form yr 1 and 2 so you can see his salary under yr 2. '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?" in direct response to this...just because you have more money doesn't mean you need to spend more money. With harsher rules inforced on winning involved with salary you would see teams be more strategic with their spending if not they will live or die with the consequences...hopefully this clarifies some of your questions i get the rules, and thanks for the "suggestion" of buying him out even though i said i was seriously considering it before that... lol, i know ur tryna help but i know the rules, the question was rhetorical. but about what you're saying about spending money... are you trying to say that people shouldn't do whatever they can within cap space to try to win? because i can't agree with that. if it becomes part of the rules that you have to play that way then i will abide of course, but why even have a cap rule if we're gonna enforce this million-dollar-per-win thing? i mean i get the rules dude, but i'm saying you were using cap-room-increase to support your argument and quite honestly it doesn't support it at all... and i understand that you think people shouldn't overspend but i think you'll find that it's not going to happen that way and it will lead to complaints, could be wrong, just my thought on it. ------------- spencer, it doesn't make sense to me that if a team happens to be in a paralelled situation to mine, where they are hardly over cap at all, that they would lose their second best player just because of a few unfortunate circumstances, and then be forced to build from the beginning. i'm in need of starters as it is and if one is taken away then i'm in serious shit for a long time. there's obviously no way i'm going to win 40 games. i know this doesn't apply to this year but it's definitely going to happen in the future to gm's imo. i haven't overspent, the only 2 contracts i have over 4.1M are from the creation draft - in which i actually traded most of the contracts i got from that draft away(davis, phills, jordan...). i feel like this could happen to anybody. so i guess i'm asking you to not put the rule in, but i trust your decisions. sorry duce i totally disagree with you(ha who would have thought) You have KG a max player and this is the price you pay for having a max player that is 1/3 your team salary. A max contract would hold a whole new level of value as you truely only max a franchise player and/or a guy that is really going to lead you to the promise land. With the new rule in place + an increase in cap space a team that is in your situation would be fine becuase they wouldn't win that many games, would add a rookie or 2, then add a free agent and be off to the races within 1-2 seasons A team like mine would be broken up before it would even develop as my players would be off rookie contracts and ready to cash in and this prevents teams from stock pileing picks Sure teams will overspend but like i said they will live or die with the consequences for their careless actions. This rule would seperate the men from the boys Obviously these rules are all in the infantile stages but the foundation of the rule is a great idea
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 14:21:10 GMT -5
Post by duce on Jan 23, 2007 14:21:10 GMT -5
well, we have our stances... like i said i definitely like the positives of the rule... and there a lot, a couple we haven't even mentioned in this thread... we'll just see what happens.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 14:21:57 GMT -5
Post by Spencer on Jan 23, 2007 14:21:57 GMT -5
I cant explain it more then this. If you dont understand this, I am unable to communicate it more clearly. Spence I understand perfectly what your saying......You were saying I was tanking I asked why and you said "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." And I was like alright yeah I was losing and not making DC changes so what I'll let it go but then you come back 8 minutes later and say "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. " I am confused because I don't know which one is the real one because the latter contradicts the first one. Ive said many times. YOU ARE NOT BREAKING THE RULES. K? Got it? I think you and more specifically the Spurs have tanked this year (Not breaking the rules)just as much as DJ has tanked this year. The main reason I brought up you and the Spurs is because IMO, DJ is getting more shit because hes DJ, while you and the Spurs are getting off because you are popular, and he is new. The only reason you and the Spurs were mentioned was just to show the unfair treatment of DJ. No one has been breaking the tanking rules.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 15:04:31 GMT -5
Post by djmyte on Jan 23, 2007 15:04:31 GMT -5
Tanking for 3 years? I think not.
Lets see... after the expansion draft... I had Tmac and Ricky Davis. Who were both 18 and completely undeveloped... Dont believe me? Look at Ricky's ratings now.. thats how good they were when I drafted him. So apparently I tanked for AK, even though my team was undeniably terrible.
Then last season... Tmac with B-B- ratings... AK with an amazing B- inside scoring rating. Again my team was terrible. Some would have you believe i should be a playoff team with a 20 year old Tmac and an 18 year old AK47.... and nothing else... some are idiots.
Then on to this season... I draft Redd who has good potential but only one category is rated above C...
An argument for tanking this season... fine ... but the two previous ones? My talent level was extremely low and I should have finished in the lotto.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 16:19:20 GMT -5
Post by gmgreggor on Jan 23, 2007 16:19:20 GMT -5
Here's my view. Implementing a financial system where teams that continually tank makes sense. If we are supposed to be striving for realism here which it seems we are teams trading away good players for only picks isnt realistic. GM's are expected to show progress in at most a 3 year span. If your team hasnt improved in those 3 yrs or lets say you have a great owner and you have 4 years then you are'nt gonna be around to reap the rewards of those years. Next GM might if those high picks develop but if they dont they will be rode out of town too. In real life most GM's dont get luxury of sucking for 5 years and landing in lottery every year. I realize we arent gonna fire anyone because they are not winning but thats where the financial system makes sense. Maybe also have players with star ratings where even if you dont have a good team fans will show up to watch a great player. That does happen so teams with star players that are still bad can at least make a little extra which is viable. The bottom line though is fans. In NBA by the time a team has a few lottery picks in a row that GM that had first one is usually gone. They dont have luxury of job security like we do where you can suck for 6 years and be around to reap the rewards. I think some kind of financila system is definately in order. This has nothing to do with the latest tanking debate, I just think sim lgs in general need financial systems based on performance to prevent exactly what we are talking about. And I'm not exactly speaking from position of powerhouse here, just being as objective as I can it makes sense.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 16:25:52 GMT -5
Post by jahallstar on Jan 23, 2007 16:25:52 GMT -5
It would kind of be fun to find a way to have a sim league where you can get fired from being the GM of your team if you don't meet certain goals. You wouldn't be fired from the league though. We'd have to find a way where other GM's could leave their team if they wanted to move to one of the new open jobs...Sort of like when Coaches switch teams or whatever.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 16:38:26 GMT -5
Post by The X-Factor on Jan 23, 2007 16:38:26 GMT -5
Tanking for 3 years? I think not. Lets see... after the expansion draft... I had Tmac and Ricky Davis. Who were both 18 and completely undeveloped... Dont believe me? Look at Ricky's ratings now.. thats how good they were when I drafted him. So apparently I tanked for AK, even though my team was undeniably terrible. Then last season... Tmac with B-B- ratings... AK with an amazing B- inside scoring rating. Again my team was terrible. Some would have you believe i should be a playoff team with a 20 year old Tmac and an 18 year old AK47.... and nothing else... some are idiots. Then on to this season... I draft Redd who has good potential but only one category is rated above C... An argument for tanking this season... fine ... but the two previous ones? My talent level was extremely low and I should have finished in the lotto. I think the point is... most of your contending teams have been built around tanking.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 18:23:54 GMT -5
Post by Spencer on Jan 23, 2007 18:23:54 GMT -5
Some kind of financial system would be nice.
Losing your job after consistent futility would be nice as well. Maybe a league poll that has the leagues current GMs as candidates for Gms that have been "fired", with the "fired" GM being hired as an Asst GM by someone.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 18:34:14 GMT -5
Post by djmyte on Jan 23, 2007 18:34:14 GMT -5
Tanking for 3 years? I think not. Lets see... after the expansion draft... I had Tmac and Ricky Davis. Who were both 18 and completely undeveloped... Dont believe me? Look at Ricky's ratings now.. thats how good they were when I drafted him. So apparently I tanked for AK, even though my team was undeniably terrible. Then last season... Tmac with B-B- ratings... AK with an amazing B- inside scoring rating. Again my team was terrible. Some would have you believe i should be a playoff team with a 20 year old Tmac and an 18 year old AK47.... and nothing else... some are idiots. Then on to this season... I draft Redd who has good potential but only one category is rated above C... An argument for tanking this season... fine ... but the two previous ones? My talent level was extremely low and I should have finished in the lotto. I think the point is... most of your contending teams have been built around tanking. Excuse you? This statement alone shows you know nothing about this topic or my history in BBS and before. So you should refrain from comment.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 18:39:17 GMT -5
Post by Spencer on Jan 23, 2007 18:39:17 GMT -5
Ya, I cant remember DJ using any of his own picks to get lotto talent.
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 20:58:12 GMT -5
Post by Dan on Jan 23, 2007 20:58:12 GMT -5
I think the point is... most of your contending teams have been built around tanking. Excuse you? This statement alone shows you know nothing about this topic or my history in BBS and before. So you should refrain from comment. ha! thats all you been about in this new bbs..
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 23, 2007 20:59:00 GMT -5
Post by The X-Factor on Jan 23, 2007 20:59:00 GMT -5
Right... DJ you are definently the best GM here.
|
|