|
Post by Dan on Mar 8, 2007 18:22:22 GMT -5
I suppose we could create a new rule where a MAX contract can be used infrequently. SOmething like a Franchise Tag. Like with my team I can choose to Franchise Wade or Baron but not both. Maybe the Franchise player will be listed in the Team Direction thread. No other player can be MAXd on that team while the franchise guy is there. great idea, i love it. lets go with it
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Mar 8, 2007 18:24:48 GMT -5
so let's say you sign player A to a 7 year deal, since he's your franchise .... but you change your franchise guy when player B is coming up for a contract extension the next year, what happens if you change your franchise guy?
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 8, 2007 18:27:04 GMT -5
so let's say you sign player A to a 7 year deal, since he's your franchise .... but you change your franchise guy when player B is coming up for a contract extension the next year, what happens if you change your franchise guy? Only a trade of the current franchise guy will allow you to change your franchise guy. Good ideas, I got a million of um.
|
|
|
Post by garf2000 on Mar 8, 2007 18:28:47 GMT -5
i like the premise, but if i happen to draft 2 sick players, theres no way in hell im gonna be forced to trade one of them.
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Mar 8, 2007 18:29:30 GMT -5
just curious...why the change? the current system seemed to be working well
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 8, 2007 18:29:37 GMT -5
i like the premise, but if i happen to draft 2 sick players, theres no way in hell im gonna be forced to trade one of them. You dont have to trade 1, but you cant MAX both.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 8, 2007 18:31:26 GMT -5
just curious...why the change? the current system seemed to be working well Because it does really limit the ability to rebuild through FA. One of the better things about FBB is the fact that sometimes FAs change teams for no reason what so ever. It really brings an element of surprise. it also makes the FA period much more interesting. I like to evolve, I think thats a strength of BBS. We will always constantly try to be a better league, this could be yet another interesting new idea.
|
|
|
Post by djmyte on Mar 8, 2007 18:43:35 GMT -5
You could just lower the Hard cap... that way teams cant have multiple max contracts(3 or 4) on their roster.
I dont see anything wrong with having 2 max contracts on a roster. It happens in the NBA and allows teams who have built themselves up to compete for a championship for an extended period of time.
Losing an important player just because of pure randomness is weak.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Mar 8, 2007 18:46:29 GMT -5
You could just lower the Hard cap... that way teams cant have multiple max contracts on their roster. either this or edit the max to be a larger percentage of the regular cap. if it is a franchise player then it's worth it and if not then it's not. i'm tired of seeing these 1-B types getting max'd though.
|
|
|
Post by garf2000 on Mar 8, 2007 18:46:31 GMT -5
scenario 1: Team X drafts #2 in 2001 and #3 in 2002. Both players average over 20 a game, still have A potential, and are the cornerstone of the franchise. They're due for a new contract at the age of 24. Because Team X can't max both of them, and does not want to trade someone that is helping his team win, one of them leaves, and there team is back in the shitter.
This wouldn't be good for the league. Perhaps a rule that allows you to max multiple players that are under 26 years old, but only be able to max 1 person that is over?
|
|
|
Post by garf2000 on Mar 8, 2007 18:47:05 GMT -5
i also agree with lowering the hard cap.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 8, 2007 18:57:15 GMT -5
Hernando, I dont really get your argument. You could still MAX the other player during Free Agency, you just couldnt use an in season MAX offer on 2 players.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 8, 2007 18:57:52 GMT -5
You could just lower the Hard cap... that way teams cant have multiple max contracts on their roster. either this or edit the max to be a larger percentage of the regular cap. if it is a franchise player then it's worth it and if not then it's not. i'm tired of seeing these 1-B types getting max'd though. Im not gonna edit salaries to be larger.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 8, 2007 18:58:41 GMT -5
You could just lower the Hard cap... that way teams cant have multiple max contracts(3 or 4) on their roster. I dont see anything wrong with having 2 max contracts on a roster. It happens in the NBA and allows teams who have built themselves up to compete for a championship for an extended period of time. Losing an important player just because of pure randomness is weak. Once again, it would be possible for teams to have multiple MAX players on their squad, they just couldnt all be MAXd in season.
|
|
|
Post by garf2000 on Mar 8, 2007 18:58:49 GMT -5
Hernando, I dont really get your argument. You could still MAX the other player during Free Agency, you just couldnt use an in season MAX offer on 2 players. but like you said, sometimes players switch for no reason... i just think it would suck for a team to get screwed over like that.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 8, 2007 19:00:36 GMT -5
Hernando, I dont really get your argument. You could still MAX the other player during Free Agency, you just couldnt use an in season MAX offer on 2 players. but like you said, sometimes players switch for no reason... i just think it would suck for a team to get screwed over like that. Every other league I know of doesnt have any kind of in season MAX. All FAs that dont offer to resign before the season go to Free Agency. It would suck to lose guys but this is the whole point of the thread, that rebuilding teams never get a shot at elite talent.
|
|
|
Post by djmyte on Mar 8, 2007 19:01:48 GMT -5
You could just lower the Hard cap... that way teams cant have multiple max contracts(3 or 4) on their roster. I dont see anything wrong with having 2 max contracts on a roster. It happens in the NBA and allows teams who have built themselves up to compete for a championship for an extended period of time. Losing an important player just because of pure randomness is weak. Once again, it would be possible for teams to have multiple MAX players on their squad, they just couldnt all be MAXd in season. And again, having a player leave your team due to randomness is ridiculous especially if you have a good team. Lower the hard cap. That way a GM can still max someone they want to keep but cant continuously do it.
|
|
|
Post by djmyte on Mar 8, 2007 19:02:11 GMT -5
but like you said, sometimes players switch for no reason... i just think it would suck for a team to get screwed over like that. Every other league I know of doesnt have any kind of in season MAX. All FAs that dont offer to resign before the season go to Free Agency. It would suck to lose guys but this is the whole point of the thread, that rebuilding teams never get a shot at elite talent. Who cares about other leagues...
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 8, 2007 19:03:02 GMT -5
Once again, it would be possible for teams to have multiple MAX players on their squad, they just couldnt all be MAXd in season. And again, having a player leave your team due to randomness is ridiculous especially if you have a good team. Lower the hard cap. That way a GM can still max someone they want to keep. Sometimes guys do leave for random reasons. If you have Bird rights you can still offer more then anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 8, 2007 19:03:18 GMT -5
Every other league I know of doesnt have any kind of in season MAX. All FAs that dont offer to resign before the season go to Free Agency. It would suck to lose guys but this is the whole point of the thread, that rebuilding teams never get a shot at elite talent. Who cares about other leagues... Um, I do.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 8, 2007 19:03:39 GMT -5
Once again, it would be possible for teams to have multiple MAX players on their squad, they just couldnt all be MAXd in season. And again, having a player leave your team due to randomness is ridiculous especially if you have a good team. Lower the hard cap. That way a GM can still max someone they want to keep but cant continuously do it. Stop tanking.
|
|
|
Post by djmyte on Mar 8, 2007 19:04:42 GMT -5
And again, having a player leave your team due to randomness is ridiculous especially if you have a good team. Lower the hard cap. That way a GM can still max someone they want to keep but cant continuously do it. Stop tanking. I never tank. I build for the future or win now.
|
|
|
Post by bossplaya on Mar 8, 2007 19:04:56 GMT -5
You could just lower the Hard cap... that way teams cant have multiple max contracts(3 or 4) on their roster. I dont see anything wrong with having 2 max contracts on a roster. It happens in the NBA and allows teams who have built themselves up to compete for a championship for an extended period of time. Losing an important player just because of pure randomness is weak. Once again, it would be possible for teams to have multiple MAX players on their squad, they just couldnt all be MAXd in season. wait, just to clear this up....say player A got and IN-Season MAX....as long as he has that, hes automatically labled as your franchise player, and unless he's traded, you cant MAX another guy IN-Season, but in Off-Season its cool, correct?
|
|
|
Post by djmyte on Mar 8, 2007 19:05:28 GMT -5
Who cares about other leagues... Um, I do. Ok... ... but since when does BBS follow what other leagues do? They should be following what we do.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 8, 2007 19:07:58 GMT -5
Once again, it would be possible for teams to have multiple MAX players on their squad, they just couldnt all be MAXd in season. wait, just to clear this up....say player A got and IN-Season MAX....as long as he has that, hes automatically labled as your franchise player, and unless he's traded, you cant MAX another guy IN-Season, but in Off-Season its cool, correct? True. You can have as many MAX guys as you want. But you can MAX 1 guy without having to let him be a FREE agent.
|
|