|
Post by jahallstar on Mar 8, 2007 20:53:49 GMT -5
And Rookie contracts are 4 years in FBB. If they were restricted FA's after 3 years I guess that would be ok. However to give compensation to teams for signing their unrestricted FA?
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 8, 2007 21:05:35 GMT -5
if you get lost, you need to go to a league for retards. why is it that you are the biggest asshole on the boards?
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Mar 8, 2007 21:10:53 GMT -5
i'm for keeping it simple....i like jah's idea, 1 every three years, something like that
no need to make things complicated or bring in ideas that football/baseball use
|
|
|
Post by garf2000 on Mar 8, 2007 21:11:51 GMT -5
I simply hate the compensation rule. Its rare enough rebuilding teams can land a star in FA. Now your going to make them lose two 1sts too? Say the bucks landed a stud player. They would still suck!! Then they would have to give up lotto's to make up for it? The one in season max every 5 seasons is fine. I think the 1 per season is horrible. One ever 3 seasons would even be ok. Read what I wrote. The team can CHOOSE what picks they give. And it won't as rare for teams to get a star, because the stars will be forced to go into free agency.
|
|
|
Post by bossplaya on Mar 8, 2007 21:11:55 GMT -5
i agree. spence's idea or jah's idea is fine with me as well.
|
|
|
Post by garf2000 on Mar 8, 2007 21:13:40 GMT -5
And Rookie contracts are 4 years in FBB. If they were restricted FA's after 3 years I guess that would be ok. However to give compensation to teams for signing their unrestricted FA? They aren't exactly unrestricted. Right now, if we want them on our team, theyre AUTOMATICALLY ours, with this new way, it gives other people a chance to steal some good players, but it compensates the team that loses a stud player due to this new rule.
|
|
|
Post by ducky on Mar 8, 2007 21:14:27 GMT -5
yeah I just think it's retarded every year to MAX someone for free on your team... Either making em pay for it or making it less frequent are the only solutions...
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Mar 8, 2007 21:15:02 GMT -5
I simply hate the compensation rule. Its rare enough rebuilding teams can land a star in FA. Now your going to make them lose two 1sts too? Say the bucks landed a stud player. They would still suck!! Then they would have to give up lotto's to make up for it? The one in season max every 5 seasons is fine. I think the 1 per season is horrible. One ever 3 seasons would even be ok. Read what I wrote. The team can CHOOSE what picks they give. And it won't as rare for teams to get a star, because the stars will be forced to go into free agency. There is still end of season extensions. Lots of guys sign there. And no matter what picks they give its not good for an unproven team to be giving up picks.
|
|
|
Post by garf2000 on Mar 8, 2007 21:16:16 GMT -5
Read what I wrote. The team can CHOOSE what picks they give. And it won't as rare for teams to get a star, because the stars will be forced to go into free agency. There is still end of season extensions. Lots of guys sign there. And no matter what picks they give its not good for an unproven team to be giving up picks. But hopefully when a shitty team signs a great player, that player and any previous lotto picks the team had drafted would turn the franchise into something decent.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Mar 8, 2007 21:21:04 GMT -5
I guess....everyone is allowd to have their own opinion. I just think there is a reason this isn't done in real life.
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Mar 8, 2007 21:23:57 GMT -5
how about we eliminate end of season extensions?
|
|
|
Post by garf2000 on Mar 8, 2007 21:26:04 GMT -5
I guess....everyone is allowd to have their own opinion. I just think there is a reason this isn't done in real life. and neither is tanking, signing a player automatically, or trading picks 10 years in the future...
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Mar 8, 2007 21:28:20 GMT -5
how about we eliminate end of season extensions? NO!!
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Mar 8, 2007 21:29:26 GMT -5
I guess....everyone is allowd to have their own opinion. I just think there is a reason this isn't done in real life. and neither is tanking, signing a player automatically, or trading picks 10 years in the future... Tanking happens........I don't know what you mean by signing a player automatically.......and I don't like the fact that you can trade picks 10 years in the future either.
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Mar 8, 2007 21:30:25 GMT -5
how about we eliminate end of season extensions? NO!! why not? everyone seems to be complaining of the lack of players in free agency...seems like a lot of guys sign then
|
|
|
Post by garf2000 on Mar 8, 2007 21:33:45 GMT -5
and neither is tanking, signing a player automatically, or trading picks 10 years in the future... Tanking happens........I don't know what you mean by signing a player automatically.......and I don't like the fact that you can trade picks 10 years in the future either. a team never plans ahead to fail miserably to hope to get the #1 pick. by automatically, i mean these MAX extensions.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Mar 8, 2007 21:37:06 GMT -5
There are in-season extensions in real life. Its not an automatic process and it doesn't always work thats why we say once in ever "X" seasons you can do it. Thats pretty realistic.
The only other thing I can think of is each team is assigned a random number 1-X before the season. If the number is say "3" that means they are eligable for a max extension that season. If not they are not. That could kind of take the place of the negotiating.
|
|
|
Post by garf2000 on Mar 8, 2007 22:00:28 GMT -5
i understand where youre coming from, i just think it'd be a cool added feature to bbs and would force gms to consider strategically a) whether or not to tag there FA and b) if a certain FA is worth the compensation. it would make gms with lots of talent some incentive to let their players test FA, and it would give a rebuilding team a chance to get a star player in exchange for a pick 5 or 6 years from now.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 9, 2007 0:36:36 GMT -5
Any type of compensatory system is just not gonna happen. Its either what I suggested, or the idea that you only get 1 MAX every certain amount of years. Anything else is just too intricate.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 9, 2007 1:18:36 GMT -5
So, essentially weve come to the conclusion that any new idea would be more complex then Id want. And since the vote says people are divided, the rule stays as is.
Ducky youll just have to rebuild around Shawn Bradley.
|
|
|
Post by Outlawz on Mar 9, 2007 1:56:58 GMT -5
Bradley is a stud.
|
|
|
Post by aigatdula on Mar 9, 2007 5:01:26 GMT -5
^word
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Mar 9, 2007 8:15:40 GMT -5
So, essentially weve come to the conclusion that any new idea would be more complex then Id want. And since the vote says people are divided, the rule stays as is. Ducky youll just have to rebuild around Shawn Bradley. Being that people are divided... we should come to a compromise not leave as it is....
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 9, 2007 11:26:20 GMT -5
So, essentially weve come to the conclusion that any new idea would be more complex then Id want. And since the vote says people are divided, the rule stays as is. Ducky youll just have to rebuild around Shawn Bradley. Being that people are divided... we should come to a compromise not leave as it is.... Everyone is divided, and no compromises have come to light. So in that case, I make the final call. And my final call is that we leave it as is.
|
|
|
Post by ducky on Mar 9, 2007 19:35:12 GMT -5
Oh well I tried, don't get mad at me when you guys are rebuilding in 5 years and Bron is in his last year with the Nuggets and I max him out...
|
|