|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 2, 2007 1:49:12 GMT -5
Some players that have the possibility to be better are not either because a team has had to use their RC's and more priority players or a player has been on a team that has been RC neglected. A player that immediately comes to mind is Luke Walton.
B-,C+,B,B-,C+
Walton will be 25 next year with zero RC's. I think we can all see the potential of using three RC's on this kid.
In real life players develop after the age of 25 and why shouldn't they in BBS. I think this will reward activity once again as you can bolster your team by properly using RC's and players drafted, signed, traded for. This adds another element in trading or signing of players as you can see whether you can use an RC on this player in order to benefit your team's needs.
A real life example. Mikki Moore for the NJ Nets probably enjoyed his best NBA season. Partly due to Krstic's injury but also the fact that NJ utilized his strength's and limited his weaknesses. At 31 I'd say that NJ used an RC on this guy when the other 7 other NBA teams he's played for haven't. I also think that guys like Raja Bell in BBS is a great example of a player that should have the opportunity of having RC attention as he entered the league after he was 25 but he is also a player in real life that has blossomed later in his career.
We will still limit RC's to 3 per career but allow you to use it at whatever age and 4 per season. Please post a vote and explanation, feelings, thoughts, ideas.
|
|
|
Post by ducky on Jun 2, 2007 1:51:28 GMT -5
I didn't read it so I said ok.
|
|
|
Post by nybombers3 on Jun 2, 2007 2:00:19 GMT -5
I always thought 25 was a bit to young.
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jun 2, 2007 2:51:18 GMT -5
I always thought 25 was a bit to young.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 2, 2007 2:53:40 GMT -5
I always thought 25 was a bit to young. so why did you vote no?
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 2, 2007 3:00:32 GMT -5
I hate player upgrades all together. Expanding the amount of players that can be improved, to me, is a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by djmyte on Jun 2, 2007 3:14:28 GMT -5
I hate player upgrades all together. Expanding the amount of players that can be improved, to me, is a bad idea. I dont hate them altogether, but i dont see a need for changing the current system.
|
|
|
Post by Outlawz on Jun 2, 2007 4:15:46 GMT -5
Maybe up it to 27 after that we could use the idea of rewarding winning teams to be able to upgrade their 27 and up guys.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 2, 2007 4:22:10 GMT -5
Maybe up it to 27 after that we could use the idea of rewarding winning teams to be able to upgrade their 27 and up guys. I think that the idea you suggested would simply make the division between the leagues top teams and bottom teams too large to amend. The gap is already huge, rewarding the best teams is bad for the league IMO.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 2, 2007 8:39:52 GMT -5
Maybe up it to 27 after that we could use the idea of rewarding winning teams to be able to upgrade their 27 and up guys. I think that the idea you suggested would simply make the division between the leagues top teams and bottom teams too large to amend. The gap is already huge, rewarding the best teams is bad for the league IMO. we aren't changing the face of the league here it's 5 pts to 1 guy in 1 catogory below an 85. Usually worse players will play better on better teams in real life would you expect less in the sim?
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 2, 2007 8:45:39 GMT -5
Maybe up it to 27 after that we could use the idea of rewarding winning teams to be able to upgrade their 27 and up guys. I thought about the 27 idea but think of a guy like Jim Jackson he played for 12 NBA teams and his production was like a roller coaster. Don't you think some teams stressed different ideas to him tweaking something in his jumpshot or pressing on him to play harder on defense while others just used him as a spot starter and saw him for just that and weren't as concerned on developing him. If you want to upgrade a player at 33 and he is eligible i think you should be able to.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 2, 2007 9:01:09 GMT -5
Maybe up it to 27 after that we could use the idea of rewarding winning teams to be able to upgrade their 27 and up guys. I thought about the 27 idea but think of a guy like Jim Jackson he played for 12 NBA teams and his production was like a roller coaster. Don't you think some teams stressed different ideas to him tweaking something in his jumpshot or pressing on him to play harder on defense while others just used him as a spot starter and saw him for just that and weren't as concerned on developing him. If you want to upgrade a player at 33 and he is eligible i think you should be able to. If a player is over the age of 27 though (just using 27 as an example), maybe only some categories of his game can be improved?
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 2, 2007 9:07:14 GMT -5
If a player is over the age of 27 though (just using 27 as an example), maybe only some categories of his game can be improved? Now we're getting to complicated too much work to keep track of
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 2, 2007 9:08:47 GMT -5
If a player is over the age of 27 though (just using 27 as an example), maybe only some categories of his game can be improved? Now we're getting to complicated too much work to keep track of The whole system is to hard to keep track of IMO. Theres a much easier way to go about this whole thing. I probably shouldn't try and complicate it for myself anymore...
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 2, 2007 9:16:49 GMT -5
I just think it's nice to fine tune your role players....like say scott pollard you aren't going to make or break his career by using an upgrade on him but you could make him a better post defender and thats it...its probably not worth using RC's on him but maybe it is to your team if thats what you need for your championship run or are trying to use him for trade bait. Or Bruce Bowen improving his perimeter defense such vets like this.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Jun 2, 2007 10:09:50 GMT -5
I think its good the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by cjmjones008 on Jun 2, 2007 10:16:16 GMT -5
I like the idea but I think it should be limited to upgrade only one player over 25 per year
|
|
Scott
Starter
Cincinnati Reds
BBSBL-Cincinnati Reds
Posts: 1,022
|
Post by Scott on Jun 2, 2007 10:19:14 GMT -5
I like the idea but I think it should be limited to upgrade only one player over 25 per year That's a good idea. I liked the general idea of having 25+ being upgraded, but I thought that it could have gotten out of hand. I like the idea of only one player over 25 per year.
|
|
|
Post by gmgreggor on Jun 2, 2007 10:38:00 GMT -5
Nah, lot of RC's used already on guys.
|
|
|
Post by Bender on Jun 2, 2007 10:38:37 GMT -5
i voted no because it gives u a reason to keep ur young talent and not just build a dream team of veterans. also the whole reason bbs was shut down was because the players were too unrealistically good and i think that this would be a problem again
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 2, 2007 10:58:54 GMT -5
I really llike this idea, it looks like it makes sense. You should be allowed to upgrade guys to a certain age, say 32 or so. Anything below that you should be allowed to upgrade them.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Jun 2, 2007 11:31:25 GMT -5
i was really tempted to vote don't care, because it was an option, even though i do care, but ya.
like i said i like it. we're really not changing much imo... the key thing to remember is it's still 3 per career.
|
|
|
Post by ducky on Jun 2, 2007 14:39:12 GMT -5
I hate player upgrades all together. Expanding the amount of players that can be improved, to me, is a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 2, 2007 16:59:59 GMT -5
i like the idea jordan proposed and to all those not in favor whats the big difference of upgrading say jim mcllvaine at the age of 32...do you really think thats going to make or break the league? not to mention chances are whatever RC you do use on an older player chances are he loses it after the seasons end declining in the following TC. Thats the risk/reward you take
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jun 3, 2007 15:35:03 GMT -5
i voted no because it gives u a reason to keep ur young talent and not just build a dream team of veterans. also the whole reason bbs was shut down was because the players were too unrealistically good and i think that this would be a problem again The original BBS didn't shut down because of that... As for people saying this is going to reward the already good teams and hurt the already bad teams is ridiculous. Let me re-phrase what you meant to say. "This is going to reward the active teams even more and hurt the inactive ones." Also, how is this going to make it more "un-realistic?" If you choose to spend an RC on a player over 25 you're doing it with some risk as players tend to decline in BBS over the age of 25. If you want to spend an RC on a possible declining player you should be able to do so. There is no negative to modifying RCs. Only positives... stop worrying about it and make some posts and write some articles.-
|
|