|
Post by nova on Jun 19, 2007 12:26:10 GMT -5
Aaron, you do know there are end of season extensions correct? More than half the guys that signed in season max contracts would have accepted end of season offers anyway. FBB already has this built in. Like I said, I would enough guys try to re-sign. But that doesn't mean they will, and it wouldn't make any sense for the top tier guys off rookie contracts to be hitting FA. Again, the majority of the great young players choose to re-sign in the re-signing period...but there are a few who test FA...which makes it a LOT more interesting. And no one's saying that we should make the best young expirings go into FA...we're just saying, leaving it up to FBB is the fairest option, and it at least gives rebuilding teams a chance to sign away good players. If you want to base every sim league decision off the NBA's example, the league would never survive. Sims would be no fun with only 5 trades a season, sims would not last with no GM's dealing their draft picks and every team keeping their own picks. In-Season Extensions only help the good teams. And you think Ducky is being selfish? We have LBJ, Smith, Delonte, Livi all who will be up for re-signing in the next few years, and if this in-season extensions thing gets changed, we have to go on re-signing them in regular fashion... It's not selfish reasoning at all, if it was, I would be supporting in-season extensions because it would guarantee me of getting my stars back.
|
|
|
Post by cjmjones008 on Jun 19, 2007 12:26:24 GMT -5
i like the max rule... we had a different format of being able to negotiate in original bbs but that didnt work
guys not accepting that money during the season doesnt happen very often which is why this rule was made... dropping it would be a bad idea imo
there isnt a real way to fix it to make it more realistic or else it would be
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Jun 19, 2007 12:27:08 GMT -5
Aaron, you do know there are end of season extensions correct? More than half the guys that signed in season max contracts would have accepted end of season offers anyway. FBB already has this built in. Like I said, I would hope enough guys try to re-sign. But that doesn't mean they will, and it wouldn't make any sense for the top tier guys off rookie contracts to be hitting FA. I don't know.....some really big names have moved. Shaq, TMac, J Oneil etc....
|
|
|
Post by nova on Jun 19, 2007 12:29:10 GMT -5
The max rule is fine, you get one max per season or get one per three seasons, something you could think about wuold really help in many favors. Besides guys who complain about it will not like to see their star player go hit the fa market and lose him to another team. If you guys are so worried about rebuilding why dont you start trading instead of sitting on losing seasons. You don't think we're trying? The only players anyone likes on our team are LBJ, Smith, & Livi...all of whom will be future stars. Your suggesting we deal them for older players just so that we can we win 40 games? Basically, your suggesting that we should mortgage our entire future for 1 or 2 40-45 win seasons just to make you happy and to prove that we don't need to get rid of in-season extensions. No one likes Brezec, Nazr, KVH, etc...all guys we had to overpay for in Free Agency just so we had a shot to win 40 games...this is making my point for me. Rebuilding teams will have to overpay for players in FA just to have a chance to win 40 games, and it will hurt their future, as signing KVH, Brezec, & Nazr hurts our future as it cost us cap space.
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Jun 19, 2007 12:31:45 GMT -5
Like I said, I would hope enough guys try to re-sign. But that doesn't mean they will, and it wouldn't make any sense for the top tier guys off rookie contracts to be hitting FA. I don't know.....some really big names have moved. Shaq, TMac, J Oneil etc.... jo was a fa? i thought he was dealt to indy
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Jun 19, 2007 12:31:47 GMT -5
You sure did overpay those guys big time. I think you would have gotten them for much cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Jun 19, 2007 12:33:49 GMT -5
I don't know.....some really big names have moved. Shaq, TMac, J Oneil etc.... jo was a fa? i thought he was dealt to indy Don't remember. I can't think of any former Pacers that were on those Blazer teams though. If it was a trade it was an offseason one.
|
|
|
Post by nova on Jun 19, 2007 12:35:12 GMT -5
You sure did overpay those guys big time. I think you would have gotten them for much cheaper. Doubtful...tons of teams had cap and as a result of a watered-down FA pool full of over-the-hill players, we had to overpay. This team has to win 40 games this season because of the new rule, and in order to do that, we had to settle for overpaying for players just to be a half-way decent team.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Jun 19, 2007 12:35:15 GMT -5
Actually Dale Davis is probably the guy in that deal.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Jun 19, 2007 12:36:21 GMT -5
So replace Jermaine with Joe Johnson
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Jun 19, 2007 12:37:24 GMT -5
jo was a fa? i thought he was dealt to indy Don't remember. I can't think of any former Pacers that were on those Blazer teams though. If it was a trade it was an offseason one. i think dale davis for jo, but was he a fa? i think he was still signed as a rook
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Jun 19, 2007 12:38:21 GMT -5
Don't remember. I can't think of any former Pacers that were on those Blazer teams though. If it was a trade it was an offseason one. i think dale davis for jo, but was he a fa? i think he was still signed as a rook just saw your post, haha
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Jun 19, 2007 12:39:02 GMT -5
Jo had just completed his 4th year. It may have been a sign and trade...dunno.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Jun 19, 2007 12:41:43 GMT -5
i woulda defended this but i was sleeping in today.
i think the biggest problem here is this argument is nothing more than a repeat, and i know nova wouldn't know that because he wasn't here. but we ALREADY had a poll that was basically a split decision and we ALREADY argued about this shit. it wasn't changed before. i can see the rules being changed but i can't ever see the max going away.
that being said i like the max because......
1) The max is not a toy. Look at Duncan's contract on my team for example... dude is getting top dollar for the last half of his deal. If you max 2 players on your roster, it really begins to limit what you can do with your roster. If anything we should lower the hard-cap, but we are, so yeah.
2) More importantly it's ridiculous for bad(rebuilding) teams to bank on top superstars hitting the market in order for their plans to be successful. You do a medicore/bad job building, ok, so therefor you deserve a reward for compensation by being able to steal another team's franchise player? I hate it. There are plenty of good FAs out there every year to build with, the last thing we need to do is rob GMs who work hard.
If teams are willing to pay top dollar to keep their star FA then they should be able to.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Jun 19, 2007 12:44:01 GMT -5
If you ask me the MAX extension is just another good way to prevent tanking and reward GMs who have done a good job.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 19, 2007 12:44:04 GMT -5
The max rule is fine, you get one max per season or get one per three seasons, something you could think about wuold really help in many favors. Besides guys who complain about it will not like to see their star player go hit the fa market and lose him to another team. If you guys are so worried about rebuilding why dont you start trading instead of sitting on losing seasons. You don't think we're trying? The only players anyone likes on our team are LBJ, Smith, & Livi...all of whom will be future stars. Your suggesting we deal them for older players just so that we can we win 40 games? Basically, your suggesting that we should mortgage our entire future for 1 or 2 40-45 win seasons just to make you happy and to prove that we don't need to get rid of in-season extensions. No one likes Brezec, Nazr, KVH, etc...all guys we had to overpay for in Free Agency just so we had a shot to win 40 games...this is making my point for me. Rebuilding teams will have to overpay for players in FA just to have a chance to win 40 games, and it will hurt their future, as signing KVH, Brezec, & Nazr hurts our future as it cost us cap space. you got to be fucking kidding me. You have had plently of chances to sign talent to actually give your squad a chance to win more than 40 games a season, maybe even 50. But ducky chose to keep losing and sit on his talent to explode. What do you think I did last year? I was tired of fucking losing every year, I traded my young talent got marbs, got jefferson, then traded to get jrich. I got back dampier and now my team is actually winning again. Besides you have to deal those guys if you want 40 wins or your gm will be packing his bags.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Jun 19, 2007 12:44:06 GMT -5
If teams are willing to pay top dollar to keep their star FA then they should be able to. I agree. And this is why the NBA (and FBB) came up with Bird rights. Teams can offer more than anyone else for their own players. 90% of the time this results in them coming back. In the other 10%? Well maybe the player just didn't like playing for you. It sucks but get over it.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Jun 19, 2007 12:45:55 GMT -5
If teams are willing to pay top dollar to keep their star FA then they should be able to. I agree. And this is why the NBA (and FBB) came up with Bird rights. Teams can offer more than anyone else for their own players. 90% of the time this results in them coming back. In the other 10%? Well maybe the player just didn't like playing for you. It sucks but get over it. They should be able to keep their star FA without having a heart attack because another team with nil talent plotted to steal him.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 19, 2007 12:46:38 GMT -5
If you ask me the MAX extension is just another good way to prevent tanking and reward GMs who have done a good job.
|
|
|
Post by nova on Jun 19, 2007 12:47:54 GMT -5
i woulda defended this but i was sleeping in today. i think the biggest problem here is this argument is nothing more than a repeat, and i know nova wouldn't know that because he wasn't here. but we ALREADY had a poll that was basically a split decision and we ALREADY argued about this shit. it wasn't changed before. i can see the rules being changed but i can't ever see the max going away. that being said i like the max because...... 1) The max is not a toy. Look at Duncan's contract on my team for example... dude is getting top dollar for the last half of his deal. If you max 2 players on your roster, it really begins to limit what you can do with your roster. If anything we should lower the hard-cap, but we are, so yeah. 2) More importantly it's ridiculous for bad(rebuilding) teams to bank on top superstars hitting the market in order for their plans to be successful. You do a medicore/bad job building, ok, so therefor you deserve a reward for compensation by being able to steal another team's franchise player? I hate it. There are plenty of good FAs out there every year to build with, the last thing we need to do is rob GMs who work hard. If teams are willing to pay top dollar to keep their star FA then they should be able to. Most of what your saying I do understand but looking at this last FA(the only one I've been around, so I may be wrong here), there was maybe one player that a rebuilding team could build with; Dalembert. He was the only one. Maybe in past FA's there have been more, I don't know, if there were, then I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by nybombers3 on Jun 19, 2007 12:49:08 GMT -5
If you ask me the MAX extension is just another good way to prevent tanking and reward GMs who have done a good job. I got rewarded pretty damn justly by having Marbury ditch me.
|
|
|
Post by nova on Jun 19, 2007 12:49:43 GMT -5
You don't think we're trying? The only players anyone likes on our team are LBJ, Smith, & Livi...all of whom will be future stars. Your suggesting we deal them for older players just so that we can we win 40 games? Basically, your suggesting that we should mortgage our entire future for 1 or 2 40-45 win seasons just to make you happy and to prove that we don't need to get rid of in-season extensions. No one likes Brezec, Nazr, KVH, etc...all guys we had to overpay for in Free Agency just so we had a shot to win 40 games...this is making my point for me. Rebuilding teams will have to overpay for players in FA just to have a chance to win 40 games, and it will hurt their future, as signing KVH, Brezec, & Nazr hurts our future as it cost us cap space. you got to be fucking kidding me. You have had plently of chances to sign talent to actually give your squad a chance to win more than 40 games a season, maybe even 50. But ducky chose to keep losing and sit on his talent to explode. What do you think I did last year? I was tired of fucking losing every year, I traded my young talent got marbs, got jefferson, then traded to get jrich. I got back dampier and now my team is actually winning again. Besides you have to deal those guys if you want 40 wins or your gm will be packing his bags. Again, I just got here so I wouldn't know about the FA Classes from 3-4 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jun 19, 2007 12:51:15 GMT -5
do not like max rule
|
|
|
Post by Bender on Jun 19, 2007 12:51:16 GMT -5
ill throw my two cents in for the most part in the nba what big name fa's are out there that jump ship. not too many imo. last significant i could think of was the phoenix suns who picked uup nash and q rich. not too many rebuilding teams build themselves through free agency a lone. the draft trading and fa. there was a few valuable frree agents this season. spreee forr ex.
|
|
|
Post by bossplaya on Jun 19, 2007 12:52:01 GMT -5
i woulda defended this but i was sleeping in today. i think the biggest problem here is this argument is nothing more than a repeat, and i know nova wouldn't know that because he wasn't here. but we ALREADY had a poll that was basically a split decision and we ALREADY argued about this shit. it wasn't changed before. i can see the rules being changed but i can't ever see the max going away. that being said i like the max because...... 1) The max is not a toy. Look at Duncan's contract on my team for example... dude is getting top dollar for the last half of his deal. If you max 2 players on your roster, it really begins to limit what you can do with your roster. If anything we should lower the hard-cap, but we are, so yeah. 2) More importantly it's ridiculous for bad(rebuilding) teams to bank on top superstars hitting the market in order for their plans to be successful. You do a medicore/bad job building, ok, so therefor you deserve a reward for compensation by being able to steal another team's franchise player? I hate it. There are plenty of good FAs out there every year to build with, the last thing we need to do is rob GMs who work hard. If teams are willing to pay top dollar to keep their star FA then they should be able to. well said.
|
|