|
Post by nova on Jun 19, 2007 12:53:08 GMT -5
Spree is like 34, isn't he?
|
|
|
Post by Bender on Jun 19, 2007 12:54:17 GMT -5
yea but he def could have easily been signed and traded for younger guys i know i was looking to get him for my squad. this is the point where u havve to be creative and deveklop players
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Jun 19, 2007 12:55:25 GMT -5
Joe Johnson jumped ship don't forget.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Jun 19, 2007 12:55:30 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. this supports my argument i feel. i dunno if that's what you meant to do.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Jun 19, 2007 12:56:15 GMT -5
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. I don't agree. I think thats one of the most exciting parts of sims.
|
|
|
Post by nybombers3 on Jun 19, 2007 12:56:23 GMT -5
You guys make it seem like FA's would leave every yr if this rule wasn't in place.
About 90% of the top FA's end up resigning anyways. The little bit remaining usually end up resigning anyways because the team he left can offer up more money.
Not only does this rule hurt rebuilding teams, it hurts middle of the road teams that want to land that solid big for the MLE but can't because a rebuilding team with around 30 Mil in cap space has to offer 1 yr max deals to every mediocre FA out there.
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jun 19, 2007 12:56:26 GMT -5
get rid of max contracts
|
|
|
Post by Bender on Jun 19, 2007 12:56:49 GMT -5
hoow could i forget joe johnson my bad
|
|
|
Post by nybombers3 on Jun 19, 2007 12:56:57 GMT -5
I got rewarded pretty damn justly by having Marbury ditch me. this supports my argument i feel. i dunno if that's what you meant to do. Marbury left me and I'm against the rule. You figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Jun 19, 2007 12:57:37 GMT -5
You guys make it seem like FA's would leave every yr if this rule wasn't in place. About 90% of the top FA's end up resigning anyways. The little bit remaining usually end up resigning anyways because the team he left can offer up more money. Not only does this rule hurt rebuilding teams, it hurts middle of the road teams that want to land that solid big for the MLE but can't because a rebuilding team with around 30 Mil in cap space has to offer 1 yr max deals to every mediocre FA out there. Like when I lost Joe Smith to a 17 mil contract because Ducky had no one better to bid on?
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jun 19, 2007 12:57:50 GMT -5
get rid of max contracts
|
|
|
Post by nybombers3 on Jun 19, 2007 12:57:51 GMT -5
yea but he def could have easily been signed and traded for younger guys i know i was looking to get him for my squad. this is the point where u havve to be creative and deveklop players He could? I'd love to see a 34 yr old Spree get moved for young talent.
|
|
|
Post by nybombers3 on Jun 19, 2007 12:58:26 GMT -5
You guys make it seem like FA's would leave every yr if this rule wasn't in place. About 90% of the top FA's end up resigning anyways. The little bit remaining usually end up resigning anyways because the team he left can offer up more money. Not only does this rule hurt rebuilding teams, it hurts middle of the road teams that want to land that solid big for the MLE but can't because a rebuilding team with around 30 Mil in cap space has to offer 1 yr max deals to every mediocre FA out there. Like when I lost Joe Smith to a 17 mil contract because Ducky had no one better to bid on?
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Jun 19, 2007 12:58:33 GMT -5
Joe Johnson jumped ship don't forget. due to the fact phoenix was nearing the luxury tax and wasn't able to resign him to a max deal. we have a similar system to the luxury tax, the hard cap. teams can max players all they want, but sooner or later they are going to have to deal players off to stay under, much like my situation with ai/cwebb.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Jun 19, 2007 12:58:42 GMT -5
this supports my argument i feel. i dunno if that's what you meant to do. Marbury left me and I'm against the rule. You figure it out. oh, ok, i hear ya.
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jun 19, 2007 12:59:19 GMT -5
get rid of max contracts
|
|
|
Post by ducky on Jun 19, 2007 13:00:22 GMT -5
You had me at your. Curious, what did you offer Odom when he hit the market? Davis? Marbury? VC? Dre Miller? Payton? Add in talent like Sprewell, Potapenko, Grant Hill, Eddie Jones, Jason Terry, Joe Smith, KVH, Ratliff, Foyle and those are the guys who have hit the market the past three offseasons...is that really unrealistic? Tell me we need to change when LeBron, Wade, Melo, Bosh, Hinrich, et al. among young talent aren't signing extensions before they hit the market in real. Odom, Marbz, VC all MAx. I didn't offer for Miller and Payton.
|
|
|
Post by Bender on Jun 19, 2007 13:01:56 GMT -5
yea but he def could have easily been signed and traded for younger guys i know i was looking to get him for my squad. this is the point where u havve to be creative and deveklop players He could? I'd love to see a 34 yr old Spree get moved for young talent. anyone could catch me around the 230 am hour when im wasted and feel like making deals. it's been knoown too happen. the question is would i be wasted on beer and give up jawad williams or am i wasted on whiskey where id giive up jermaine o neal
|
|
|
Post by ducky on Jun 19, 2007 13:02:01 GMT -5
Your ignoring the point...it's impossible for REBUILDING teams to get better unless they want to overpay 30+ year old players. Sure there are some good FA's, but almost all of them, if not all, are over the age of 30. Only 2 of the players you listed above[Odom & Dre] are ones that would make any sense for a rebuilding team. The rest are all old and declining, and would take a big deal to sign. In-season Extensions just separate the gap between the best & worst teams...the best teams can keep re-signing their best players without worrying about losing them, and the worst will have to spend 5-6 years drafting players to become a good team...and will lose interest, I know I would. Basically, in-season extensions leave the FA pool full of over-the-hill players who rebuilding teams will not want, and should not want as it makes absolutely no sense for them. The only half-decent player in last year's FA that would have made sense for Ducky was Dally, and even that is a reach, he is a role player...and definitely not worth a max. If in-season extensions are kept, all you will see is more players like Dally get big contracts that they don't deserve, not to mention rebuilding teams continuing to struggle to become contenders. BBS has operated like this for, what, 30 seasons? And you hit the nail on the head regarding why guys like Ducky struggle in FA. You think Vince Carter, Baron Davis, Stephon Marbury, or even any of those players don't make sense for a rebuilding team? If you have money to spend, there is absolutely no point in trying to get the best players available, and those guys are some of the best talents in BBS. If you won't spend money on a guy because he's above 25, that's pathetic, and you deserve to lose. It wouldn't be realistic or fair if every stud under 25 had to hit the FA market. At all. I'm sure Ducky would feel differently if he ended up losing LeBron and Josh Smith to FA because he never had the opportunity to extend them. If they are young and the team has guys like Bron and Smith, why not? If Marbz would have signed with me we would have been a playoff team already. Shit happens all the time. Guys sign for money usually. They don't care if their team wins or not. Nets made playoffs, but watch VC walk off next year.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Jun 19, 2007 13:02:11 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. Wouldn't you agree that there are some weak FA pools in real life too though? BBS has had some pretty legit players hit the market over time I think. I think the actuality of it is that any time there are no good FAs available it's usually due to the fact that players who didn't deserve MAX still got MAX. and in time those teams will pay the price for that... but that is just the way I see it.
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jun 19, 2007 13:03:51 GMT -5
get rid of max contracts
|
|
|
Post by ducky on Jun 19, 2007 13:04:14 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. Are you fucking serious? I fucked MAX about 6-7 guys the last 2-3 years... fuck off guys. You don't know what the hell you are saying. And last season I did MAX/1year offers, and I got Joe Smith and KVH, 2 of the top fas fucking retards.
|
|
|
Post by ducky on Jun 19, 2007 13:04:59 GMT -5
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. Wouldn't you agree that there are some weak FA pools in real life too though? BBS has had some pretty legit players hit the market over time I think. I think the actuality of it is that any time there are no good FAs available it's usually due to the fact that players who didn't deserve MAX still got MAX. and in time those teams will pay the price for that... but that is just the way I see it. Duce, the only big change in the last few years was Marbz to Bucks... There's rarely any big names.... The last 2 seasons, it has been shit.
|
|
|
Post by ducky on Jun 19, 2007 13:05:52 GMT -5
You guys make it seem like FA's would leave every yr if this rule wasn't in place. About 90% of the top FA's end up resigning anyways. The little bit remaining usually end up resigning anyways because the team he left can offer up more money. Not only does this rule hurt rebuilding teams, it hurts middle of the road teams that want to land that solid big for the MLE but can't because a rebuilding team with around 30 Mil in cap space has to offer 1 yr max deals to every mediocre FA out there.
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jun 19, 2007 13:06:03 GMT -5
get rid of max contracts
|
|