|
Post by Skillz on Sept 3, 2007 20:36:01 GMT -5
i agree with martinez but i think there should be an age limit...30 maybe?
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Sept 3, 2007 21:32:34 GMT -5
its pretty simple, if u want a guy over 25 to be upgraded it should take two because its unlikely they really improve at the age or older in real life. One rc for anyone under makes sense and if u really want someone over 25 to be upgraded two should be the price, its fair for everyone in the league. I'm sorry Dan your answer made no sense and was just redundant. If you say its hard to upgrade a player over the age of 25? So a player that comes into the NBA 4 yrs out of college at the age of 23. You are telling me they only have 2 years to improve before they reach their peak? Also I think your argument is more geared to players over the age of 30 which will be hard and TC will counter product the use of 1 RC on the player. A use of an RC there is more to prevent decline than rather to improve. Also players do improve as they become Veterans especially role players (bench players) as they've really worked on one aspect of their game for quite a number of years ex. Jim Jackson, Robert Horry, and perhaps the best example Jerry Stackhouse totally reinvented himself after the age of 30. if i am correct it will take two rcs to upgrade a players say Inside scoring but u only get 5 points out of it.. Its not like they are getting 10.. It will cost more because of there age.. Why would useing one rc prevent decline and not improvement? We are talking about the same thing its not 5 vs 10.. i dont know if you understand what i am saying but what spence wants to do and what u want to do are pretty much the same you are just paying another upgrade to upgrade guys over 25, which makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Sept 3, 2007 21:46:57 GMT -5
I'm sorry Dan your answer made no sense and was just redundant. If you say its hard to upgrade a player over the age of 25? So a player that comes into the NBA 4 yrs out of college at the age of 23. You are telling me they only have 2 years to improve before they reach their peak? Also I think your argument is more geared to players over the age of 30 which will be hard and TC will counter product the use of 1 RC on the player. A use of an RC there is more to prevent decline than rather to improve. Also players do improve as they become Veterans especially role players (bench players) as they've really worked on one aspect of their game for quite a number of years ex. Jim Jackson, Robert Horry, and perhaps the best example Jerry Stackhouse totally reinvented himself after the age of 30. if i am correct it will take two rcs to upgrade a players say Inside scoring but u only get 5 points out of it.. Its not like they are getting 10.. It will cost more because of there age.. Why would useing one rc prevent decline and not improvement? We are talking about the same thing its not 5 vs 10.. i dont know if you understand what i am saying but what spence wants to do and what u want to do are pretty much the same you are just paying another upgrade to upgrade guys over 25, which makes sense. I understand what you are saying but you aren't grasping the concept. Why should you have to pay a premium rate of 2 RC's to upgrade a guy who isn't going to see as vast improvement as a player under 25? RC's are after TC and older players tend to decline in TC. If a player drops 5pts in TC using the RC would prevent decline and replenish as opposed to boosting a younger player. See? Using RC's on older players is a bit counter productive as is but what you failed to address in my previous post is that older players can still fine tune their skills. This shouldn't cost more there is zero logic behind it
|
|
|
Post by aaronjh on Sept 3, 2007 21:55:48 GMT -5
if i am correct it will take two rcs to upgrade a players say Inside scoring but u only get 5 points out of it.. Its not like they are getting 10.. It will cost more because of there age.. Why would useing one rc prevent decline and not improvement? We are talking about the same thing its not 5 vs 10.. i dont know if you understand what i am saying but what spence wants to do and what u want to do are pretty much the same you are just paying another upgrade to upgrade guys over 25, which makes sense. I understand what you are saying but you aren't grasping the concept. Why should you have to pay a premium rate of 2 RC's to upgrade a guy who isn't going to see as vast improvement as a player under 25? RC's are after TC and older players tend to decline in TC. If a player drops 5pts in TC using the RC would prevent decline and replenish as opposed to boosting a younger player. See? Using RC's on older players is a bit counter productive as is but what you failed to address in my previous post is that older players can still fine tune their skills. This shouldn't cost more there is zero logic behind it Dave, if you upgrade a guy when he's at the age where he typically regresses, you're disrupting the flow of the game. Boosting players below 25 is at least not going against the grain; boosting older guys is different because it preserves their talent when their talent should be declining. I see nothing wrong with changing the rule so that upgrading guys 27 and under costs an ugrade, but for 28+, it's bizarre to improve the game, and it will alter the entire format of the league. If we have to disrupt the natural course of the game to improve guys who should be declining, it should definitely cost more.
|
|
|
Post by aigatdula on Sept 3, 2007 22:08:30 GMT -5
1RC - put a higher limit on the age (ex 30yrs old) - MAX of 3 RCs on a player - 85 above on the category CAP
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Sept 3, 2007 23:04:22 GMT -5
I understand what you are saying but you aren't grasping the concept. Why should you have to pay a premium rate of 2 RC's to upgrade a guy who isn't going to see as vast improvement as a player under 25? RC's are after TC and older players tend to decline in TC. If a player drops 5pts in TC using the RC would prevent decline and replenish as opposed to boosting a younger player. See? Using RC's on older players is a bit counter productive as is but what you failed to address in my previous post is that older players can still fine tune their skills. This shouldn't cost more there is zero logic behind it Dave, if you upgrade a guy when he's at the age where he typically regresses, you're disrupting the flow of the game. Boosting players below 25 is at least not going against the grain; boosting older guys is different because it preserves their talent when their talent should be declining. I see nothing wrong with changing the rule so that upgrading guys 27 and under costs an ugrade, but for 28+, it's bizarre to improve the game, and it will alter the entire format of the league. If we have to disrupt the natural course of the game to improve guys who should be declining, it should definitely cost more. Then forget this rule altogether because no one in their right mind is going to waste 2 RCs on someone who is on the decline. Dave and I can't explain it any better. 5 points on a guy declining in 2-3 different categories, maybe more, is not going to do anything special as we'd essentially be upgrading 1 category. We are only allowed to upgrade 1 category in a person's career no matter the age, so it's not like we'd be preserving all that much, what one season if that? If the player sees a 8 point decrease and we can only upgrade 5 points it's not a huge positive.. So you mean to tell me I'm going to be wasting 2 RCs on 1 category? That's crazy. Forget that all together though, because I and Dave want this rule implemented for guys like a Rasheed Wallace or a Bonzi Wells who never seemed to reach the ratings they should have had because they hit the age limit of 25. Or rookies coming out at age 23/24. Who can only see 1 upgrade. I really find it unlikely that Al Thornton will never "improve" in the NBA just because he's older. Look at Anthony Parker in the NBA. Years and years oversees finally found him a spot in the NBA, starting no less, at the age of what 27-28 he is? Maybe older. This will not increase the talent level, decrease the talent level, nor "alter the entire format of the league." I can come to agreement that a player over 25 can only be upgraded once no matter if he has never been upgraded before... but 2 RCs? That just makes this pointless.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Sept 4, 2007 0:15:51 GMT -5
Dave, if you upgrade a guy when he's at the age where he typically regresses, you're disrupting the flow of the game. Boosting players below 25 is at least not going against the grain; boosting older guys is different because it preserves their talent when their talent should be declining. I see nothing wrong with changing the rule so that upgrading guys 27 and under costs an ugrade, but for 28+, it's bizarre to improve the game, and it will alter the entire format of the league. If we have to disrupt the natural course of the game to improve guys who should be declining, it should definitely cost more. forget this rule altogether
|
|
|
Post by Lumley316 on Sept 4, 2007 2:24:39 GMT -5
2
|
|
|
Post by Outlawz on Sept 4, 2007 2:49:16 GMT -5
2 is cool. As long as your able to only give a max of 3 rcs to a player then i dont see the big deal or difference.
|
|