|
Post by TrayWithAnA on Mar 18, 2014 17:19:04 GMT -6
As long as it's allowed in real NBA, I see no reason to penalize it here. We are supposed to model after the real league, correct? Agreed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2014 17:20:53 GMT -6
This is tough because where do you draw the line on freedom to make your own roster and us as admin guiding people to the rosters we "think" is right. We don't want this to be Nazi Germany and if we don't like the way your roster is built then destroy it. Those three teams are good examples because imo they had little to no shot at winning a title (outside of the Magic i think they'd contend this year), but were too good to get another huge piece without giving up so much it cost them a title shot. They'd basically have to wait for a trape to truly contend and with all aging vets who knows if that trape comes early enough. When we start limiting people's trades and signings etc is when this league won't be fun for a lot of people imo. People do things differently. I'm sure 90% of the league thought you should have traded Hakeem (right or wrongly) but you considered it the right move to keep him. Your patience payed off but there's no guarantee it will. Take my team for instance. I was never as bad as all 3 of those teams but i got very lucky in landing the #2 overall pick. I get Lj and now he's a mid level player (no offense Tray). the reason i won the championship was moves to surround my core guys. Just like there's no guarantee you'll get Glen Rice for a pack of hot dogs, there's not guarantee they get a certain superstar that prowls them further than they were when they stared their rebuild. So there's some gray area involved with this imo, i don't see it as so black and white. It's not guarantee, but I refuse to tank. I'll only be bad when my players retire, and I'm left with nothing. Not because I went all fire sale because I lost in the playoffs a few years in a row. But it's like picking highway 90 versus the interstate. you may not like the path but you can't force someone to take the same road as you. Let's put all the cards out on the table. There was someone we thought was doing some... creative loss making last season. We warned that person and let him know if the solution wasn't fixed we'd fix it for him. He complied and all is fine. We can't tell people how to run their team's though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2014 17:21:41 GMT -6
Another thing to note, people were ALL UP IN ARMS over Conroy going around trading assets for 93 1sts a couple seasons back. It didn't net him what he wanted, but those same people didn't necessarily have a bad time voting for him for GMOY when he went and turned those same assets into pieces that helped him win the East.
So yes maybe I'm tanking ... but while I traded away my aging vets, I managed to get my own pick (insurance), a young PG with yellow/blue potential, 4 future picks and a rookie SG with yellow/blue potential... all this while maintaining pieces that I'd like to build a team around/with (Anthony Mason, Robert Horry, and newly added Antonio DAvis).
I for one thought there should of been punishment for what Conroy did, and heavily. conroy didn't do anything wrong. You know who did something wrong? The GMs who kept selling to him.
|
|
|
Post by TrayWithAnA on Mar 18, 2014 17:23:20 GMT -6
I think there is a difference between being anti-tanking and recognizing egregious efforts to tank.
Take your top 4 pick without complaint here, but know that people will call you out for winning 50+ last year and then making a run at the Mavericks record the next season by clearing house in a fire sale.
|
|
|
Post by Inner_GI on Mar 18, 2014 17:25:40 GMT -6
It's not guarantee, but I refuse to tank. I'll only be bad when my players retire, and I'm left with nothing. Not because I went all fire sale because I lost in the playoffs a few years in a row. So you are future tanking then? You plan to let your team to get old and decrepit and shitty just to "naturally" and "organically" suck, then when you are left with nothing, you'll be able to naturally use your own natural draft pick to pick in high lotto. Righhhhhhhht Or not. I haven't done it, so you can judge me on the potential of the future where I can point to a firesale in Milwaukee, and to go and get your own pick back to make tanking worth it.
|
|
|
Post by thesyndicate on Mar 18, 2014 17:26:19 GMT -6
I said this on Skype, but what about having an "entertaining as hell" tournament Bill Simmons style. I'm not sure if the software can handle it, but I think it solves some problems. The lottery teams play eachother in a tournament and the WINNERS get the top picks.
|
|
|
Post by Inner_GI on Mar 18, 2014 17:27:14 GMT -6
I think there is a difference between being anti-tanking and recognizing egregious efforts to tank. Take your top 4 pick without complaint here, but know that people will call you out for winning 50+ last year and then making a run at the Mavericks record the next season by clearing house in a fire sale. And this is the point I was trying to get at. Winning over 50 games one year and then winning 15 the next.... That's tanking.
|
|
|
Post by Inner_GI on Mar 18, 2014 17:28:30 GMT -6
I said this on Skype, but what about having an "entertaining as hell" tournament Bill Simmons style. I'm not sure if the software can handle it, but I think it solves some problems. The lottery teams play eachother in a tournament and the WINNERS get the top picks. Just implement a point system. Once you are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, every win after that earns you a point. Team with most points after being eliminated gets the #1 pick. The real NBA should adopt this.
|
|
|
Post by Inner_GI on Mar 18, 2014 17:29:30 GMT -6
It's not guarantee, but I refuse to tank. I'll only be bad when my players retire, and I'm left with nothing. Not because I went all fire sale because I lost in the playoffs a few years in a row. But it's like picking highway 90 versus the interstate. you may not like the path but you can't force someone to take the same road as you. Let's put all the cards out on the table. There was someone we thought was doing some... creative loss making last season. We warned that person and let him know if the solution wasn't fixed we'd fix it for him. He complied and all is fine. We can't tell people how to run their team's though. I can agree with that, but winning 54 games and the division then winning 17.... c'mon
|
|
|
Post by IamQuailman on Mar 18, 2014 17:30:38 GMT -6
I think there is a difference between being anti-tanking and recognizing egregious efforts to tank. Take your top 4 pick without complaint here, but know that people will call you out for winning 50+ last year and then making a run at the Mavericks record the next season by clearing house in a fire sale. And this is the point I was trying to get at. Winning over 50 games one year and then winning 15 the next.... That's tanking. Damn, I should've stuck with the GM mindset of "Let Kevin Willis and Otis Thorpe keep getting older and eat up my cap space, then max out 30 y/o's curry and terry porter and ride them out to mediocrity"
HI HO SILVER AND AWAY
|
|
|
Post by thesyndicate on Mar 18, 2014 17:30:43 GMT -6
I agree with GI.
We can do something about this structurally, and the real NBA should too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2014 17:31:31 GMT -6
I said this on Skype, but what about having an "entertaining as hell" tournament Bill Simmons style. I'm not sure if the software can handle it, but I think it solves some problems. The lottery teams play eachother in a tournament and the WINNERS get the top picks. I dunno and this is coming from someone who think Simmons is an (entertaining) idiot; but that doesn't make a ton of sense. Pretty much keeps the teams top 22 teams the same. In fact it may make teams want to not make the playoffs and i think that would be tragic. Who wouldn't want to miss the 8 seed in a tourney to play for the #1 pick?
|
|
|
Post by Inner_GI on Mar 18, 2014 17:33:57 GMT -6
And this is the point I was trying to get at. Winning over 50 games one year and then winning 15 the next.... That's tanking. Damn, I should've stuck with the GM mindset of "Let Kevin Willis and Otis Thorpe keep getting older and eat up my cap space, then max out 30 y/o's curry and terry porter and ride them out to mediocrity"
HI HO SILVER AND AWAY
Winning 52 games is mediocre?
|
|
|
Post by IamQuailman on Mar 18, 2014 17:37:12 GMT -6
Did I win 52 games this season? That was last year. BEFORE the training camp that just happened. Teams and ratings change.
|
|
|
Post by Inner_GI on Mar 18, 2014 17:39:30 GMT -6
My premise is a team that goes from winning over 50 games to winning under 20 doesn't happen without injuries or GM tanking for a high pick. Obviously won't change your mind, so I'll stop there, and since there isn't any rules against it, you are using a proven strategy. I just disagree with it, and I think it is pretty bad for the league...
|
|
|
Post by DarthVegito on Mar 18, 2014 17:41:10 GMT -6
*Taking high road AGAIN*
|
|
|
Post by Conroy on Mar 18, 2014 17:44:24 GMT -6
I just listened to Simmons on a podcast. The tourney is close but something like the winner gets into the playoffs AND an entry into the lotto I think all teams have equal or. Lose to equal chances and the worst team is guaranteed top 5
|
|
|
Post by DarthVegito on Mar 18, 2014 17:46:32 GMT -6
I lied fuck it. The difference between you and I is I don't like being mediocre. I'm NOT ok with it. And I'm willing to do something about it. So although I win over 50 games, when I know that my team CAN'T truly contend for a ring I'm going to do something about it. I'm not going to hope and dream that I can magically contend next year. Your off base here severely. Ok GI, while your wanting to control how people build their teams, we'll start controlling another thing that's killing the league. And that HORRIBLE trades. SO I'll be needing Glen Rice back.
|
|
|
Post by Inner_GI on Mar 18, 2014 17:48:38 GMT -6
I lied fuck it. The difference between you and I is I don't like being mediocre. I'm NOT ok with it. And I'm willing to do something about it. So although I win over 50 games, when I know that my team CAN'T truly contend for a ring I'm going to do something about it. I'm not going to hope and dream that I can magically contend next year. Your off base here severely. Ok GI, while your wanting to control how people build their teams, we'll start controlling another thing that's killing the league. And that HORRIBLE trades. SO I'll be needing Glen Rice back. Take him back. I don't care. People refuse to actually talk about tanking here...Put Rice back on the Magic so you can trade for him like you wanted and got all pissy about anyway. OR Let me trade rice to you for 10 points.
|
|
|
Post by Conroy on Mar 18, 2014 17:51:45 GMT -6
Inner there is a difference between discussing an issue and whatever it is your doing here.
|
|
Soundwave
Full Member
Toronto Raptors
Winter is coming
Posts: 2,465
|
Post by Soundwave on Mar 18, 2014 17:52:46 GMT -6
If you are not trying to be the champion this season then be prepared to gain that reputation and take some heat. But I will also be glad to buy all your good players on the cheap while calling you a LOSER to your face.
Bitch!
/end rant.
|
|
|
Post by bowtothebill23 on Mar 18, 2014 17:54:00 GMT -6
For me, tanking has meant losing on purpose and doing everything within your power to lose. I think trading guys who are productive for less productive young guys and picks is perfectly ok. This is why the Mavs were able to rebuild so well: not because they were so bad, but be says they got value for their players. Real tanking when it comes to trading (for me) is going in with the mindset of "this guy is going to make me win. Let me make sure I get rid of him even if it's for 10 cents on the dollar." The Glen Rice trade, Gary Grant trade, and Johnny Dawkins trade. If those teams were trying to contend and those deals were offered, they probably would have laughed at them and said no. But since those guys may help them win, they feel they have to get rid of them. With gameplanninf, as long as you're actively trying to win or develop young players (reasonably), it's really hard for me to tell you you're tanking unless you're going same or repeatedly making it obvious you have no goal but to lose. That's my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Inner_GI on Mar 18, 2014 17:55:39 GMT -6
Alright. I'll never raise an opinion about the league again. I'll just sit quietly in the corner.
|
|
logpmess
Junior Member
Miami Heat
Posts: 557
|
Post by logpmess on Mar 18, 2014 17:59:38 GMT -6
Alright. I'll never raise an opinion about the league again. I'll just sit quietly in the corner. Nobody puts baby in the corner.
|
|
|
Post by IamQuailman on Mar 18, 2014 18:02:12 GMT -6
For me, tanking has meant losing on purpose and doing everything within your power to lose. I think trading guys who are productive for less productive young guys and picks is perfectly ok. This is why the Mavs were able to rebuild so well: not because they were so bad, but be says they got value for their players. Real tanking when it comes to trading (for me) is going in with the mindset of "this guy is going to make me win. Let me make sure I get rid of him even if it's for 10 cents on the dollar." The Glen Rice trade, Gary Grant trade, and Johnny Dawkins trade. If those teams were trying to contend and those deals were offered, they probably would have laughed at them and said no. But since those guys may help them win, they feel they have to get rid of them. With gameplanninf, as long as you're actively trying to win or develop young players (reasonably), it's really hard for me to tell you you're tanking unless you're going same or repeatedly making it obvious you have no goal but to lose. That's my 2 cents. So if you have a guy on your team who is not in your future plans and you have someone that comes to you offering something, you would rather nothing (letting them walk in FA) than getting some return on investment?
That was the best deal on the table, and I took it. I could have waited it out and waited for another trade, but then WHOOPS JOHNNY DAWKINS BROKEN SKULL 100 DAYS. There goes any offer and I make $0 on a guy that could've helped me trained the post D of a young guy on my team.
Not to mention, I have Mike Iuzzolino (who I like as a player to be a part of the future of my team) and Terry Porter and Scott Brooks. Why do I need ANOTHER PG who's going to sit on the bench or IR?
|
|