|
|
Post by thesyndicate on Mar 18, 2014 22:20:49 GMT -6
That's the best kind of tanking. The only tanking I like is Frank the Tank. 
|
|
|
|
Post by thesyndicate on Mar 18, 2014 22:21:50 GMT -6
And your finger smels like vagina So, I may or may not have gotten it in tonight. Just trying to put Sim League in perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by IamQuailman on Mar 18, 2014 22:23:02 GMT -6
And your finger smels like vagina So, I may or may not have gotten it in tonight. Just trying to put Sim League in perspective.
 |
|
|
|
Post by NOLa. on Mar 18, 2014 22:24:30 GMT -6
And your finger smels like vagina So, I may or may not have gotten it in tonight. Just trying to put Sim League in perspective.
Just got a text from your date tonight.  |
|
|
|
Post by thesyndicate on Mar 18, 2014 22:25:50 GMT -6
So, I may or may not have gotten it in tonight. Just trying to put Sim League in perspective.
Just got a text from your date tonight. She's just sad it's over. |
|
|
|
Post by IamQuailman on Mar 18, 2014 22:37:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by thesyndicate on Mar 18, 2014 22:39:19 GMT -6
No - I covered that. Please, girl. I know we in Houston, but this ain't my first Rodeo.
Oh, hey Doug. Aren't you that dude that's stirring up all this trouble over the fact that you're tanking better than anyone else?
Yeah. Serious business.
Stop posting memes.
|
|
|
|
Post by IamQuailman on Mar 18, 2014 22:40:35 GMT -6
No - I covered that. Please, girl. I know we in Houston, but this ain't my first Rodeo. Oh, hey Doug. Aren't you that dude that's stirring up all this trouble over the fact that you're tanking better than anyone else? Yeah. Serious business. Stop posting memes. |
|
|
|
Post by thesyndicate on Mar 18, 2014 22:44:04 GMT -6
That video is booty. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Inner_GI on Mar 19, 2014 7:01:12 GMT -6
Tanking needs intent. I agree with that. Intent is subjective though... Well intent, in this case, means you know and purposely performed an action. It's not going into the rationalization of intent, but just the actual action itself. That's why I brought up how it eliminates bad training camps to key players and other examples. It doesn't mean you have a bad camp so you have an excuse to blow things up, but you can't say that a team got intentionally worse because of training camp, missing out on key free agent bids, or an injury bug strikes. All factors come into play and I know it's not a black-or-white issue, if it was there would be a legitimate definition for the terms tanking and rebuilding. I agree 100%. But where is the line drawn? The intent of the Bucks, Magic, and Mavs was to get worse (to rebuild). Isn't the intent to lose games what we would normally call tanking? That's my only question. There are ways to build for the future without going so low, the balance of the leauge is affected, and you win less than 20 games. I got carried away earlier, and I apologize for that to Darth, Quail, and Coltsguy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 7:07:45 GMT -6
Well intent, in this case, means you know and purposely performed an action. It's not going into the rationalization of intent, but just the actual action itself. That's why I brought up how it eliminates bad training camps to key players and other examples. It doesn't mean you have a bad camp so you have an excuse to blow things up, but you can't say that a team got intentionally worse because of training camp, missing out on key free agent bids, or an injury bug strikes. All factors come into play and I know it's not a black-or-white issue, if it was there would be a legitimate definition for the terms tanking and rebuilding. I agree 100%. But where is the line drawn? The intent of the Bucks, Magic, and Mavs was to get worse (to rebuild). Isn't the intent to lose games what we would normally call tanking? That's my only question. There are ways to build for the future without going so low, the balance of the leauge is affected, and you win less than 20 games. I got carried away earlier, and I apologize for that to Darth, Quail, and Coltsguy. I'd like to hear you play out a scenario. We know how it goes if you sell off your assets at 30 and start over, but i want to hear the scenario where you have a 32 year old guy as your #1 and no real shot at winning a championship going into the season. |
|
|
|
Post by DarthVegito on Mar 19, 2014 7:29:09 GMT -6
I agree 100%. But where is the line drawn? The intent of the Bucks, Magic, and Mavs was to get worse (to rebuild). Isn't the intent to lose games what we would normally call tanking? That's my only question. There are ways to build for the future without going so low, the balance of the leauge is affected, and you win less than 20 games. I got carried away earlier, and I apologize for that to Darth, Quail, and Coltsguy. I'd like to hear you play out a scenario. We know how it goes if you sell off your assets at 30 and start over, but i want to hear the scenario where you have a 32 year old guy as your #1 and no real shot at winning a championship going into the season. Yes the world wants to know your great solution/alternative to this. Run out the scenario Balls just described please. I gotta hear this. Because I'm absolutely sick of hearing about this and I'm tired of my team and myself being dragged thru the mud. I've had it seriously. You have vilified the way I handled my rebuild over and over and over again. Enlightened us on the "right" way to rebuild. Take us through it year by year. Can't wait to hear. Sorry if I sound agitated and yes I saw your apology. Doesn't change the fact that your still set on the same course and continue to tarnish the name of the Dallas Mavericks. |
|
|
|
Post by nicolascajun on Mar 19, 2014 7:50:14 GMT -6
Tanking to me is not putting your best lineup on the floor, and putting poopoo DC's in to purposely lose. There is nothing wrong with moving old superstars and veterans for assets; sometimes rebuilding is the only way to get better. Who honestly can blame Conroy for taking that Dennis Rodman trade? It isn't his fault his trape partner was willing to part with that many assets.
|
|
Bowser
Junior Member
San Antonio Spurs
Posts: 865 
|
Post by Bowser on Mar 19, 2014 7:50:36 GMT -6
I hope this league don't become a joke like the Last one over at PR. To be honest I think there will be teams tanking only because everyone Knows what players are in a particular draft class and what they did in the real NBA. It's not going to stop until the players are unknown and that is another 22 SIM league seasons. A lot of people are benefiting from it whether its the tankers or the people accepting their deals. Let's be honest if the players in future drafts were unknown (including their ratings) would we be having a bunch of trades for future picks? I agree with what someone said earlier about GM trading picks should be held accountable too for enabling this activity but if you are 1 or 2 players away from becoming a contender and come up on a Deal to good to pass up What would you do? In a sense we are all guilty If this girl come up to you and said you can have at her right now for 2 points. What would you do?  Probably this and give her 2 points.  Hope I don't get Banned. May be the best post ever in sim league. LOL couldn't think of another way to get my point across. So I went with this and ran. |
|
|
|
Post by Inner_GI on Mar 19, 2014 7:52:26 GMT -6
I agree 100%. But where is the line drawn? The intent of the Bucks, Magic, and Mavs was to get worse (to rebuild). Isn't the intent to lose games what we would normally call tanking? That's my only question. There are ways to build for the future without going so low, the balance of the leauge is affected, and you win less than 20 games. I got carried away earlier, and I apologize for that to Darth, Quail, and Coltsguy. I'd like to hear you play out a scenario. We know how it goes if you sell off your assets at 30 and start over, but i want to hear the scenario where you have a 32 year old guy as your #1 and no real shot at winning a championship going into the season. No real shot? This game is so random in the playoffs. Any team with 50+ wins has a shot in my mind. To me, just saying someone is 32 isn't enough information to build a scenario out. What's the contract situation(years and dollar amount)? How has the training camps gone the past couple years? Is the player still producing(Hakeem & Malone)? What other pieces do you have around your 32 year old #1 option? How are you projecting the cap to increase? Do you have a stockpile of points to pay some lux tax bills, if you have to max out a player? This are all things I thought about when trading for Glen Rice. I looked long and hard at what people were willing to offer for Hakeem, and it just didn't feel like enough, so I made a play to get a slightly younger star. I know I got lucky that a GM was desperate, but there are always desperate GMs and bad trades in this game, and just because I think firesales hurt the league in the short term, doesn't mean I should be the one blamed for the Glen Rice trade. Glen Rice was my "rebuild." I said to myself... if I let Hakeem go, I need to be getting assets that keep me competitive in the short term, but set me up well in the long term. BSH came very close to getting Hakeem (I won't discuss what players were involved, but both left his team this year). I wasn't willing to offer 1 of them the max, and the other was declining hard and fast, so I asked for a draft pick to be included. That broke the deal. In that scenario, I would of probably stayed about same win % but been younger, and a extra draft pick. That's the route I would have gone, and if it wasn't for my relunctance to trade Hakeem within the division, I probably wouldn't have needed the draft pick... So after that deal fell through, I went into... I'm doing whatever I can to make Hakeem worth it. I'll pay lux tax because Hakeem will pay for that bill by himsself. Got very lucky in a trade (although, preleminary results looks terrible with Glen Rice sharing the ball with Hakeem.) Paid money to get a competent PF and PG to go the next 4 years with Hakeem. When these contracts end, I'll have the Cap Space to make splashes in FA without ever having to go to bottom of the league to get a top 3 pick. That's my philosphy, and I typed it at work, so I'm rushed. I'm not dragging your team "through the mud." I love the makeup of your team. The process is what I question. What you did in 1 year was impressive, but most teams that got firesale on the league don't rebuild in 1 year, and it does affect the balance and parity of the league. |
|
rpf
Full Member
New Jersey Nets
IDGAF
Posts: 1,743
|
Post by rpf on Mar 19, 2014 7:58:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolascajun on Mar 19, 2014 8:02:15 GMT -6
Now Dan Gilbert knows how to drive a tank! That guy is such a pussy. |
|
|
|
Post by WigNosy on Mar 19, 2014 8:39:01 GMT -6
if I let Hakeem go, I need to be getting assets that keep me competitive in the short term, but set me up well in the long term. I should note here that this is the part of the discussion that we need to be having (not about Hakeem specifically, but about the mentality of trading a star player in general) - it is almost impossible for trades to be made when both sides are looking for something that keeps them competitive in the short term AND sets them up well in the long term... the only possible trades would be of roughly equal players at different positions (e.g., a team with a bunch of PGs and no PFs trades with a team with a bunch of PFs and no PGs). The "assets to keep a team competitive in the short term" are the assets I need to put around the superstar now to take a shot at a title and make it worth trading for said star in the first place... or if I'm looking to compete a couple of years down the road, the "assets to set me up in the long term" are the assets I'm going to put around that star in the future to take a shot at a title. To give up BOTH short-term assets AND long-term assets for a superstar is stupid - I will have nothing with which to surround said superstar, and thus no shot at the title... I need to choose EITHER giving up short-term assets (and building for a title later) or giving up long-term assets (and taking a title shot now). And this is really what the whole "rebuilding/tanking" discussion comes down to. Every season, each team is guaranteed to get some new long-term assets (a draft pick three years in the future and more cap space as contracts expire), each team may or may not gain or lose some other long-term assets (rookie draft picks turning into actual rookies, free agency signings/losses, players' ratings changing during training camp). Each team may or may not gain or lose some short-term assets (again, the change of players on the roster due to draft, free agency, and their ratings changes in training camp). Trades are usually the exchange of short-term assets for long-term assets. To put a constraint on how many assets of either type that a team may accumulate (and thus a constraint on how many assets a team may give up) is to assume it is possible to predict the exact value of all assets (which none of us can accurately do). One man's "tanking" is another man's "not accumulating enough long-term assets." As long as a trade can defensibly be shown to be accumulating some sort of asset (be it cap space, draft picks, talent, points, whatever), it's not my place to tell you how many assets and of what type you should be accumulating. Some may call selling off many short-term assets for long-term assets "tanking" or "rebuilding" or "foolish" or whatever... but the strategy is legitimate. So long as you are trying to maximize the efficacy of whatever short-term assets you have (i.e., not deliberately sabotaging your depth chart/lineup), I don't mind if you're selling off short-term assets for long-term ones. Besides, one-third of free agent preferences is "Play for Winner" - by losing now you may improve your chances for adding talent via the draft - which is a bit of a crapshoot - but you hurt your chances for adding talent via free agency - which lets you have much more control over what assets you bring in. If that's a calculation you think is worth it, go for it, but it's not like selling all your short-term assets for long-term ones has no repercussions on your ability to accumulate short-term assets in the (near) future. Also, different people enjoy different things in a sim league. Most people enjoy winning a title. Some people enjoy seeing their players win individual accolades. Some people enjoy seeing if they can make a different strategy than the rest of the league is using viable whether or not they actually win a title. Some people enjoy watching the way their favorite player performs. Some people love contract negotiations. Some people love scouting for the draft. Some people enjoy finding a "hidden gem" and making him productive. Just because I happen to hate losing doesn't mean someone else isn't going to be able to not really care about losing as long as their favorite player is doing well (or whatever else). As long as you're having fun, who am I to tell you how to enjoy your sim league time even if it's different than what I would enjoy in your place? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 8:47:31 GMT -6
I'd like to hear you play out a scenario. We know how it goes if you sell off your assets at 30 and start over, but i want to hear the scenario where you have a 32 year old guy as your #1 and no real shot at winning a championship going into the season. Glen Rice was my "rebuild." I said to myself... if I let Hakeem go, I need to be getting assets that keep me competitive in the short term, but set me up well in the long term. BSH came very close to getting Hakeem (I won't discuss what players were involved, but both left his team this year). I wasn't willing to offer 1 of them the max, and the other was declining hard and fast, so I asked for a draft pick to be included. That broke the deal. In that scenario, I would of probably stayed about same win % but been younger, and a extra draft pick. That's the route I would have gone, and if it wasn't for my relunctance to trade Hakeem within the division, I probably wouldn't have needed the draft pick... Regarding our trade.. It was more like u can have 2/3 assets. So either both players and no pick or 1 player and a pick. But yes, the Championship Lakers were very very close to getting Hakeem. It was also hard to foresee that LJ would drop again that much again. I was pretty much planning on him staying the same. The game had other plans. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 8:48:50 GMT -6
I'd like to hear you play out a scenario. We know how it goes if you sell off your assets at 30 and start over, but i want to hear the scenario where you have a 32 year old guy as your #1 and no real shot at winning a championship going into the season. No real shot? This game is so random in the playoffs. Any team with 50+ wins has a shot in my mind. To me, just saying someone is 32 isn't enough information to build a scenario out. What's the contract situation(years and dollar amount)? How has the training camps gone the past couple years? Is the player still producing(Hakeem & Malone)? What other pieces do you have around your 32 year old #1 option? How are you projecting the cap to increase? Do you have a stockpile of points to pay some lux tax bills, if you have to max out a player? This are all things I thought about when trading for Glen Rice. I looked long and hard at what people were willing to offer for Hakeem, and it just didn't feel like enough, so I made a play to get a slightly younger star. I know I got lucky that a GM was desperate, but there are always desperate GMs and bad trades in this game, and just because I think firesales hurt the league in the short term, doesn't mean I should be the one blamed for the Glen Rice trade. Glen Rice was my "rebuild." I said to myself... if I let Hakeem go, I need to be getting assets that keep me competitive in the short term, but set me up well in the long term. BSH came very close to getting Hakeem (I won't discuss what players were involved, but both left his team this year). I wasn't willing to offer 1 of them the max, and the other was declining hard and fast, so I asked for a draft pick to be included. That broke the deal. In that scenario, I would of probably stayed about same win % but been younger, and a extra draft pick. That's the route I would have gone, and if it wasn't for my relunctance to trade Hakeem within the division, I probably wouldn't have needed the draft pick... So after that deal fell through, I went into... I'm doing whatever I can to make Hakeem worth it. I'll pay lux tax because Hakeem will pay for that bill by himsself. Got very lucky in a trade (although, preleminary results looks terrible with Glen Rice sharing the ball with Hakeem.) Paid money to get a competent PF and PG to go the next 4 years with Hakeem. When these contracts end, I'll have the Cap Space to make splashes in FA without ever having to go to bottom of the league to get a top 3 pick. That's my philosphy, and I typed it at work, so I'm rushed. I'm not dragging your team "through the mud." I love the makeup of your team. The process is what I question. What you did in 1 year was impressive, but most teams that got firesale on the league don't rebuild in 1 year, and it does affect the balance and parity of the league. I guess that's my scenario. You without the Glen Rice trade. Pretty much if your hail Mary didn't hit. And more the props to you for getting it; but there was a very good chance you wouldn't put a guy like that next to Hakeem. |
|
|
|
Post by IamQuailman on Mar 19, 2014 9:17:14 GMT -6
This is a Catch 22 because the one complaining about the parity is the one that traded for a superstar to pair with a superstar to skew the parity.
And how can we even talk about parity yet? We haven't even run 1 regular season sim yet. Everyone is 0-0. Yes, teams got better in the offseason, but you can easily look at at least 10-12 teams in the East and see possible playoff berth. In the West, the race is a lot closer and should be a dog fight, but I think there are 12 or so teams that will be battling it out for playoff spots there as well. leaving 5 true bottom feeders.
par·i·ty[ párrətee ]
1.equality: equality of status or position, especially in terms of pay or rank
2.similarity between things: the quality of being similar or identical
True parity will never exist because no league will ever have 100% equal teams; there will always be bottom feeders and top dogs. But to say there is no parity in this league is a joke. There is by far more parity in this league now than there was when it was formed.
Let me end this by saying that I do not fault you for taking advantage of a desperate GM looking to move his pieces. You did what you did to make your team better NOW (and maybe for the future as well). I'm doing what was best for my team now and for the future as well as I see fit. I won't be competing for a title this year, no. But I moved some deals that would have cap strapped me in the future and players I wouldn't have resigned for future potential. I don't care if you don't like it, because as long as I'm happy with the moves I'm making to better my team in the long run, then I'm happy with my team.
|
|
Soundwave
Full Member
Toronto Raptors
Winter is coming
Posts: 2,465
|
Post by Soundwave on Mar 19, 2014 9:44:35 GMT -6
If any GM's are willing to to shed good pieces on the cheap to "rebuild", please make sure Toronto is at the top of your caller list.
We will be glad to trape you. Just don't forget the vaseline. That is for your own good, we will not supply it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Inner_GI on Mar 19, 2014 10:18:09 GMT -6
No real shot? This game is so random in the playoffs. Any team with 50+ wins has a shot in my mind. To me, just saying someone is 32 isn't enough information to build a scenario out. What's the contract situation(years and dollar amount)? How has the training camps gone the past couple years? Is the player still producing(Hakeem & Malone)? What other pieces do you have around your 32 year old #1 option? How are you projecting the cap to increase? Do you have a stockpile of points to pay some lux tax bills, if you have to max out a player? This are all things I thought about when trading for Glen Rice. I looked long and hard at what people were willing to offer for Hakeem, and it just didn't feel like enough, so I made a play to get a slightly younger star. I know I got lucky that a GM was desperate, but there are always desperate GMs and bad trades in this game, and just because I think firesales hurt the league in the short term, doesn't mean I should be the one blamed for the Glen Rice trade. Glen Rice was my "rebuild." I said to myself... if I let Hakeem go, I need to be getting assets that keep me competitive in the short term, but set me up well in the long term. BSH came very close to getting Hakeem (I won't discuss what players were involved, but both left his team this year). I wasn't willing to offer 1 of them the max, and the other was declining hard and fast, so I asked for a draft pick to be included. That broke the deal. In that scenario, I would of probably stayed about same win % but been younger, and a extra draft pick. That's the route I would have gone, and if it wasn't for my relunctance to trade Hakeem within the division, I probably wouldn't have needed the draft pick... So after that deal fell through, I went into... I'm doing whatever I can to make Hakeem worth it. I'll pay lux tax because Hakeem will pay for that bill by himsself. Got very lucky in a trade (although, preleminary results looks terrible with Glen Rice sharing the ball with Hakeem.) Paid money to get a competent PF and PG to go the next 4 years with Hakeem. When these contracts end, I'll have the Cap Space to make splashes in FA without ever having to go to bottom of the league to get a top 3 pick. That's my philosphy, and I typed it at work, so I'm rushed. I'm not dragging your team "through the mud." I love the makeup of your team. The process is what I question. What you did in 1 year was impressive, but most teams that got firesale on the league don't rebuild in 1 year, and it does affect the balance and parity of the league. I guess that's my scenario. You without the Glen Rice trade. Pretty much if your hail Mary didn't hit. And more the props to you for getting it; but there was a very good chance you wouldn't put a guy like that next to Hakeem. Me without the Glen Rice trade is most likely trading Hakeem. THe difference I see, is He's my only "real" player. The MAgic dumped Magic, and Rice. The Bucks dumped a few players, and the Mavs dumped a few as well. I was and have been a 1 man show. Me trading Hakeem isn't a firesale, but I will say, a very small reason why I never traded Hakeem is because everyone I told "NO" would get angry I traded him... |
|
|
|
Post by Inner_GI on Mar 19, 2014 10:18:53 GMT -6
This is a Catch 22 because the one complaining about the parity is the one that traded for a superstar to pair with a superstar to skew the parity. And how can we even talk about parity yet? We haven't even run 1 regular season sim yet. Everyone is 0-0. Yes, teams got better in the offseason, but you can easily look at at least 10-12 teams in the East and see possible playoff berth. In the West, the race is a lot closer and should be a dog fight, but I think there are 12 or so teams that will be battling it out for playoff spots there as well. leaving 5 true bottom feeders. par·i·ty[ párrətee ] 1.equality: equality of status or position, especially in terms of pay or rank 2.similarity between things: the quality of being similar or identical True parity will never exist because no league will ever have 100% equal teams; there will always be bottom feeders and top dogs. But to say there is no parity in this league is a joke. There is by far more parity in this league now than there was when it was formed. Let me end this by saying that I do not fault you for taking advantage of a desperate GM looking to move his pieces. You did what you did to make your team better NOW (and maybe for the future as well). I'm doing what was best for my team now and for the future as well as I see fit. I won't be competing for a title this year, no. But I moved some deals that would have cap strapped me in the future and players I wouldn't have resigned for future potential. I don't care if you don't like it, because as long as I'm happy with the moves I'm making to better my team in the long run, then I'm happy with my team. Never once did I say there was "no parity." I said it affects the parity of the league. |
|
|
|
Post by Inner_GI on Mar 19, 2014 10:19:51 GMT -6
If any GM's are willing to to shed good pieces on the cheap to "rebuild", please make sure Toronto is at the top of your caller list. We will be glad to trape you. Just don't forget the vaseline. That is for your own good, we will not supply it. Me too. I'm always willing to cash in a fire sale. There is 1 every year. |
|
/assets.sbnation.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2860892/bruh.0.gif)
