Buster 5000
Former GM 
Posts: 4,828
Likes: 1,382
Dump Bucks: 10,950
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by Buster 5000 on Apr 29, 2014 19:27:56 GMT -6
team no more protected picks *canesfan dislikes this* |
|
IanBoyd
Former GM
Posts: 4,969
Likes: 687
Dump Bucks: 8,575
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by IanBoyd on Apr 29, 2014 19:34:44 GMT -6
no protection is a decent idea that cuts a good amount of work for commish/keeping track of picks.
I think we only started doing that to be fancy and "LOOK AT HOW MUCH IM GMING" and by the end everyone did it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2014 20:02:53 GMT -6
No protections is nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ocho on Apr 29, 2014 20:04:36 GMT -6
yea i'd be in support of no protecting picks
|
|
Bankz
Former GM
Posts: 7,254
Likes: 895
Dump Bucks: 18,475
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by Bankz on Apr 29, 2014 21:12:10 GMT -6
the NBA does protecting of picks... I WANT IT TO BE REAL DAMMIT
|
|
|
|
Post by ANK1990 on Apr 29, 2014 21:33:54 GMT -6
Well if it's going to be real, then you can't trade consecutive picks.
Maybe it's just me but I'd like to try to cut down on GMs having to completely mortgage their future every time they want to contend. That means either no trading of picks in consecutive picks or only being able to trade picks out like 3 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Odin on Apr 29, 2014 23:21:39 GMT -6
Well if it's going to be real, then you can't trade consecutive picks. Maybe it's just me but I'd like to try to cut down on GMs having to completely mortgage their future every time they want to contend. That means either no trading of picks in consecutive picks or only being able to trade picks out like 3 years. I agree, but "OGs" like to get butthurt when things change. |
|
|
|
Post by dilworth on Apr 29, 2014 23:40:31 GMT -6
Well if it's going to be real, then you can't trade consecutive picks. Maybe it's just me but I'd like to try to cut down on GMs having to completely mortgage their future every time they want to contend. That means either no trading of picks in consecutive picks or only being able to trade picks out like 3 years. I don't think we should control that. If Devine wants to trade 5 futures to contend he's being an idiot. When elite GM's contend they don't mortgage their future. They might trade their picks but they receive good players on decent contracts in return who hold value. |
|
|
|
Post by ANK1990 on Apr 30, 2014 0:03:17 GMT -6
Well if it's going to be real, then you can't trade consecutive picks. Maybe it's just me but I'd like to try to cut down on GMs having to completely mortgage their future every time they want to contend. That means either no trading of picks in consecutive picks or only being able to trade picks out like 3 years. I don't think we should control that. If Devine wants to trade 5 futures to contend he's being an idiot. When elite GM's contend they don't mortgage their future. They might trade their picks but they receive good players on decent contracts in return who hold value. As it stands, the best way to contend is to tank for 3 years acquiring young talent. Then deal all the future picks you possibly can to acquire a star or two. I'm not sure if that is a good thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Odin on Apr 30, 2014 1:38:44 GMT -6
I don't think we should control that. If Devine wants to trade 5 futures to contend he's being an idiot. When elite GM's contend they don't mortgage their future. They might trade their picks but they receive good players on decent contracts in return who hold value. As it stands, the best way to contend is to tank for 3 years acquiring young talent. Then deal all the future picks you possibly can to acquire a star or two. I'm not sure if that is a good thing. Agreed |
|
IanBoyd
Former GM
Posts: 4,969
Likes: 687
Dump Bucks: 8,575
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by IanBoyd on Apr 30, 2014 6:52:48 GMT -6
Well if it's going to be real, then you can't trade consecutive picks. Maybe it's just me but I'd like to try to cut down on GMs having to completely mortgage their future every time they want to contend. That means either no trading of picks in consecutive picks or only being able to trade picks out like 3 years. I agree, but "OGs" like to get butthurt when things change. If that was to me I've already said that I don't mind change when it happens for a reason and offers tangible benefit in terms of either streamlining the amount of work needed to be done or closes possible loophole/exploits in the software. Change for the sake of progress is good, change for the sake of change is pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Apr 30, 2014 6:56:48 GMT -6
anything less than 5 would be retarded Don't quite feel this strongly but I have no objections to 5 |
|
|
|
Post by Ocho on Apr 30, 2014 7:22:54 GMT -6
Well if it's going to be real, then you can't trade consecutive picks. Maybe it's just me but I'd like to try to cut down on GMs having to completely mortgage their future every time they want to contend. That means either no trading of picks in consecutive picks or only being able to trade picks out like 3 years. I don't think we should control that. If Devine wants to trade 5 futures to contend he's being an idiot. When elite GM's contend they don't mortgage their future. They might trade their picks but they receive good players on decent contracts in return who hold value. Just because the "elite" GM's don't do it doesn't mean it's not a problem. I agree with ank on this, we should change something to prevent devine-type situations from happening |
|
IanBoyd
Former GM
Posts: 4,969
Likes: 687
Dump Bucks: 8,575
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by IanBoyd on Apr 30, 2014 7:33:45 GMT -6
there ARE times when trading away more than 5 futures isn't a problem, if for example your entire core just re-upped for max deal and you got a relatively young team (under 27) mostly all signed for 5-6 years. Those next 5 1sts are pointless to you, but could be used to upgrade role players.
|
|
|
|
Post by KwYawnza on Apr 30, 2014 8:33:38 GMT -6
I'm cool with whatever as long as Bankz is only allowed to trade picks he actually has
|
|
Buster 5000
Former GM
Posts: 4,828
Likes: 1,382
Dump Bucks: 10,950
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by Buster 5000 on Apr 30, 2014 10:14:46 GMT -6
I don't think we should control that. If Devine wants to trade 5 futures to contend he's being an idiot. When elite GM's contend they don't mortgage their future. They might trade their picks but they receive good players on decent contracts in return who hold value. As it stands, the best way to contend is to tank for 3 years acquiring young talent. Then deal all the future picks you possibly can to acquire a star or two. I'm not sure if that is a good thing. What should be the best way to contend then? Get lucky in free agency? |
|
IanBoyd
Former GM
Posts: 4,969
Likes: 687
Dump Bucks: 8,575
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by IanBoyd on Apr 30, 2014 10:25:28 GMT -6
getting lucky in FA or the draft is not good gming, its dumb luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by ANK1990 on Apr 30, 2014 13:31:04 GMT -6
As it stands, the best way to contend is to tank for 3 years acquiring young talent. Then deal all the future picks you possibly can to acquire a star or two. I'm not sure if that is a good thing. What should be the best way to contend then? Get lucky in free agency? I, personally, just don't like the giant swings from dregs of the league to top of the league that seemed pretty standard in 2.0. It very well may be impossible, but I think the goal should be creating an environment where teams to grow into contention. |
|
IanBoyd
Former GM
Posts: 4,969
Likes: 687
Dump Bucks: 8,575
Joined: April 2014
|
Post by IanBoyd on Apr 30, 2014 17:21:26 GMT -6
there's nothing to "grow" into when with the flip of a good TC, you can go from 4th seed to title contender instantly and have it taken away from you just as quickly if your star retires or leaves in FA.
the giant swings in fortune are going to happen in 2.0's software, its just how it is.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2014 17:28:57 GMT -6
So no protections?
|
|
