|
Post by Ian Noble on Aug 31, 2010 14:38:14 GMT
I think we should go back to running the ship the way we did at D6 and be quite strict on the realism of trades. Just wondering on everyones thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Aug 31, 2010 14:55:45 GMT
I think we should go back to running the ship the way we did at D6 and be quite strict on the realism of trades. Just wondering on everyones thoughts. I have no probs. with that, as long as we don't enforce this rule in D5 (atleast let us get away with highway robbery in one league BOS), I am cool enforcing realism on the rest of the other leagues you created.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Webber on Aug 31, 2010 15:18:01 GMT
Realism is good, but lets not keep it where it destroys the trading. Like say someone tried to trade Kobe or something and we dont allow it because it isn't "realistic". I say we allow all trades as long as they are fair and both sides can show how they benefit from it, no more just "I accepts"
|
|
|
Post by Mitch Kupchak on Aug 31, 2010 15:26:39 GMT
Realism is good, but lets not keep it where it destroys the trading. Like say someone tried to trade Kobe or something and we dont allow it because it isn't "realistic". I say we allow all trades as long as they are fair and both sides can show how they benefit from it, no more just "I accepts" its a sim league...trading means activity...activity means a good sim league...i wont trade Kobe anyway...but if two teams can have win-win situations lets do the deal...i also like blockbuster-moves...
|
|
|
Post by Chris Webber on Aug 31, 2010 15:33:17 GMT
Realism is good, but lets not keep it where it destroys the trading. Like say someone tried to trade Kobe or something and we dont allow it because it isn't "realistic". I say we allow all trades as long as they are fair and both sides can show how they benefit from it, no more just "I accepts" its a sim league...trading means activity...activity means a good sim league...i wont trade Kobe anyway...but if two teams can have win-win situations lets do the deal...i also like blockbuster-moves... You know what I mean, Kobe was just the best example for a player that in real life wouldn't get moved.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Jordan on Aug 31, 2010 16:57:15 GMT
I agree with GS. I have no problem with the trades being realistic from a value to both sides aspect.
I don't like the idea of certain players being "untradeable" though. Kobe, Lebron, Wade and Howard should all be able to be moved for the right deal. IRL, there are so many variables that come into play, especially with contract status. Look at Carmello Anthony for instance. Normally, he wouldn't be moved but since Denver doesn't feel like they can resign him and don't currently have a championship team with him, they are compelled to trade him.
|
|
|
Post by Mitch Kupchak on Aug 31, 2010 21:07:32 GMT
I agree with GS. I have no problem with the trades being realistic from a value to both sides aspect. I don't like the idea of certain players being "untradeable" though. Kobe, Lebron, Wade and Howard should all be able to be moved for the right deal. IRL, there are so many variables that come into play, especially with contract status. Look at Carmello Anthony for instance. Normally, he wouldn't be moved but since Denver doesn't feel like they can resign him and don't currently have a championship team with him, they are compelled to trade him. cant have said it better
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Sept 1, 2010 9:18:06 GMT
I think that's all good by the sounds of things.
GMs now know the importance of allegiance towards players too, when it comes to the OSFA process, so hopefully that'll lead to more realism too.
|
|