Tampa Bay Bull Sharks
Moderator
2012 NBA Champions, 2015 NBA Champions, 2016 NBA Champions, 2024 GM League Cup Champions
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Tampa Bay Bull Sharks on Jun 17, 2021 10:04:00 GMT -5
Kind of sucks that the proposed rule changes where we were suggesting to reward winners with a monetary salary cap bonus reward for one season look like getting knocked on the head. I agree. Seems like a good way to incentive teams to invest and build competitive teams each year.
|
|
|
Post by MemphisGM on Jun 17, 2021 10:43:49 GMT -5
I'm always on the fence about rewarding winners. I think it's a good thing to incentivize, but on the other hand it makes the gap between teams even bigger and I prefer a balanced league.
|
|
Tampa Bay Bull Sharks
Moderator
2012 NBA Champions, 2015 NBA Champions, 2016 NBA Champions, 2024 GM League Cup Champions
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Tampa Bay Bull Sharks on Jun 17, 2021 13:57:30 GMT -5
I'm always on the fence about rewarding winners. I think it's a good thing to incentivize, but on the other hand it makes the gap between teams even bigger and I prefer a balanced league. I hear you and can appreciate that point because you’re not wrong. But I don’t agree entirely. A lot of times the teams winning one year go all in and don’t have the assets to do a rebuild but don’t have the team to run it back either. A little financial incentive could probably help the parity overall. If anything, a financial bonus for making the playoffs might curtail teams going in the gutter for a year or two.
|
|
|
Post by Miege22 on Jun 18, 2021 8:13:56 GMT -5
So in the past, we've treated 13 votes as 2/3rds even though it's technically only 65%. Are there any objections to that? I'm going to take the lack of objections to mean it's fine. That means proposals 5 and 9 are approved.
|
|
|
Post by Miege22 on Jun 18, 2021 15:08:02 GMT -5
Proposal 6 is approved
|
|
|
Post by Miege22 on Jun 18, 2021 15:40:54 GMT -5
So I haven't lobbied for anything, but if I could make one plea, I would really like to encourage people to vote for the play-in game, and I'll tell you why. After the way this past season unfolded, I really think there are teams missing the playoffs that have a legitimate shot to make noise, especially in this day and age where rest and injury maintenance have played such an outsized role. Not only are we potentially giving two more teams a shot at the ultimate prize, but we'll also inject some more life into the playoff races. It feels like an all-around good thing to me, though I'm open to hearing why people are against it.
|
|
|
Post by Miege22 on Jun 21, 2021 8:09:02 GMT -5
7 is approved.
1, 5, 6, 7, 9 approved
2 and 4 denied
3, 8 TBD
|
|
|
Post by Miege22 on Jun 23, 2021 8:38:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Portland Trail Blazers on Jun 23, 2021 18:42:03 GMT -5
I hate 8, voted no on a few others but I don't mind them. 8 is trash tho. Waiving someone and then not getting the guy you're bidding on would suck balls. Especially if you are wanting to bid on multiple people with a full team It's kinda the point though. Personally I voted no on salary bonuses (3&4), because I don't believe they're necessary, but #8 brings a risk factor into decision making and I like it + makes it easier for Miege and the mods to track roster spots, as mentioned in the proposal. No offense to the mods but I don’t care at all if it makes it easier to keep track of roster spots. I run a 30 team league by myself and I do just fine. In real life you can sign a guy and then waive someone after. Why are we making it harder for teams to build a good team, so now I could potentially make my team worse while trying to sign guys, I just don’t get it, it makes zero sense to me
|
|
|
Post by Miege22 on Jun 23, 2021 21:11:46 GMT -5
For the record, I actually voted no on the waivers one because, after thinking about it, I agreed with Portland. And it really wouldnt be that mich easier to track. If others want to change their vote based on this new info, that's an option.
|
|
|
Post by Kots (Colorado GM) on Jun 24, 2021 2:41:13 GMT -5
I personally like this one not for tracking reasons.
It stops owners from bumping up the salary by conditionally waiving a player. If they waive a player to bid they are serious about actually acquiring the player. Then it is up to them and any opposing owners how high they want to bid speculating after a couple of positive games.
|
|
|
Post by Miege22 on Jun 24, 2021 8:59:00 GMT -5
Not to be that guy, but I honestly see both sides of that one, and I think there are positives and negatives to either option. Plus, if it does get approved, there's nothing stopping us from changing it back at a later date, if it turns out most people aren't actually a fan.
|
|
|
Post by Miege22 on Jun 25, 2021 16:46:20 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, are trade graphics something you guys would be interested in? Or would that be overkill?
|
|
|
Post by Kots (Colorado GM) on Jun 26, 2021 0:10:55 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, are trade graphics something you guys would be interested in? Or would that be overkill? Maybe an example?
|
|
|
Post by Miege22 on Jun 26, 2021 9:58:18 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, are trade graphics something you guys would be interested in? Or would that be overkill? Maybe an example? Maybe something like this? images.app.goo.gl/PXbGMyBasF1afQFR9
|
|