|
|
Post by Rocky on Feb 17, 2008 19:04:55 GMT -5
I'm curious as to how we're going to handle the contract year, because it's just extremely unlikely that some of these guys aren't fired under the current wording of the rule. So, are we going to remain 100% true to the rule, even if the fifth year could create a team that wins 50+? Take nova for example. I don't know what his plans are, but let's assume he keeps Yao/JRich and wins 38 games in year four. Is he fired, even though year 5 would likely bring a great team?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sheryl Yoast on Feb 17, 2008 19:06:29 GMT -5
I'm curious as to how we're going to handle the contract year, because it's just extremely unlikely that some of these guys aren't fired under the current wording of the rule. So, are we going to remain 100% true to the rule, even if the fifth year could create a team that wins 50+? Take nova for example. I don't know what his plans are, but let's assume he keeps Yao/JRich and wins 38 games in year four. Is he fired, even though year 5 would likely bring a great team? Good Question, Spence says you have to make the playoffs or win 40 games but he also says you can stay if there is improvement. I am confused. |
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Feb 17, 2008 19:07:33 GMT -5
I'm curious as to how we're going to handle the contract year, because it's just extremely unlikely that some of these guys aren't fired under the current wording of the rule. So, are we going to remain 100% true to the rule, even if the fifth year could create a team that wins 50+? Take nova for example. I don't know what his plans are, but let's assume he keeps Yao/JRich and wins 38 games in year four. Is he fired, even though year 5 would likely bring a great team? Maybe I just thought it would be like last time, but I never would expect a guy with 38 wins with a roster containing JRich and Yao, to be fired. Spence used to be subjective about it, which was fair. I'm sure he'd use his discretion in that case, but I would like to see guys feel the repercussions of losing for four years. |
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Feb 17, 2008 19:10:36 GMT -5
That's what I'm saying. I'd rather them not get a pass because they have talent from the losing years. 10 season in I could see using that pass, but people knew what they were getting themselves into if they tanked from the start of the sim. Year 4 will be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by dj on Feb 17, 2008 20:09:18 GMT -5
well, it's based on performance, not what talent you have or will have... Ultimately it's spencers decision, but hopefully there wont be much leniency given... otherwise it defeats the purpose of the contract year. (Especially for teams that tank for 3 years without trying to improve their chances of winning during that time at all... ie through trades, FA)
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Feb 17, 2008 20:18:04 GMT -5
i'd like it to be pretty cut throat clear and dry. If you have failed to reach 40 games or playoffs then too bad you shouldn't reap the rewards of an additional season because their team will finally be good then.
|
|
|
|
Post by dj on Feb 17, 2008 20:20:36 GMT -5
i'd like it to be pretty cut throat clear and dry. If you have failed to reach 40 games or playoffs then too bad you shouldn't reap the rewards of an additional season because their team will finally be good then. actually agree with this. although, 41 games (being .500) sounds even better. |
|
James
Scrub
Ex-GM
Posts: 2,398
|
Post by James on Feb 17, 2008 20:32:42 GMT -5
The rule should be black and white however I don't think it will be because some of the time, it will be subjective like in the examples given above...
|
|
|
|
Post by Speed Racer on Feb 17, 2008 20:50:18 GMT -5
I think it should be handled on a case-by-case basis. It would be absurd to fire someone who has a core of youngsters that will win soon. Also, what if a young team like that has a major injury or two that prevents them from winning much that year?
It'd be silly to have that rule be extremely cut throat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix Phil on Feb 17, 2008 21:06:12 GMT -5
I think injuries should be taken into consideration, but other than that, the rule should be strictly interpreted. Teams know what their getting into when they start a long-term rebuilding process... there should be no excuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by AllStar0608 on Feb 17, 2008 21:20:49 GMT -5
it should DEFINITELY be subjective. you guys are WAY TOO fire happy.
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Feb 17, 2008 21:27:12 GMT -5
it should DEFINITELY be subjective. you guys are WAY TOO fire happy. you'll never get a job then |
|
|
|
Post by Aaron2344 on Feb 17, 2008 21:35:59 GMT -5
league was supposed to be made for the best gms, if we're going to enforce this m.o., i'm all for firing the person if they do not meet the standards in their contract year. no exceptions.
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Feb 17, 2008 22:04:48 GMT -5
coaches get fired despite having good teams because they fail to get their teams to the next level. Its not saying they are a bad coach but change is needed. I think a cut throat 40 win or playoff contract rule will bring ultimate realism to the league while also weeding out the week and keeping the best on their toes.
I think this will also change the way teams draft too which is a very exciting possibility not everyone will draft on pure potential but perhaps league readiness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Feb 17, 2008 22:11:35 GMT -5
I don't care if it is a case-by-case basis ten seasons from now, but not right now. I don't think that the teams who chose to tank from the start should be given a pass if they fail to reach forty wins but have huge talent from having all of their picks and drafting in the top 5 because of it.
|
|
James
Scrub
Ex-GM
Posts: 2,398
|
Post by James on Feb 17, 2008 22:17:24 GMT -5
It needs to be clear though. We either have it as a case-by-case selection or it's if you don't win 40 games this year regardless if you have LBJ, Wade and Melo on the same team, you're fired.
I actually support Krup's idea here...
|
|
|
|
Post by noves on Feb 17, 2008 22:26:30 GMT -5
I think injuries should be taken into consideration, but other than that, the rule should be strictly interpreted. Teams know what their getting into when they start a long-term rebuilding process... there should be no excuse. Agreed, injuries should be taken into consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by Ebener 12 on Feb 17, 2008 22:36:04 GMT -5
Eh, I think a rules a rule so it should be followed exactly. The rule is clear and if the team doesn't reach the requirement they should be subject to the penalty of the rule. I mean it's a rule that should be achieved without a problem.
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Feb 17, 2008 22:44:11 GMT -5
If you needed to win 40 this year would you draft Nene or Krstic?
These will be one the interesting things GMs will have to face.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ebener 12 on Feb 17, 2008 22:46:06 GMT -5
Exactly, if a rule doesn't have exceptions then as a GM you have to make the smart decision there for your team. It brings even more realism to the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjmjones008 on Feb 17, 2008 23:37:36 GMT -5
there needs to be a requirement to keep your job. Otherwise you can keep tanking because you have young talent that should win later on
|
|
|
|
Post by DB on Feb 17, 2008 23:48:04 GMT -5
I say we follow the rule how it is, case by case is not good because if one guy gets off for showing some improvement, everyone will expect spence to give them a break or an extra year or something. follow the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Speed Racer on Feb 18, 2008 1:13:24 GMT -5
I seem to be in the minority, so I'll just say that I at least think injuries should always be taken into consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by AllStar0608 on Feb 18, 2008 2:31:14 GMT -5
it should DEFINITELY be subjective. you guys are WAY TOO fire happy. you'll never get a job then oh well. ive had a few chances already. im giving my opinion and honestly my opinion would screw myself over so i think its very legit since im not saying something to benefit myself. they need to be subjective. i trust spencer is fair. this first round of contracts should be HEAVILY enforced because people chose to tank from the beginning and shit with knowledge of this deadline. |
|
|
|
Post by dj on Feb 18, 2008 2:51:25 GMT -5
the problem with the current system is that teams can tank for 3 seasons without attempting to win( not adjusting depth charts, not signing FAs, no trades) ... then in the contract year, they will all of a sudden "try" to win... by making trades, signing players and adjusting depth charts.... so improvement is inevitable... since you're going from not trying to suddenly trying.
So, it would actually make everything a lot more simple to set specific goals that GMs have to meet and to be objective than to be subjective. Injuries would be the obvious exception.
|
|
