RealGM

This thread will be for all discussions involving this version of GM a Team. IF you have questions about game post here. IF you have an issue with a trade, post here. IF you have players on the trading block...

etc.

you get the picture.

Please do not post anything in the roster or trade threads other than what is called for.

thanks, rocdogg

Are you (r0cd0gg) going to play, or just commish?

Keeslinator wrote:

r0cd0gg wrote:I am thinking of allowing more than 15 trades but with a 1 point penalty for each trade over the limit.

We will see how everyone feels about that scenario before we start the game.

Either way will make GMs more prudent in choosing their trades and not just trade every day to build up assets while being an ever spinning turnstile of players.

How will you enforce a "1 point penalty"? what does that mean?

after teams are ranked I would deduct(or add depending on format) 1 point from their total for each trade over limit.

If it is a tight finish the outcome could hinge on one of the teams losing points by making excessive trades.

mos def would add an extra element of strategy to the game IMO

Most of the GMs I have discussed this with on AIM tend to agree with the 15 trade idea for a new wrinkle to the game so we will see how it plays out.

Keeslinator wrote:Are you (r0cd0gg) going to play, or just commish?

I will probably play but am not certain of that just yet. Last time I commished I did not play. I have not played in 3 games now so am leaning in that direction. Mostly I want to see how the game would work with the added wrinkles.

r0cd0gg wrote:

Keeslinator wrote:

r0cd0gg wrote:I am thinking of allowing more than 15 trades but with a 1 point penalty for each trade over the limit.

We will see how everyone feels about that scenario before we start the game.

Either way will make GMs more prudent in choosing their trades and not just trade every day to build up assets while being an ever spinning turnstile of players.

How will you enforce a "1 point penalty"? what does that mean?

after teams are ranked I would deduct(or add depending on format) 1 point from their total for each trade over limit.

If it is a tight finish the outcome could hinge on one of the teams losing points by making excessive trades.

mos def would add an extra element of strategy to the game IMO

Most of the GMs I have discussed this with on AIM tend to agree with the 15 trade idea for a new wrinkle to the game so we will see how it plays out.

Ok thanks for clarifying.

Yeah fair enough, we'll see how it works out

Salary cap/luxury tax?

Still don't think limiting the number of trades will really help. It sounds good in practice, but if you get a deal you can't pass up that would require follow-up trades, this rule makes that almost impossible.

Klomp wrote:Salary cap/luxury tax?

$60 mil

as for lux tax... $75 mil should suffice

also will be a hard cap of $100mil

I think we could reduce the number of trades in other ways. For example:

1. Rule where you cannot re-acquire a player that you have traded (either within a time limit or at all)

2. Rule where we have a limit on the number of trades one can make within a day or week (or both)

do not agree with the reaquiring player thing since real life teams are allowed to reaquire players.

My suggestion to limit teams from getting deal crazy is to use a player can not be retraded for 48 hours after the trade aquiring that player is approved.

This means that you can not post a trade untill that "no trade" window has passed. If a trade retrading that guy is posted before the 48 hour window the new trade is voided

2 days does not seem like alot, but when you consider the game move fast, 1 day for the trade to be approved, then 2 days that he can not be retraded, 3 days is a long time and most teams will not be willing to wait the time since it will hold up other deals.

I just think the ranking system needs to be improved. Things like chemistry and future picks need to be taken into consideration. At least this way, if someone doesn't like that a GM made 30 trades, they can comment on how that team wouldn't have any chemistry in their overall rankings. Certain people place more emphasis on that kind of stuff anyway, so if they want to factor it in they should. Same goes for trading stars.

SamBone wrote:do not agree with the reaquiring player thing since real life teams are allowed to reaquire players.

My suggestion to limit teams from getting deal crazy is to use a player can not be retraded for 48 hours after the trade aquiring that player is approved.

This means that you can not post a trade untill that "no trade" window has passed. If a trade retrading that guy is posted before the 48 hour window the new trade is voided

2 days does not seem like alot, but when you consider the game move fast, 1 day for the trade to be approved, then 2 days that he can not be retraded, 3 days is a long time and most teams will not be willing to wait the time since it will hold up other deals.

Yes, teams can reacquire players, but there are often lengthy time restrictions about when the team can do that.

the time restriction is simply on retrading the player period, not that he can not get traded back to the team that delt him. I agree that it is odd, but it does happen. And remeber that in the NBA, players can be traded away and waived (for financial reasons) then resign with the team that traded him 30 days later, which I think is total BS

after some more contemplation this is what I think will strike the best balance...

unlimited trades with a penalty incurred of 1 point for 19, 2 for 20, 3 for 21, etc. This will allow up to 18 trades before the penalty kicks in.

These penalties will be added in to the final ranking total numbers(ie after all numbers have been added up)

this leaves room for GMs to do what they want but still leaves some strategy as to which choice is best for them.

and

Chemistry/future picks will be a consideration come ranking time. When the time comes I will outline exactly what to pay attention to when ranking teams.

SamBone wrote:do not agree with the reaquiring player thing since real life teams are allowed to reaquire players.

My suggestion to limit teams from getting deal crazy is to use a player can not be retraded for 48 hours after the trade aquiring that player is approved.

This means that you can not post a trade untill that "no trade" window has passed. If a trade retrading that guy is posted before the 48 hour window the new trade is voided

2 days does not seem like alot, but when you consider the game move fast, 1 day for the trade to be approved, then 2 days that he can not be retraded, 3 days is a long time and most teams will not be willing to wait the time since it will hold up other deals.

I might be for that, but then people have to be much more open and willing to post deals as 3 way's because I know some people (including myself) who somewhat shop players we can get, so yeah.

r0cd0gg wrote:after some more contemplation this is what I think will strike the best balance...

unlimited trades with a penalty incurred of 1 point for 19, 2 for 20, 3 for 21, etc. This will allow up to 18 trades before the penalty kicks in.

These penalties will be added in to the final ranking total numbers(ie after all numbers have been added up)

this leaves room for GMs to do what they want but still leaves some strategy as to which choice is best for them.

and

Chemistry/future picks will be a consideration come ranking time. When the time comes I will outline exactly what to pay attention to when ranking teams.

I like that # a lot better than 15. 18 gives just that many more trades.

im so excited.. let's get this next game going!

Trades need to be posted right away - even if as pending - so people can keep track of player movement. Too much time is spent finding player you are targeting (and in the past trying to find out who is signed for what amount). Update rosters and posting trades (and I guess commissioners approving (not going to approve as the default and only deny trades?).

One other idea - since people are worried about the number of trades, why not count only 2 party trades - 3 party trades don't count against your 18 approved moves. I think it would make some more interesting deals - just a thought.

I'm cool with the new rules, though I'd actually prefer if trading was more limited than 18. But there we go.

Mascot wrote:1. Golden State
2. Phoenix
3. San Antonio

just a suggestion making the hard cap lower will make the game much more interesting.

I actually like that idea. It would do the same thing as a trade limit, because usually when teams make all those trades, their payroll goes up too.