GM A TEAM 9/10 - new gm signups still needed

[bcortell]

I'll be sitting out this round also. I'm working on a large project the next month, and then expect to be out of town for most of the summer. Good luck to all, though.

[CellarDoor]

I'm okay with being an adjudicator, but I agree with those saying it's too soon. You really need to get the game hammered out to the point it can be fun, otherwise you're going to keep running into the same road blocks.

[SamBone]

I'm okay with being an adjudicator, but I agree with those saying it's too soon. You really need to get the game hammered out to the point it can be fun, otherwise you're going to keep running into the same road blocks.

agree 100%

[Garmfay]

Yeah, let's take a break and iron out some rules..

[SabasRevenge!]

I definitely can't jump in this quickly, especially with the '95 game on the horizon, but I'd be happy to be a FA judge if you guys go that route.

[dockingsched]

i think a post-playoffs start may be the best option.

[MJallday59]

Good points all around. I'd really like to help run the next one. Enjoy the playoffs!

[bringbackhoffa]

i think before we start we should get the chat session go with a majority of the GM who have played and just start brainstorming ideas for the games.

Some of the things that i think that have to be improved

1. Faster Deadlines
2. Free Agency actually being done by a 3 person Panel
3. Hard cap that makes it more of a level playing field
4. Cannot Waive a player who makes more then 4 Million (Really rarely happens in real life, and happens really often in this game, Ex. Eddy Curry has yet to be waived by the knicks but gets waived every game in this simulation)
5. How to judge players who are currently in Europe

[babyjax13]

I would like to be a part of this one as well (austinschutz@rocketmail.com) but I think that the rules of this game really need to be ironed out, as well as the deadlines - that is what killed the game the last couple of go rounds for me. I say at the very least, wait until the draft lottery (one month) because people will be clamoring for a fresh start as soon as that comes. I think that a good idea would be to look back at the rules of the original back when Kingz still ran it if anyone can find that - maybe even see if he'd be willing to come back into the game.

[babyjax13]

i think before we start we should get the chat session go with a majority of the GM who have played and just start brainstorming ideas for the games.

Some of the things that i think that have to be improved

1. Faster Deadlines
2. Free Agency actually being done by a 3 person Panel
3. Hard cap that makes it more of a level playing field
4. Cannot Waive a player who makes more then 4 Million (Really rarely happens in real life, and happens really often in this game, Ex. Eddy Curry has yet to be waived by the knicks but gets waived every game in this simulation)
5. How to judge players who are currently in Europe

I'm fine with one and two, but part of the allure of this game is that it is similar to being an actual GM (obviously more trading of course) so I think that 3 and 4 should be left out. And maybe there should just be league approval for waiving a player that has a guaranteed contract? Just an idea, might not be something that works within the confines of the game though. At the very least we need to be able to finish this thing within a time frame of 2 months just to keep interest (IMO).

As for the Eddy Curry bit, this game is less future-focused, the Knicks are waiting for Eddy Curry to be a positive asset as an expiring, while teams in this game are looking to have the "prettiest roster" come games end. I think that when we look at teams a lot more than just potential vs. competetiveness needs to be taking into consideration, but also things like how the salaries are spread out over the next couple of years and the potential to make more trades to make the team better.

[Mascot]

Started January 4th
End Trading - Feb 26th
Rostters Updated by Feb 28th
Rankings for Draft Due - Mar 3rd
Draft - March 4th-10th
FA - March 12th - 20th
Final Trading Period March 21st - 31st
Writeups Due April 4th
Final Rankings Due - April 6th

that was the game we just had, you can take 2 weeks off of the first trading period for sure.

[dockingsched]

the only thing that really needs to be changed is the final judging. ranking a bunch of teams isn't something i did, cause it seemed time consuming if i wanted to do it right.

we should just judge teams individually on like 4 different criteria.

1 = a lot worse, 2 = worse, 3 = same, 4= better, 5 = a lot better

1. Is the team's talent level better 3-4 yrs down the road?

2. Is the team's talent level better this season?

3. How is the team's salary structure this season?

4. How is the team's salary structure 2-3 yrs down the road?

5. How is the chemistry/fit of the team?


and thats it. then take the avg scores for whatever questions u think fit into "best win now", "best rebuild", and take all of the scores for "best overall". have each team have to provide some specific details addressing each question in their writeup. Like for question 3-4 teams have to provide a before and after comparison. questions 1,2 and 4 are purely up to the team to argue. the questions also ensures that teams are taking salary into account, which i think there was a concern about.

[lukekarts]

^ that's a pretty good start.

What happens if we start post-playoffs though? Do we start with the draft then free agency? I'm not sure how that would work...

[roc]

I would add more to that list cash. The way you have it set up is mainly beneficial to teams that have more room to get better.

6. is the team championship material now?
7. is the team championship material for the next couple of years?

As it is set up right now GMs voting on each other slants the voting. You have GMs giving awful rankings to certain teams they see as competition or have an issue with for some reason not applicable to actual quality of team. That kind of stuff ruins the rankings as was easily seen in the rebuild and overall results this go round. We also need consistency from start to finish. No waffling on rules part way through the game. Rules need to be in place at the start and stay til the finish.

[jcldallas24]

What if we add some features to the teams like say adding coaches and having to make sure the players you trade for are good fits on that team....and had something else in mind but just can't remember it at this time...

[SabasRevenge!]

I like the idea of adding coaches to increase the depth of the sim. It would be a more difficult task for the commish though.

I think cash is right on with his suggested method of judging. A teams starting assets should be more strongly considered. I started with a team with pretty good assets last round, so it was easier for me to parlay them into a more talented squad. Some other GMs had less to work with and probably did a better overall job.

[Jimmy76]

ill take Nawlins

and its needs to be evaluated based on how much you improve the roster (however we decide to measure it)

starting with Dwight and ending with Dwight should count for zero points (though convincing Wade or Lebron to stay would count for something)

I remember that being an issue last time I did this

also I think buyouts should be able to be negotiated and I like the coaching idea

[Jimmy76]

the only thing that really needs to be changed is the final judging. ranking a bunch of teams isn't something i did, cause it seemed time consuming if i wanted to do it right.

we should just judge teams individually on like 4 different criteria.

1 = a lot worse, 2 = worse, 3 = same, 4= better, 5 = a lot better

1. Is the team's talent level better 3-4 yrs down the road?

2. Is the team's talent level better this season?

3. How is the team's salary structure this season?

4. How is the team's salary structure 2-3 yrs down the road?

5. How is the chemistry/fit of the team?


and thats it. then take the avg scores for whatever questions u think fit into "best win now", "best rebuild", and take all of the scores for "best overall". have each team have to provide some specific details addressing each question in their writeup. Like for question 3-4 teams have to provide a before and after comparison. questions 1,2 and 4 are purely up to the team to argue. the questions also ensures that teams are taking salary into account, which i think there was a concern about.

+1 to this

ranking 30 teams in 3 categories was kinda tedious and distinguishing some nearly identical teams felt substanceless

[CellarDoor]

Why not use outside judges? Main trade board mods, myself, whomever is the commish. Say you get three judges to rank the teams, that should be sufficient. And no offense to many of the participants, because I know the majority of you are incredibly aware in terms of basketball, but there's always some absolutely insane jobs of ranking. (Sacto missing the POs last time I played, for instance)

[lukekarts]

Why not use outside judges? Main trade board mods, myself, whomever is the commish. Say you get three judges to rank the teams, that should be sufficient. And no offense to many of the participants, because I know the majority of you are incredibly aware in terms of basketball, but there's always some absolutely insane jobs of ranking. (Sacto missing the POs last time I played, for instance)

I'm all for that.