GM A TEAM 2010/11 Season, New Timeframe (Discussion)

[BIRDMAN BIRDMAN]

Michael Redd ----------- $18,300,000's expiring on the block -- been getting nice offers lately.

I dont mind taking on bad salary/ies as long as they worth it.

[CellarDoor]

If gms are going to be voting, they should have to put a reason next to every ranking.

Eg.

Team Name Rank 12th for GM doing a good job.
This team was spending 55 million a year and now they are spending 80 million a year, the team has always been cap conscious. While the team is decent and better than before, its still not championship caliber and they are spending way too much money,

The problem with this is frankly I don't trust people voting within their own conferences, and many aren't going to do it with that much work involved.

[BlackIce]

I think submitting votes will not work as it did not work well in the past (correct me if I am wrong). I would rather prefer a independent panel.

Agreed.

[Klomp]

One negative is that an outside panel is blind to some of the intricacies of the game. Whereas the guys who have played know some of the stuff that has gone on.

If we do the panel though, at the very least rocdogg should be on it, because hes been around for the game even though hes not a GM. And maybe include past GAT guys on the panel rather than some random mods.

[Klomp]

Rankings is the part I'm doing, correct?

Everyone will be submitting rankings (we are splitting it by conference, so West rank the East and vice versa); although you are welcome to submit rankings to me too - the more the merrier

I like the ranking the other conference part of this. It makes more sense because posters will be less inclined to rig their rankings so that they'll be higher. (EG: If Portland ranks Lakers and Mavs lower because they are his primary competition.) Also, it means half the work, so it won't take GMs as long to do, maybe more will do it.

[CellarDoor]

One negative is that an outside panel is blind to some of the intricacies of the game. Whereas the guys who have played know some of the stuff that has gone on.

If we do the panel though, at the very least rocdogg should be on it, because hes been around for the game even though hes not a GM. And maybe include past GAT guys on the panel rather than some random mods.

If you want it evaluated in an unbiased manner, then this is specifically the BEST way to do it. You look at the team, you look at the team they started with, the intricacies of that team in real life, evaluate their future assets and rank them.

[lukekarts]

One negative is that an outside panel is blind to some of the intricacies of the game. Whereas the guys who have played know some of the stuff that has gone on.

If we do the panel though, at the very least rocdogg should be on it, because hes been around for the game even though hes not a GM. And maybe include past GAT guys on the panel rather than some random mods.

If you want it evaluated in an unbiased manner, then this is specifically the BEST way to do it. You look at the team, you look at the team they started with, the intricacies of that team in real life, evaluate their future assets and rank them.

I agree on this point.

I would not be surprised that - despite the fact we're ranking the other conference - people's bias comes into play e.g. how well they've got on with other GM's etc.

I'm still torn between the two ways of judging- CD, you've already offered your help, and I'm sure r0cd0gg will too - but how big of a panel is a fair panel? Should guys like Dcash and byrant also be included? These guys are all former players anyway, so they know how it works.

Or will just ranking the opposite conference (in terms of win-now) help control the tactical voting?

[CellarDoor]

If you do the panel and assign descending points for each rank (30 for 1st, 29 for 2nd, etc), it's not terribly likely Roc and I would have any ties. A third/fourth judge is nice, but probably not terribly necessary.

Regarding the opposite conference, it's going to help stem tactical voting to an extent, but you're generally getting less thoughtful votes when you're asking thirty people to devote that time. Klomp covered the arguments against the panel, and I think that's the biggest argument against self voting. It's you all's call.

[babyjax13]

I know that jazzfan1971 would probably do it, he did it in the first game we did. I would have to say that he is one of the moderators that I would trust most, also you might ask loserx even though he's not a mod anymore, and moocow.

[Mascot]

could the panel give each other their rankings and reasons why before its all decided.

I commished the last game, some of the rankings depend on people views of the players so much its scary.


we had one team, LA Clippers who | myself ranked about 8th in my list I did up.

when the results came in from all GMS they were ranked 3rd to 27th.

[CellarDoor]

Collarboration kind of defeats the purpose of having separate judges, imo. I'm more than willing to post my entire reasonings on each team for anyone who wants to read through it though.

Luke, if you want to take babyjax's suggestions, you should be able to PM current mods. I'm not certain if you can PM retired ones or not. If not, I can ask Loserx if you're looking at him. I'd keep the panel to 3-5 max if it were me, but this is you guys' show.

[jcldallas24]

Looking to deal Grant Hill for a PF.....

juan_carlos_lopez_09@yahoo.com

[LoboGuerrero]

I'd prefer to have an independent panel judge this.

[lukekarts]

Ok it's definitely leaning towards external voting - would appreciate a few more posts/emails/comments about this before I confirm.

Thanks

[LeQuitterNotMVP]

external voting please!

[SamBone]

I agree with external voting. I think people like Cd and Rocdogg are the best options since they have played many of these games and understand how they work. Getting mods or GOAT guys who don't truely understand how these games work, may not be any better then people voting.

Another suggestion is
1. for win now category just send list of top 8 (playoff) team for each conferance. Then let the panel rank them 1-8 and have a miny series
2. for future, same think basically, teams vote on the top 5

But I def think both Roc and CD should have a big say in things, as well as any other exGM that has done well but took the game off

[Klomp]

I'd also like to suggest a 3rd ranking - a simple "Did the GM do a good job?". The answer to which is either yes or no - rather than a 1-30 ranking, and will be presented back as "70% of GM's thought you did a good job; 30% thought you did a bad job"

I suggest this because there are some teams that historically do well in these games purely because of the assets available to them - and others that have an almost impossible task. This is designed purely to give GM's recognition for doing a good job in bad circumstances, or vice versa.

To add onto this:

I know that in the past, GM from a previous game get first dibs on teams in the next game. Would it be outlandish to make a minimum percentage requirement from this question to be allowed to compete in the next game? Or would we get back into the personal biases issue?

[Klomp]

Let me say that I am not against having the external judges. I was just giving insight why it might not be the best idea. I will side with the majority, which looks like its the external voting.

Possible judges:
+*CellarDoor
+*dcash4
+*bryant08
+r0cd0gg
*Miller4ever
Gremz
Garmfay

* - Moderators
+ - My vote

[BlackIce]

TMac if he has the time.

[SamBone]

Let me say that I am not against having the external judges. I was just giving insight why it might not be the best idea. I will side with the majority, which looks like its the external voting.

Possible judges:
+*CellarDoor
+*dcash4
+*bryant08
+r0cd0gg
*Miller4ever
Gremz
Garmfay

* - Moderators
+ - My vote

I 2nd all of these nominations as well as TMac.

Would also add bcortell to the list, and if we are going outside the game warspite always is very good judge of talent, but I think he likes to stay with the all time games.

All names mentioned would be wonderful additions to "THE PANEL"