Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 181 to 192 of 192
  1. #181
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5,872
    Guys this isn't hard. If we don't want tanking, we can't have a draft. It's that simple. As long as an incentive structure exists that rewards losing in any way, shape or form, teams are going to take advantage of it.
    POOP

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,521
    Quote Originally Posted by lavell12 View Post
    best way to stop tanking is either reverse the lottery odds where the teams that don't make the playoffs that have the better record get the better odds to win the lottery or get rid of the lottery and just give the team with the 14 best record the #1 pick.
    Let's see, 5 games left in the season. I'm currently the 8th seed. I'm one game up on the 9th seed. 1.5 up on the 10th. Great playoff race we have here as all 3 teams sit all 5 starters for the next 5 games.

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    21,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Quinnsanity View Post
    Guys this isn't hard. If we don't want tanking, we can't have a draft. It's that simple. As long as an incentive structure exists that rewards losing in any way, shape or form, teams are going to take advantage of it.
    And several solutions were suggested in this thread that would mitigate or outright eliminate the incentive to tank.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,675
    I think the best way to discourage tanking is to use the current seasons standings to determine the draft order 3 years into the future, like a lag time. that way I can't start tanking a third of the way through the season because a special college talent has emerged for this draft class, or the class is shaping up to be a great one at the top... and the lag time would put an unbelievable amount of stress on the market where tanking is occurring before bearing any semblance of fruit.

    Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by nycericanguy View Post
    well unfortunately it looks like you were right about Bargs...

    but hopefully we can use his expiring, if not at least we unloaded Novak's deal...

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    21,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamiecballer View Post
    I think the best way to discourage tanking is to use the current seasons standings to determine the draft order 3 years into the future, like a lag time. that way I can't start tanking a third of the way through the season because a special college talent has emerged for this draft class, or the class is shaping up to be a great one at the top... and the lag time would put an unbelievable amount of stress on the market where tanking is occurring before bearing any semblance of fruit.

    Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
    That's a new one. The downside is that a 4 year tank becomes a 7 year tank I guess

    Not a bad suggestion really though 3 years may be a bit much.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    MASS
    Posts
    53,167
    another one, probably already suggested but I didnt go through the thread

    free market. let teams bid on draft rights. have a separate "pool" money thats different from the cap (like baseball and the international pool) have limits, allow teams to trade for more pool money if they desire, and bid on rookies similar to the international pool that baseball has


    First Sim League Title!

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18,712
    you guys continue to try and fix the parity issue via eliminating tanking...

    parity would be impacted much more by the following

    1. Contract two teams
    2. Eliminate max salaries
    3. Eliminate BAE/MLE and only give one exception a year to go over the cap to sign your bird rights players

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    21,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinylman View Post
    you guys continue to try and fix the parity issue via eliminating tanking...

    parity would be impacted much more by the following

    1. Contract two teams
    2. Eliminate max salaries
    3. Eliminate BAE/MLE and only give one exception a year to go over the cap to sign your bird rights players
    I think it's not trying to fix parity by eliminating tanking but rather how do you eliminate tanking while protecting the possibility of allowing parity. Because fixing tanking is really easy if you don't care about parity ... you just make the lottery flat between all 30 teams and boom, no tanking because there is no advantage to a lesser record. The problem is that it helps the good teams far too much and the bad teams far too little.

    1. I don't buy that contracting makes the league better.
    2. Eliminating max salaries just means the bad teams will be paying even more stupid money to marginal "stars".
    3. No exception for veteran minimum deals? You are going to have a bunch of partial rosters, and even if the owners agreed (which they wouldn't) the players union would not. So it's a non-starter.

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    47,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    2. Eliminating max salaries just means the bad teams will be paying even more stupid money to marginal "stars".
    3. No exception for veteran minimum deals? You are going to have a bunch of partial rosters, and even if the owners agreed (which they wouldn't) the players union would not. So it's a non-starter.
    Point 2 - Or.....bad teams offer up a boatload of money to the second tier starts that prevents these teamups. Would Love stick with Cleveland at $23mil a year if say.....Charlotte was offering him $40mil a year? That dings the Cavs and brings another team into the mix. If they had a good GM they would be able to build something.

    Point 3 - I think he was more talking about the bi-annual non-tax, early bird rights, partial bird rights, the taxpayer exemption, and stuff like that. I think almost everyone would agree you got to let teams fill out their roster. But having almost every single stinking exemption available is stupid, and it's what I argue against too. Cut the number of them down and make some of those players go elsewhere.

    PROCESSING

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    21,989
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Point 2 - Or.....bad teams offer up a boatload of money to the second tier starts that prevents these teamups. Would Love stick with Cleveland at $23mil a year if say.....Charlotte was offering him $40mil a year? That dings the Cavs and brings another team into the mix. If they had a good GM they would be able to build something.

    Point 3 - I think he was more talking about the bi-annual non-tax, early bird rights, partial bird rights, the taxpayer exemption, and stuff like that. I think almost everyone would agree you got to let teams fill out their roster. But having almost every single stinking exemption available is stupid, and it's what I argue against too. Cut the number of them down and make some of those players go elsewhere.
    2 - sure, but it will also mean teams will even more absurdly overpay players, and those teams will be totally screwed for years because of it. The max contract was more for bad teams than good ones. The big issue with getting rid of max contracts is that the owners and the the majority of the players like the max contracts.

    3 - yeah, I have no idea what so many exceptions were added. There is also the Arenas rule and I think another one I can't remember the name of at the moment which are not specifically exceptions but work like them because they are to help teams over the cap keep players. I'm fine with the original bird exception that allows the team that drafted a player to go over the cap to keep them. I don't think it should be limited to one player, but I'd be fine with all the other exceptions, other than the vet minimum one, being eliminated.

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,464
    I don't see why it matters. Tank an suffer for 4 years for no guarantee. Do I really care if PHX is tanking?

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    21,989
    Quote Originally Posted by LOb0 View Post
    I don't see why it matters. Tank an suffer for 4 years for no guarantee. Do I really care if PHX is tanking?
    Some do.

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •