|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Jun 6, 2013 12:54:05 GMT -5
I would have done the same thing the Pipers did. No way I deal Barnes for Alexander even if I chance losing Barnes for nothing. Very logical. If you understand how free agency works (players almost always take the highest year 1 salary they can get), if I don't get Mikan, I'll get Barnes 97 times out of 100. Gotta look at the big picture sometimes. As I said, I'm happy he didn't take the deal. I just wanted him to stay. It's even more exciting about Mikan because only 4 of us have a shot at signing him.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jun 6, 2013 14:34:11 GMT -5
Very logical. If you understand how free agency works (players almost always take the highest year 1 salary they can get), if I don't get Mikan, I'll get Barnes 97 times out of 100. Gotta look at the big picture sometimes. As I said, I'm happy he didn't take the deal. I just wanted him to stay. It's even more exciting about Mikan because only 4 of us have a shot at signing him. Look more closely...
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Jun 6, 2013 15:13:45 GMT -5
It's even more exciting about Mikan because only 4 of us have a shot at signing him. Look more closely... Just because you have 10+mil more than the me and the Rockets, doesn't lead to you getting him as all three of us can offer the same max deal. Only team who can offer more are the Cougars, which if the loyalty/greed/play for winner numbers come into play, the odds on favorite are the Cougars to keep him. So lets play with numbers for a sec because I'm bored as shit at work right now... We will rank each of the four eligible teams 1 2 3 or 4 (1 being the highest) for the 3 different categories. The higher the score, the less likely he is to go with that team. LoyaltyCougars- 1 Pistons- T2 Stars- T2 Rockets- T2 GreedCougars- 1 Pistons- T2 Stars- T2 Rockets- T2 Play for WinnerCougars- 1 (Win rating of 41) Pistons- 2 (Win rating of 36) Rockets- 3 (Win rating of 35) Stars- 4 (Win rating of 25) OverallCougars- 3 Pistons- 6 Rockets- 7 Stars- 8 And you should technically get a 6 or 7 for your win rating since you sucked booty hole last year... but hey its cool. You now have Wilt and we don't. More than likely, Mikan will stay unless the Carolinas are just too unbearable for him.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jun 6, 2013 15:45:38 GMT -5
That's not what i was talking about, you be ALMOST right about Mikan....and, yes, as always, the most likely scenario is he stays with Carolina, though players always randomly jump. But when I said look more closely, I was thinking of a different number....
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Bulls on Jun 6, 2013 15:51:38 GMT -5
Well the more important thing is stick around and stay the GM of Pittsburgh. You are a good gm and the league would be better with you in it. I know you feel like you were being slighted of lowballed. But give this a chance and see if you can make it to work.
|
|
|
Post by Danny on Jun 6, 2013 16:54:11 GMT -5
Thanks for the reminder. I keep forgetting how FA works. So if you offer more money then you're more likely to get the player? No wonder I keep losing players. Other teams outbid me... except when they didn't and the player leaves for less money.
Simply put, the reason I wouldn't take that deal is because it's a shit offer only extended because the Pipers were backed in a corner. Justify it all you want, but that's how it works. It's a matter of principle. Do you owe another GM to "help" him? No you do not.
It's not unlike raising prices on shovels during a winter storm. Can you do it? Yeah. Will people pay? Usually. Should they have better prepared? Sure. Is it still a shitty thing to do? Absolutely.
I also liken it to trading with new GMs. They're inherently disadvantaged and they get taken all the time. In fact, if you've ever been a new GM then you've lost a deal (likely one of your first deals) because the playing field isn't even. Same applies here. You tried to milk something for almost nothing because you figured the Pipers would take it under duress. That's shitty.
Looking at the big picture (as you've suggested) tells me you offer shit to people in a bind. That'll give perspective to myself and everyone else in terms of your offers going forward. Big picture.
|
|
|
Post by Jamesdeane on Jun 6, 2013 19:03:55 GMT -5
This is getting a bit intense. I think Pipers should stick around, he is a solid part of this league. I have supported this rule in the past, but now that it has actually happened I don't think the same. It has always done its job, scare the GM into fixing his cap issue. Well this time it did not, and we possibly have lost a very good GM. Just my two cents, but really hope Pipers stay.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jun 6, 2013 23:56:49 GMT -5
Thanks for the reminder. I keep forgetting how FA works. So if you offer more money then you're more likely to get the player? No wonder I keep losing players. Other teams outbid me... except when they didn't and the player leaves for less money. Simply put, the reason I wouldn't take that deal is because it's a shit offer only extended because the Pipers were backed in a corner. Justify it all you want, but that's how it works. It's a matter of principle. Do you owe another GM to "help" him? No you do not. It's not unlike raising prices on shovels during a winter storm. Can you do it? Yeah. Will people pay? Usually. Should they have better prepared? Sure. Is it still a shitty thing to do? Absolutely. I also liken it to trading with new GMs. They're inherently disadvantaged and they get taken all the time. In fact, if you've ever been a new GM then you've lost a deal (likely one of your first deals) because the playing field isn't even. Same applies here. You tried to milk something for almost nothing because you figured the Pipers would take it under duress. That's shitty. Looking at the big picture (as you've suggested) tells me you offer shit to people in a bind. That'll give perspective to myself and everyone else in terms of your offers going forward. Big picture. Yup, and yup, and you still didn't look around. As i said, I'm glad he didn't take it. I'm the only GM that can offer a max contract. I'm not trying to make him take it. Nobody else can offer a max but me, so yeah, ok?--that's justifying it...if you will, and if you won't, don't matter. I figured the Pipers would take it under duress, of course i did. My offer is better than what he got, which was NOTHING. And it wasn't my fault that he backed himslef into a corner...it was his. By the way Dan, the Stars will compete fore championships, and the Nuggets will not. Just saying. That's the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jun 6, 2013 23:57:28 GMT -5
No wonder you keep losing players, yeah, Bogut...
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jun 7, 2013 0:00:09 GMT -5
Thanks for the reminder. I keep forgetting how FA works. So if you offer more money then you're more likely to get the player? No wonder I keep losing players. Other teams outbid me... except when they didn't and the player leaves for less money. Simply put, the reason I wouldn't take that deal is because it's a shit offer only extended because the Pipers were backed in a corner. Justify it all you want, but that's how it works. It's a matter of principle. Do you owe another GM to "help" him? No you do not. It's not unlike raising prices on shovels during a winter storm. Can you do it? Yeah. Will people pay? Usually. Should they have better prepared? Sure. Is it still a shitty thing to do? Absolutely. I also liken it to trading with new GMs. They're inherently disadvantaged and they get taken all the time. In fact, if you've ever been a new GM then you've lost a deal (likely one of your first deals) because the playing field isn't even. Same applies here. You tried to milk something for almost nothing because you figured the Pipers would take it under duress. That's shitty. Looking at the big picture (as you've suggested) tells me you offer shit to people in a bind. That'll give perspective to myself and everyone else in terms of your offers going forward. Big picture. Simply put, lots of talk and no results.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Bulls on Jun 7, 2013 1:46:06 GMT -5
Well good luck to you man.
|
|