Gm A Team - how much longer?

[dockingsched]

game seems to be slowing down a bit with people finalizing their rosters.

with that in mind, how long do you guys want to keep the game going? i was thinking AT LEAST til the start of the season, possibly longer. its up to you guys though. with the end of the game comes the judging process too. how do you guys want to judge? i think previously there has been peer rankings where you rank each other, there has been judges brought in to score the teams, there has been different categories (rebuild winner, win now winner, etc). ultimately i think its important to get the judging process cleared up with plenty of time left in the game to allow gm's to tweak their rosters.

what do u guys think? this is a really informal talk, feel free to bring up anything related to the topic.

[roc]

I say to the All Star break or trade deadline.

I would think the game will pick up some after the season starts. Besides half the fun is seeing how your players gain or drop in value and that is especially true for the unknown quantites that rebuilding teams tend to favor.

[Gremz]

^^ I'm with Roc on this one. I'd like some more time to gauge exactly how my rookie team will fair. With the start of the regular season i hope to see offers flying left right and center. However if Rose busts let's just call it quits asap, agreed???

[zong]

Sorry for being a bit inactive guys, my internet at my apartment has been on the fritz for the past couple of weeks and I'm very busy with school and work. Although I would've liked to be as active as last time, it seems life has a way of changing the way I operate. I will try to get involved a bit more and hopefully we can get back into the normal swing of things.

I personally prefer this game to end by the last day of December or the first week of January.

[zong]

Also, congrats on the mod positions, Bryant08 and Dcash4

[LeQuitterNotMVP]

Ya, I'm with zong on this one. The last game ran for 6 months. I can't see us stopping after 1 month. Going until the end of December-ish will give us a good 3-4 months.

[dockingsched]

some suggestions on the judging process would be appreciated, thats the primary concern.

[LeQuitterNotMVP]

kingz' system:

votes for top 8 in each conference.

[roc]

I do think that at least 2 categories are needed, 'win now' and 'rebuild'.

maybe 4 of each from both conferences...

[dockingsched]

i def. agree with the way it was originally done in the first gm a team, you guys rank each other. whether its different categories, conferences, etc, peer judging should be top priority.

[xxSnEaKyPxx]

I think you need to judge who improved their team the most. Last game the judging was based on the final team, which is dumb because someone who starts out with the Celtics or Blazers is going to have a much better chance than the Knicks or Nets.

Judge based on the overall improvement.

Also, as for activity, I expect that will take off once the season gets going.

[bcortell]

The problem with that is that not every team is trying to improve, some are trying to rebuild.

[dockingsched]

yeah, the issue then becomes how much room for improvement each team has. i mean, if you have the celtics/lakers, how much can you really improve?

[xxSnEaKyPxx]

yeah, the issue then becomes how much room for improvement each team has. i mean, if you have the celtics/lakers, how much can you really improve?

But whos going to have the better roster, Knicks or Celtics?

[CellarDoor]

yeah, the issue then becomes how much room for improvement each team has. i mean, if you have the celtics/lakers, how much can you really improve?

But whos going to have the better roster, Knicks or Celtics?

Exactly. Teams with a lot of positive assets can do amazing things through the course of the game. KG can be turned into 2-3 all-stars, each all-star can be turned into a better fitting all-star, etc, etc. Even my team (Chicago) was blessed with a pretty deep amount of talent, if poorly fitting. But when you get to a team like Oklahoma City or especially New York, there's no way they can produce a better team then the Blazer in a vacuum.

[Kosta]

^That's true, but Chicago was also in a great situation for the next 10 or so years, now was it worth it for the Bulls G.M to dismantle the future to win now or were the Bulls better off staying put and building towards a title team 5 years from now? Same goes for my Hawks, I dealt most of my young guys (J.J/Marvin/Acie/Hibbert), although I tried to also bring back players that were still able to help me many years down the road as well as now (Josh Howard/Brendan Haywood) and keep my best young player (Al Horford), while still building a team that jumped from a fringe playoff team to a top 2-3 team in the East and a title contender.

The judging should be on how each team improved with what they were given to begin with, having less valuable assets to deal with shouldn't work against you. Is the team better off now then it was before you took over? The Celtics and Lakers are loaded, but did their G.M's put them in a better place for now and/or the future? It's easy to make a bunch of trades for the sake of it, but you have also need a plan/vision that is either giving you a better shot now, later or both if you're good enough. The Knicks don't have to make the playoffs, but are they significantly now better off with assets/youth/cap/chemistry/etc, if so, they should have a chance to win it even if they weren't able to pull off huge blockbusters since they didn't have enough pieces to do so.

For example, the Raptors traded Jalen Rose for an expiring and a mid 1st round pick a couple years ago, this evidently was a big factor in bringing Bryan Colangelo to the Raptors later that year, he mentioned that trade several times while first coming over from Phoenix, he loved the flexibility the extra cap would give him going into next off-season. One small move might have led to a key G.M signing that brought the Raptors 20 extra wins and a 3rd place seed in the East the following season while also bringing them back some respectability and stability for the franchise long term.

[Kosta]

yeah, the issue then becomes how much room for improvement each team has. i mean, if you have the celtics/lakers, how much can you really improve?

The Celtics roster gives you a load of options, you can either try to build a super powerhouse that is even better then the current champion Celtics or try sell off your vets now and bring back the pieces to build a future powerhouse. There's a plethora of chips to help build the Celtics long term future, if somebody willingly took the Celtics in this competition and is expecting to compete, most likely their only option is to look towards the future, because it's going to be tough to make the current squad that much better. Unless he gets great return for guys like Rondo/Powe/Perkins/Glen Davis and/or tries to get a better 3rd option in return for Ray Allen, but even then it'll be tough.

[LeQuitterNotMVP]

OK, so it's agreed. I win by default.

[bcortell]

OK, so it's agreed. I win by default.

Actually, you probably have little chance of winning.. especially after what the blazers looked like last game..

[roc]

It's easy to make a bunch of trades for the sake of it, but you have also need a plan/vision that is either giving you a better shot now, later or both if you're good enough.

My team is in a tricky spot now. I want them to be just good enough to sell tickets and nab a big name free agent or two in 2010 but I don't want them to be good enough to make the playoffs yet as it would allow me to hold onto my lottery protected 1st a bit longer. Of course I could help them lose by making sure my coach plays the guys I want him to play.