NBA All Star Draft : CHAT

[wlk3]

For the record there's only 1 non Allstar player I considered and he'd have been a last resort... My only thing was/is its been very clear lately that we aren't changing rules once we start... I agree with that and think we should continue to use that mentality as to protect the integrity of the competitions...

 

[blstoker]

Bill Russell, now @Bolts

 

[femurov]

I understand your point, Nos. But i try to look at things like what problems it could cause down the road. If you change something after the fact now (especially when the question was asked and answered before the draft started) it opens up arguments down the road. If you nip it in the bud, theses issues can be easily avoided since the precident has been set.

 

[Shanemansj13]

For the record there's only 1 non Allstar player I considered and he'd have been a last resort... My only thing was/is its been very clear lately that we aren't changing rules once we start... I agree with that and think we should continue to use that mentality as to protect the integrity of the competitions...

I agree but it's your loss...now I get to draft Smush Parker and Kwame

 

[tlance]

From what I know. Non All-Stars are $0. I am still not sure if your bench has to be $5 mil or more so I can't help you there. Since it didn't say it on the rules your bench can be $0

OK, thanks.

That was my understanding also. I thought perhaps the rules had changed.

 

[Nosferatu]

So what are the actual rules then? This needs to be reposted clearly, maybe in a different thread.

Nothing has changed the rules are in the OP.

 

[Nosferatu]

I agree but it's your loss...now I get to draft Smush Parker and Kwame

I think it's Smuch Parker...

 

[Nosferatu]

I understand your point, Nos. But i try to look at things like what problems it could cause down the road. If you change something after the fact now (especially when the question was asked and answered before the draft started) it opens up arguments down the road. If you nip it in the bud, theses issues can be easily avoided since the precident has been set.

Nobody feels more strongly about not changing the rules mid draft than I do but this would have been done and changed absolutely nothing. But i'm good with just letting it go and keeping it how it is but again I will have a very hard time voting for teams that have multiple $0 players on their bench.

 

[blstoker]

It doesn't make sense to me. All Star Draft means all-star players. I thought if they didnt have an all-star appearance they weren't eligible. So no all-star appearances means they cost $0

I asked this question before the draft started and got no clarification (I thought they would cost $1, since who really plays for $), so I just assumed they were ineligible.

 

[blstoker]

I asked this question before the draft started and got no clarification (I thought they would cost $1, since who really plays for $), so I just assumed they were ineligible.

I guess I missed when UK asked the same question. Either way - it won't really matter to me.

 

[UK Cowboy]

Nobody feels more strongly about not changing the rules mid draft than I do but this would have been done and changed absolutely nothing. But i'm good with just letting it go and keeping it how it is but again I will have a very hard time voting for teams that have multiple $0 players on their bench.

That's where you are wrong bud. You and Milk both stated that the rule could change since it wouldn't effect anyone, but it would have. I asked specifically about the rule BEFORE the draft, got clarification(not because I cared, but because I wanted to know how much starting CAP ROOM we would have. I then had a deal in place with WLK hours BEFORE the change was brought up, in which I was trading CAP SPACE because I knew how much I had to spend. I did plan on paying my starters my allotted space(my right- and BTW, your comment about not voting for teams that don't have all stars on the bench is beneath you, it should be based on talent), because I felt that even trading space, I would have a strong enough starting unit to compete. Obviously, I couldn't argue that point, because it would have started a bidding war for the trade I had in place. That's why I said if we changed it, we had to change the cap, because I had already made moved that would be impacted

 

[femurov]

Nobody feels more strongly about not changing the rules mid draft than I do but this would have been done and changed absolutely nothing. But i'm good with just letting it go and keeping it how it is but again I will have a very hard time voting for teams that have multiple $0 players on their bench.

Adding $5 would have absolutely changed things. But I agree that someone who has a lot of $0 players will have a tough time earning votes.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Either way it is going to be fun. To be clear, I wasn't paying attention early or somehow missed that rule it is my fault. It really doesn't bother me bc my strategy will stay the same even if I would have picked MJ. I didn't mean to start anything. Good luck guys.

 

[femurov]

Either way it is going to be fun. To be clear, I wasn't paying attention early or somehow missed that rule it is my fault. It really doesn't bother me bc my strategy will stay the same even if I would have picked MJ. I didn't mean to start anything. Good luck guys.

Yeah, right. You just keep on stirring the pot, buddy.




Can you not erase a winkie?

 

[Shanemansj13]

Yeah, right. You just keep on stirring the pot, buddy.




Can you not erase a winkie?

I have no clue what this means

 

[MilkSpiller22]

That's where you are wrong bud. You and Milk both stated that the rule could change since it wouldn't effect anyone, but it would have. I asked specifically about the rule BEFORE the draft, got clarification(not because I cared, but because I wanted to know how much starting CAP ROOM we would have. I then had a deal in place with WLK hours BEFORE the change was brought up, in which I was trading CAP SPACE because I knew how much I had to spend. I did plan on paying my starters my allotted space(my right- and BTW, your comment about not voting for teams that don't have all stars on the bench is beneath you, it should be based on talent), because I felt that even trading space, I would have a strong enough starting unit to compete. Obviously, I couldn't argue that point, because it would have started a bidding war for the trade I had in place. That's why I said if we changed it, we had to change the cap, because I had already made moved that would be impacted

to be fair, I did say I hated this scoring system before we even started the draft... so I guess I am biased... But I really don't care, this is basketball, my least knowledgable sport... I don't win unless I have Michael, and even that I almost ruined...

I do feel like it is cheating within the rules though... Cause really, without a time restriction on these players, the voters are not going to care much about depth, so I just hate that there is no penalty for having a crappy bench...

 

[Nosferatu]

That's where you are wrong bud. You and Milk both stated that the rule could change since it wouldn't effect anyone, but it would have. I asked specifically about the rule BEFORE the draft, got clarification(not because I cared, but because I wanted to know how much starting CAP ROOM we would have. I then had a deal in place with WLK hours BEFORE the change was brought up, in which I was trading CAP SPACE because I knew how much I had to spend. I did plan on paying my starters my allotted space(my right- and BTW, your comment about not voting for teams that don't have all stars on the bench is beneath you, it should be based on talent), because I felt that even trading space, I would have a strong enough starting unit to compete. Obviously, I couldn't argue that point, because it would have started a bidding war for the trade I had in place. That's why I said if we changed it, we had to change the cap, because I had already made moved that would be impacted

Well, thankfully for you the rule was not changed, let's move along shall we? I'm not at all upset by it and have myself already moved on.

 

[UK Cowboy]

Well, thankfully for you the rule was not changed, let's move along shall we? I'm not at all upset by it and have myself already moved on.

Myself

 

[Shanemansj13]

to be fair, I did say I hated this scoring system before we even started the draft... so I guess I am biased... But I really don't care, this is basketball, my least knowledgable sport... I don't win unless I have Michael, and even that I almost ruined...

I do feel like it is cheating within the rules though... Cause really, without a time restriction on these players, the voters are not going to care much about depth, so I just hate that there is no penalty for having a crappy bench...

To a certain point. You still need 7-8 deep to be a great team IMO. A team with MJ doesn't automatically win, the pieces around him still have to fit.

 

[UK Cowboy]

to be fair, I did say I hated this scoring system before we even started the draft... so I guess I am biased... But I really don't care, this is basketball, my least knowledgable sport... I don't win unless I have Michael, and even that I almost ruined...

I do feel like it is cheating within the rules though... Cause really, without a time restriction on these players, the voters are not going to care much about depth, so I just hate that there is no penalty for having a crappy bench...

Spending more money on your bench doesn't guarantee it will be better than anyone else's. I think bench is about role players, a shot blocker, 3 point shooter, lock down defender, etc, more than who spends the most money