|
|
Post by megalison on Mar 26, 2009 18:14:30 GMT -5
I was thinking, in order to make the "after-midseason" phase more interesting, we could do this: Salary IncreasesHere is basically what would happen: - - Each GM would be allowed 2 requests for a certain player's salary to be increased/decreased.
- - Each GM may only pick a player on one team once, then their other request (if they have one) must be directed towards another team.
- - Each GM may request a salary change for one of their own players as well.
- - For each GM's request, atleast 2 other GM's must have the same request for that player.
- - Salaries can only increase or decrease by 1$
- - Each team can only have one salary increase/decrease, if that quota is fulfilled, there can be no more change to any of the players on that particular team.
I feel this would force some of the highly-ranked teams to do some trading, and basically give the weaker teams a chance. This is to discourage sitting on your team for the rest of the season, as it gets very boring. In all, I just thought about this for a bit and thought i'd get it out.. What're your opinions? |
|
|
|
Post by TK3. on Mar 26, 2009 18:21:19 GMT -5
I don't really mean to sound rude but it sounds kind of a strategic shot at the higher-ranked teams to me... but what hell do I know?
|
|
|
|
Post by megalison on Mar 26, 2009 18:27:03 GMT -5
Well, I guess it could be viewed like that, or it could be viewed as a better balance for some teams that have it all from starting rosters, or those that only needed a minor tweak from the original rosters to be a contender... Also, you can decrease salaries as well, not only increase, this way the untradeable players could be changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by TK3. on Mar 26, 2009 19:11:39 GMT -5
i gotcha..
|
|
|
|
Post by CommandnConquer on Mar 26, 2009 20:48:16 GMT -5
i see the idea it does it will also make trading improve, but im not sure gms would be happy with idea, espcially if they create a team closer to perfectly rationed
and then the price changes up
just my opinion on possible flaws
|
|
|
|
Post by Stan on Mar 26, 2009 21:14:39 GMT -5
I don't really mean to sound rude but it sounds kind of a strategic shot at the higher-ranked teams to me... but what hell do I know? Yeah, that's basically what would happen. Besides, the Power Rankings do not necessarily determine the best teams in each Conference. It just gives some people the sense of security that their team looks best on paper out of the other 14 teams. Does not translate to success in the playoffs. |
|
|
|
Post by tian820 on Mar 26, 2009 22:01:04 GMT -5
This idea is OK, but the biggest flaw is that it's not "fair". Allowing people to vote on salary changes midseason has many holes and just wouldn't work. People complain enough about the actual voting, can you honestly see a scenario that would work out in which people can vote increase other GMs' players? No chance.
The main reason I'd be against the idea is because the GMs that put together good teams shouldn't be put at any disadvantage. Everyone should be put on an equal playing field. Sure some GMs might be "better", but we've already put in place a draft to give an advantage to those GMs who didn't make the playoffs the season before (an idea in which I don't agree with either).
|
|
|
|
Post by megalison on Mar 27, 2009 21:49:21 GMT -5
Tian has spoken, case closed  |
|
|
|
Post by tian820 on Mar 28, 2009 2:18:38 GMT -5
Tian has spoken, case closed lol, If this was true, I'd win every season... Clearly not the case |
|
