|
|
Post by wallyworld on Nov 21, 2009 5:50:07 GMT -5
maybe we could get the 30 coaches in the NBA and randomly distribute them to the teams... alike players, coaches can be traded like players...
3 cats of coaches
$0 - Inexperienced coaches, coaches on scrub teams (Jay Triano, Spoelstra, Scott Brooks)
$1 - The decent coaches (Doc Rivers, Don Nelson, D'Antoni)
$2 - The top coaches (Phil Jackson, Popovich, Sloan)
their salary will be included in the cap
|
|
|
|
Post by TK3. on Nov 21, 2009 8:29:51 GMT -5
A Drafting system would work much better with this in my opinion
|
|
|
|
Post by Pierce on Nov 21, 2009 9:17:42 GMT -5
but how would Doc be a decent coach when he lead them to a championship? i dont see Sloan with a championship even though hes a good coach. good idea though  |
|
|
|
Post by wallyworld on Nov 21, 2009 9:52:31 GMT -5
Pierce is such a homer, LOL
Doc is more of a people's coach, not saying he's a bad coach, but he aint exactly the type that take's the drawing board and talks strategies to his players. IMO he's good with a talented roster, meshing those talents and motivating them to work as a unit. Whereas guys like Sloan and Popovich can make a big impact with a less talented roster by making the players better.
We can decide on the tiers later though, just checking if the idea is cool
|
|
|
|
Post by Camino on Nov 21, 2009 13:00:03 GMT -5
I thought of this also. Why don't we just go all the way.....
$10 Coaches Cap. Can be trade with players or coaches. Also we can do Assistant coaches.
$5 HOF Coaches
$4 Good Coaches
$3 Mediocore Coaches
$2 Rookie Coaches
$1 Assistant coaches
|
|
|
|
Post by thegsw on Nov 21, 2009 17:01:39 GMT -5
I thought about this too, but then thought it might be too complicated so i didnt suggest it. But i think it would be cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vikinginferno on Nov 21, 2009 18:49:43 GMT -5
I think it is a good idea, but it is so much harder to rate coaches. Coaches can seem like amazing coaches one year and the next they are fired. Outside of a select few coaches, it will be hard to choose the good from bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catz on Nov 21, 2009 20:27:36 GMT -5
I thought of this also. Why don't we just go all the way..... $10 Coaches Cap. Can be trade with players or coaches. Also we can do Assistant coaches. $5 HOF Coaches $4 Good Coaches $3 Mediocore Coaches $2 Rookie Coaches $1 Assistant coaches I thought of this earlier, and here's why I don't like THIS idea. Making coaches like Phil Jackson like $4+, compared to guys like Spoelstra at a $1 doesn't really make a ton of difference. I know having a good coach is essential to any championship team, but when it comes down to it, I'm going to take the more talented roster with a mediocre coach, compared to the Phil Jackson led team with far worse talent, but the same salary as the other team. And I don't like assistant coaches at all.  |
|
|
|
Post by wallyworld on Nov 21, 2009 22:00:03 GMT -5
I thought of this also. Why don't we just go all the way..... $10 Coaches Cap. Can be trade with players or coaches. Also we can do Assistant coaches. $5 HOF Coaches $4 Good Coaches $3 Mediocore Coaches $2 Rookie Coaches $1 Assistant coaches I thought of this earlier, and here's why I don't like THIS idea. Making coaches like Phil Jackson like $4+, compared to guys like Spoelstra at a $1 doesn't really make a ton of difference. I know having a good coach is essential to any championship team, but when it comes down to it, I'm going to take the more talented roster with a mediocre coach, compared to the Phil Jackson led team with far worse talent, but the same salary as the other team. And I don't like assistant coaches at all. yeap, thats what i feel too... plus we dont know all the assistant coaches that well... i think $0-$2 coaches work well... if u want a good coach, u sacrifice $2 off your cap and vice versa... |
|
|
|
Post by wallyworld on Nov 21, 2009 22:02:06 GMT -5
we can have a coaching FA market as well, and have all the coaches we know of but are not coaching right now in it.... GMs can trade their coaches with the FA coaches regardless of salary, so it'll be easier to get under the cap if their roster is too expensive... those with salary cap space can also get a better coach...
|
|
|
|
Post by Catz on Nov 22, 2009 3:36:52 GMT -5
I thought of this earlier, and here's why I don't like THIS idea. Making coaches like Phil Jackson like $4+, compared to guys like Spoelstra at a $1 doesn't really make a ton of difference. I know having a good coach is essential to any championship team, but when it comes down to it, I'm going to take the more talented roster with a mediocre coach, compared to the Phil Jackson led team with far worse talent, but the same salary as the other team. And I don't like assistant coaches at all. yeap, thats what i feel too... plus we dont know all the assistant coaches that well... i think $0-$2 coaches work well... if u want a good coach, u sacrifice $2 off your cap and vice versa... I like this idea. |
|
|
|
Post by megalison on Nov 22, 2009 14:19:43 GMT -5
I had this idea a long time ago, but now that its under the spotlight I am totally behind it.
The only problem I would see is that some voters would not consider coaches at all when looking at match-ups... much like how no one gives a jack-shit about the benches.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catz on Nov 22, 2009 18:57:02 GMT -5
I had this idea a long time ago, but now that its under the spotlight I am totally behind it. The only problem I would see is that some voters would not consider coaches at all when looking at match-ups... much like how no one gives a jack-shit about the benches. I really want to change the way basketball is diagnosed here... |
|
|
|
Post by Camino on Nov 24, 2009 9:19:12 GMT -5
I had this idea a long time ago, but now that its under the spotlight I am totally behind it. The only problem I would see is that some voters would not consider coaches at all when looking at match-ups... much like how no one gives a jack-shit about the benches. I really want to change the way basketball is diagnosed here... Bingo. I feel to many people vote for names and not the capabilities of the the players. For example people don't know just how valuable shooters are in this league. If anyone has Peja, Korver, Brad Miller in there lineup it's an automatic loss. Because people feel they are "soft" or they can't "defend". Yeah this may be ttue but with the right personel around them they all can be great defensive and not to mention going to hit every open shot. When you have the right system in place it does not matter who you have as your players. Another example Sacramento Kings 2002-2003 season. Starting lineup: Bibby-Christie-Peja-Webber-Divac. Those are some of the worst induvidual defenders(Except Christie) and softest/finesse players in the league but under Adelmans system they had the second best defense in the league behind San Antonio. Good coaches make teams better with the systems they run. That's why the Kings were successful all those years. As far as the asst coaches, Yeah, people may not know them but we should learn them. Like basketball school if you will. There is so much information to be had on the internet. There is profiles for every coach in the league. I believe we should give it a shot. I'll post something later that is more in detail with what I'm thinking and see if you all like it. |
|
|
|
Post by Catz on Nov 24, 2009 16:44:30 GMT -5
I'm all ears, buddy. |
|
|
|
Post by PREMO on Nov 24, 2009 17:36:18 GMT -5
i kind of agree...it's a good idea, but i just don't see people taking coaches into consideration...they might give it a little thought, but it'll mostly be an afterthought when it comes to people's votes.
|
|
