KEEPING IT REAL Wins!! RR NBA Dynasty League - S2

[Axel]

Perhaps a commish should send an email through Yahoo since some of the guys don't come on the forum very often. I'd wager some aren't even aware of a vote.

[Axel]

I'm honestly confused by the no votes.

Matt says no because he feels waivers aren't realistic to real life. Which is fine as his opinion but since our current system is more like a Liam Neeson movie with someone disappearing in the middle of night than actual free agency, I find that view fundamentally flawed.

Mack says no because he doesn't want to allocate funds this year beyond the auction, which kinda proves that the current system is flawed but would consider it for other seasons.

Dan says no without explanation but part of me wonders if his vote was simply to try and get back in Matt's good graces after their little to and fro earlier.

So can anyone actually explain a solid reasoning for this not to happen either this year or next?

[mcHAPPY]

I'm honestly confused by the no votes.

Matt says no because he feels waivers aren't realistic to real life. Which is fine as his opinion but since our current system is more like a Liam Neeson movie with someone disappearing in the middle of night than actual free agency, I find that view fundamentally flawed.

Mack says no because he doesn't want to allocate funds this year beyond the auction, which kinda proves that the current system is flawed but would consider it for other seasons.

Dan says no without explanation but part of me wonders if his vote was simply to try and get back in Matt's good graces after their little to and fro earlier.

So can anyone actually explain a solid reasoning for this not to happen either this year or next?

With all due respect, chill out dude!

We've all got our opinions and I don't see this as a right or wrong situation. I might not agree but I'm not going to be upset about a rule change the majority want.

Majority will rule and decide the outcome. Joey is right that a decision is needed but I don't see the rush. It is not going to impact anything until 3 days in to the season and it is only a couple of clicks for a commish to implement. As soon as three more people agree it is a done deal anyways - vote is 6-3 I believe in favour. The worst case scenario is it is resolved on auction night but I believe people will check in before that.

Emailing via Yahoo is a good start to see if that helps conclude the issue sooner than later. I'll do that now.

[Joey]

We've all got our opinions and I don't see this as a right or wrong situation. I might not agree but I'm not going to be upset about a rule change the majority want.

Nailed it. You're absolutely right Matt. With regards to rule change itself, opinions are welcome, and disagreements will happen. But ultimately, we all want whats best for the league, and lobbying one way or the other won't really help accomplish that.

Majority will rule and decide the outcome. Joey is right that a decision is needed but I don't see the rush. It is not going to impact anything until 3 days in to the season and it is only a couple of clicks for a commish to implement. As soon as three more people agree it is a done deal anyways - vote is 6-3 I believe in favour. The worst case scenario is it is resolved on auction night but I believe people will check in before that.

Emailing via Yahoo is a good start to see if that helps conclude the issue sooner than later. I'll do that now.

Fair point on there being no rush, I just don't like these things remaining unresolved. The faster the better.
But yes, currently stands at 6-3, lets hope we get some more votes in.

And thanks for sending the email!

[Joey]

Mack says no because he doesn't want to allocate funds this year beyond the auction, which kinda proves that the current system is flawed but would consider it for other seasons.

This IS essentially what we are looking to eliminate, you're right.

[Axel]

With all due respect, chill out dude!.

No disrespect taken, but if I were any chiller I'd be a penguin.

I'm not sure what about my post made you think that I am in any way worked up, cause I'm not. (Was it the Liam Neeson joke? Cause I thought that was a good one). Far from it, but like Joey I would like to see this resolved sooner rather than later. More time to strategize for how much to spend at the auction

[mcHAPPY]

No disrespect taken, but if I were any chiller I'd be a penguin.

I'm not sure what about my post made you think that I am in any way worked up, cause I'm not. (Was it the Liam Neeson joke? Cause I thought that was a good one). Far from it, but like Joey I would like to see this resolved sooner rather than later. More time to strategize for how much to spend at the auction

If you're not worked up I apologize.

However you don't see myself, Dan, or Mack summarizing and dismissing the views of the 6 people who voted to change it.

No biggie whatever the outcome is all I'm saying.

[Axel]

If you're not worked up I apologize.

However you don't see myself, Dan, or Mack summarizing and dismissing the views of the 6 people who voted to change it.

No biggie whatever the outcome is all I'm saying.

I'm not trying to dismiss the view but understand the reasoning. I honestly don't see any reason for this change not to happen. You've laid out your reasoning quite well in the thread (as usual) but I feel that Joey's post presented a fairly convincing counter-point. But Dan provided no reasoning (which after his carefully detailed posts earlier is surprising). Mack provided a valid concern as to the effects of his current season strategy, which while I sympathize (and have suggested to make the change come into effect the following season for that very reason) it also highlights a flaw in the current system. So while there are votes, I find very little support.

I'm honestly just trying to see if I'm missing something; if I overlooked a ramification or consequence. No need for any offence on either side of the vote.

[mcHAPPY]

I'm not trying to dismiss the view but understand the reasoning. I honestly don't see any reason for this change not to happen. You've laid out your reasoning quite well in the thread (as usual) but I feel that Joey's post presented a fairly convincing counter-point. But Dan provided no reasoning (which after his carefully detailed posts earlier is surprising). Mack provided a valid concern as to the effects of his current season strategy, which while I sympathize (and have suggested to make the change come into effect the following season for that very reason) it also highlights a flaw in the current system. So while there are votes, I find very little support.

I'm honestly just trying to see if I'm missing something; if I overlooked a ramification or consequence. No need for any offence on either side of the vote.

Fair enough.

Your views are different than ours.

We're all competing and with different agendas.

What makes sense or is best for you is likely not what makes sense or is best for me.

There are pros and cons to everything.

We'll let the vote play out and see where we are after that.


And by the way, regarding the disappearing in the middle of the night comment, how often do you wake up in the morning and hear about a trade or signing? Again, that is reality. Signings/agreements happen 24 hours a day.

[DanH]

Dan says no without explanation but part of me wonders if his vote was simply to try and get back in Matt's good graces after their little to and fro earlier.

I tried to explain my stance (and remove my vote). I haven't experienced the system as it stands, so I have little opinion. That translates to a "no" for me in two ways - first, I want to experience the system as it is, and second, I want any change to pass on the strength of votes made by people who have experienced the system. Since I don't care either way, I voted no. If that ends up being the tie-breaker, sorry.

For the record, if my more extreme proposal had been put to a vote, I would have voted against it as well - not because I disagree with it, but because I disagree with the notion of changing the system on the strength of votes from newcomers. If there's a majority needed, let it be comprised of managers who know the ins and outs of the league.

[drizz]

yay

[Axel]

And by the way, regarding the disappearing in the middle of the night comment, how often do you wake up in the morning and hear about a trade or signing? Again, that is reality. Signings/agreements happen 24 hours a day.

I think there are more injuries that change players values in the season than trades/signings. Those are unpredictable and without warning (unlike most trades/signings that are known for days in advance). Capitalizing on those opportunities, based on first come first serve is my issue. I can place a waiver claim at any hour (like real life) but a player actually gets to hear from more than one team.

[Axel]

I tried to explain my stance (and remove my vote). I haven't experienced the system as it stands, so I have little opinion. That translates to a "no" for me in two ways - first, I want to experience the system as it is, and second, I want any change to pass on the strength of votes made by people who have experienced the system. Since I don't care either way, I voted no. If that ends up being the tie-breaker, sorry.

For the record, if my more extreme proposal had been put to a vote, I would have voted against it as well - not because I disagree with it, but because I disagree with the notion of changing the system on the strength of votes from newcomers. If there's a majority needed, let it be comprised of managers who know the ins and outs of the league.

That's fair enough.

[mcHAPPY]

I think there are more injuries that change players values in the season than trades/signings. Those are unpredictable and without warning (unlike most trades/signings that are known for days in advance). Capitalizing on those opportunities, based on first come first serve is my issue. I can place a waiver claim at any hour (like real life) but a player actually gets to hear from more than one team.

Fair enough.

Joey raised that point, too.

I still vote no because I think the unrealistic nature of the continual waiver process is more important than the injury scenario.... but that is my opinion which apparently is in the minority - oh well.

I actually lost out on 'Po last year by literally less than a minute. Tucas signed him as I was attempting to pick him up. When I tried to add him an error came up. I ended up getting him via trade but it cost me Larry Sanders..... who I attempted to get back again, but then Tucas traded him as I was putting together a trade proposal! Ugh!

[Axel]

Fair enough.

Joey raised that point, too.

I still vote no because I think the unrealistic nature of the continual waiver process is more important than the injury scenario.... but that is my opinion which apparently is in the minority - oh well.

I actually lost out on 'Po last year by literally less than a minute. Tucas signed him as I was attempting to pick him up. When I tried to add him an error came up. I ended up getting him via trade but it cost me Larry Sanders..... who I attempted to get back again, but then Tucas traded him as I was putting together a trade proposal! Ugh!

Clearly Tucas can read your mind and is using his powers for evil. We should watch what we think around him.