I'd wait and see how OA works first

Crax is GSW.

3 player limit for season 1 is fine IMO. The point is that you take a team you like (that includes the roster, not just the jersey colors) and play from there. 3 players traded is a lot, and you can sign as many FA's as you want. And then after season 1 the limit is upped to 4 players.
Whoever can't operate under those limits is either a moron (you know who) or just trades players for no good reason.

Trade committee is a must.

Bounce wrote:

Crax is GSW.

3 player limit for season 1 is fine IMO. The point is that you take a team you like (that includes the roster, not just the jersey colors) and play from there. 3 players traded is a lot, and you can sign as many FA's as you want. And then after season 1 the limit is upped to 4 players.
Whoever can't operate under those limits is either a moron (you know who) or just trades players for no good reason.

Trade committee is a must.

Sounds good to me. I'm definitely on board with that. Truthfully, EDC was the only big time abuser or the trade stuff but it only takes 1 guy to fuck everything up. I thought the 3 player limit worked fine when we used it. It's enough that it gives you freedom to make changes but at the same time it keeps us in check to salvage the integrity of the rosters.

Bryan wrote:

Bounce wrote:

Crax is GSW.

3 player limit for season 1 is fine IMO. The point is that you take a team you like (that includes the roster, not just the jersey colors) and play from there. 3 players traded is a lot, and you can sign as many FA's as you want. And then after season 1 the limit is upped to 4 players.
Whoever can't operate under those limits is either a moron (you know who) or just trades players for no good reason.

Trade committee is a must.

Sounds good to me. I'm definitely on board with that. Truthfully, EDC was the only big time abuser or the trade stuff but it only takes 1 guy to fuck everything up. I thought the 3 player limit worked fine when we used it. It's enough that it gives you freedom to make changes but at the same time it keeps us in check to salvage the integrity of the rosters.

Agreed...

I'm GSW I think, Philly sounds good too, but GSW > fun

Was there any of those "new" members a keeper?

I remember this guy - darkllr http://isbaleague.darkbb.com/t266-rather-have-loved-an-lostthan-never-have

^That guy would be worth getting into contact with eventually. He seemed genuine.

AFrankel?
JayBri?
Skillswitch?
NYKIA?

I'll try something, I'm into #PatRileymode, btw we should have an emoticon for Pat Riley...

I love your avatar Bryan, you love the Celtics like I do, man I wish I went to a Celtic game...It would be epic...

^Agreed. I've never seen Boston play in their arena before. It would be great to be there for a playoff game or a big regular season game. When you play there for the first time I'll make sure I'm there, etc.

I wanna see Josip Sobin and KK Split do their thing at Spaladium Arena too. Or when you and Bounce play your annual game at Zagreb Arena

Well Josip Sobin is an solid player but not our best player, Tonci Katic>life And Vujcic, 3 time MVP...

Although I've seen Katic drunk on a party 2 weeks ago, professionalism FTW...

^Katic is just living the life brah.

Just from looking at the teams we chose for the OA I'm getting sad that I'm in the West and you and Bounce are in the East. We could never meet in the playoffs except Finals and that's not very likely

I might look at someone different than Utah. As much as I love Gordon Hayward I'm not sure I can stomach having Marvin Williams AND Mo Williams on the same team. Especially Mo as my starting PG. That just sucks. I think he's in the last year of his contract but it still blows.

Listen, I know he is...Well I guess that's ok...

Well I think you should switch to Denver or La Clippers and give Paul some scare in the playoffs, you could handle CP3 and you I think you would do great with em, with Utah you will be in the season and just whine how Mo Williams sucks and how you wanna quit...

Mavs imo, their roster is pretty good, got mayo, brand(!!!), collison, kaman and others

^I'm considering Dallas. The roster is OK for year 1 and they will have some cap flexibility going forward. I won't complain with Utah. I really like their team and watched them play A LOT last year due to my love for Jamaal Tinsley. It's a fun, young team and they have some great trade pieces if I feel lucky. I also like the idea of using a "small market" team against Vince, Ante, Paul, etc using the big guns. It's like real life with people like me, Luka, Bounce, Crax trying to upset the big boys all the time. I enjoy the #underdog role.

The Clippers are tempting but there's almost too much talent on that roster. 1 through 10 they will have one of the best video game rosters IMO. I get the feeling you will need a competent PG on 2k13 with these new features they are talking about. Only good thing about Mo Williams is he can shoot and in my ball movement/unselfish offense he would fit OK.

Philly is tempting but I suck with big men so I'll be wasting Bynum's talents. Would probably deal him at trade deadline instead of extending him tbh

Hey guys, it's Tonji, I'll be picking up New Orleans. I was tempted to take Raptors for hometown sake but they really are a terrible squad, Thunder because they're just that good but I don't want to end up with a terribad record wasting a good team, and Philly well, I just wasn't sure. In the end I'll go with the Hornets where it's okay if I fuck up and if I do succeed it's like Bryan say, I'm playing the #underdog role. Let's see how good the Anthony Davis/Eric Gordon/Austin Rivers combo will be.

----------------------

As for the trade discussion, I don't agree with the idea of limiting it to three player trades, give me a second to explain though. If the comittee does it's job then teams aren't going to be doing drastic moves that don't make sense but say I had a squad like Raptors, I'd want to get rid of the likes of Johnson/Bargnani & the rest of the bad contracts to make some room for the off-season's pickings and the draft. I feel like, as long as the committee does it's job then we won't have to worry about super teams but come on, who would really want to keep a team like Raptors how it is. You'd have to wait two or three years to really change the face of the roster. If not that then I recommend uplifting the limit for the off-season, because lord knows in real life people make big trades during that time.

In any case though, I'm down for the season, hopefully things improve in the game play column this year.

Welcome again Jonathan, well let's debate, B, Hrvoje, what y'all think?

Welcome back Jonathan. #Hayesanity forever

He makes good points regarding the trade committee and if we all do our job with that then we won't have crazy moves. My thing is you need to draw a line in the sand SOMEWHERE with a limit just as a deterrent more than anything. It only takes one compulsive trader to ruin the rosters for everyone. I don't have a problem if we said the first year the trade limit was 4 players and then it was 3 the rest of the years or if it was 4 players per season forever. Four players gives someone plenty of freedom. It's 1/3 of the roster after all. I just like having an official number on the table just so people realize it's not a complete free for all here. Particularly as a message to new members who aren't familiar with us.

As long as we're all active in the trade committee stuff I doubt we'd ever have a problem as Jonathan said. If someone kept proposing trades and kept getting shot down, eventually that person would stop trying. It's like I said a few days ago, I want people to enjoy themselves and to have freedom to put together a roster they wish to compete with. If 4 players sounds more reasonable, I'd be OK with that.

#Hayesanity That completely slipped my mind xD

Anyways yeah, four player yearly seems to be all right but I'd like to clarify on that matter, does that include draft picks as well?

I mean, would draft picks count as players being drafted or no. Furthermore is it four players COMING IN or four players GOING OUT?

Say for example Philly trades Andrew Bynum for 4 players (which is the max for in-game trades). Could he continue making other trades until he's traded away four players or does it stop once you four players come to your team and you can trade as many players until that?

4 players going out, draft picks not included. But I'd rather stick with a 3 player trade limit.

Jonathan wrote:

As for the trade discussion, I don't agree with the idea of limiting it to three player trades, give me a second to explain though. If the comittee does it's job then teams aren't going to be doing drastic moves that don't make sense but say I had a squad like Raptors, I'd want to get rid of the likes of Johnson/Bargnani & the rest of the bad contracts to make some room for the off-season's pickings and the draft. I feel like, as long as the committee does it's job then we won't have to worry about super teams but come on, who would really want to keep a team like Raptors how it is. You'd have to wait two or three years to really change the face of the roster. If not that then I recommend uplifting the limit for the off-season, because lord knows in real life people make big trades during that time.

In any case though, I'm down for the season, hopefully things improve in the game play column this year.

I get your point. HOWEVER. It's your choice to have picked that team. If you know how horrible they are, you wouldn't have picked them unless you're REALLY good with using them. It's an association. Meaning you don't really have to win it all the first time. I understand some of us get tired of the same team after 1.5 seasons, but shit have some patience!(for the ones who get tired easily) 3 players traded are reasonable. 4 is fine with me too. I just wanted to point out the flaws in your argument.

Vince wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

As for the trade discussion, I don't agree with the idea of limiting it to three player trades, give me a second to explain though. If the comittee does it's job then teams aren't going to be doing drastic moves that don't make sense but say I had a squad like Raptors, I'd want to get rid of the likes of Johnson/Bargnani & the rest of the bad contracts to make some room for the off-season's pickings and the draft. I feel like, as long as the committee does it's job then we won't have to worry about super teams but come on, who would really want to keep a team like Raptors how it is. You'd have to wait two or three years to really change the face of the roster. If not that then I recommend uplifting the limit for the off-season, because lord knows in real life people make big trades during that time.

In any case though, I'm down for the season, hopefully things improve in the game play column this year.

I get your point. HOWEVER. It's your choice to have picked that team. If you know how horrible they are, you wouldn't have picked them unless you're REALLY good with using them. It's an association. Meaning you don't really have to win it all the first time. I understand some of us get tired of the same team after 1.5 seasons, but shit have some patience!(for the ones who get tired easily) 3 players traded are reasonable. 4 is fine with me too. I just wanted to point out the flaws in your argument.

You just wanted to point out the flaws? Why so pessimistic? :mcg: Jks.

^Vince only pointed out 1 flaw in your argument so that means he agreed with about 75 percent of your post. #mrbrightside

After playing Ante in 2k twice today (getting cheesed in game 2) I think I'm going to take the Clippers instead of Utah. I hate taking a talented team but the fun factor will be higher this way. :cp3:

I'll change my mind again b4 the season starts imo

The Broski makes valid points, but the player limit is there to draw the line that otherwise would be hard to draw. Without the limit its possible to make good approved trades one after another after another and in the meantime completely "fuck up" the original roster.

Look it this way:
S1 - 3 players limit
Draft - 2 (or how many picks you have) players in, not counting against the limit above
S2 - as soon as the draft ends and July market opens you get the ability to trade 4 new player before hitting the S2 limit.

So by the November start of Season 2 you could have 9 new players on your/off your team. That's pretty flexible IMO. If 9 players aren't enough to change a team from S1 start to S2 start then nothing is.

The limit is also there to force the player think before trading -"Do I really need to trade my 4th string PG AJ Price for Jamal Magloire, or should I save the spot for later where I might trade for a real impactful player that could make the difference?"

^Not forgetting to mention all the FA's you can sign during the Summer that dont count against the limit.

Bounce wrote:

The Broski makes valid points, but the player limit is there to draw the line that otherwise would be hard to draw. Without the limit its possible to make good approved trades one after another after another and in the meantime completely "fuck up" the original roster.

Look it this way:
S1 - 3 players limit
Draft - 2 (or how many picks you have) players in, not counting against the limit above
S2 - as soon as the draft ends and July market opens you get the ability to trade 4 new player before hitting the S2 limit.

So by the November start of Season 2 you could have 9 new players on your/off your team. That's pretty flexible IMO. If 9 players aren't enough to change a team from S1 start to S2 start then nothing is.

The limit is also there to force the player think before trading -"Do I really need to trade my 4th string PG AJ Price for Jamal Magloire, or should I save the spot for later where I might trade for a real impactful player that could make the difference?"

agreed. Bounce killed the discussion. 3 player limit.

Bounce wrote:

^Not forgetting to mention all the FA's you can sign during the Summer that dont count against the limit.

exactly.