|
|
Post by Berlin on Jul 27, 2015 11:52:48 GMT -6
Here are the pros/cons I've seen mentioned, now. NO: We don't want to water things down, and we aren't confident about the GMs we might bring in. YES: More trade activity/league activity; realignment of divisions. If you look at it this way, No outweighs Yes, easily, because both Yes reasons are either taken on faith or can be done without expansion. However, let's add an actual quality reason to the Yes column... Expansion. Is. Fun. The votes for and against are, so far, super lame. Let's look at it that way: is expansion fun? Yes. Always. It allows for some difference in the offseason. It adds a weird level of complexity. It allows me to expose Eddie Johnson in the expansion draft. I'm still voting "I don't care," but let's not forget the reason we play the game: because it's fun. You don't need expansion to get rid of Eddie Johnson...I'd give Sydney's soul for him right about now (I think I picked it up for a 2nd rounder a couple seasons back). |
|
|
|
Post by New York on Jul 27, 2015 12:00:12 GMT -6
I haven't been able to chime in with a full on response but I am in the same boat as San Fran here with my thoughts on expansion. I do think with expansion comes a period of having really bad teams added to the league, this part isn't deniable. They could be good in the future depending on the quality of GMs we put in place but every expansion team goes through a stretch where they are just fodder for the rest of the league. I don't think the league needs more bad teams right now, maybe in the future but not right now with the imbalance between the Haves and the Have Nots that we currently have.
I mentioned above that the success of the team depends a lot on the GMs we put in place. I know we can fill teams very easily but it's not as easy to fill teams with good GMs as we've seen multiple times in the past. Remember I ran the last expansion draft and I remember having 3 GMs that are no longer here (either because of poor management on their part or lost interest) along with San Francisco selecting players. I'm all for giving GMs a chance but there will be openings in the future and I don't think it's necessary to expand to give those new GMs a shot. It'd be different if we saw a lot of potential GMs on the board making a strong case for a spot in the league like we saw in past expansions but we don't even see that.
Don't forget that we had a team open recently for over a season. There were candidates out there for the team but none that necessarily looked good.
Also the one point I keep seeing brought up is the increased activity having new GMs would bring. It may bring more activity but again we have seen new GMs come in and either do nothing or make really poor decisions before bailing on the league. There's no guarantee of increased activity with new GMs, as they could just fall into the trend that a few of the current GMs have recently by coasting and hoping to strike gold with the draft.
We see people mentioning that there haven't been good points brought up against expansion but I haven't really seen a super compelling one for expansion yet either.
So I'm not exactly against expansion but i'm not for it right now. I think putting QUALITY GMs is more of a process than it's being said as we've seen in the past with expansion. I don't believe expansion is guaranteed to increase activity on the board. In the past we expanded because we saw prospective GMs really doing what they can to earn a spot in the league. I don't see that right now so while expansion may be in the cards in the future, I don't think now is the right time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago on Jul 27, 2015 12:02:09 GMT -6
I agree with what Mexico and Berlin said. There is slight benefit to expansion (more activity, new blood, more competition for limited playoff spot ratio, spread the talent around a little more sparsely etc). The only potential downside was filling GM slots and I think that's a non-issue, we have a few GM's floating around and a couple more that wait listed who never got teams. I'm surprised 9 people have voted no with no real rationale - the Yes side has at least provided a few (albeit weak) pros to expansion. Also I hate the current division setup (see Indiana's playoff seeding and the West division for an example - Indy shouldn't even be in the playoffs with their record) I think we have shown that having 32 good and active GM's is often times hard to do. Often times some of the guys on the waiting don't appeal to me at all/seem like screw up a situation and bail guys. I guess in general I look more at trying to add quality over quantity. In other words, just because you've been asked out doesn't mean you need to go on the date... We already have over half the league that is not actively competitive/"rebuilding" so we want to add more teams to balance out divisions but add more teams that by definition will be rebuilding for at least a few years? How many expansion teams have consistently been turned into winners? Just curious if people really want expansion or really want some new blood solely for trading and winning some gimmies purposes? Legit questions and in my mind new blood and activity aren't reasons that resonate with me. We have plenty of activity. I am the biggest fan of bigger divisions out there, but if the way it happens is adding more teams than until I see a really good rationale for doing so, with really strong candidates to run the teams I am hesitant to say the least. I completely understand what you're saying, and believe you have valid points against the "pros" that were listed but I still don't see where the "con" or harm in expansion would be. Does expansion HURT the league is my question I guess. Maybe I'm missing something but no-one seems to be able to say why expansion is a bad thing... most of the arguments are that they aren't sure it's a good thing (which I agree is debatable). I could easily be swung in either direction but until someone can articulate why it would hurt the league I'd still lean towards expanding for the reasons a few of us mentioned before. (a few more GM's to talk trade with, more exclusive playoff v. non playoffs ratio, increased difficulty level with thinned out talent etc) |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago on Jul 27, 2015 12:03:56 GMT -6
I haven't been able to chime in with a full on response but I am in the same boat as San Fran here with my thoughts on expansion. I do think with expansion comes a period of having really bad teams added to the league, this part isn't deniable. They could be good in the future depending on the quality of GMs we put in place but every expansion team goes through a stretch where they are just fodder for the rest of the league. I don't think the league needs more bad teams right now, maybe in the future but not right now with the imbalance between the Haves and the Have Nots that we currently have. I mentioned above that the success of the team depends a lot on the GMs we put in place. I know we can fill teams very easily but it's not as easy to fill teams with good GMs as we've seen multiple times in the past. Remember I ran the last expansion draft and I remember having 3 GMs that are no longer here (either because of poor management on their part or lost interest) along with San Francisco selecting players. I'm all for giving GMs a chance but there will be openings in the future and I don't think it's necessary to expand to give those new GMs a shot. It'd be different if we saw a lot of potential GMs on the board making a strong case for a spot in the league like we saw in past expansions but we don't even see that. Don't forget that we had a team open recently for over a season. There were candidates out there for the team but none that necessarily looked good. Also the one point I keep seeing brought up is the increased activity having new GMs would bring. It may bring more activity but again we have seen new GMs come in and either do nothing or make really poor decisions before bailing on the league. There's no guarantee of increased activity with new GMs, as they could just fall into the trend that a few of the current GMs have recently by coasting and hoping to strike gold with the draft. We see people mentioning that there haven't been good points brought up against expansion but I haven't really seen a super compelling one for expansion yet either. So I'm not exactly against expansion but i'm not for it right now. I think putting QUALITY GMs is more of a process than it's being said as we've seen in the past with expansion. I don't believe expansion is guaranteed to increase activity on the board. In the past we expanded because we saw prospective GMs really doing what they can to earn a spot in the league. I don't see that right now so while expansion may be in the cards in the future, I don't think now is the right time. Fair enough - this is a well thought out argument against expansion at the moment |
|
|
|
Post by Berlin on Jul 27, 2015 12:15:39 GMT -6
I haven't been able to chime in with a full on response but I am in the same boat as San Fran here with my thoughts on expansion. I do think with expansion comes a period of having really bad teams added to the league, this part isn't deniable. They could be good in the future depending on the quality of GMs we put in place but every expansion team goes through a stretch where they are just fodder for the rest of the league. I don't think the league needs more bad teams right now, maybe in the future but not right now with the imbalance between the Haves and the Have Nots that we currently have. I mentioned above that the success of the team depends a lot on the GMs we put in place. I know we can fill teams very easily but it's not as easy to fill teams with good GMs as we've seen multiple times in the past. Remember I ran the last expansion draft and I remember having 3 GMs that are no longer here (either because of poor management on their part or lost interest) along with San Francisco selecting players. I'm all for giving GMs a chance but there will be openings in the future and I don't think it's necessary to expand to give those new GMs a shot. It'd be different if we saw a lot of potential GMs on the board making a strong case for a spot in the league like we saw in past expansions but we don't even see that. Don't forget that we had a team open recently for over a season. There were candidates out there for the team but none that necessarily looked good. Also the one point I keep seeing brought up is the increased activity having new GMs would bring. It may bring more activity but again we have seen new GMs come in and either do nothing or make really poor decisions before bailing on the league. There's no guarantee of increased activity with new GMs, as they could just fall into the trend that a few of the current GMs have recently by coasting and hoping to strike gold with the draft. We see people mentioning that there haven't been good points brought up against expansion but I haven't really seen a super compelling one for expansion yet either. So I'm not exactly against expansion but i'm not for it right now. I think putting QUALITY GMs is more of a process than it's being said as we've seen in the past with expansion. I don't believe expansion is guaranteed to increase activity on the board. In the past we expanded because we saw prospective GMs really doing what they can to earn a spot in the league. I don't see that right now so while expansion may be in the cards in the future, I don't think now is the right time. Like Chicago said, this is well thought out and the first argument that made me pause for a moment about expansion. My main retort would be that you seem to want to wait to expand when we happen to have 4 QUALITY GMs on the WAITING LIST all ready to go AT THE SAME TIME. Then, and only then, is the league ready to expand. Plus, we need to wait until the league is more balanced talent wise because too many teams are towards the bottom, and this would put more teams towards the bottom, regardless that we are waiting for 4 QUALITY GMS AT THE SAME TIME. I know the way I worded that comes off as snide or condescending, as is my usual attitude, but that isn't my intent. If we honestly waited to expand based on your specific guidelines, we wouldn't be calling it expansion. It would be the initial draft for ABCA Legends 2: The Quickening. How many times have we had an intriguing GM prospect on the waiting list make a splash, actually put a few posts together, then disappear because we keep them hanging around for over a season waiting for a team? And we want to do this to four guys while the league corrects itself? Sometimes you just have to take a leap of faith that with the safeguards in place with mentors, etc, things will work out...expansion did the last two times, didn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago on Jul 27, 2015 12:24:43 GMT -6
My main retort would be that you seem to want to wait to expand when we happen to have 4 QUALITY GMs on the WAITING LIST all ready to go AT THE SAME TIME. Then, and only then, is the league ready to expand. Plus, we need to wait until the league is more balanced talent wise because too many teams are towards the bottom, and this would put more teams towards the bottom, regardless that we are waiting for 4 QUALITY GMS AT THE SAME TIME. How many times have we had an intriguing GM prospect on the waiting list make a splash, actually put a few posts together, then disappear because we keep them hanging around for over a season waiting for a team? Agreed here as well. I might be wrong but I believe we've had a couple experienced GM's apply and then nothing came of it because there was no team to give them (I believe BA was held open for their GM to return). And please none of the "If they want it bad enough they'll stick around and post regularly until they get a team" nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by Beijing on Jul 27, 2015 12:28:27 GMT -6
Here are the pros/cons I've seen mentioned, now. NO: We don't want to water things down, and we aren't confident about the GMs we might bring in. YES: More trade activity/league activity; realignment of divisions. If you look at it this way, No outweighs Yes, easily, because both Yes reasons are either taken on faith or can be done without expansion. However, let's add an actual quality reason to the Yes column... Expansion. Is. Fun. The votes for and against are, so far, super lame. Let's look at it that way: is expansion fun? Yes. Always. It allows for some difference in the offseason. It adds a weird level of complexity. It allows me to expose Eddie Johnson in the expansion draft. I'm still voting "I don't care," but let's not forget the reason we play the game: because it's fun. You don't need expansion to get rid of Eddie Johnson...I'd give Sydney's soul for him right about now (I think I picked it up for a 2nd rounder a couple seasons back). So you'd be giving nothing for Eddie? As to the more GMs = more activity theory, look up the general premise of Keynesian economics. It doesn't work. More government spending does not stimulate and grow the economy. More GMs will not lead to a long term increase in overall league activity. If you're looking for a few new punching bags, then by all means open the flood gates. |
|
|
|
Post by Bayi on Jul 27, 2015 12:31:18 GMT -6
Guys, the more we talk about this, the more I want to say YES YES YES and do it so we can get to the REAL debate: which four teams are being selected for expansion, and when does Bayi get moved to New Orleans?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago on Jul 27, 2015 12:36:24 GMT -6
You don't need expansion to get rid of Eddie Johnson...I'd give Sydney's soul for him right about now (I think I picked it up for a 2nd rounder a couple seasons back). If you're looking for a few new punching bags, then by all means open the flood gates. This is interesting to me. In theory 2 of the new GMs could be Derek and Xeniese, and for the other two there were other experienced GMs on the wait list. I'd also say most of our most recent expansion teams contribute more to the league and are less "punching bag" than many tenured GMs (myself included). Also as mentioned earlier several expansion teams were up and competing faster than rebuilds attempted by tenured GMs (again, myself included). |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Jackson on Jul 27, 2015 12:38:49 GMT -6
Hi.
I'll take an expansion team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago on Jul 27, 2015 12:42:20 GMT -6
You don't need expansion to get rid of Eddie Johnson...I'd give Sydney's soul for him right about now (I think I picked As to the more GMs = more activity theory, look up the general premise of Keynesian economics. It doesn't work. More government spending does not stimulate and grow the economy. More GMs will not lead to a long term increase in overall league activity. Depends on how you define "activity" Four new GMs means four new people to talk trade with, that much is true. Four new GMs means potentially four new people posting on the boards and possibly chatting on Slack. Can adding four new GM's decrease activity? I can't see how. Does four new GM's guarantee an increase anyone else's activity? Of course not - but I don't think anyone is inferring that. |
|
|
|
Post by New York on Jul 27, 2015 12:43:33 GMT -6
I haven't been able to chime in with a full on response but I am in the same boat as San Fran here with my thoughts on expansion. I do think with expansion comes a period of having really bad teams added to the league, this part isn't deniable. They could be good in the future depending on the quality of GMs we put in place but every expansion team goes through a stretch where they are just fodder for the rest of the league. I don't think the league needs more bad teams right now, maybe in the future but not right now with the imbalance between the Haves and the Have Nots that we currently have. I mentioned above that the success of the team depends a lot on the GMs we put in place. I know we can fill teams very easily but it's not as easy to fill teams with good GMs as we've seen multiple times in the past. Remember I ran the last expansion draft and I remember having 3 GMs that are no longer here (either because of poor management on their part or lost interest) along with San Francisco selecting players. I'm all for giving GMs a chance but there will be openings in the future and I don't think it's necessary to expand to give those new GMs a shot. It'd be different if we saw a lot of potential GMs on the board making a strong case for a spot in the league like we saw in past expansions but we don't even see that. Don't forget that we had a team open recently for over a season. There were candidates out there for the team but none that necessarily looked good. Also the one point I keep seeing brought up is the increased activity having new GMs would bring. It may bring more activity but again we have seen new GMs come in and either do nothing or make really poor decisions before bailing on the league. There's no guarantee of increased activity with new GMs, as they could just fall into the trend that a few of the current GMs have recently by coasting and hoping to strike gold with the draft. We see people mentioning that there haven't been good points brought up against expansion but I haven't really seen a super compelling one for expansion yet either. So I'm not exactly against expansion but i'm not for it right now. I think putting QUALITY GMs is more of a process than it's being said as we've seen in the past with expansion. I don't believe expansion is guaranteed to increase activity on the board. In the past we expanded because we saw prospective GMs really doing what they can to earn a spot in the league. I don't see that right now so while expansion may be in the cards in the future, I don't think now is the right time. Like Chicago said, this is well thought out and the first argument that made me pause for a moment about expansion. My main retort would be that you seem to want to wait to expand when we happen to have 4 QUALITY GMs on the WAITING LIST all ready to go AT THE SAME TIME. Then, and only then, is the league ready to expand. Plus, we need to wait until the league is more balanced talent wise because too many teams are towards the bottom, and this would put more teams towards the bottom, regardless that we are waiting for 4 QUALITY GMS AT THE SAME TIME. I know the way I worded that comes off as snide or condescending, as is my usual attitude, but that isn't my intent. If we honestly waited to expand based on your specific guidelines, we wouldn't be calling it expansion. It would be the initial draft for ABCA Legends 2: The Quickening. How many times have we had an intriguing GM prospect on the waiting list make a splash, actually put a few posts together, then disappear because we keep them hanging around for over a season waiting for a team? And we want to do this to four guys while the league corrects itself? Sometimes you just have to take a leap of faith that with the safeguards in place with mentors, etc, things will work out...expansion did the last two times, didn't it? I didn't take this as a snide or condescending response at all no worries. All valid points but I'm not necessarily saying we should wait until we have 4 quality GMs available because that's unrealistic but I do think there should be some life shown by prospective GMs before considering it. Maybe i'm missing something but there is no one right now that is doing what some of the GMs pre-expansion 1 or 2 were doing in terms of activity. Our success rate with GMs that we just hand spots to without them showing anything before hand is not very good. For every New York, there is 3 stocknpayd's, 2 Destroyer of Toronto's and a few Best GM Never's. Also the thought of waiting for the league to be a bit more balanced isn't as unrealistic as it sounds. Has the league ever had a perfect competitive balance? No. But I try to pay attention to the balance of the league each year and this recent stretch has been a low point for the league. I just don't think the solution to what is arguably the bigger problem for the league is to add more GMs that are going to take at minimum 2-3 seasons to even put together 40 wins. As for if the 1st expansion was successful, it was. BCZ has had his ups and downs but has been a quality GM from my view and Corey did an excellent job with Harlem before taking a break from the league. The 2nd expansion was not successful in my opinion. We had 3 failed GMs (actually was probably 1-2 more before finding GMs the stuck), some moves that hurt a few of the franchises. I think we made it work and I think we'd make an expansion work if we decided to go along with one now but I wouldn't count it as a success. Again i'm not against expansion, i'm against expansion next season. If we announce expansion, i'd take some time to put it out there so that GMs have a chance to earn a spot and wee have a chance to see if they deserve a spot. Also before it's mentioned i'm not asking for anyone to jump over the moon to earn a spot but just show some life which I don't see right now. I just think the timing is off for this right now. I don't want to rush into something because it seems exciting and then when we have 36 teams and 30 GMs (because as you yourself have said Berlin staying at 32 isn't exactly easy) everyone is asking "why isn't this team filled or when are we going to have a GM in this spot". |
|
|
|
Post by New York on Jul 27, 2015 12:49:44 GMT -6
My main retort would be that you seem to want to wait to expand when we happen to have 4 QUALITY GMs on the WAITING LIST all ready to go AT THE SAME TIME. Then, and only then, is the league ready to expand. Plus, we need to wait until the league is more balanced talent wise because too many teams are towards the bottom, and this would put more teams towards the bottom, regardless that we are waiting for 4 QUALITY GMS AT THE SAME TIME. How many times have we had an intriguing GM prospect on the waiting list make a splash, actually put a few posts together, then disappear because we keep them hanging around for over a season waiting for a team? Agreed here as well. I might be wrong but I believe we've had a couple experienced GM's apply and then nothing came of it because there was no team to give them (I believe BA was held open for their GM to return). And please none of the "If they want it bad enough they'll stick around and post regularly until they get a team" nonsense. This actually isn't true. The return of the original GM wasn't something that was even discussed until a few sims before he was eligible. I was the one who brought him up when we didn't see anyone that we felt deserved the team and then even then it took a while to get in contact with him. So the team was never being held for him. |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago on Jul 27, 2015 12:59:54 GMT -6
Agreed here as well. I might be wrong but I believe we've had a couple experienced GM's apply and then nothing came of it because there was no team to give them (I believe BA was held open for their GM to return). And please none of the "If they want it bad enough they'll stick around and post regularly until they get a team" nonsense. This actually isn't true. The return of the original GM wasn't something that was even discussed until a few sims before he was eligible. I was the one who brought him up when we didn't see anyone that we felt deserved the team and then even then it took a while to get in contact with him. So the team was never being held for him. That's fine it was purely speculation on my part. If that's the case then we should probably look at what it takes to get a team then... We had 3 GM's apply over the course of last season with at least 5-15 posts each and some solid experience. I'd say hiring someone too quickly having them possibly strikeout still makes more sense than leaving a team vacant for so long.. We could be missing out on solid GM talent by not giving people a chance - but that's another issue altogether. |
|
|
|
Post by New York on Jul 27, 2015 13:04:46 GMT -6
As to the more GMs = more activity theory, look up the general premise of Keynesian economics. It doesn't work. More government spending does not stimulate and grow the economy. More GMs will not lead to a long term increase in overall league activity. Depends on how you define "activity" Four new GMs means four new people to talk trade with, that much is true. Four new GMs means potentially four new people posting on the boards and possibly chatting on Slack. Can adding four new GM's decrease activity? I can't see how. Does four new GM's guarantee an increase anyone else's activity? Of course not - but I don't think anyone is inferring that. I don't think anyone is saying that new GM's = increased activity for anyone else. But I do think a lot are assuming it's guaranteed increased activity for the league as a whole. Four new GMs may mean four new Gms to talk trade with, this might be true. It means you have four new GMs to send PMs to and express interest but again I point to the current GMs that make zero deals, coast and just wait for the lottery. I doubt we'd add four GMs like this BUT it's not a guarantee. Four new GMs means potentially four new people posting on the boards and possibly chatting on Slack. I agree. This is one outcome or the GMs could fall into that group of 5-10 GMs that are never on Slack. I know some of this comes off as me just playing the contrarian and I hate being "that guy" in a discussion. I just don't think there expansion is guaranteed to do the things that some are assuming it will. It's one outcome but again we've seen a failed expansion (that eventually worked itself out) and a successful expansion so this could go either way. |
|
|
|
Post by Berlin on Jul 27, 2015 13:07:58 GMT -6
This actually isn't true. The return of the original GM wasn't something that was even discussed until a few sims before he was eligible. I was the one who brought him up when we didn't see anyone that we felt deserved the team and then even then it took a while to get in contact with him. So the team was never being held for him. That's fine it was purely speculation on my part. If that's the case then we should probably look at what it takes to get a team then... We had 3 GM's apply over the course of last season with at least 5-15 posts each and some solid experience. I'd say hiring someone too quickly having them possibly strikeout still makes more sense than leaving a team vacant for so long.. We could be missing out on solid GM talent by not giving people a chance - but that's another issue altogether. Both statements are true...BA wasn't held for his previous GM. But at some point towards the end of the season, we just decided it made sense to give it back to the previous GM since the spot was still vacant. That being said, I think the way we currently fill spots is a mess. We have had multiple GMs show interest in the league before...our response is always "show us more"...they will post for a while, maybe even do an article...and we say "show us more"...and then they move on and we pat ourselves on the back and talk about how they didn't stick it out. Who wants to stick around a league like that? Where there is an open spot that you'd rather leave vacant for a season than give someone new a shot at? I don't know what that has to do with expansion, but damn... |
|
|
|
Post by New York on Jul 27, 2015 13:12:00 GMT -6
This actually isn't true. The return of the original GM wasn't something that was even discussed until a few sims before he was eligible. I was the one who brought him up when we didn't see anyone that we felt deserved the team and then even then it took a while to get in contact with him. So the team was never being held for him. That's fine it was purely speculation on my part. If that's the case then we should probably look at what it takes to get a team then... We had 3 GM's apply over the course of last season with at least 5-15 posts each and some solid experience. I'd say hiring someone too quickly having them possibly strikeout still makes more sense than leaving a team vacant for so long.. We could be missing out on solid GM talent by not giving people a chance - but that's another issue altogether. Agreed it is something to discuss another time but everyone that applied last season was looked at I can promise you that. Don't want to go off topic too much but just wanted to put that out there. |
|
|
|
Post by Berlin on Jul 27, 2015 13:13:17 GMT -6
Depends on how you define "activity" Four new GMs means four new people to talk trade with, that much is true. Four new GMs means potentially four new people posting on the boards and possibly chatting on Slack. Can adding four new GM's decrease activity? I can't see how. Does four new GM's guarantee an increase anyone else's activity? Of course not - but I don't think anyone is inferring that. I know some of this comes off as me just playing the contrarian and I hate being "that guy" in a discussion. I just don't think there expansion is guaranteed to do the things that some are assuming it will. It's one outcome but again we've seen a failed expansion (that eventually worked itself out) and a successful expansion so this could go either way. Hey, I'm glad you and SF are giving counterpoints...no one else was stepping up to give cons, and that's all Chicago and I were asking for. That being said, I don't see how the last expansion was a "failure". Did a few of the GMs flame out? Yep...just like some of the initial GMs did at the beginning of the league...just like one or two GMs seem to every season of the league. Have the teams themselves fallen into disrepair and become utter jokes? No...well, other than Bayi...but, you know, Seer. Have they brought down the quality of the league, or have they improved the depth of the league? I'd argue that the expansion was a rousing success. Expansion isn't about adding four new GMs to the league...it's about adding 4 new TEAMS to the league. If one or two of the GMs don't work out, you can always fix that problem, just like we always have. |
|
|
|
Post by Bayi on Jul 27, 2015 13:21:19 GMT -6
Have the teams themselves fallen into disrepair and become utter jokes? No...well, other than Bayi... WE ARE OUT OF DISREPAIR, DAMN IT. |
|
|
|
Post by Sydney on Jul 27, 2015 13:21:33 GMT -6
I know some of this comes off as me just playing the contrarian and I hate being "that guy" in a discussion. I just don't think there expansion is guaranteed to do the things that some are assuming it will. It's one outcome but again we've seen a failed expansion (that eventually worked itself out) and a successful expansion so this could go either way. Hey, I'm glad you and SF are giving counterpoints...no one else was stepping up to give cons, and that's all Chicago and I were asking for. That being said, I don't see how the last expansion was a "failure". Did a few of the GMs flame out? Yep...just like some of the initial GMs did at the beginning of the league...just like one or two GMs seem to every season of the league. Have the teams themselves fallen into disrepair and become utter jokes? No...well, other than Bayi...but, you know, Seer. Have they brought down the quality of the league, or have they improved the depth of the league? I'd argue that the expansion was a rousing success. Expansion isn't about adding four new GMs to the league...it's about adding 4 new TEAMS to the league. If one or two of the GMs don't work out, you can always fix that problem, just like we always have. I have decided: YES. Berlin being so adamant about this changed my tune and I agree with this post. With that being said, I hope we don't have the situation where teams get to rid themselves of any bad contract. |
|
|
|
Post by New York on Jul 27, 2015 13:24:13 GMT -6
Hey, I'm glad you and SF are giving counterpoints...no one else was stepping up to give cons, and that's all Chicago and I were asking for. That being said, I don't see how the last expansion was a "failure". Did a few of the GMs flame out? Yep...just like some of the initial GMs did at the beginning of the league...just like one or two GMs seem to every season of the league. Have the teams themselves fallen into disrepair and become utter jokes? No...well, other than Bayi...but, you know, Seer. Have they brought down the quality of the league, or have they improved the depth of the league? I'd argue that the expansion was a rousing success. Expansion isn't about adding four new GMs to the league...it's about adding 4 new TEAMS to the league. If one or two of the GMs don't work out, you can always fix that problem, just like we always have. I have decided: YES. Berlin being so adamant about this changed my tune and I agree with this post. With that being said, I hope we don't have the situation where teams get to rid themselves of any bad contract. That's part of expansion. If you want expansion there will be an expansion draft. |
|
|
|
Post by San Francisco on Jul 27, 2015 13:30:13 GMT -6
To play devil's advocate. People like to act like expansion is fun for the GM doing it and for some it is. It takes a very committed GM, you will have almost no resources, everybody will be after your pick and this is one of the best leagues in terms of GM skills that I have ever been around so that accentuates the learning curve. We had a few people express interest over the past few years but nobody has really jumped out. For every success story of a new GM there are probably 2 or 3 or 4 failures. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but expansion magnifies that because it is hard than almost any other gig out there (CSKA etc were bleaker) so we are talking about potentially going through 8-12-16 GM's to fill those 4 spots over the next several years plus whatever natural attrition we have and it hasn't been the easiest keeping things at 32 since that happened. That doesn't mean expansion cannot be healthy but we just need to proceed cautiously. It isn't an excuse for just generating activity, last off season was one of the busiest off seasons in memory but it is quickly forgotten in the traditional first half of the season drag as people figure out what they have etc. Anyways a lot to think about and it is great getting everybody's POV. The cool thing is the league votes on things so if people want expansion it will happen. Phil Jackson is welcome back in the Americas West as an expansion team whenever we do expand, if he has the time  |
|
|
|
Post by Bayi on Jul 27, 2015 13:52:22 GMT -6
Just so we know how things COULD end up with a four-team expansion and realignment, here's a rough estimate of how things would play out. (Note, this would still take discussion/tweaking, especially since teams have not been chosen.)
EURASIA WEST
London Towers
REAL Madrid
Milan Olumpia
Berlin ALBA
Athens Panathinaikos
[EXPANSION]
EURASIA CENTRAL
Moscow CSKA
Lithuania BC Zalgiris
Belgrade KK Partizan
Tel Aviv Maccabi
Istanbul Anadolu Efes
Cairo Zamalek
EURASIA WEST
Tehran Mahram
Sydney Kings
Bayi Rockets
San Miguel Beermen
Beijing Aoshen
[EXPANSION]
---
AMERICA EAST
New York Knicks
Harlem Globetrotters
Boston Celtics
Philadelphia 76ers
Washington Bullets
Toronto Raptors
AMERICA WEST
Indiana Pacers
Detroit Pistons
San Francisco Warriors
Chicago Bulls
Seattle Sonics
[EXPANSION]
AMERICA SOUTH
Brazil Franca BC
Mexico City Titans
Los Angeles Lakers
San Antonio Spurs
Buenos Aires Boca Juniors BC
[EXPANSION]
|
|
|
|
Post by Beijing on Jul 27, 2015 13:54:04 GMT -6
I think everyone can agree to a degree that expansion teams are easy wins for at least 2 seasons. That's all I meant by punching bags.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sydney on Jul 27, 2015 13:58:19 GMT -6
I think everyone can agree to a degree that expansion teams are easy wins for at least 2 seasons. That's all I meant by punching bags. Your in season 12? and we still consider you an easy wiN and even a farm system for some teams (San Fran, NYK). |
|
Official Trader of ABCA
