PDA

View Full Version : ABA League Position Change: Vote for Anthony Parker (SG) to become GF



Raskolnikov
10-29-2006, 01:37 AM
He's listed as a SG, but on nba.com

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/anthony_parker/index.html

they say he's a GF, and that's one of the reasons I picked him.

Please vote!

Hicks
10-29-2006, 07:56 AM
I've never heard of him playing forward before, so I have to say no for me.

DisplacedKnick
10-29-2006, 08:08 AM
I don't know what the ABA standards will be this year but in the past just being listed that way somewhere else isn't enough. If you posted something stating that Toronto was planning to use him at forward this season I might vote different but for now it's no.

Raskolnikov
10-29-2006, 08:14 AM
Well, the main reason I picked him was because he was listed as GF in all the lists on nba.com. I have no idea whether he actually does play the (small) forward spot at times.

I'll ask Seed. He probably knows Parker better.

Mourning
10-29-2006, 11:51 AM
I will need more info first Rasky. So, until you provide that I will withold voting for or against.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Raskolnikov
10-29-2006, 12:31 PM
I will need more info first Rasky. So, until you provide that I will withold voting for or against.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:
Sure.

I send Seed a PM. I bet he'll know more.

Los Angeles
10-29-2006, 12:32 PM
I will abstain until I hear more.

JayRedd
10-29-2006, 12:54 PM
I will abstain until I hear more.

ditto

Hicks
10-29-2006, 01:22 PM
I already voted no, but if I see supporting evidence to the contrary, I will post to "change" my vote (it will still say no at the top).

Raskolnikov
10-29-2006, 03:31 PM
I haven't heard anything from Seed yet. I found this though.

http://www.nba.com/raptors/news/pressrelease_071306.html

The Toronto Raptors announced Thursday they have signed free agent guard-forward Anthony Parker to a multi-year contract. Per team policy, financial details were not disclosed.

.......

Also, he's kind of interchangeable with Morris Peterson. Till now, they both started, and are both listed as G-F on the Raptors' roster.

http://www.nba.com/raptors/roster/

I know they list Peterson as a F in the box score, but, as far as I know, Mo-Pete is more of a shooting guard himself too.

I'd call them both "swing men". In position that translates itself to SG/SF or "G-F".


EDIT - I also asked rcarey to state what he thinks of this.

sweabs
10-29-2006, 04:01 PM
Hi, I'm here.

I watched 3-4 of the Raptors preseason games, and here is the deal. Mo Pete is technically listed as the starter at SF and Parker at SG, but when they play it's Mo Pete who acts as the shooting guard and vice versa. Parker is the guy who is covering the opponent's SF in a lot of instances.

Remember, he's 6-6. When Freddie comes into the game as well, and they decide to keep Parker on it's Fred who goes to the 2 spot unquestionably with Parker or Mo Pete at the 3 spot. It all depends on rotations and who is in the game.

I see him as being worthy of having that GF status.

Hicks
10-29-2006, 04:23 PM
In that case, I'll vote yes.

Mourning
10-29-2006, 04:42 PM
That's more then enough for me. "Yes".

Raskolnikov
10-30-2006, 06:22 AM
With Hicks' vote changed, that gives

Yes 7
No 2

Going by DK's 7 votes limit for a position change to be allowed, I guess AP's now a G-F. :)

Can one of the commishes adjust his position on our league site?

Hicks
10-30-2006, 07:04 AM
DK isn't commish of the ABA league, so until myself, JayRedd, or Frank Slade make the change, he's still a G. Now I only bring that up for two reasons: One to avoid any confusion on DK's position with this league, and two because I'm still not sure how it's going to work for this league in terms of how many votes needed. I think you're safe, but I want to be sure before I say one way or another.

Raskolnikov
10-30-2006, 07:19 AM
DK isn't commish of the ABA league, so until myself, JayRedd, or Frank Slade make the change, he's still a G. Now I only bring that up for two reasons: One to avoid any confusion on DK's position with this league, and two because I'm still not sure how it's going to work for this league in terms of how many votes needed. I think you're safe, but I want to be sure before I say one way or another.
I wasn't confused about DK's position (although he's listed as an assistant commish), I just thought the 7 votes rule was ok.

So we still have to decide how many votes are needed. Maybe we can hold a poll on it? :D

able
10-30-2006, 10:05 AM
IM0 at least 50% of the teams should vote to make any vote carry and you would need at minimum a 2 vote favorable difference I would suggest.

But hat is all it is, suggestion

JayRedd
10-30-2006, 02:38 PM
I wasn't confused about DK's position (although he's listed as an assistant commish), I just thought the 7 votes rule was ok.

So we still have to decide how many votes are needed. Maybe we can hold a poll on it? :D

I'm of the opinion that 7 isn't enough. That's less than 1/3 of the league.

But given what DK said earlier about people not being as responsive to position change votes as other league business and the fact that position changes need to be dealt with in a timely matter on occassion (injuries, trades, etc.), I agree that getting a full majority (13 votes) may be overkill.

So, 10 seems like a good round number to set it at for me. Unless of course the vote turns out to be 10-14 or even 10-10. I'm fine with making the policy "You need 10 'Yes' votes and a majority" to change a player's position eligibility.

Raskolnikov
10-30-2006, 03:11 PM
10 seems a bit too much to me. Only 11 people have voted on this and other polls after more than 24 hours.

How about this:

1. The number of YES votes should at least be twice the number of NO's.

2. 8 YES votes are enough.

For example, 8-4 would be ok, 9-5 not.

That way there has to be a pretty good consensus on the position change, even if only half or less than half of the team owners cast their votes.

Mourning
10-30-2006, 03:12 PM
IM0 at least 50% of the teams should vote to make any vote carry and you would need at minimum a 2 vote favorable difference I would suggest.

But hat is all it is, suggestion

I disaggree. I think ANY majority should be enough to legally fascilitate a change. I DO aggree that atleast 50% of the teams should vote to make the outcome binding.

Same here with regards to it just beying a suggestion.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Hicks
10-30-2006, 07:06 PM
I like Raskolnikov's suggestion of a 2-1 ratio of yes to no.

My first thought was "and make it a 24 hour limit", but then we need to make these changes quickly.

So how about you need a minimum of 8 yes votes? That way you don't win on 2-1 , 4-2, or 6-3.

JayRedd
10-31-2006, 10:20 AM
I like Raskolnikov's suggestion of a 2-1 ratio of yes to no.

My first thought was "and make it a 24 hour limit", but then we need to make these changes quickly.

So how about you need a minimum of 8 yes votes? That way you don't win on 2-1 , 4-2, or 6-3.

This seems plenty fair. I say just get Jose's sign-off on it and go with this plan to get it finalized.