Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 121819202122
Results 526 to 530 of 530

Thread: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

  1. #526
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    17,306

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If that were true, then there wouldn't be a draft (it would just be a go where you want free-for-all), or there wouldn't be financial incentives for players to stay with their current team, or there would be no salary cap at all.

    Obviously restrictions on player movement help the overall quality and competitive balance of the league.
    Obviously there has to be a standard process around acquisition of new and current players in the league. No Professional Sports league would allow a "free-for-all".

    There are incentives for players to stay with their current teams because owners want to increase their ability to keep their most important assets. But if a franchise loses it's best asset, they have the ability to make other acquisitions to make up for it. Or they could come up with a long term team building plan.

    Either way, losing said asset doesn't restrict them from being competitive.

    Placing additional restrictions on player movement is simply so that owners and GMs can control the players. I dont think they should have such power over the players that actually go out and play the games.

    If players want to take pay cuts in order to play together and put their teams in the best chance to succeed, then so be it. Places the onus on GMs to be creative and on the owners to spend money in order to be competitive

  2. #527
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    22,581

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Obviously there has to be a standard process around acquisition of new and current players in the league. No Professional Sports league would allow a "free-for-all".

    There are incentives for players to stay with their current teams because owners want to increase their ability to keep their most important assets. But if a franchise loses it's best asset, they have the ability to make other acquisitions to make up for it. Or they could come up with a long term team building plan.

    Either way, losing said asset doesn't restrict them from being competitive.

    Placing additional restrictions on player movement is simply so that owners and GMs can control the players. I dont think they should have such power over the players that actually go out and play the games.

    If players want to take pay cuts in order to play together and put their teams in the best chance to succeed, then so be it. Places the onus on GMs to be creative and on the owners to spend money in order to be competitive
    Owners don't force any control on players. Every player in the league has the ability to sign a year to year contract so that they are completely free to do what they want every single off-season.

    Losing an asset doesn't prevent a team from being competitive, but you know full well that a team in the Pacers' position can't just immediately find a Paul George talent to replace Paul George. That's virtually impossible to immediately do.

    It just depends what one wants out of the league. If it's all about being entertained by talented players, then there's nothing wrong with the trend we're seeing. If someone prefers quality competition though, then the league is weak at the moment. I prefer a league that's competitive, but obviously a lot of people don't seem to mind much.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 07-25-2017 at 10:33 AM.

  3. #528
    --------- freddielewis14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    7,801

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Obviously there has to be a standard process around acquisition of new and current players in the league. No Professional Sports league would allow a "free-for-all".

    There are incentives for players to stay with their current teams because owners want to increase their ability to keep their most important assets. But if a franchise loses it's best asset, they have the ability to make other acquisitions to make up for it. Or they could come up with a long term team building plan.

    Either way, losing said asset doesn't restrict them from being competitive.

    Placing additional restrictions on player movement is simply so that owners and GMs can control the players. I dont think they should have such power over the players that actually go out and play the games.

    If players want to take pay cuts in order to play together and put their teams in the best chance to succeed, then so be it. Places the onus on GMs to be creative and on the owners to spend money in order to be competitive
    I agree with you to a point. If salaries and endorsements become so big that the best players don't care and just sign 1 year contracts floating from a pool of super teams and begin making trade requests more frequently, there will be a huge problem with success of the league and player movement.

    But for now I think the situation will correct itself.

  4. #529
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    17,306

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Owners don't force any control on players. Every player in the league has the ability to sign a year to year contract so that they are completely free to do what they want every single off-season.

    Losing an asset doesn't prevent a team from being competitive, but you know full well that a team in the Pacers' position can't just immediately find a Paul George talent to replace Paul George. That's virtually impossible to immediately do.

    It just depends what one wants out of the league. If it's all about being entertained by talented players, then there's nothing wrong with the trend we're seeing. If someone prefers quality competition though, then the league is weak at the moment. I prefer a league that's competitive, but obviously a lot of people don't seem to mind much.
    I agree. The owners do not currently force control over players. But they would be doing just that if they added extra restrictions on player movement.

    Competitiveness doesn't always equate to wins. So when a team loses a Paul George, the way they compete is by adding assets and young talent to either find or trade for another Paul George. As long as a GM makes good decisions and is fiscally responsible, fans are smart enough to ride the wave even when the tide is low in the W/L column.

    I love quality competition as much as anyone else. Increased player movement doesn't negate that. it just places more ptessure on GMs to be smsrt, aggressive and creative.

    Ownership resteicting player movement doesn't even necessarily make the league more competitive. We saw plenty of teams with one or two stars lack success in the 90s and early 2000s. We just saw the Pacers lack success last season with PG. Spreading out elite talent across the league has as many con's as it does pros. Having a star or two on every team in the league wouldnt fix the perception of a lack of competitiveness.

    If you truly want a competitive league, then you want GMs doing a better job of constructing teams, and Owners that are willing to pay big money in order to be competitive.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Ace E.Anderson For This Useful Post:


  6. #530
    Member sav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    North Central Indiana
    Posts
    3,582

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Here's an interesting article from 8points9seconds.

    https://8points9seconds.com/2017/07/...atomy-rebirth/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •