SSBA

So, right now, I decided to have the open teams on CPU control.

But what I saw was a signing of lucrative deals. So for the betterment of the league, and for the easier filling of these POSSIBLY open teams, do you guys think it would be better for me to void these lucrative signings?

2034    184    Grizzlies    Sign SG Ron Harper for $137,306,641 over 7 years.
2034    184    Nets    Sign PF Martin Brunson for $105,393,750 over 7 years.
2034    184    Grizzlies    Sign SF Scottie Pippen for $36,466,500 over 4 years.

GrizzliesGM has not been active lately, but his position was never open since he expressed his desire to have the league continued last January, and NetsGM is the owner of the server we are using, his activity have been up and down.

Nets yes and the Grizz get a no to both. The Nets Martin Brunson has done the below so far and to me with his age that warrants the contract. The other two the Grizz signed are really solid players but do not fit with how their roster was built and would make things difficult for the next person to take over.
2030 - All-Star Rookie Game Participant
2030 - Rookie of the Year
2030 - All-Rookie Team
2031 - All-Star Rookie Game Participant
2031 - Rookie Game MVP
2031 - All-Star Game Participant
2031 - All-League Third Team
2031 - All-Defensive Second Team
2032 - All-Star Game Participant
2032 - All-League Second Team
2033 - All-Star Game Participant
 

why should brunson get a max offer on fa day 4. i am sure a human gm could sign him to 5yr 60mil because no one else can sign him to more money. i would say both teams should have been on cpu control at the beginning of the FA now it is too latel

They would have been if they were open. But seeing how 4 FA days have passed and there wasn't any activity from the GM's, I decided to have the teams having AWOL GMs in CPU control.

I dont like CPU control. Could make teams look undesirable to potential new GMs looking to take over.

Instead, why not give the new GM's enough cash to void the contracts...
Gives the new GM's a chance to use the cash as they see fit.

Void for the Grizzlies. Then Harper and Pippen to my team. I think the latter one is very reasonable.

are the pacers on cpu control as well? if not there isn't one other team in this lesgue that coudl offer brunson more than 8mill. So why should the nets gave him a max contact. reasonable would be a 10 mill contract.

His former team is the Nets though. Actually there's a team that offered him nearly as much as the starting salary. So, I really don't see much of a problem with the starting salary, but how it escalates to that much.

I think we should come to a decision asap in order to progress to day 5. Otherwise, these players will be left free for minimum signings.

Consider it an Allan Houston contract...you got teams that want to latch on to a star player even if there career is on the downside. I say we mov eon and let it go...otherwise we get the Barkley fiasco of last season...as well as when I got screwed out of Oyedije because I cut him when I signed a guy that was given to someone else due to a "correction". Also it's a normal balance of the league...the CPU teams are typically the worst teams...so it does create some balance. We reward active members with GM points which they can then use to better themselves in the draft, etc...i say keep them on CPU and maybe increase the means of getting GM points. Otherwise this is just a case of it taking 10 years for people who do take on these CPU teams to make them competitive again, no wonder they can never be filled - it's a losing battle.

how could it be that you are tellung us there is a good offer for brunson and still you think he will be available after day 5?

Because when I sim day 5, there will be no offers for him. Not unless the teams are still willing to offer him the same amount.

Again, void Grizzlies signing. make a public bid for both guys.

Uh... Idk if other GMs will like this idea but how about we just edit the contracts so that they are one year contracts rather than 7 yr contracts (the team should have gotten the player, IMO, but we do have to consider that it will be undesirable for incoming GMs to have a 7yr, 100million dollar contract) and then they'll be put back into the FA pool next yr.

the suggestion is merely a temporary solution to what we should do with CPU managed teams especially seeing how FA can turn into a horror for the league with them offering big contracts.

but I think that idea would be ideal. And I am really open to that. I've already inputted all bids (sent to me so far) and is just one click away from having it simmed.

Also, looking at the offers sent to these 3 players, the contract they have right now, it actually has a bigger starting salary than what was offered by human controlled teams. Often times, most players prefer to sign the 1 year lucrative deals instead of the smaller starting salary but multi-year deals.

Point taken.

I'm looking at the options pointed out by Wolves and JazzGM as the most viable option right now. This would be easier for us to move on. TC will be around noon today.

However, can we agree on a possible solution as to what to do with these teams when it comes to FA in the succeeding seasons, with cnsideration as to what happened here. Leave it under CPU control or just sign minimum FA to fill their roster spot?

I dont mind them being 1 year contracts. I think it rewards GMs in the league giving them another crack next year.

If I was joining the ssba and taking over a CPU controlled team, I would be kinda upset that my best player's contract was cut for the benefit of everyone else, when it could have been a nice trading option (or the fact that they could use GM points to buy down the contract).

can some please explain the situation of the pacersteam to me. they should be on cpu control if i am right still they can't get anyone to sign?

yes, but would it intrigue you to join if you have a big lucrative contract on your team? Just saying that this is super overpaid. coz it reaches 19 million.

anyway, I've simmed day 5 already and will look consider the 1-year deal as well as living it as is.

If anyone is opposed to any of the 2 options, please speak now. :D