Spurs - Lakers deal

[NetsGM]

So the way to fix the Lakers being screwed once, is to screw them twice?

Does that fix anything?

Or should we have stopped the draft until a LakersGM is found?

Or should Pacers have made the draft pick?

I don't understand the logic.  "Since they've already been screwed once, let's screw them as many times as we can".  Huh?  To me, it seems to be better to limit the amount of times the CPU can screw them.

[SpursGM-old]

So the way to fix the Lakers being screwed once, is to screw them twice?

Does that fix anything?

Or should we have stopped the draft until a LakersGM is found?

Or should Pacers have made the draft pick?

I don't understand the logic.  "Since they've already been screwed once, let's screw them as many times as we can".  Huh?  To me, it seems to be better to limit the amount of times the CPU can screw them.

Maybe the CPU screwed the Lakers 3 times...I mean Jose Siegal went to free agency.

IMO either we let the CPU completely run vacant teams or suspend the league any time we have less than 29 GMs.  But picking and choosing when the CPU can make deciaions and when it can't puts a lot of power in someone's hands.

[CelticsGM]

no, it's not "ongoing" screwage I ask for. but continuity.

If you let the CPU run a team then let the CPU FULLY run that team, and that includes trading. What about the offers that are coming FROM the cpu, are they offered  to us? or are those held back?

IMO it's either "CPU does it all" or "Human protection for non-GM-led teams"



and honestly, i have human GMs seen making way worse decisions than these ...

[NetsGM]

IMO either we let the CPU completely run vacant teams or suspend the league any time we have less than 29 GMs.  But picking and choosing when the CPU can make deciaions and when it can't puts a lot of power in someone's hands.

How does it put power in someone's hands?  CPU handles FA.  CPU handles draft.  CPU handles dc's.  CPU handles signings.

Basically, CPU does everything except for trades.  IMO trades are something that require the vision of the GM, and shouldn't be done by the CPU.  Furthermore, when somebody IS SENT THE ROSTER, and agrees to the roster, and the CPU fucks him over, it's really not fair.

[CelticsGM]

it isn't fair, and if a new GM was already in negotiations with the league, the trade should be rescinded.

and since i see the Pistons still as co-commish, this might just be an unfortunate chain of events ... so do what's fair for the new GM.

[HeatGM]

you can always offer up to the comp but expect 99% of your offers rejected,

i guess this is the 1% the commish was talking about...1 out of 100 offers...fortunately it didnt took that many to fool the cpu 

[PacersGM]

Furthermore, when somebody IS SENT THE ROSTER, and agrees to the roster, and the CPU fucks him over, it's really not fair.

true but i didn´t knew that. If you had send me a message this morning about a new gm coming in for the lakers i would have stopped it.

[PacersGM]

That's the thing.  He's already been offered the team!  He's already "got" it.  He's already agreed to it.

I had no information about a new lakersgm. Just bad timing and comunication imo.

You're right.  CPU controlled teams are not optimal for the league.  That's why I've always made the effort to fill these vacancies as quickly as possible.  The answer is not letting the CPU make more decisions, but getting the positions filled faster.

I disagree here. Either we take all faults of the cpu or the open teams should be run by a human group. for example you and me together. I can´t understand it is fair that cpu is drafting bowie over mj but not fair that the cpu trades with other gms.

[WizardsGM]