Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

pistolpetejr wrote:Where's Kings GM?

#1

My spot is very fair. Let's see if I can improve it.

Tier 2, held back by staying loyal to players when I'm better to move on. Fair.

I definitely have a lot of room for growth. I made some bad deals and FA signing’s. I’ll pay the price and definitely look to improve here

I love how the other people that were asked all said that heezy was #2 and snoop was just like, "nah...I'm better" Respect

Clearly a sexist article.

Craig wrote:I love how the other people that were asked all said that heezy was #2 and snoop was just like, "nah...I'm better"

I voted heezy cause he’s pretty much most active GM. I think I voted for most championships as #1 though

Craig wrote:I love how the other people that were asked all said that heezy was #2 and snoop was just like, "nah...I'm better" Respect

When half the league participated in the hard-cap hoax, corrective rankings are needed.

Crag - 1

Heezy - 2

Big drop-off after those two IMO and then Nets 3rd


After that I'd say it matters on what you value. Celtics have 2 rings but fewer playoff wins. 76ers have a lot of playoff wins but not much outside of Moses, Pacers have a title but from like the very first season and a different GM now, Cavs have playoff appearances & wins but no rings, I have 2 finals appearances and 1 ring but no rings post Ralph

jibbajabba614 wrote:

Craig wrote:I love how the other people that were asked all said that heezy was #2 and snoop was just like, "nah...I'm better"

I voted heezy cause he’s pretty much most active GM. I think I voted for most championships as #1 though

Appreciate it, although I think pistol deserves the honors now for most active GM. Crazy 1 year rebuild of the formerly waffling Clippers

Cellar-door wrote:

The Bean Regime wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:

pistolpetejr wrote:I'm confused by the GM Poll Rankings on the right? What's that exactly?

He asked some GMs to make a list and that is their result.

Man, wild that I got to the ECF and dropped like 12 spots in the rankings.

Just too nefarious.

Tbf though the GM rankings ranked you considerably higher. Heck, I was probably the lowest if your overall ranking was 12, and mine was still above your final ranking.

I think it's partially a difference in approach. I build good teams, and don't do multi-season tanks, or mortgage out multiple future years that often that means a lot of ECF and ECSF teams, but no title, on the other hand it means fewer multi-season dry spells as well.

Basically this. My rankings are slanted towards teams that are willing to - when the opportunity presents itself - take a risk to make a run at a championship, while not totally forsaking their future. Boom is an example. You could argue rockets could/should be lower, but they made attempts to go for it a couple of times and were really close to doing so....

IMO, there is not much separation between tiers 3 +4 so ya...

offtheheezy wrote:

jibbajabba614 wrote:

Craig wrote:I love how the other people that were asked all said that heezy was #2 and snoop was just like, "nah...I'm better"

I voted heezy cause he’s pretty much most active GM. I think I voted for most championships as #1 though

Appreciate it, although I think pistol deserves the honors now for most active GM. Crazy 1 year rebuild of the formerly waffling Clippers

Appreciate the recognition (:

Honestly it's been a fun rebuild so far. All that's missing is Vince Carter at the 2 now so that I have the cousins and then some

dd10snoop28 wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:

The Bean Regime wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:

pistolpetejr wrote:I'm confused by the GM Poll Rankings on the right? What's that exactly?

He asked some GMs to make a list and that is their result.

Man, wild that I got to the ECF and dropped like 12 spots in the rankings.

Just too nefarious.

Tbf though the GM rankings ranked you considerably higher. Heck, I was probably the lowest if your overall ranking was 12, and mine was still above your final ranking.

I think it's partially a difference in approach. I build good teams, and don't do multi-season tanks, or mortgage out multiple future years that often that means a lot of ECF and ECSF teams, but no title, on the other hand it means fewer multi-season dry spells as well.

Basically this. My rankings are slanted towards teams that are willing to - when the opportunity presents itself - take a risk to make a run at a championship, while not totally forsaking their future. Boom is an example. You could argue rockets could/should be lower, but they made attempts to go for it a couple of times and were really close to doing so....

IMO, there is not much separation between tiers 3 +4 so ya...

^ This

As long as it's done in a smart way, once you have 1-2 superstars you should push in your chips to go all out to win. Having your picks isn't as important if you're already a 50 win team and you can add really quality players in this league every year for expiring and a 1st.

- Darrell Griffith
- Scottie Pippen
- Prime Barkley
- Magic Johnson
etc

Were all moved for only 1-2 picks

lukeyrid13 wrote:

dd10snoop28 wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:

The Bean Regime wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:

pistolpetejr wrote:I'm confused by the GM Poll Rankings on the right? What's that exactly?

He asked some GMs to make a list and that is their result.

Man, wild that I got to the ECF and dropped like 12 spots in the rankings.

Just too nefarious.

Tbf though the GM rankings ranked you considerably higher. Heck, I was probably the lowest if your overall ranking was 12, and mine was still above your final ranking.

I think it's partially a difference in approach. I build good teams, and don't do multi-season tanks, or mortgage out multiple future years that often that means a lot of ECF and ECSF teams, but no title, on the other hand it means fewer multi-season dry spells as well.

Basically this. My rankings are slanted towards teams that are willing to - when the opportunity presents itself - take a risk to make a run at a championship, while not totally forsaking their future. Boom is an example. You could argue rockets could/should be lower, but they made attempts to go for it a couple of times and were really close to doing so....

IMO, there is not much separation between tiers 3 +4 so ya...

^ This

As long as it's done in a smart way, once you have 1-2 superstars you should push in your chips to go all out to win. Having your picks isn't as important if you're already a 50 win team and you can add really quality players in this league every year for expiring and a 1st.

- Darrell Griffith
- Scottie Pippen
- Prime Barkley
- Magic Johnson
etc

Were all moved for only 1-2 picks

I think I sent 5 1sts for Magic

Unless you're talking about old Magic

offtheheezy wrote:

lukeyrid13 wrote:

dd10snoop28 wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:

The Bean Regime wrote:

pistolpetejr wrote:I'm confused by the GM Poll Rankings on the right? What's that exactly?

^ This

As long as it's done in a smart way, once you have 1-2 superstars you should push in your chips to go all out to win. Having your picks isn't as important if you're already a 50 win team and you can add really quality players in this league every year for expiring and a 1st.

- Darrell Griffith
- Scottie Pippen
- Prime Barkley
- Magic Johnson
etc

Were all moved for only 1-2 picks

I think I sent 5 1sts for Magic

Unless you're talking about old Magic

Yeah, old Magic.

But even at like 35, he was putting up 22/9 or something like that and I believe was traded for 1 late 1st.

There are always 16/10 PFs that are traded for a late 1st each year too. Shoot, some years you can get valuable guys for 2nds even.