|
I'm in as Detroit and I have pm. Did pretty well last couple of times with so so draft position so looking forward to auctioning.
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
Here's hoping everyone sent in bids lower than mine on the players I want (and higher on the players I kinda regret putting in bids on). And also I assume the winning bids will be posted daily? Or just who got the player? A lot of auction strategy is seeing how players are being valued.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
A) I have a feeling I will be the only dude left without a player... B) Apparently my bid of NEGATIVE ONE MILLION DOLLARS wasn't enough for Reggie Jackson.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
G-Hawk posted:i am jealous of your cap space detroit I'm getting to the point where rather than being super-shrewd and not overpaying for how I value dudes I'll have to start throwing out ridiculous bids just to field a roster.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
The B_36 posted:$92 left to fill in a couple starters, a bench shooter, and 5 end of bench scrubs - I'm pretty content with my position. How are you calling Mills and Henson above average starters when they didn't start for their own teams? I mean Henson barely got off the bench. Dude averaged less than 20 mpg
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
Paul Zuvella posted:I bid 13 bucks because he pretty bad, but shoots well enough to play like 20-24 minutes a game. Yesterday was extremely weird. Bad basketball men like Amir Johnsons and Al Jefferson got paid a bunch and it hurt my head! I am also really mad I missed sam Dekker by 5 bucks. I think 101 is a bit much. Although PG is really skewed with Isaiah Thomas only going for 89 or whatever (I get he's bad at defense, but he also put up nearly 30 ppg on high efficiency as the only real scoring option on his team, i mean good grief people).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Michael Corleone posted:The team that wins is going to be one of the teams with the most cap space left right now. They will get 2 mid tier stars and a bunch of quality role players and depth around them on bargain contracts because people have overpaid a lot already, especially myself. I tried reaching out to buy Durant before my bid on Lebron because that was a steal, he wasn't interested even when I offered more money. Wizards could be pretty nice. Honestly just having Lebron's gonna weigh a lot in the voting. Unless someone can get two upper tier dudes (thinking a 1-15 and 10-25 dude) who people agree on being that high (just as a for instance, I know there's two dudes a lot of folks around here seem in love with that I'm not nearly as high on) having a top 3 player is gonna end up going a long way imo. Which sucks for me since I don't have that player  . EvanTH posted:It's not that he "can he beat LeBron by himself?", which of course is an unfair question, it's more about it still being an open question of whether he can be a positive contributor in the late playoffs at all. I think probably yes, and it only looked bad this season because of the hip injury, but I seen some other opinions and that visual is really something. He may not be able to be your "main" dude (although I even think there's some debate there) but IT can definitely contribute in the playoffs. Like I said, I think people focus way too much on what he can't do and ignore what he can do. Like is he really that worse than Kyrie on defense? Cause I think he's a better offensive player.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
The thing is that nothing equals the impact of a superstar. And with how bidding's been going, I don't think anyone's gonna really be able to muster up enough second/third tier talent to overcome the immense impact that having one superstar dude does. Not just from their production, but from how they make the game easier for everyone. I mean look at the Cavs, every time Lebron sits they somehow look like they were just introduced to the concept of basketball and that's even with having two other players who are likely top 25-40 players (compared with how Lebron was able to take two games from GS in 2015 with a bunch of average/bench dudes, or even last year how Kyrie and Love sat out pretty much all the second half when they came back against the Pacers). It's not just Lebron either (although he does make a huge difference)-look at OKC with or without Westbrook on the floor, Houston with/without Harden, the Spurs with/without Kawhi (and they even have someone who was supposed to be another good player in Aldridge). I know it wasn't really their fault (and I think the Clippers did well with their return) but the team seems to fall apart if they ever go stretches without CP3, while they're able to be at least somewhat effective when Blake goes down. And in a league where it's unlikely you'll have a Golden State (where they can argue to have two top 5 dudes and 4 top 30 dudes) getting that top talent just makes the rest of the junk look way better. Paul Zuvella posted:It really depends on how things shake out. If someone hoards 200 bucks and Chris Paul and James Harden pop up on day 17 and 18 then things are going to be bad for the rest of us. There are risks to every strategy. I'm hoping Giannis and CP3 personally, but the point stands. As an aside, I've really enjoyed the random player pools. It's something way different from auction drafts I've done in the past where you nominate people, and it adds a huge layer of excitement (I was sad Lebron showed up so early ). Thanks Deadbeat Dad for putting this together, it's not even half over and I've already enjoyed it more than I think the two drafts we did.
alansmithee fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Jul 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Carlosologist posted:I expect Detroit to clean up tonight, tons of value and they have a bunch of space After the KAT debacle, my plan at this point is to pocket a ton of payroll and sell the team, Loria style
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
I also largely agree with Doltos (with one caveat being I don't think it's "bad" per se). I've actually swung fairly high on some dudes imo (I lost KAT/Wall by like a combined 10 bucks for instance), but I've also had a pretty set value of what I think dudes are worth and haven't really gone over that. I did probably get too cute with my Giannis bid since 4 more bucks and I would've had him outright, but I'm fairly happy with where I'm at since I'm likely set up to grab some remaining player whose good for 70-80 bucks. I've also found out I rate some dudes vastly different than folks here.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
This is the second day I regretted my bids instantly after I sent them in.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Paul Zuvella posted:I'm actually not too worried about talent being sucked up by a couple of teams because some teams absolutely have to make a splash today. This is my big fear and actually it won't own super hard, it'll suck mega-rear end
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Paul Zuvella posted:ALANSMITHEE WHAT ARE YOU DOING one of us was ending up with Harden regardless, ti was just a matter of the cost. at that point it's pretty much a coin flip. I've been following a specific strategy, and it may be dumb/blow up in my face, but I can't be switching gameplan midstream.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Deadbeat Dad posted:
Welp I'm hosed
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Paul Zuvella posted:Somehow this is the worst defensive team in the league and it has the DPOY in it Cousins is good when engaged, lamb is decent, Lowry is ok for PG, and Dray is Dray. Chriss is young as gently caress with potential, and I got Nerlens on the bench. I'm totally fine with that. And being the Pistons I figured we needed potheads. That's typically when they've been at their best. Alternately there are games where my starting lineup gets technical out the game by halftime.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
BWV posted:See I was worry that if Allen underbid on Cousins assuming I wouldn't go for him he could've for Milsap too. But I'm glad I didn't get pwned by the multi dimensional chess There was no way I was underbidding on Cousins/George. Not getting either would've been a disaster of the largest circumstance. I just figured Adams and Vucevic would get more interest (I put in a bid on Millsap). DeimosRising posted:Same. Actually that's a couple of my absolute favorites but that team is way too emotional. Needs a steady guy who doesn't give a gently caress and an irrationally confident guy to pump them up. Like Hill for 11 and Swaggy for 5 as an example Swaggy P was the third player I put in a bid on (and one of two I had a fixed bid on). Actually I'd still be interested in him if you're still looking for trades.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
On the flipside, i pretty much locked myself into having to do a max bid on one of them since I had gotten really cute a couple of big days previously. It sucks my cap space is pretty much worthless, but I'm largely happy with my roster. Decent mix of projects/upside guys/stars, especially in a league that's been repicked from scratch.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
HOLY loving poo poo HAD I SWITCHED MY BIDS I WOULDVE GOT BOOGIE AND PAUL GEORGE WTF OMG
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
BWV posted:That's what I was saying with Millsap. You would've run the risk of losing one of the better ones too tho so realistically we all (the top 3 teams) played it safe for who was available and got our targets. The thing is I was guaranteed one of them. I think Boogie's better so I'm fine with it, but I expected more money thrown his way. Although it does show how the winner take all model has as much to do with anything as how dudes evaluate players or whatnot. Had I went with PG, the Bulls would've had 59 in dead money and got shut out (tbh I probably wouldn't have went with Boogie in that case and would've lost on Millsap again but still)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:Everyone should go through their picks and tally up all the "wasted money" (amount you spent above the next team for each of your players) just to see who was the most "efficient" bidder. Tbh it's not very useful. Like I'm sure if people had more money, they would've put in bids on Cousins (as it is I had like 29 in "dead" money on him). Same with my Lowry bid which was like 30 over the next highest. Both those dudes got only 2 bids. Was interesting seeing the earlier bids though. Only dude I think I really went over on was Noel, but even then was only like 12 bucks. I was glad to see someone else had Kilpatrick valued like I did. And in hindsight I'm wondering how things would've went had I not lost my coinflip on Waiters.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Detroit Pistons are picking up Frank mason III
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
I can't do a big fancy post like some folks, but here's my writeup for the Detroit Pistons: Starters PG Kyle Lowry 30 mpg SG Jeremy Lamb 25 mpg SF Draymond Green 32 mpg PF Marquese Chriss 24 mpg C Demarcus Cousins 32 mpg Key Bench Dudes Jamal Crawford 22 mpg Sean Kilpatrick 17 mpg Nerlens Noel 24 mpg Seth Curry 19 mpg Donatas Montiejunas 16 mpg Projects/Deep Bench Dudes Ben Mclemore Denzel Valentine Jerian Grant Frank Mason Trey Lyles Basically, my team's built around having top tier talent (arguably the best top talent of any team, despite having only one dude who may be a top 10 player) and a bunch of parts that fit around them. I've also built with youth in mind-only Crawford is over 30 (and would hopefully end up ceding minutes to Curry/one of the projects as the season went on), Lowry's 30 and everyone else maxes out at 26 so there's some room for growth. The combo of Cousins and Lowry would prove nightmarish to defend, and Draymond is the perfect compliment in that he can remain offensively effective without needing lots of shots. On defense, Cousins has shown he has the tools and ability to be good when engaged, both Lamb and Lowry are solid to good at their positions (with Lamb being able to cover some of the smaller SFs as well), and Draymond makes up for any slippage that the others would have with his combination of elite on-ball defense and rim protection. Having this kind of top talent also means I don't have to rely on Chriss to develop into a star player-he can be effective by just becoming an average level starter (which I definitely think is in his wheelhouse). Noel off the bench can give a more defensive look, Montiejunas a bit more offense, and the Crawford/Curry combo allow for some scoring punch when the starters sit (as well as giving more 3p shooting if necessary by pulling Lamb). So basically I've put together a team with top-tier talent, room for growth, and decent depth at all positions. I think in our make believe league this is clearly one of the elite teams and we definitely have the dudes to win the title, especially as in any potential playoff scenario you can generally give more minutes to your starters (and the evil referees are more fair with their officiating).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Just got my rankings in. 1-8 in each division. After about four teams in the east and west it got really dire. Were this the "real" NBA you'd likely see the first two rounds in their entirety on NBA TV.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
tadashi posted:It's a strong no stars/no scrubs kind of lineup that will punch holes through the teams that have stars but major holes at any given place in their lineups. You might struggle against the elite teams, but you'd beat up plenty on all of the crap teams in the league. Like I said earlier, when posts were flying, it's the Atlanta Hawks under Danny Ferry. That Hawks team got swept by a Cleveland team starting Lebron, Delladova, Thompson, Mozgov, and Shumpert. Almost any team with a top player's gonna rip through them like they were tissue paper.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
tadashi posted:Yes. This is my point. That Cavs team was legit good on the whole, as evidenced by that team, and they beat the Hawks in the playoffs. I didn't really expect to end up discussing a team that is merely playoff worthy. How were they good as a whole? It's Lebron and 4 dudes who are barely starters in our watered down parity league. DeimosRising posted:Didn't those Hawks have several injuries going into that series? Regardless that's pretty true, but everyone seems very fond of the Bulls and only one guy on that squad has ever gotten past the second round and they don't have a "best player on real NBA contender" type player on the team. I actually think that team has a very serious problem in that Gasol and Horford are both poor rebounders and not bangers. They were at their best next to Zbo and Millsap, rebounding machines and hardasses both, while Gasol + Horford is like having the same guy twice. Zero synergy and neither is a superlative screen setter to get George or Crabbe the kind of shots they need. The talent level is defnitely high 1-5 but the fit is not great imo. The only one I remember being injured is Thabo (with Cleveland missing Kyrie and Love). And I kinda see what you're saying with the Gasol/Horford front line combo, but I think folks are also looking at the talent level overall. I still think the Bulls are probably the best, but I don't think it's as big a gap as it might've seen right after the draft. Doltos posted:We should have a random order draft of coaches. Just put everyones name in a fedora and give them the draft order. I'd assume that everyone's coached by the same, nondescript average coach. I really don't think we want to add coaching as a variable, especially since I don't think anyone really knows how much an effect it has or who's even good outside of Pop.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Michael Corleone posted:The Pistons might be a better all around team than the Cavs in some peoples opinion, that's fine. This is a playoff series and Lebron is going to be playing 46 minutes per night. He is the best in the world and will carry his team to the 2nd round easily. I picture it being much like the first GS/Cleveland matchup, in Lebron carries a pile of junk to a win or maybe two but the superior team pulls it out (that would be the Pistons, in this case). Lebron will average like 45/10/10 and Cleveland will still struggle to score 80 points a game. I also don't think you have anyone who can really guard Cousins at all (MKG can probably handle Lowry to some extent, but that's even a maybe).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Stuff I don't wanna rain on anyone's parade, but if the ability (or supposed lack thereof) to set screens features heavily in why you think your team should win, your team's already lost.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Have you watched an NBA game in the last 10 years cause that's basically the exact opposite of true You missed my point entirely. The ability to set good vs. average screens isn't some make or break skill. It's more a function of the offence design and the ballhandlers being able to create action. In your example you could replace Gobert with basically anyone whose tall and semi-mobile and it's the exact same. The point isn't that setting screens is bad or whatever you're trying to make out, it's that the difference between a dude who sets strong screens vs. merely ok screens isn't that big, especially when there's a skill deficit in other areas. Like Gasol only being an average screener isn't gonna stop Wall from just blowing by Lillard repeatedly. Nor is Gobert setting good screens gonna make up for the fact that the only dude on the Magic who can create any sort of offense is Lillard. Also as an aside, I'd say it was more the dominance inside in getting rebounds that won Cleveland their title vs. the Warriors. Obviously disrupting their offense played a part, but the big difference was in rebounding, especially offensive rebounding. All that said, I actually agree with you that the difference isn't as much as it may seem. Your best point imo was the fact that Gasol and Horford may have reputations greater than their ability as they've aged. alansmithee fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Jul 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Brogeoisie posted:its fine, team low rent bad boys is busy ballot stuffing on my side of the league as well. Just like the 1985 draft, this poo poo is rigged! Lol ballot stuffing. You just have a giant bitch on your team and people recognize it. Don't worry, I'll let him join up after our inevitable title. Also Lowry's better than Walker (and I say that as a huge fan of Kemba). Over 3-5 years I'd maybe prefer having Walker just because he's younger, but for the next couple I think Lowry's easily better. I actually don't think it's that debatable that Durant's better than Green (being a giant bitch aside) but the difference between Barnes and Cousins is huge. I think my starters are better, albeit it's close. I have a feeling Khris Middleton's on the way to get Demarre Carroll overrated very soon (if he's not already). DeimosRising posted:I just fundamentally disagree that there isn't a substantial difference between elite and average screeners. And a big part of my post was how screens are in fact creating offense and Gobert is great at it. 6+ screen assists a game means he's creating 2-3 made baskets over an average center. If he was averaging 7 passing assists we'd be talking about how he's an amazing offensive leader, a Jokic or Draymond like unsung linchpin. Which he is, but in a different way the traditional box score doesn't capture. I'd argue he created more shots for the Jazz last year than Lillard did for the Blazers (for their teammates that is obviously Lillard is elite at creating for himself, too) both in absolute numbers and relative to the average at their positions. Yeah I just don't see that. Especially since all the "elite screeners" coincidentally are dudes who really can't do anything with the ball outside of 5' from the basket. It's pretty much a bunch of dudes who are told to stand in a spot while some ballhandler runs a defender into them. Horford and Gasol don't get "screen assists" because they get real assists and/or are scoring points. Most likely in a year or three when they really start slowing down we will start hearing more how they're good screeners as they lose the skills to do other stuff on offense.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
Brogeoisie posted:I think your team is poorly designed but obviously the league disagrees (and is very, very wrong). My teams length destroys yours -- how does your team guard 4 out shooters? it can't, straight up. You can't play Green and Cousins and Noel at the same time if I'm playing Barnes at the 4. Cousins cant guard the perimeter. My team has a much, much easier time defending your team because of my elite shooting across the board and switching ability. Was Chandler even in your starting lineup? Also Chandler has looked cooked for awhile now, Cousins would walk all over him. I'd stick him on Barnes the other way no problem. Middleton is a solid shooter for sure, but he's a largely low volume guy. If you're actually playing him at SG, he's not gonna be able to guard Curry at all. Unlike a lot of folks I don't think my team is flawless, but I think you're really overrating dudes who are largely roleplayers. DeimosRising posted:Not all screens are ball screens, many good screeners are good on offense otherwise, I just...the notion that all bigs are interchangeable screeners is so far from what pro basketball is like it's hard for me to wrap my head around. It's a pick up ball perspective To the first, they're not totally interchangeable. It's just the difference isn't that much, especially because dudes who are more offensively skilled bigs aren't gonna be wasted just setting a bunch of picks (since they can actually do something with the ball). It's exactly the type of thing that dudes like to exaggerate the impact of in some attempt to sound smarter or whatever. "heh yeah sure KAT may be putting up 25/12 at 21 but have you seen his poor quality screens? Obviously he's actually bad, and only someone with my superior intellect realizes that". It reminds me of when talking about spacing came into vogue a couple years ago, and dudes in here were talking about teams like the Clippers not being able to shoot 3s because they didn't have guys who could space the floor-despite the fact that the clippers were like 4th in 3s at the time (both number and percentage). Also if it's so far from pro basketball, whos the super-screener on the Warriors? Or the Cavs for that matter. As to the second, I only voted on my own matchup. Don't like either of the Clippers or Jazz, Houston/Spurs was too close to call imo, and although I think the Bulls are better voting for them is against my best interest (since I think they're better than my team). Also I'm a bit surprised because the first round I think my matchup had the fewest votes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Cool Buff Man posted:Lol man you're taking it a little too seriously if you're not voting on other matchups just because it would possibly hurt your chances to win in future rounds. Please participate As a Pistons fan I'm also honor bound to never support the Bulls.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
I stick by my decision. I'll never vote for the bulls. NEVER! Detroit vs. everybody, the way it should be. No idea about the rockets vote though. I thought that would be a trouncing but folks like the clippers a lot more than I do. alansmithee fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Jul 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 21:15
|
|