|
|
Post by arrestinu on Aug 18, 2009 20:13:20 GMT -6
How do teams go into negative GM cash? That doesn't seem right to me. I have to watch teams ahead of me get better while they camp players on credit?
|
|
|
|
Post by joshbounds on Aug 18, 2009 21:06:11 GMT -6
Ive been negative before. If it is anything like John's baseball you can over over but then cannot spend another dime until you are in + again...
|
|
|
|
Post by gritter13 on Aug 18, 2009 21:48:52 GMT -6
I can understand going in the negative a bit, but to be in the hole $243 seems to be a bit much for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by jlafavor on Aug 18, 2009 22:19:11 GMT -6
yeah, that is nearly a whole camp. that is way too much. i am fine with $50 or even up to about $100, though its something i wont ever do.
|
|
|
|
Post by ricaug7 on Aug 19, 2009 2:52:56 GMT -6
So lets say a team has $400 and want to extend a player's contract... can they do it and go -200?
|
|
|
|
Post by donrnets on Aug 19, 2009 17:14:47 GMT -6
My opiinion is the only way someones should end up in the hole is if they have a couple of bets go south and that's enough to push them into negative territory. . .
I agree with the Nuggets. . if you don't have the money. . .you shouldn't buy something. It looks like the Celtics acquired Rodman to help their stretch drive with money they didn't have. If a trade fails because of too many players. . . .hitting the cap. . . .seems like it should fail because of not having the money. . .
|
|
|
|
Post by John1974 on Aug 24, 2009 10:12:38 GMT -6
Well teams are not supposed to go negative at all. I have let small amounts slide like 50.00 or 75.00 in the past.
But you cannot spend on player with money you dont have. I will be watching it closer on player spending, and trades this coming season. If you are negative you better trade for cash, bet, write stories to get above before you use it.
|
|
|
|
Post by arrestinu on Aug 24, 2009 11:37:51 GMT -6
Well teams are not supposed to go negative at all. I have let small amounts slide like 50.00 or 75.00 in the past. But you cannot spend on player with money you dont have. I will be watching it closer on player spending, and trades this coming season. If you are negative you better trade for cash, bet, write stories to get above before you use it. Thanks, John. I know you plenty more to do than keep mental notes on everyones' GM banks. I would like to see it where a rule is in place that you can't go below $0.00, to guarantee the playing field is level, and if somehow a GM's oversight takes him below that, a penalty of some kind is levied. Of course, I defer to your judgement on that. Just wanted to express my opinion on it.  |
|
|
|
Post by New York Knicks on Aug 24, 2009 12:11:48 GMT -6
Yeah team's going -200 or -300 after a trade/or camp is too much
|
|
|
|
Post by ricaug7 on Aug 24, 2009 12:34:07 GMT -6
Grat call John, as usual. |
|
|
|
Post by don1955 on Aug 24, 2009 16:11:29 GMT -6
Well teams are not supposed to go negative at all. I have let small amounts slide like 50.00 or 75.00 in the past. But you cannot spend on player with money you dont have. I will be watching it closer on player spending, and trades this coming season. If you are negative you better trade for cash, bet, write stories to get above before you use it. I would like to see it where a rule is in place that you can't go below $0.00, to guarantee the playing field is level, and if somehow a GM's oversight takes him below that, a penalty of some kind is levied. to me this is kinda hard to do... example- i dont usually write articles or trade for cash but i do bet almost everyday, lets say i had a couple of bad days betting in a row and went -15 then had my usual 3-4 good days in a row to go back positive...it doesnt hurt anything really for me to go a little in the hole as i am not useing it for anything to gain an advantage as a camp or for trading... i believe a little is ok but a lot is not...jmo |
|
|
|
Post by gritter13 on Aug 24, 2009 16:27:03 GMT -6
Yeah team's going -200 or -300 after a trade/or camp is too much I agree, and I know this is going to sound like sour grapes, but it kinda pisses me off that the GM that spent money on camps to have a negative balance of ~$250 is in the Western Conference Finals. |
|
|
|
Post by New York Knicks on Aug 24, 2009 16:45:11 GMT -6
I would like to see it where a rule is in place that you can't go below $0.00, to guarantee the playing field is level, and if somehow a GM's oversight takes him below that, a penalty of some kind is levied. to me this is kinda hard to do... example- i dont usually write articles or trade for cash but i do bet almost everyday, lets say i had a couple of bad days betting in a row and went -15 then had my usual 3-4 good days in a row to go back positive...it doesnt hurt anything really for me to go a little in the hole as i am not useing it for anything to gain an advantage as a camp or for trading... i believe a little is ok but a lot is not...jmo Yeah a small deficit should be cool, it's the 200-300 area that's a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by New York Knicks on Aug 24, 2009 16:45:28 GMT -6
Yeah team's going -200 or -300 after a trade/or camp is too much I agree, and I know this is going to sound like sour grapes, but it kinda pisses me off that the GM that spent money on camps to have a negative balance of ~$250 is in the Western Conference Finals. Damn that sucks Gritter. |
|
|
|
Post by don1955 on Aug 24, 2009 16:52:19 GMT -6
to me this is kinda hard to do... example- i dont usually write articles or trade for cash but i do bet almost everyday, lets say i had a couple of bad days betting in a row and went -15 then had my usual 3-4 good days in a row to go back positive...it doesnt hurt anything really for me to go a little in the hole as i am not useing it for anything to gain an advantage as a camp or for trading... i believe a little is ok but a lot is not...jmo Yeah a small deficit should be cool, it's the 200-300 area that's a problem. true... |
|
|
|
Post by donrnets on Aug 25, 2009 14:47:02 GMT -6
I understand the problem that Don is talking about on betting. . .but in the movies if you go in the hole the bad guys break your leg if you can't pay up. . . .what we need is a "leg breaker"
|
|
|
|
Post by arrestinu on Aug 25, 2009 15:28:36 GMT -6
I would like to see it where a rule is in place that you can't go below $0.00, to guarantee the playing field is level, and if somehow a GM's oversight takes him below that, a penalty of some kind is levied. to me this is kinda hard to do... example- i dont usually write articles or trade for cash but i do bet almost everyday, lets say i had a couple of bad days betting in a row and went -15 then had my usual 3-4 good days in a row to go back positive...it doesnt hurt anything really for me to go a little in the hole as i am not useing it for anything to gain an advantage as a camp or for trading... i believe a little is ok but a lot is not...jmo I agree with that don. I shouldn't have made it sound so black and white, because I wasn't even thinking of the betting possibly taking a GM below $0 by just a little. I was thinking one-track only of spending $350 to camp a player when you know you are not even close to that in the bank. I could see $20-$30 in "overdraft" forgiveness being fair if the Book E sends you into that status.  Although I think at -$30 you should have to take other means of getting back above $0 aside from the Book E. But I would still be in favor of a levied penalty if the Commish discovers you posted spending that carries you into the negative. It especially puts GM's that don't write articles in an unfair position, and a double whammy to those that don't write articles and have no players to win awards/make playoffs to get them cash. But, In John We Trust. ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by John1974 on Aug 26, 2009 8:48:34 GMT -6
no need for a penalty as I mentiioned you cannot go negative. only way I allow it is if you have the cash claimed to cover the amount spent but it hasnt been added to the bank.
|
|
Although I think at -$30 you should have to take other means of getting back above $0 aside from the Book E.