NetsPaint2010-08-26 17:30:09 +0000 #1
no superstars, only made "minor" changes, but the chemistry went through the roof the season, and won the championship.
Now obviously the team is good-great since the team won a championship. My question is, if the team had money for one or two max contracts, would you try to get these players, or would you not try to risk the chemistry?
Take into account that this isn't a team where a lot of the players are in their 30s so age isn't a factor.
geraptor2010-08-26 17:38:03 +0000 #2
for me the only reason to change a championship team would be age
.... so no i wouldnt mess with the chemistry
smith&wesson2010-08-26 18:11:12 +0000 #3
if were that good as is then i would keep the team together untill they prove to need a shake up . why mess with a good thing is my philosophy.
pebloemer2010-08-26 17:51:54 +0000 #4
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetsPaint
no superstars, only made "minor" changes, but the chemistry went through the roof the season, and won the championship.
Now obviously the team is good-great since the team won a championship. My question is, if the team had money for one or two max contracts, would you try to get these players, or would you not try to risk the chemistry?
Take into account that this isn't a team where a lot of the players are in their 30s so age isn't a factor.
I had to read through your title and post like three times to understand what this thread is even about.
I'd expect most of my team would be looking for large contract extensions then so I need to save the money to fork it out.
sep11ie2010-08-26 18:18:06 +0000 #5
That title hurt my eyes, thank god for the smith&wesson's sig.
BlazingJ2010-08-26 18:16:48 +0000 #6
Define a max player. If it was like Joe Johnson, probably not. if it was dwayne wade. yes!
Reply
