BuzzerBeater Forums

Those who invest into scouting have realized by now that the way to spend money and draft points is to invest $10.000 and get two points for $5.000 each, and to use them on scouting combine after the All-Star break. There they will get information about all draftees' height and age measures.

From this point, the manager will focus only on 18-year-old talents. And why is that? Because the skills of 19-year-old draftees can be just as those of 18-year-old ones, and with that fact, they have a season less to train and achieve higher levels, possible for 18-year-old draftees who get training for a whole season. Thus they draft a 18-year-old player, train him, and next season they have a player who is 19 years old and much better than the available 19-year-old draftees.

This is the most obvious reason for investing scouting points only on younger draftees. I, for example, rank younger talents on to the top, so the older ones end up at the bottom, with completely blank information (except age and height). I do it, and it's pretty obvious, because why the heck would I draft an older player if I can have a younger, and with it, more valuable and trainable, player. (The only possibility of me checking out those older guys is to find a possible 'dark horse' among them because I know already that I will be picking last in the league. That dark horse is still better than the totally untalented 18-year-old with dubious salary, but he can't compare with any average 18-year-old draftee, except in the case of a 10 or 10+ potential which could replace the starting age point.)

The point of this topic is to propose a solution and to discuss this question of 19-year-old picks. When an 18-year-old talent decides not to come out to the draft, he, in most cases, stays in school to train more. Therefore, a 19-year-old draftee that decided not to take out the draft when he was 18 years old, must have better skills than he had had a season ago. That's the case with most of the draftees who missed the draft when they were 18 - now they are better players. So, what I am proposing is higher skills for 19 year-old draftees.

When an 18-year-old starts his career and receives training for a whole season he develops better than he would in case he had stayed in school and trained by himself, in a lower division quality-wise. So, the 19-year-old draftees' skills should not reach the levels that 18-year-old draftees could receive through a year of professional training. (I am for rare exceptions.)

In what way would this affect us? The first thing that comes to my mind is the scouting routine. Older draftees would not be shunned, submitted last and in most cases fired right after the draft. They would be as potential as their younger counterparts, and managers could be investing maximum weekly numbers for a purpose. Currently, it's justified not to spend huge numbers to scout all the info of 19-year-old draftees. If this would be changed, the 19-year-old talents would be as respected as 18-year-old ones. This would eventually bring more balance, joy, unexpectedness, and meaning to the draft as a very important event at the start of the season.

All suggestions are welcome. This idea just occurred in my mind, I haven't thought it through completely yet. I hope you'd agree with the idea's basic point. Thank you for having read the post.

I agree in principle with this idea.

The best 19 year old in the draft, should be better (in terms of skills) than the best 18 year old in the draft. But not potential.

I dont entirely agree with the comments you made about your drafting strategy, I actually have used that strategy in previous years, simply because i believed that an 18 year old would be better, but also because i thought 18 year olds fetched more on the transfer market.

But over the past few seasons, my casual observations have led me to believe, that, a $4,500 salary 18 year old will probably sell for not that much more than a $5,000 19 year old. So the difference ont he transfer market I believe, is minimal, although im open to people whos experiences suggest otherwise.

Also, after drafting an 18 year old $4,500 salary player this year, and training him all year and getting pretty good training results (10 pops all up... could be better i know), his salary im expecting to end up is about $6,500 - $7,000 (according to Buzzer-manager website).

So lets use salary as the comparitive unit. - If the current highest salary of a 19 year old in the draft is say, $6,500, what do we make it?
Or, alternatively, should we simply make it such that the scale and range of salaries, of 19 year olds, is higher in general? ie: Current number of 19 yearolds with salary above $5k in the draft is 4... Lets make it, 8.

Also, shouldnt this be in suggestions forum?

I'm sorry if I missed the forum, I never heard of suggestions forum, so I couldn't possibly know to put it there. Never mind, though.

I agree with you completely. When I said potential, I meant the whole training possibility: an 18-year-old has a season more to train then a 19-year-old - so there's more potential for his better training. While reading my post, I knew someone would misunderstand that. Never mind that too.

I trust you about the market difference between 18- and 19-year-olds. However, I don't think that's a strong criterion because the prices change, and there are more wise and less wise traders.

About your salary comparison - how hard it is to find a 19-year-old with a 6,500-7,000 salary? Is it same as with 18-year-olds? I agree that the salary range for 19-year-old draftees should be higher, and even go above $10,000 because an average 4-5,000 18-year-old when trained through a whole season can easily achieve that salary. Depending on draftees potential (9, 10, 10+) these salaries could go even higher, but that would cause too much disturbing among the managers, the balance would go to the other side and leave the 18-year-olds discriminated against. Nevertheless, I would agree on rare exceptions, as always - there are from time to time out-of-this-world talents.

So I would say that your proposal on scale and range of salaries is great. Let's just see, maybe there are some other opinions. My only goal is to make this game better and more exciting, and I really believe that the draft system gives space to make it so.

Also, after drafting an 18 year old $4,500 salary player this year, and training him all year and getting pretty good training results (10 pops all up... could be better i know), his salary im expecting to end up is about $6,500 - $7,000 (according to Buzzer-manager website).

So lets use salary as the comparitive unit. - If the current highest salary of a 19 year old in the draft is say, $6,500, what do we make it?

But you can't compare two 19-year old players, both with 6k salary, one coming from the draft and another coming from one season of training with your team.

19-y old from draft will not have any skill above respectable and will likely have "averages" and "respectables" spread through most skills, while the trained 19-y old will have "proficients" and even "prominents" in those skills that matter for his position. That's a big difference.

About your salary comparison - how hard it is to find a 19-year-old with a 6,500-7,000 salary? Is it same as with 18-year-olds?

it is at least easier to get him, when we don't talk about the first pick.

When I meant higher starting salaries for 19-year-old draftees, I didn't mean respectable and average skill all over, but higher skills than respectable at some categories, just like he was trained.

I like this thread and I strongly agree with this:

The best 19 year old in the draft, should be better (in terms of skills) than the best 18 year old in the draft. But not potential.

Maybe the solution could be putting a different "cap" for drafted players. For example, 18 years old players cannot have skills above "average (6)", while 19 years old players cannot have skills above "strong (8)".

Average and strong are just examples, of course.

I also like this concept and agree that 19 yr olds should be "advanced" players

Also I think 19 year olds should have more expierience coming out of the draft the 18 year olds. So maybe all 18 year olds should have atrocious experience and 19 year olds should have either pitiful or awful experience.

I don't understand with such an emphasis on U21 and NT why there are just 18 and 19 yo players in the draft to begin with. If you're gonna have multiple ages, why not have up to 21 and then why not have a wider range of starting skills for them all.

Either that or all the players are 18 years old. 18 and 19 make no sense to me personally.

I dont think the rule should be so blanket. The worst 19 year old in the draft should definately NOT be better than the best 18 year old.
And someties you will get an 18 year old with better experience than a 19 year old. As with all the other skills. Maybe the 19 year old blew his knee half way through the season, and missed all those games (and as such, didnt pop as much).

I think earlier suggestions of having a cap is maybe a bit harsh? maye it should just be a 'general' rule. Because generally, an 18 year old will only ever have maximum respectable in any such skill. And generally, for 19 year olds, it should be strong. BUT i dotn think it should exlude entirely the possibility that an 18 year old can have strong in a skill.

I dont think this would require much change, its only a small scale change to reflect the generalisation that, 19 year olds are generally better than 18 year olds, which currently, is not really shown in drafted players. and if it is, it needs to be more.