BuzzerBeater Forums

The fact that you don't understand that the majority of money teams spend each week (player salaries, staff salaries, arena building, staff acquisition, etc.) is money leaving the economy, and that in fact this is the only way a team can go bankrupt (since it is impossible to participate in the transfer market unless you have a positive balance), simply continues demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of how the game works.

Well it seems that we have more than one not understanding the basic principles of how economy works in this game. If you think Prices and Salary are two separate things and do not both affect the way inflation/deflation works in this game, then I'm sorry, but you and also Perpete should refrain from posting.

Anyone else out there who thinks the cost of a player is just what you pay upfront in the auction? Anyone else who thinks inflation in the upfront price is not affected the salary of the player? Anyone who wants to make the same brainless comparison between staff/arena (whose cost and benefits are not linked to any kind of market dynamic) and players (whose value varies over time due to market dynamics even as their skills do not change)? I have more space in my little pink book.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/14/2015 6:34:07 AM

If there are more players, prices recede.

I say no, too much cash chasing too few worthwhile players is the root of the problem.

Bravo. So please go and ask that someone has a look at the free agency thresholds before it's too late. Or do you want to wait another year or two so that the people, who started training in the last couple of seasons, have fully trained players? Even lower potential players (say allstar) take around 4 seasons to train...

If prices are rising and you fear not having the money to pay them, then create the players yourself.

I say no, too much cash chasing too few worthwhile players is the root of the problem.

Too slow. When you have to change your approach to the game, you can't expect people to wait around for 1 or 2 years. I mean you can, of course, but don't expect all of them to stick around. I'm not sure that's such a great idea going forward. In general I'm not sure the unwillingness of the hardcore managers to compromise on the game being very hard, very slow and exceedingly testing on new managers (or those who need to rebuild from scratch) is a good thing for the game either (and I like the complexity of it, mind you).

If there are more players, prices recede.

I say no, too much cash chasing too few worthwhile players is the root of the problem.

Yes and in this neverending thread I haven't seen you or pretty much anybody else proposing solutions. And the only realistic solutions are changing the FA market and/or changing training and/or changing the way taxes work. Unless, of course, you'd like to see the effects of the current economy in the next 4 seasons as the cash dries up to money sinks and taxes.

Edit: solutions have been proposed, I just didn't get there yet

It's a shame that you can actually realize the root of the problem and focus so much on things incidental to the problem.

I say no, too much cash chasing too few worthwhile players is the root of the problem.

Right, but you do realise the root of the problem. However, as an example, I have yet to see sale taxes mentioned anywhere as having to do with the root of the problem and the lack of supply, as you put it. I suppose it's the same way Germany had nothing to do with WW2 and Belov had nothing to do with the US being whopped in the Olympics by the Russians 40 years ago.

Edit: Mr. Glass pointed out that taxes who hit people who would otherwise willing to sell do not help the supply side

The guy who spent time training his players matters just as much as you do. And robbing him to keep prices low for you is just as wrong as it would be robbing you to keep my team afloat.

I say no, too much cash chasing too few worthwhile players is the root of the problem.

Robbing? So the price set by the market is ok sometimes, but not other times? Wow that's convenient , isn't it!? So what's the difference between you crying because prices were too low yesterday and the people who cry because prices are too high today? None. The only difference is your personal idea and other people's personal idea of what the correct prices should be.

Others, like me, observe that high inflation or deflation is generally not good for any economy, including this game's. Therefore one is as bad as the other and the developers should step in with measures to smoothen the rate of inflation/deflation, so that we avoid situations where a 33yo player is worth 200k at the beginning of the season and 400k at the end of a season with worse skills. The same way, you should avoid that a 19yo is worth 400k at the beginning of a season and drops to 300k after being trained for 14 weeks.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/14/2015 9:05:28 AM

I think that rarely does a team blow out it's entire cash-wad on buying players (but if/when that does happen, I agree that would be pumping 100% of their newfound cash into the transfer list economy). However, there are many other cases that drain a new team's bank account - I think more times it is the salaries of their purchased players that sinks them

I can't agree here and tend to agree with Mike Franks. Most new managers will buy players before staff (or both at the same time) and before building arena. I did that. Most new English managers who came into the chat did that too. All the managers in my Utopia league spent money on players right off the bat (and they built the arena). So, if also experienced managers did that, I believe it's safe to assume that an inexperienced manager will blow a substantial part of the cash he's given on players. You can debate if that part is 90%, 80% 60% or whatever, but these managers do purchase players and they do pay their salaries (waved partially for the first 4 weeks).

They even introduced trade restrictions to avoid a new team paying a few thousand dollars for $200k salary players for this very reason. So yeah new teams blow money, a lot of money on players, although they are restricted to the $300k+$50k*4=$500k plus profits in the first few weeks.

Also, the salary is part of the cost you pay for a player. It's a deferred price you pay for his services. Now you can say that inflation only affects the upfront price, but that's not how it works. Rational people will look at the overall cost when deciding whether to buy or not.


Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/14/2015 8:03:47 AM

I never said that the cost of a player is just what you pay on the TL to acquire him.

But what you pay in salary does not go into the user economy. Which was what the discussion you cribbed a very small portion of, and apparently failed to understand, was about.

But please do add me to your little pink book - I've read enough of your posts to know that I don't value your opinion much at all.

When everybody signed up to this game they were expecting a basketball world simulation, right? So, let's see what happens on the real basketball world out there...
- In the mid-70s the average NBA salary was about $130k, in the mid-80s it was about $300k, in the mid-90s it was about $2.5M, in the mid-00s it was about $4M and in the mid-10s the average NBA player is going to make more than $5.5M due to the new TV deal... Talk to me about inflation, right?!?
- Joe Johnson is going to make nearly $50M over two seasons, Eric Gordon will make $30M over two seasons, Gerald Wallace another $20M over two seasons and JaVale is going to make nearly $15M a year for throwing passes in the sixth row. Talk to me about overpaid players, right?!?
Here in BB we expect our economy to be stable (just like the NBA with only 2 lockouts during the last 15 years), rewarding the ones that train (just like Minnesota got rewarded for developing 18-year-old Garnett into a HoF or turning Love into an allstar). That's a very reasonable thing to ask....
Sorry for being sarcastic and cynical but...
This is basketball business people! There are always going to be overpaid players! There are always going to be higher transfer prices than the ones we consider fair! There are always going to be teams that run smoothly yet unable to succeed! I don't know about you, I have $1.5M in the bank and I can't wait to spend it on players! This is the basketball business people! This simulation is really accurate! Enjoy!

I'm not sure how someone would even come up with something so smart.

Dude, I hope you have no idea what you're talking about because the alternatives are significantly worse.

Anyone with basic knowledge of how the NBA works is aware that player contracts are tied to overall league earnings (to be precise 50% of "basketball related income" which includes the TV money. In the past it was more than 50%); and that there is a (soft) cap to team salaries.

You talk as if a player's salary is completely disconnected from the money his team makes. In 2008 the TV money for the NBA went from $367 million to $900 million (2.5 times). All american professional leagues' renegotiations of league wide national broadcasting rights have led to a massive inflow of cash to teams in the last 10 years. The new NBA TV deal is estimated to take the $900 million of the current TV contract to anywhere between $2.2-$3.5 billion depending on whose numbers you use.

But even without the upcoming enormous television money hike, let's compare the $2.5 million Magic Johnson was making in '84 to the $30 Kobe was making in 2014. That's 12 times. Now take the league wide revenues to teams and you're looking at $120 million back then to $4.8 billion in 2014. See anything strange? That's 40 times over....

So going by this unflappable logic, my question is: if prices for players in BB is now 2-3 times as it was 4 seasons ago, when the hell are my gates gonna be 2-3 times higher as well???

Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/14/2015 9:20:17 AM

Done deal. Honestly, I don't value the opinion of people attacking others, especially those making a fool of themselves being factually wrong and snide at the same time, much at all either!


Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/14/2015 9:16:01 AM

Bravo. So please go and ask that someone has a look at the free agency thresholds before it's too late. Or do you want to wait another year or two so that the people, who started training in the last couple of seasons, have fully trained players? Even lower potential players (say allstar) take around 4 seasons to train...

And the problem started when Utopia came into place, which... gosh, has it been four seasons already? And now we just had a significant loss of users there, so presumably the demand pressure will be alleviated. Now, of course, if people still aren't training the players desirable on the market, those who have done so should continue to expect to receive quite a nice return for doing so, and those who haven't will have to expect to pay that price for them.

[quote[Yes and in this neverending thread I haven't seen you or pretty much anybody else proposing solutions. And the only realistic solutions are changing the FA market and/or changing training and/or changing the way taxes work. Unless, of course, you'd like to see the effects of the current economy in the next 4 seasons as the cash dries up to money sinks and taxes.

Between you and Mike Franks, the problem is that there is too much money and money drying up at the same time. Beautiful.

Incidentally, for a proposed solution, admittedly late in the thread, see the last paragraph of (268635.89)

It's a shame that you can actually realize the root of the problem and focus so much on things incidental to the problem.

I say no, too much cash chasing too few worthwhile players is the root of the problem.

Right, but you do realise the root of the problem. However, as an example, I have yet to see sale taxes mentioned anywhere as having to do with the root of the problem and the lack of supply, as you put it. I suppose it's the same way Germany had nothing to do with WW2 and Belov had nothing to do with the US being whopped in the Olympics by the Russians 40 years ago.

If you can explain why the tax structure exerts any significant negative reinforcement on the decision to train players, I'd be willing to consider the argument. I have to say I've lost count of the number of posts saying "I really would like to train players, but why spend four seasons to do so if I only get 97% of their slae price", but it's easily in the zeroes of posts.

The guy who spent time training his players matters just as much as you do. And robbing him to keep prices low for you is just as wrong as it would be robbing you to keep my team afloat.

I say no, too much cash chasing too few worthwhile players is the root of the problem.

Robbing? So the price set by the market is ok sometimes, but not other times? Wow that's convenient , isn't it!? So what's the difference between you crying because prices were too low yesterday and the people who cry because prices are too high today? None. The only difference is your personal idea of what the correct prices should be.

The robbing specifically was in regards to Mike Franks' posts about needing to extract money out of the economy.

Others, like me, observe that high inflation or deflation is generally not good for any economy, including this game's.

As long as prices rise or fall in line with demand, and the players have the ability to create the supply or not, the economy is at least fair. Different strategies are rewarded at different times, but in the end it's simple: you have a team, you have your sources of income and expenses, and figure out how to beat the other teams in your level and then the teams at the next level. And to the extent that you rely on external sources of player talent, you are responsible for coming up with the plan to be able to acquire them. Lobbying for increased FA, of course, is one avenue, though perhaps not the most reliable . . . ;)

I'd call it more inconvenient than illogical. ... playing sub par lineups ...

And the real life basketball league where that is necessary, where a guy doesn't get coached and trained at all unless he plays in the regular games, where the last two or three guys onthe end of the bench (who need training the most) don't get trained ... the real life basketball league where that happens ... is ...
...
...
...

*crickets*

I think I saw that team! Yeah, they were a local semi-pro team with a $3 million stadium, drawing ten thousand or more fans a game and kept the players they wanted from leaving for the NBA, because maybe in ten seasons they might be there themselves. But they weren't called the Crickets, they were the Fredricktown Fighting Fnords.

Realism is nice when possible, but game design should take precedence - and considering professional sports leagues are structured in a way so that it either structurally impossible for teams to move up (most NA sports leagues) or simply financially untenable (most European sports leagues), sometimes realism needs to take a back seat so that the game isn't entirely unfair to newer users.

Between you and Mike Franks, the problem is that there is too much money and money drying up at the same time. Beautiful.

Well it is in the eye of the beholder even when he's blind. The 2 views you're trying to associate are completely different and do not even aim at proving the same point. Inflation with constant revenues and taxes lead to a reduction in savings (cash accumulated by tanking teams for example). Now when they have less cash or that cash is worth a fraction of what it was worth before, then these people are either forced to change the way they play the game or quit. Increase in people quitting = bad business. Clearly the faster this happens the worse the result and the smoother the transition the better. "Hyperinflation" is a term that points more to the "too fast" end of the range.

If you can explain why the tax structure exerts any significant negative reinforcement on the decision to train players, I'd be willing to consider the argument. I have to say I've lost count of the number of posts saying "I really would like to train players, but why spend four seasons to do so if I only get 97% of their slae price", but it's easily in the zeroes of posts.

I buy a player today, if I need to make back at least 80% of the money I need to wait a month or 2 depending on how many players I've sold before. For each purchase, you're making reselling the purchased player less economically viable for a period of time. So if people take longer to relist players they bought, there are less players on the market. The number of players in the game does not change, the number of players on the transfer list however does and this affects price formation. Fewer players on the market means the market becomes more opaque and that given a certain skillset it is harder to establish a fair market price because fewer transactions occur. People will bid up their own estimate of the value of a player, but with fewer comparables and with meaningless estimates provided by the game it is harder to do this properly.

It also means that managers are pushed out of their correct segment of the market, because if the overall talent in the game (i.e. the average TSP) increases or decreases players are not as easily redistributed between different levels, an argument that should be so close to your sensibility since you're a staunch supporter of the "worse potential trainees/worse players are ideal to lower level divisions" philosophy.

As long as prices rise or fall in line with demand, and the players have the ability to create the supply or not, the economy is at least fair.

Yes and if you expect people to be ok with waiting a couple of years to overhaul their strategy I think you're deluding yourself about the effect that the length of the adjustment will have (for example on managers quitting the game). Which is why inflation and deflation in the game is a problem given that revenues are capped.

Different strategies are rewarded at different times, but in the end it's simple: you have a team, you have your sources of income and expenses, and figure out how to beat the other teams in your level and then the teams at the next level.

I don't think anybody is disputing that at some point some kind of equilibrium will be found. Some people do wonder if it is worth to let it go unchecked and accept the possible consequences (mainly in terms of users retention).

Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/14/2015 10:14:22 AM