BuzzerBeater Forums

ignore the scoffing of the upper division dolts

We "upper division dolts" actually have some experience on that matter, so if you don't want to listen, at least leave him the choice to listen to us or not!

When evaluating a trainee at the beginning of his career, ask yourself where do you want to be in three or four seasons. If your answer is "in higher league", go and see those higher leagues right now and check up some key players there. If your player can't match those key players because of his low potential, then don't bother with him. You will train him for two-three seasons and when you advance, you will discover you invested three seasons in a bench player.

At least this is my experience...I invested four seasons in two players with allstar potential and if I'd train them 1-position this season, they would cap, but wouldn't be good enough to be starters in my league. So what's the point in training someone you won't need at the end of his training career?

Well you could always sell the player to help fund the purchase of a player that is good enough so it isn't a totally useless exercise.

ignore the scoffing of the upper division dolts - if you trained him well this season and next he can be a solid starter for you in Div. IV and at the very least a decent backup in Div III. His only atrocious stat is rebounding...which for a PG/SG isn't an issue.

I say stick with it and don't waste your money.

this may be the worst advice ever .

spend the 20-50 k and get a trainee worth training .

My only point is not that the upper division guys don't have experience training, it's just that you can more easily afford to discard a player with lower potential that will service the needs of a roster at a lower division for several seasons. I'm not against spending a little bit to bolster your training regiment - I've done that plenty. I'm just suggesting that if he's new to the game, his first trainee's are not going to turn out quite like a more experienced "dolt" from the upper division would get them to turn out. In that regard, I'm suggesting that he not waste the great potential of a player and use what he's got.

Sorry for offending all you in the upper divisions.

My only point is not that the upper division guys don't have experience training

Mu Hongyun (16764151) Small Forward Weekly salary: $ 23 925 Age: 21 Currently on the Australian U21 team
Barton Melmeth (16765388) Point Guard Weekly salary: $ 13 522 Age: 21
Diptavrna Kumar (19609870) Shooting Guard Weekly salary: $ 7 657 Age: 19 (Bought as a raw $3,000 18 year old draftee and now an U21 prospect as well)


So perhaps some of the upper division dolts do have some experience.

Last edited by yodabig at 8/5/2011 9:23:56 PM

check the double negative...

My only point is not that 1 + 1 = 2 or that 2 + 2 = 4 but that 3 + 3 = 6.

There is no double negative. It is not claiming that 1 + 1 does not equal 2 merely that the point that you are trying to make is that 3 + 3 = 6.

The Australian U21 coach recently stated that training ANY player with less than superstar potential is a waste of time. I think that is an exaggeration but I can assure everyone I feel good every single day that two of my three trainees are superstars.

I'm sorry, let me explain my previous statement better:

I do not believe that people who have more experience do not know how to train.

I hope that makes sense.

In regards to the U21 coach stating that training ANY player with less than superstar potential is a waste of time, I think that's probably quite true, for those who are in higher leagues and those specifically training players for the National Teams.

It's obviously more beneficial in the long-term to train players with higher potential, but at some point, those players will be too costly for some managers because they cannot afford to house even one Superstar potential player at their full potential.

If players with less than superstar potential are not worth training, then why do they exist? Is it some grand scheme to get losers to continue to lose?

I don't have a beef with you and again, I'm sorry if I offended you - I was simply trying to provide a new manager with a different perspective.

In regards to the U21 coach stating that training ANY player with less than superstar potential is a waste of time, I think that's probably quite true, for those who are in higher leagues and those specifically training players for the National Teams.

even for a U21 coach is it quite high standards, it is pretty hard to cap an perenial allstar guard before 22. And if he caps he is a very good U21 player even when he didn't increase anymore.

And i have a pretty strong team, and have still all star who contribute to my team or player who could be trained like that with all star potential. And players who are strong enough to be backup in my team, still help a lot teams even in biggers rules, even when this sounds a bit arrogant.

Edit: funny Fact -> 6 of 16 player in australia NT squad have less then Superstar potential 4 of them are even allstars. And one of the player is a 18 year old MVp who cot rescued, so the team depend nearly 40% of plaer who ain't worth training in his eyes. And 628 user ain't that small.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 8/15/2011 8:58:04 AM

You can get good trainees very cheap. I got a 20K trainee, trained him for like 4-5 weeks and sold him for over 100K. Also low potential is killer for trainees. He will cap without having a great salary, and why should you train a player with the future being a DIV starter/DIII backup. I have a trainee with allstar potential and he is set to cap about when he turns 21. However the difference between the two players is that one with allstar can start in DII while a starter might be a stretch to start in DIII. You can easily get a better trainee for under 100K unless you want a great trainee, which isn't always needed.

No offence taken.

Have a look at the senior Aussie NT and there is no-one with less than superstar potential. To make the actual U21 team I think it is possible with even star potential in Australia but it would be a rare case, really all-star is the minimum. You can even take my player Mu as an example. He is about 50/50 the starter on the team but at age just 21 he is very close to capping and if it wasn't for the brilliant recent capping research he may already be capped. Instead I have been able to squeeze a few extra pops out of him by training things that wont cap him as quickly. He is currently on Weekly salary: $ 23 925 which I think is affordable at any league level.

Yes teams in division IV can't afford a fully trained superstar but it is not where you are but where you want to end up you should be thinking about. I often see big men trainers in low divisions just pumping up the primary skills and then having to sell their stars. If instead they had worked on their big men's passing, driving, jump shot etc they would probably have a player who was just as effective but at a much lower wage.

The thing is the game takes a lot of patience. Do you really want to spend a year of real time training a player who will then be capped and will only be able to be a backup in the future or would you like someone who can continue to grow as your team grows? My man Mu is a great SF but if I could give him one more season of training he would be much better, as it is he will be capped at about $30,000. He will be a fine SF in division II but only a backup if I ever make the ABBL.

On the other hand my trainee Barton is way behind with a projected salary of only about $25,000 next season as a PG (a much more expensive position), but he still has heaps of potential so I can actually make him into the PG my team will need to be strong forever.

My third trainee Kumar has developed a fouling issue and may be heading for the TL if he keeps it up.

I used to always think all-star was enough back when I started and the quoted salary was $50,000.