BuzzerBeater Forums

I just think Free Agents helped keep the prices realistic (in the confines of the game). Good free agents would also sell for 3m... but then people couldn't sell their lousy players for 2.3m ad example

What rookie owner has $2.3 million to bid on a "lousy" player? And why would an auction for a free agent inherently find that player's "real market value" whereas an auction for an owned player would not?

I think much is being made over free agency's theoretical ability to hold down prices. I doubt it would be of any significant effect in the face of increasing player salaries and revenues.

now price of a good C is up4M$ but you could buy a good C with 2.5M$

i bought a good c for 4,3 Mio when FA are still active ;)

And a pretty good one i bookmarked run out for 2,6 millions today, as a fa he run out for 2,3 with the same skills.

buzzer beater only increase 50k to our income ...

when you talking to me thats wrong, but for average it is even high ;) But such things have effect, and the prices are increasing also before.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 8/10/2009 8:20:41 AM

I just think Free Agents helped keep the prices realistic (in the confines of the game). Good free agents would also sell for 3m... but then people couldn't sell their lousy players for 2.3m ad example

What rookie owner has $2.3 million to bid on a "lousy" player? And why would an auction for a free agent inherently find that player's "real market value" whereas an auction for an owned player would not?

I think much is being made over free agency's theoretical ability to hold down prices. I doubt it would be of any significant effect in the face of increasing player salaries and revenues.

What do you mean for "rookie owner"?You maybe mean a users who is on BB for a long time,so he has this great amount of money.But the term "rookie owner" could describe another kinf of user.A user who plays for a long time in BB,but doesn't still know well the game(ie,a user who train shot blocking until marvelous level without seeing any improvement in his player's performances),but have the money to spendo on the market because plays in a league without a great competitivty and thanks to enormuos palaces has the money to spend on the market.These users overpay some players and create an enormous inflation flow,not connected at the real value of the players or the incomes(different for competitivity in the various countries and in the various divisions of the same country),but to their incompetence,which is reflected on higher prices on the market
But the old system of free agent was bad before it looks only to the salary,why don't reinsert the free agent on the market,but with a minimum of skills for a certain role(ie, a guard had to have at least than 10/9/9 in Js,Jr and Od))?

But the old system of free agent was bad before it looks only to the salary,why don't reinsert the free agent on the market,but with a minimum of skills for a certain role(ie, a guard had to have at least than 10/9/9 in Js,Jr and Od))?

i agree... this is a good idea

i think we must create a poll about this untill all of BB's members can say thier idea

common, you don't have to say that every 20s

Polsl about changed are pretty uncommon, and i think if they make it it will be more important ones.

But the old system of free agent was bad before it looks only to the salary,why don't reinsert the free agent on the market,but with a minimum of skills for a certain role(ie, a guard had to have at least than 10/9/9 in Js,Jr and Od))?

First off, only skilled players were ever eligible to become free agents -- I never saw free agents with skills lower than what you're proposing. And second, I fail to see how an owner can be such a complete moron as to train nothing but shot blocking and slobber over bad players for $2 million bucks a pop, and yet still amass enough money to pay for said slobber-generator. I've been playing for three seasons and have never been anywhere near $2 million.

All the free agents ever did was soak up some of the extra money that better teams had lying around. Now that the game as become much more restrictive economically, there's less of an imbalance between the cash reserves of top teams and those of their slightly less fortunate colleagues, so less reason to have free agents. In addition, to return to the point I finished with before, the primary engine of inflation roars on apace as more and more people elect to play the game. Every entering manager adds another $700,000 in ready cash (if you include the temporary start-up bonus). Free agency is like blocking the dike with your finger.

But the old system of free agent was bad before it looks only to the salary,why don't reinsert the free agent on the market,but with a minimum of skills for a certain role(ie, a guard had to have at least than 10/9/9 in Js,Jr and Od))?

First off, only skilled players were ever eligible to become free agents -- I never saw free agents with skills lower than what you're proposing. And second, I fail to see how an owner can be such a complete moron as to train nothing but shot blocking and slobber over bad players for $2 million bucks a pop, and yet still amass enough money to pay for said slobber-generator. I've been playing for three seasons and have never been anywhere near $2 million.

In the past system you could have a player with legendary in driving and handling and atrocious/pitiful in outside defence.Because the salry of this player was over the level to become free agent
When we talk about with this question,we have to point out what effects the free agent have on the market
There are two effects,one good and one bad
The good effect is that the presence of the free agent help to lowered the prices and bring them towards a fair value in the market
The bad effect is that these money used for free agent are wasted out of the market
If we find a way for a compromise between these two effects we can re-introduce the free agent.The bad system was wrong because it's not a right thing evaluete players with the salary.And if someone buy the previous described player(pitiful outside defence/legendary driving and handling) the money waste in the market are REALLY wasted,beacuase the team which buy this player,cannot sell him to some moron,so there's not a new circulation of money
If this team buy a good player,the money went out from the market,but the transfer bait a well-chain for the market because:
-the team who buy the free agent probably had to sell another(often weaker) player to have again a good economy
-this player will be bought by a team of a lower category which need that player and spent these money ehich before that cannot spend on the market
-this team will sell one of their player to lower's team categories and so on
There is a range of medium players who are poorly available on the market(and this is why the prices of the players have "strange"-for who doesn't knoe nothing of the basilar economy laws- variations not strictly related with the strenght of the players),and many teams are stopped from spending their money because they dont'find what they need
So,if we insert free agent that could create a good circulation of money in the game the good effect go over the bad effect,if we insert awful players,the good effect wins
So,we could reinsert the free agent on the market estabilishng some basilar parametres over the salary,as the presence of a certain level in the main skills for the role,or a total higher level of the skills if some player have the main skills at a very little distance from the previous standard