BuzzerBeater Forums

Well, according to the topic "Balance in the market " there is a balance. People, managers, WE create the market. If someone sends his player to transfer market for 1M starting price and there is a bid during 3 days it means it was a fair price, because other position see some profits of that price. Prices dropped seasons ago due to growth of new managers. I started playing BB since season 10 and there are more managers now. It means more money, and even more players. Well trained players also dropped at their price. Check how looks like B3 final in season 10. My team looks better season ago in Div.3 than B3 champion then. What it suppose to mean? There are more well-trained players. When supply rises and demand stays on their level than prices have to drop. Typical economic rule. I think prices will drop even more in closest seasons.

Another reason why prices have dropped is team's financial balance. In first BB seasons, teams look like they were earning 2-4 millions per season (top teams). Nowadays, perhaps it's 1 million average for developed countries like Spain, Poland, Italy, Turkey etc. Teams spend more on their salary = less money on the market. Teams in lower divisions make of course less money per season.

Both factors affected that draftees cost more (I would add also national team factor, which is associated to prestige what makes perfect draftees some kind of luxury good). It's sound irresponsible that managers pays more for 18yo 5k draftee than 26yo 100k player. However nobody says that investors make proper decisions :) I think people don't know especially what they do. If i spend 1M i have to see some profits due to that decision. Managers spend 3M on draftee and will never see a profit. Firstly, they won't cap him. Secondly they won't buy any other player.

Market is balanced, but participants are just stupid (not all of course). Your decision is how to make an advantage for yourself due to that situation. After some time managers will see that they pay too much on draftee and will buy those trained 26you players. Then, you should train players, because when supply falls then price goes up. That's the clue.

Even on stock market you can see irresponsible participants which hold their stocks when price goes down. Just 10% make profit:)

System only put players on market, but doesn't bid them. We do that. So we create price.

Comparing to stock market - check AIG after 2008. As you see it happens.

Another situation however according to sports. Imagine situation when sport's club goes bankrupt. Players after that goes to office job and starts different life or just they find another club which hire them?

FA market should stay, but not on current rules.

Hey man,
I answered different way than you think and I've been insulted. That's not working like that.

If 50k users today and 25k users quit tomorrow, and the players they owned went FA...waht happens to the market hmmm????

IF 50k users today and 100k tomorrow, the nmaybe we need FA to balance it out.

You don't understand this issue, you aren't even close. Don7t talk to me like you have something figured out, you are just trolling. Read,study, whatever. Try to refrain from making inane irrelevant comments.

I told what will happen, if other factors remain unchanged (it's called ceteris paribus). Prices will go up in short period and after that they will drop slightly (players on transfer list will be adjusted to new total users number). Supply-demand relation works on every market, where the main factor is price.

You said "average teams owned players whose skillups (looking at TSP and training speeds) were 2 to 3 times what would EVER be possible for one team to train". That's the truth for best teams in a country. But you can't say it's general. You have just checked one league for 2 seasons. Isn't it too short survey, is it?:) Of course they can buy for themselves players, because they are rich in comparison to Div3-5 teams which also train players. As you see top teams don't need to train, however most of them base on 1-2 perfect players on their roster, what makes them unbeaten for few seasons in some leagues.

Let's count. We can say that 1 team can train up to 3 players per 5 seasons (18-23). It makes 12 players since 1st season for one team. How much players should have proper roster to care about gameshape? I would say it's 12! After short counting we can say there are more and more well-trained players. Of course one team trained nobody since his rookie season, another one train 1on1 making 6 players better every day.

System only put players on market, but doesn't bid them. We do that. So we create price.

If the system triples the number of players available within a set of criteria, does it not follow that there will be less competition for those players as managers can bow out sooner and move to the next one? The number of people who are looking to buy players is not going to fluctuate wildly based on the number of players available; if you need players, you need players and if you don't, you don't. FA injects additional supply, regardless of demand.

Free Agents are necessary for large nation teams in the lower divisions. This happens to also be were the majority of players are.

Your argument always comes across as "the rich need to keep getting more rich and the middle and lower class have no chance of moving up to take your spot."

Until every league earns the same amount of gate receipts, merchandise, tv contracts. None of the upper league teams have any right to complain about the market.

Until every league earns the same amount of gate receipts, merchandise, tv contracts. None of the upper league teams have any right to complain about the market.

Would you pay the same amount of money to watch WNBA than to watch a Durant/James game?

That's what I thought.