BuzzerBeater Forums

I agree with Naker that nobody says, "You are too good, nobody wants you," but I do think a lot of teams in real life say, "You are too expensive, we don't want you." And then the Yankees or the Lakers or Chelsea buy them.

Last edited by somdetsfinest at 10/11/2010 6:16:03 AM

But in real life the player chooses their own salary, the best basketball player in the world isn't going to say he should be paid 10 billion dollars because he is really good. Also, I believe teams have salary caps (not 100% sure) in most sports, and so that often limits the salary that a player can have. Obviously the player can't have a salary that is higher than the salary cap, or even close to the salary cap or otherwise he would be the only player on the team.

This would make it even more harder for high salary players to find a home.

Toronto Raptors's management don't agree :P

Actually, as a Raptors fan I know there are a lot of people around the team who think they will benefit from not having 6 more years of Bosh being the franchise player.
He's an exceptional player offensively, but some people feel he isn't a player you can build a team around.
And they got something from losing him. They actually got a draft pick back and a huge trade exception.
(/OFFTOPIC)

Bosh's leaving is really the only good thing the Raptors management did in the last year after the pick of Bargs

When Bosh was in Toronto he didn''t care about defence,so every PF in the league could score 20 against him.It's useless to score 30 points if your adversary can score 30 too,especially in the way Bosh score that points(playing a lot with isolation with low percentages)
[End OT]

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/11/2010 9:14:06 AM

In real life players can agree to a lower salary. You can not implement this into the game. ATM we have a situation where we have too many of those high salary centers. What people need to understand is - there are different ways to play this game. Some like having one monster player in their team, some like playing with equal players. We have a situation where both versions are possible. We agree that atm if you single position train a good trainee with decent trainer you can reach the max in 3 skills. But this strategy creates a player that takes away most of the teams income. If BB's want to make these players affordable, they can eather lower salary (which they are doing depending on overall skill), or lowering training speed. If you lower training speed, then it becomes a race of who ownes the most "maxed" out players (as you can afford all those "maxed" players). I think we have a great balance at the moment, if you train smartly you get a better team compared to the one monster supporters.
To me a salary that is too high for championship team to manage = bad training (who cares what the NT coaches say).

I think you are missing part of the point though. The point is that we are having high salary players change teams every week because no team is stupid enough to keep the player long term. So the player is just being bounced around and taking a ridiculous amount of money out of the economy. Also, these players are obviously great players or they wouldn't be on the national teams. And why shouldn't the top teams be able to have the top players without having to have the rest of the teams as scrubs. Simply make the max salary 300k and it will solve a lot of problems.

I am not missing the point. I know some of these players exist and they should just fade out. Max salary should never be introduced, it's smarter to lower training speed before capping salarys. Obviously if these players start to go for 50k, people will buy them and play two games then just fire them (without paying the salary). Perhaps introduce a skill drop every time someone get's fired to counter this behaviour. If people still buy those players, whose fault is that?:D It's not smart managing.

Why is it not smart managing if you are in the NBBA to sign the best player in the world to your team? Beacuse in BB the best players demand silly salaries that the best teams can't really afford.

I am not missing the point. I know some of these players exist and they should just fade out. Max salary should never be introduced, it's smarter to lower training speed before capping salarys. Obviously if these players start to go for 50k, people will buy them and play two games then just fire them (without paying the salary). Perhaps introduce a skill drop every time someone get's fired to counter this behaviour. If people still buy those players, whose fault is that?:D It's not smart managing.

They will never fade out. Eventually you will get to a point where there are so many players like this on the market that they can be bought for 100k and fired before the salary update like you said. And if this was the case I would buy the player because his skills are awesome for 100k. I simply fire him every week after saturdays game and hire him the following week. 100k a week is awesome for a player like that. Lowering training speed isn't the answer either. Why should everyone suffer because there are players that are too good with too high salary?? Why shouldn't there be a max salary? If the best player has 500k salary and he isn't on a team in division 1 then there is a problem with the game.

You can't pull the life card on everything. Some things just are not suitable for a game. Could Estonian champion really be on par with the Lakers? Comparing every little detail to real life is just absurd.
In this game the best player is the one who has the most skills and is still affordable.