BuzzerBeater Forums

I really like the idea of salaries based on transfer prices. A way to implement it might be to have two components of salary

component 1: the regular BB salary
component 2: the transfer portion

The transfer portion could be zero until someone pays over a certain amount - like 2 million for instance.

Also, if a player is playing more than 48 minutes a week in division I, then his transfer salary could gradually increase to the average of the starter's transfer salary in that division.

Just an idea.

I don't see the need for a regular BB salary, except perhaps as a minimum. Let's say the salary were 3.5% of the transfer price. Over two seasons 28 weeks, you would pay the player about the same (98%) as you paid the other owner.

Perhaps players could be protected from too precipitous a salary drop. So even if a subsequent sale were for less money, the player's salary might only drop at most X% (10%)

Players that you drafted, trained and kept would then have salaries that are too small. Even if you just bought a player and trained him up he'd cost way less than he should.

I still think that salaries should gravitate towards the average for the division. Just because you buy a player for cheap or train well does not mean you should have a salary advantage forever. I would concede a short term advantage but that's it.

That was actually a pretty clever solution that solves a lot of the problem with how salaries would be updated otherwise. Strange that I haven't seen anyone present that idea before.

I can see some small glitches, but not any real big ones at first sight, so I think it definitely is an idea to develop further.

For me, personally, these new rules makes it very attractive to just make a restart for the entire game. In Finland that means starting from league IV, and certainly advancing to III'rd after a season.

Now I know the future rules of the game and maybe also the ways being more economical how to use money for arena compared to new players?

Sounds very attractive to me. Just have to fire all current players and start this all over! Have to think about it!

That is one of the biggest challenges, to expose players periodically to the market.

Perhaps there could be a salary comparison. BB could check the N players with the same position, age, and closest salary. Then it could rank the skills of the players. If your player was in the top 5 percentile, he might get a 50% raise, in the top 10 percentile, a 30% increae, in the top 25% percentile, 20% more, or the top 50%, up 10%.

If you didn't like the player's demand you could TL him with an initial price that would set a new salary. You would have to set a price that would give a player at least a small salary increase (10%) in the first few years of a player's career (18-23?), maintain it until he is 30, and then permit a 10% decrease for older players.

That means I would have to be constantly transferring players in and out to minimize my salaries and still have good players. People become attached to their players and I don't think they should be penalized for holding on to them.

Furthermore, by fixing their salary based on the TL price alone, you would be rewarding good traders. I understand that some of this game is based on trading. But I don't want to give the traders any more of an advantage than they have already. What you propose turns the game into a trading game instead of a basketball game.

Finally, to get the player a low salary, you just have to transfer him when no one is online.

Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 8/4/2008 5:42:04 PM

I would be grouping players based on their transfer-price based salary, but ranking them on some value, whether it is DMI or "BB skill-based salary". The presumption would be that the best players are being underpaid.

If you didn't like the player's demand, you could test the market. Owner's who had become attached to a player could either meet the player's demand, or they could place him on the transfer market at a price that would result in no one bidding on him and they keeping him.

My proposal would tend to increase the salary component, and decrease the transfer price component of the cost of owning a player. It would reduce the value in buying/re-selling by traders.

There would be a reward for those who find players for attractive prices, just as there is now. There could be a reward for those who develop their own players since their salary will lage their development.

A player has to be on the TL for 72 hours. Are there 72 hours when no one is on line? If your aim is to get a player with a salary of 1/2 the salary of what the market is currently paying, you would have to list him at 1/2 the price of those other players. Are you suggesting that if you saw Player A at $100,000 and a $3,500 per week salary, and his Twin brother A' at $200,000 and $7,000 per week salary, you're going to bid on A' because his deadline is more convenient?

That was actually a pretty clever solution that solves a lot of the problem with how salaries would be updated otherwise. Strange that I haven't seen anyone present that idea before.

I can see some small glitches, but not any real big ones at first sight, so I think it definitely is an idea to develop further.

(30308.1)

Wasnt perfect... but this was my original idea....

If you rank on BB salary or DMI, it goes back to my original suggestion earlier in this thread. That was to increase salary based on a function of BB salary.

I don't think people should be rewarded for longer than 5-6 weeks (half a season) for finding good prices. Similarly, once a trained player is ready for prime time, his salary should start to increase. On the other hand, if the player is not ready to play on the main squad, his salary should stay low. Otherwise training players will become unattractive.

I don't follow BB player sales much. However, in HT you used to be able to sell players for cheaper prices late at night. With no one online, bidding wars are less likely to happen.

Anyhow, at least I now have you talking about a salary component and transfer price component. ;-) I'm glad we agree that the key would be to adjust player salaries somehow - we just disagree on the method. I personally think some form of salary adjustment is the way to go.

I don't like the flat salary for every player. This would still favour the teams with larger arenas and make it harder for teams entering division I to compete.