BuzzerBeater Forums

Is, "add a salary cap" your solution to everything?

Is, "add a salary cap" your solution to everything?

The fact that it can solve many of the problems in BB, just proves how much it is needed.

What can we learn from the fact that you could not contradict what I've wrote about that?

What can we learn from the fact that you could not contradict what I've wrote about that?

To be completely host I was just skimming through to get rid of the unread posts and noticed that you once again proposed a salary cap. It was merely an observation. I tend to read the posts you make because sometimes I get a good chuckle out of them.

It was merely an observation.

I was not trying to contradict anything. I have not read the thread, I could not contradict anything. I was making an observation out loud.

- For my it's clear that the salary-floor should be much higher than it is now. That would decrease the number of teams which throw an entire season to win money doing a stand by. I really don't think this change could be a disadvantage for anyone. You've mentioned a disadvantege for small nation teams, but small nations teams earn a lot of money very quickly which should help them to reach to that salary-floor. Or if they don't reach to it, they would continue earning money weekly.
As example for what I have said, this afternoon a team from Kazakhstan second division was biding over 3 million for a guy in the TL. How can this team, with the following transfer history http://www.buzzerbeater.com/team/176477/transferhistory.a..., and with his initial arena (he haven't even change the initial prices) have won over 3 million in less than 2 seasons playing in BB??
After seeing this example I really don't think teams from little countries would be worried about a posible raise in the salary-floor.

- In the other hand, I think that the most fair way of getting incomes during playoffs would be as is done in the cup.
In this new formula no team would have to pay any salary, and no one would have tv and merchandise incomes during playoffs. Teams would receive a cash amount only for winning PO games, the more you advance in PO the more money you get for each won game.

With this new formula, being 5º wouldn't be as good as it is at this moment, and being 3º or 4º and advancing rounds in POs wouldn't make teams lose money. Meanwhile, the money received for the play-outs would have to be little comparing with the money received for POs so as not to give advantages to those positions.

The only disadvantage of this solution would be that teams would be able to get players with great salaries just before POs as they wouldn't have to pay them. But this solution would have multiple easy solutions as the following ones:
1) Paying salaries during POs only for players adquired 2-3 weeks before starting POs.
2) Paying only the difference betwen the average salary of the league and the salary if the team during POs, or the double of the difference to punish this action more.



Last edited by Jonidas at 1/12/2012 7:54:24 PM

- For my it's clear that the salary-floor should be much higher than it is now. That would decrease the number of teams which throw an entire season to win money doing a stand by. I really don't think this change could be a disadvantage for anyone. You've mentioned a disadvantege for small nation teams, but small nations teams earn a lot of money very quickly which should help them to reach to that salary-floor. Or if they don't reach to it, they would continue earning money weekly.
As example for what I have said, this afternoon a team from Kazakhstan second division was biding over 3 million for a guy in the TL. How can this team, with the following transfer history (http://www.buzzerbeater.com/team/176477/transferhistory.a...), and with his initial arena (he haven't even change the initial prices) have won over 3 million in less than 2 seasons playing in BB??
After seeing this example I really don't think teams from little countries would be worried about a posible raise in the salary-floor.

yes you can earn a lot in small countrys, but there are two differences:
- you need to invest to earn those money, when the initial salarys are so high you don't get to the point where you earn money since you will loose your starting money
- the opponent you play have are partially bots, but also team who fit in in a div 1, so you need more money to build up an roster , who could compete with them.
- As soon you reached the stage to compete your income is very small again, maybe a bit bigger then in big nations through the smaller competion which leads to weaker roster(same quality get hard through the smaller income)

The situation in general is not so satisfying, but a higher salary floor would need a change here first.

Totally agree.

I'd also add a "plus" just for entering the playoffs, an equivalent of the income that the winner of the play-out would have received for winning the two play-out games. I'd do this because some teams could see as impossible to beat the leader or the 2nd at their homes, and they could prefer being sixth and earn some money than being 3d or 4th and earning nothing, less is more than nothing. In this case, the income for winning in the playoffs or winning in the play-out could be the same.