BuzzerBeater Forums

Second, all the players in the game got better.. as they do every season, sometimes massively better and so everyone's payrolls shoot up by large amounts at the start of the season... that's why you are seeing these 50% increases people are discussing. I think people are blaming the salary increase for what really is the effect of training.

i got +150, and maybe 30k of them was through training with the existing formulas ;)

So if someone wants to make the argument that the top level teams cannot afford the current salaries they can try.. but i know the numbers and top division teams were making a lot of money last season, and this salary increase put a dent in their profit.. but didn't make it impossible to run a team.

not impossible, but the teams who making profit still doing it, the team who was close to zero now make big minus in average the change was succesfull but i thing the target was messed because lot higher payrolls brings few "bonus" which will decrease the value and the motivation to bring player to top level now even U21 are close to overpaid players not only the NT players.
Maybe not all are forced to sell, but i don't feel that i had an big advantage about a team who pays 300k less with similiar sideskills at the players, because top level skills are so expensive(and logical step against would be reducing the cost myself to get maybe more balanced players with the profit, and not to be afraid of bancrupcy if i miss the conference titel)

All those that were clamoring about inflation should also be satisfied, and lower transfer prices will mean less profit to be made with day trading, and will put focus away from the economic factors.

mmmh really, if i daytrade betwen players who are worth 1,5 Million and selled for one million, i could do the same with lower prices only the salarys are a bit higher ;) But i had to do fewer trades to get a high skilled player, which makes it more attractive(especially in combination with the taxes). And because of the taxes, the trading mostly appears in the cheap amrket and works with qunatity and player who you could sell for the multiple buying price(aand this market isn't affected at all).

So if someone wants to make the argument that the top level teams cannot afford the current salaries they can try.. but i know the numbers and top division teams were making a lot of money last season, and this salary increase put a dent in their profit.. but didn't make it impossible to run a team.

i didn't run profit last season, so could i afford it this season?

you got +150 out of how much? well i know how much (though i won't broadcast that number publicaly), and i so i know that more than 30k through training.

Furthermore, i know from looking at your league you have competitive revenue and competitive salaries with your compatriots, so if you are all running in the red, you are all in the same boat.

if you think you can compete just as well with lower salaried players you should do so... I think you are probably wrong, but if you think a player is overpaid for his value i dont' see why you should have him on your team.

no... if you are trading a player who you are buying for 1M and selling for 1.5 million, i suspect that if you now can buy a player for 500K then you won't be able to sell him for 1M, but probably closer to 750K. I don't see any reason to believe daytrading fluctuations shouldn't scale with price. So now your day trading profit has been cut in half.

The lower priced players are affected less.. but not in a non trivial way... and reducing the overall money supply is going to have trickle down effects which are going to effect market prices even at the lower levels.

Everyone should not be running in the red.. everyone is on the same boat... if players are really unaffordable we will see the price/skill curve invert.. but it hasn't, so that's not what is going on.

I hope my tone is not condescending.. i know you have complained about that in the past, I just disagree with your arguments, I don't mean any of my disagreements to sound personal.

Last edited by BB-Forrest at 3/23/2010 8:05:08 PM

The problem is that you´re only talkig about economy and not about its impact on the game. I repeat (again):

-Have you killed PF and C training? I think so, do you?

-Have you killed most of managers of III, IV,.... divisions? I think so, do you?

-Have you shown the way to success is training PG-SG? I think so, do you?

-Is now possible compete in a long-therm against people who train PG-SG and they have centers monoskill who only defend and get rebounds? No, it´s not. They save loads of money with those kind of monoskill centers and they can train full time PG-SG cause they can earn 200K and that fact won´t be a problem cause those players will have a top level.

-Do you really think that salaries of both kind of players are really fair/equal? No, I don´t. Top PG-SG earn 200-250K, Top PF-C earn 500-600K.
-Do you think most of managers will train the same things and use a kind of pattern? Yes, I do. Do you?

It seems like you tried something but you got another huge thing you did not expect: the end of tactical and versatility spirit.

They´re only questions, you could (and I´d be so pleased) answer.

Bye

Last edited by Foto at 3/23/2010 8:21:10 PM

If you are more worried about CrazyEeye economy then im worried too because the most affected managers with this new rules are managers from divisions II-III-IV and some V's and most of them we are going to have finanacial problems really soon unless we have luck in cup and we can pass some rounds to stay alive.

And do you know how hard is to be alive on the spanish cup?

As Mr.Mac said im also wainting to hear an explanation about what ways we have different managers from that divisions, because we all know that teams from division I can afford different choices that others cant, so if you were worried for teams from divisions I then im disappointed



Also there is a big difference between outside players and inside players, im a nt coach and i see theres a great difference. A great SG-PG is now more cheap than an inside monster, the difference is bigger now ¡¡¡

So if there isnt a change soon, we are going to see a great imbalance on the game, between the things that Mr.Mac just said and thats the first consequence of your new rule and if the BB's have the feeling that thats the normal complains of some new rules, then this time is different, its a big mistake in economical terms that will affect in a global way on the game.



PD: In terms of poker, all the managers with a good PF/C are obligated to push the button: fold

Last edited by Marot at 3/23/2010 8:44:54 PM

I won't dispute that there's a big gap between PG/SG pay vs PF/C pay. I won't even dispute that it got bigger this season, on a relative basis. But that gap has existed for many many seasons (at least since I started in season 5). That gap was one of the big things that informed my switch from training "bigs" to training "smalls" (along with the overall transfer market conditions in seasons 7/8.

But to say that you can't succeed without training smalls is ludicrous, at least in the middle divisions. The teams I love to play the most are the people with mono-skill defending centers and heavy into guard training, because you know exactly what tactics you're going to see and you can adjust around them. Maybe my finals victim from last season would disagree with me, but I felt going into the series that I was in a vastly superior position, even though we both trained guards and his top trainees were about a season ahead of mine. Why did I feel I was ahead? My team has the tactical flexibility to play most offensive styles, and I had a pretty substantial edge at SF over him and a moderate edge at PF & C.

People that are considering weekly operating profit as the end-all-be-all of economic profit to a team are either choosing to ignore a much better stream of income or don't train effectively and thus don't realize how much money you can make in that endeavor. My top two trainees were purchased two seasons ago in the 300-500k range. Right now, based on their skills, they're probably worth 2.5-3.5M (they don't have a TPE, so my numbers might be off, but for the sake of argument, assume I'm not blowing smoke). That's an increase of at least $2M per trainee in a 28 week period. I single-position train, so I have 3 trainees, with an estimated return to training of $200,000 per week. For the "average USA III.9 team" last season, that's about 4x what the average weekly profit in my league was on the old salary system.

Now, if you want to argue that the overall value to all training will go down because all player prices are going to deflate in light of the economic changes, by all means, put a justification for that forth. My position is that balanced training will actually become more desirable, because the benefit from balanced players will be much higher on an output/salary basis than for "naked center" (or "naked SG") behemoths. But to me, focusing on the reduction in weekly operating profit when that profit makes up less than 20% of the economic gain available to a middle-division team is rather short sighted.

(Not to even get into the argument that weekly operating profit for a middle/lower division team is inefficient anyway.)

-Do you really think that salaries of both kind of players are really fair/equal? No, I don´t. Top PG-SG earn 200-250K, Top PF-C earn 500-600K.
-Do you think most of managers will train the same things and use a kind of pattern? Yes, I do. Do you?

there is .. is because of this I have to "give" a Top Center level and if he had 350k salary I would never sell him.

Top PG in my opinion only need 3 top skills..the outhers going up with the training of keyskills..so I do not see a big difference to the enormity difference in wages



ps: sorry my bad english (google translator :P )

[quoteThe problem is that you´re only talkig about economy and not about its impact on the game. I repeat (again):

-Have you killed PF and C training? I think so, do you?

i don't actually know what you mean exactly by "killed" so i'm not sure how to answer the question

-Have you killed most of managers of III, IV,.... divisions? I think so, do you?

I don't know what you mean by killed again.... managers in those division have a certain level of income, they will have salaries comenserate with the level of income, and when they advance their incomes will go up and their salaries will go up... i fail to see how any salary structure, unless the mininum salaries are too expensive would "kill" any division.

The argument for killing would be that those teams are forever stuck in that division and cannot compete when they advance. What we have done over the last two seasons is make tv money a larger fraction of the revenue source, and reduced that amount that having preinvested in a large arena affects your revenue stream.. thereby making it easier for newly promoted teams to compete.. thereby not killing anybody.

-Have you shown the way to success is training PG-SG? I think so, do you?

i disagree with you, so do some other managers... though really i don't know the answer, i can design the game, but I don't konw the absolute best strategy, we have tried to design the game such that there is no one single dominate strategy. I can say that i see a lot of different training strategies out there... so you might be right that this is the best, but there are still plenty of people who disagree with you.

-Is now possible compete in a long-therm against people who train PG-SG and they have centers monoskill who only defend and get rebounds? No, it´s not. They save loads of money with those kind of monoskill centers and they can train full time PG-SG cause they can earn 200K and that fact won´t be a problem cause those players will have a top level.

this seems to be about the same question as above, so i won't repeat my answer. (that is not meant to be snarky.. i'm just trying to go through your points.

-Do you really think that salaries of both kind of players are really fair/equal? No, I don´t. Top PG-SG earn 200-250K, Top PF-C earn 500-600K.

Basically you are saying that the top big men are more skilled than the top PG and SG... so yes.. they are more expensive.. maybe you are right and because the top PG /SG are not as skilled right now, it makes more sense to train them. But as they get better maybe that will change... i dunno.. i kinda see the answers to these sorts of questions as one of the points of the game.

-Do you think most of managers will train the same things and use a kind of pattern? Yes, I do. Do you?

right now most do not train the same... if that changes i'm sure we will notice. (by most i mean more than 50%.. the are of course some strategies that are more popular than others)

It seems like you tried something but you got another huge thing you did not expect: the end of tactical and versatility spirit.

I don't agree with your assessment... if its true it will be born out and we will react and we will have been wrong.

They´re only questions, you could (and I´d be so pleased) answer.

Bye

Last edited by BB-Forrest at 3/23/2010 9:19:24 PM

First off, the answer to this question is very different in Spain and a smaller country in terms of how long it takes to reach division III and how strong the teams are that have made it there. We've stated many times that division III teams should be weaker than division II teams, etc. However, that's only half the battle - the second goal is that when a team promotes from III to II, they need to be given enough resources that they can stay in II and be competitive. What this means effectively is that teams at the top end cannot be allowed to save massive amounts of money - for a Division II team to stay in II, they need to be forced to spend almost all of their income (on some combination of players, staff, transfers, arenas, etc.) in order to be competitive. As long as this is true, then if a division II manager demotes to III they will have to sell off part of the team and will not simply dominate III. On the other hand, division III managers are competing in a zero-sum game; your comment reminds me of a bit of chess annotation I once saw where the commentator claimed "both sides stand worse". No, it's a zero-sum game! But if you're asking whether you can maintain a division II caliber team in division III? I hope not, because otherwise it's impossible to compete with a team that demotes.

This thing you comment it was happening since season 8. Teams arriving from II to my III was able to keep the same roster and maybe the first season they dindt promote, but the next yes(and i was asking myself how the hell is posible they keep the same roster?(Contract TV).
While the teams arriving from IV just the bests were able to compete(the level was close) and most of the teams they were demoting to IV again. And i was on the middle of the table that seasons(ive been) no promoting, but no demoting. I had to train young players and lot of primary skills to stay competitive, but now what?

TV contract was a big fail which helped in that direction you said, but now teams that always did the right things we are going to get frustrated. Yes, for the first time after 8 seasons on the game im going to go frustrated with the game, managers who keep taking right decisions are penalised again, and specially on Spain where on medium divisions theres a close level.

We will have to sell to be competitive(if not bankrupt coming soon) and we cant keep training because if not salarys are going over us and if you dont train really hard on a close div. III you are demoting to div IV.


So now we are going back, its good the BB's admitt the mistakes, but the new measures arrive late and they arrive on the wrong direction




PD: I was close to become supporter and i was thinking to be it, but im sorry im getting frustrated with the game and disappointed with the economy, i see i wont have a chance never, because on 2-3 seasons a new rule will come and i will get penalised again and again. And its the feeling we all have on Spain(specially medium divisions managers) we are really frustrated, even if we did de right things with a long strategy term.