BuzzerBeater Forums

I see what you are saying. It doesn't really answer why the habit of selling the huge salaried guys is wrong. It instead addresses the factors that lead up to what I was asking about, and as such, I think what you say makes sense. However, I disagree with setting a salary cap for players. If someone wants to train irresponsibly, we should not legislate against that. I don't want BB to decide what I can or can't train. Also, allowing players to improve after their salary gets to a cap is not a solution that I agree with.

I will give you an example similar to your Lamborghini example but more apropos to what happens here. In Pattaya many tourists come with wads of cash. They go to the motorcycle shop and rent the biggest bike they can find. Then they spend a week roaring around with a different girl on the back every day. They wake up one morning and realize they have spent all their cash so they take the big bike back and rent a Yamaha 110 for the rest of their vacation.

Not something I am interested in doing, but something that happens.

I see what you are saying. It doesn't really answer why the habit of selling the huge salaried guys is wrong.

Okay, I finally understand what you are asking for.

In the real world the most expensive players are at the same time the biggest cash cows - Ronaldo cost Real Madrid a fortune and made them more than that from merchandise sales in his first season.

Here, the biggest players are huge liabilities, part of that because you dont need them because a cheaper player can do the job too (cracking a nut with a sledgehammer) and because the price/performance ratio becomes terrible once you reach a certain point.

Imo the best players should be the most expensive ones, the easiest way to achieve this would be to limit the salaries - maybe there are other options that I dont think of...

The game leaves many open paths, it could be more restrictive.
In a sense, we are trusted by the creators to make sensible decisions most of the time.

This is something I liked about BB from the beginning. I know I am stupid to think that but I believe the game creators didn't want a game where the player would be assisted too much in his decision-making and babysat. Instead, they assume a pre-conception that the player is an intelligent individual, capable of judgement. Of course, the player will make mistakes, sometimes many mistakes. As an intelligent person, he will be able to identify and correct them after a while. It's normal to make mistakes, it's part of the learning process. You make mistakes, you understand them and correct them.

There could be a hard cap on training, it would make sense, physical limits, age, etc... all this concur in stop skills improvement at one point.
But there is not. You are trusted to understand that it is not your interest to continue training a player past some point.

What follows is from a franchise point of view. NT players make this irrelevant but let's forget about NT players for now.
You say it yourself. Salary too high. Transfer fee too low.
Your question is why can't I keep the player when it should be why should I continue to train him ?
This situation arise from the fact that you didn't identify the consequence of this extra training. Or that you chose to ignore it expecting a rule change.
The game treats you like a grown-up. It didn't stop you from continuing his training. You were expected to think about what you were doing.
You are empowered and given room to do your own way and your own stuff. Some like to win, some like to train, some like to trade, some like to test the GE, some like to flood the suggestions forum ^^

BB isn't a nanny state with rules designed to protect you from hurting yourself. You are an intelligent individual with free will. Go, live, make your own mistakes, learn. Yes, boiled water burns, I warned you, now you know :)

Because it was possible to overtrain doesn't mean that you had to. You are reversing the problem when you ask, now that my player is overtrained, why can't I... ? The problem should have been thought about before in anticipation. This is what managing is about.

It makes sense to be able to overtrain a player. It is based on a concept that is a cornerstone for the game genre. You can do stuff, even some very unwise stuff. It's your role to make the calls.

Okay. I get it now. Again, while I basically agree with you, I also see how many times the best players are not the most expensive. Look up Barry Zito. (As a lifelong SF Giants fan, I cringe just writing the name...)

In my opinion, the onus is on the trainers to get the most productive/cost effective players and on the managers to let salary monsters die. Now I guess that for NT the salary monster really is better than the multi-skilled so there are people willing to take one for the NT in order to keep these guys floating. I was Thai NT coach for long long time but never had a monster on the team, so I don't know. I do know that people like JosefKa have trained a salary monster and kept him on their own team. He is one of the most expensive playesr and one of the best, so it is possible. I do wish that there could be some sort of clarification that a multi-skilled will actually outperform a monster, but that's not the BBs way of doing things,a nd it doesn't seem to be true at the top end of the training scale. Luckily, for the majority of the users players with salaries under 20k are the norm, and in those cases a multi-skilled palyer is defintiely better than a monskilled player. I know because I won several titles ealry on with team salaries far less than the teams I beat.

Instead of calling for training players endlessly without an increase of salary (after a certain point), it would in my opinion help to be able to exclude players from training. That way I could play my dominant C on his natural position and still be able to train inside skills. Or keep my PG playing as a PG and still be able to train 2 other players in passing.

It´s the one thing that really annoys me at BB:
- When training a player: You have to play him out of position a lot of the time for training purpose.

- Once you think he is done: You often have to take him out of position again to avoid training and therefore an increase in salary you couldn´t afford. That´s ridiculous.

Rich people can own a couple of Lambos and still do well financially. Its not like they would buy on at the beginning of the month and sell him again at the end of the month because they found out it was too expensive.

i would compare it more betwen 2 similiar cars, where one is owned by a tuner and the other by a regular guy. The tuner put a lot of money into his car, but when the car get selled the regular guy get more money even when the tuner put a lot of effort into reducing the heigth of the car, making a nice paintjob and replacing several parts of the car.

Yes paying dude more for what they bring on the court would be nice, but that is hard to to do to measure everything correct. So it is in responsibility for the trainer, to tune their players in a reasonable or good way.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 2/9/2012 7:45:35 AM

International Centers (salary 230-270) been sold for less than 500K.

I´m gonna start to think BB is almost death, this is indigne!

And more...I just sold a C 25yo, 101K salary, trainable and normal secondary skills (no 1 and 2, JS and Driving 8), Reb 17, IS 15, ID 15...for 625K.

If we keep a market of big men like this...we can be closing the door and throwing the key to the river.

It´s like if Lakes said: I don´t wanna get Howard for Bynum, I´ve to pay Kobe and Gasol....yeah, sure...ridiculous.

But why don't you buy more of those centers if they are good and cheap ?

They are cheap because there are too many of them compared to the number of teams in need for them and capable of sustaining their salary.
They should naturally retire in large numbers and the problem would be solved but this process is impaired by NTs, people trying to speculate on their selling price and reckeless newbies.

You are an unhappy seller but soon a happy buyer.