BuzzerBeater Forums

Your proposition is well explained, but your poll is rubbish....

lol, the poll was just a joke. (i'm well aware of that part.)

C'mon, Kobe's miles above a $10k player (an elite superstar, even if he is in decline). In BuzzerBeater he's probably one of the few highest salaried guards. I'm talking about college backup level players if you want to go real world. Also since you brought up the Lakers, they could have negotiated a contract with say one of their D-league players for a *substantially* reduced rate. You don't think a marginal D-League player (not even close to NBA caliber) would take a guaranteed 50 year minimal contract over trying to make an overseas team (& probably getting cut)?? That's plain crazy & not "realistic" to quote you.

Deffered payment in professional sports is a common practice. And there's plenty of pro players take a far lesser salary to stick around with their team. Even STAR level players (who aren't even eligible in my proposal) . Kerry Wood made over $10 million dollars last season, but chose to come back to the Cubs for 1/10th of that salary despite higher offers from contending teams. But he has a job with the team for life if he wants it (& by many accounts he does). There's also a baseball player that retired in 2001 that is still getting paid through 2035. Yes, 2035.

Also, I don't see what this all would hurt...
What negative effect will this have on your team, or the game as a whole?

Anyway, in the real world you can keep fan favorites around forever as basically ambassadors/mascots. It happens all the time, in every major sport. All 5 major professional sports teams in Chicago do it. NBA, both MLB teams, NHL, etc..

Last edited by shikago at 9/12/2011 10:03:48 PM

Are you talking about Sam Mills (6494388)? He will most definitely have under 5k salary next season and you could retire him. If it's Charlie Yoder (6626395) I understand your concern. But with his salary he should at least be a suitable backup player in the early cup rounds.

To come back to your suggestion - maybe one could implement an extra option to retire a player if he has played for - let's say two seasons/ 44 games (the same amount to be put into the HoF). Then one could be pretty sure that no one would use this option to harm NT rosters or anything ... you would have to pay 300k for over two seasons in order to retire that player permanently. But everyone else could just retire his beloved players and not have them play for another team or just burning money.

Well I wasn't really thinking of any specific player I have now. Thinking more about players I've already fired long ago. Or maybe players I'd like to keep sometime in the future.

Yes, Sam Mills is my last original player, but I don't mind paying the $5k really. He'd still be usable, just I need those minutes to train younger players. Charlie Yoder is really valuable (gets 11 game ratings when in good game shape). But again, I need minutes to train others. I had been using him in the cup before this season.

Yeah, that's a good # of games you suggest. Just like qualifying for the Hall-of-Fame. & since it would be only older, low salary players, there is no chance to harm NT rosters, or do anything else harmful either.

If Kobe wants to go play for the Kings or move to China and play there, nothign LA can do about it once his contract with them is done. NOthing. This is realistic. Pay his slaary, trade (transfer) or fire.

I have no idea where you think this system your are suggesting actually ahppens in the real world. It just plain doesnt happen.

Look -- in the past firing a player equaled the player "choosing" to retire. Just as you equate the transfer list with "trading". (LOL, Is every single NBA transaction "cash only"?) Regardless it's not like BuzzerBeater is hyper-realistic. Can you imagine a team signing a 27 year old Michael Jordan then flat out firing him after a week? only to have another team sign him for a few weeks, then firing him because they couldn't afford him, etc...? Also, take the flood of free agents last year in the NBA. (like Lebron James). Cleveland continued paying his contract, why was he allowed to leave? In BuzzerBeater a team "owns" him as long as they pay him each week.

Why don't your highest paid players have guaranteed contracts? Since they don't, why are you allowed to force them to stay in Japan as long as you wish against their will? Why can't an NBBA team or an even better league's team just take Mathias Budiarso (8195984) away from you at the end of the week? Or at least force you to double his salary to have him decide to stay with you?

Players decide if/when they want to retire and how much the play for etc. Hence the lockout.

Actually a lockout is where the owners hold the power & eventually end up dictating salaries, contracts terms, and so on. The players have very little leverage or power against a lockout in most cases.

I'm not sure the change would really have too big an impact, its just a poinless/weird/needless thing.

Ok, that's a fair opinion. & I completely respect that.
Personally I don't see how having a player remain with your team (or retire w/ your team) is any more pointless than having a Hall-of-Fame. And seeing as how retirement recently changed, I just made what would seem to be an easy to implement suggestion.

I think it's pretty simple. If he is still usable, over the treshold and get's picked up, then why should he not play the game? If you want your team to be the last one to own him, then pay his salary until he is under the treshold and retire him. Players above the treshold are usually usable in early rounds of the cup + we have an option to put players in the hall of fame. List him there and let him go.

haha, it seems that all the LA's are against me...

well I understand if people think it's weird or pointless. or have zero interest in it. but i honestly don't see why there were be actual opposition to it...? it harms no-one but the team voluntarily choosing it...

Appreciate the response!

Guess I meant "no harm" as in there's not much potential for cheating or abuse of it...
also really didn't think it would hurt those people you mention either. Seeing as how prior to season 17 those players wouldn't be on the TL anyway. (This wouldn't be taking high demand players off the market that have always been there...)

Also, how useful is a $7k 33 year old in awful game shape -- post all-star break ? Doubt teams would sign one half a season in advance. (I know, you'll probably say, "well then just fire them & let no one sign them"...)

Lastly you'd still be paying all his money eventually. It's save a little now, pay it back & more later. For example, in Season 40 you'll still be paying him! (& more $ than if his skills declined!) So the money part isn't unfair when you think about it long-term.

but there are a lot of suggestion who wouldn't harm anybody, and didn't force you to choose it around here. but when they all get implemented the page is overloaded, and the BB waste times with options who have at least in my eyes very few value. Or in this case could be even confusing, when the option appear just on a minority of players

ok, that's a really good point. you're right, didn't think of that.
+1 ball