BuzzerBeater Forums

I didn't pay for him, not because of his price, but because of his salary, still too high. Paying cash something at one moment is acceptable, you know what you pay, but I would to put up with his salaries for at least 30 weeks and that would have cost me a lot.

Just curious, couldn't you have replaced one of your backups with that player? That would offset some or most of his salary... (For example, if your old player made $15k... just get rid of a backup with a similar salary?).

On the other hand, what's 30*383$ ? Nothing since he will eat some minutes also during scrimmage. And the 100.000$ paid for that guy is on the high end of that market and to be honest I hope it will not go much higher either. Because there is people playing with that market and that, in my opinion, is bad. Because they are using outside the game rationality to win inside the game.

Well the team that bought "player A" spent over $450,000 for similar players in the past 2 days. That's a lot of money upfront.

About your market point, how about limiting the amount of money a team can make from selling those types of players? So if someone buys a 50 year old for $200,000.... the selling team only gets to keep $50,000. Or something similar. (& The rest goes to BB). That would solve your concerns I think.

About your market point, how about limiting the amount of money a team can make from selling those types of players? So if someone buys a 50 year old for $200,000.... the selling team only gets to keep $50,000. Or something similar. (& The rest goes to BB). That would solve your concerns I think.

IMO - tinkering with the transfer market for all these 'odd' scenario's is risky business.

In real life, these events happen. Think of BETA video cassettes. they are worth RIDICULOUS amounts of money now, because of their 'antique' value.
There is no harm for people paying $100k for a 40 year old. Its not like it affects other sales directly. and the age range is so high that it shouldn't affect the Transfer Price estimate of other 'legitimate' sales, because seriously, how many 'legitimate' purcahses of 40 year olds are there in this game? none.

so yer. leave it be! If the market wants to pay that much for him, then let it.

yep sorry i replied to the wrong message. all good though!

He was 47, foul prone and atrocious in every skill category. I shall henceforth refer to this player as "player A."

All-atrocious players are rare. Somebody wanted to have his collectible item. He wasn't bought to impact the floor where player B and C would outplay him bad. You are judging too much by the skills.

Last edited by Koperboy at 9/26/2013 8:31:04 AM

Somebody wanted to have his collectible item. He wasn't bought to impact the floor

That's often true. But this team quickly bought 5 similar players in 2 days.
So seems like it actually was made to impact the floor! Probably wants to use an "as bad as possible" lineup or something...

There is no harm for people paying $100k for a 40 year old.

so yer. leave it be! If the market wants to pay that much for him, then let it.

IMO - tinkering with the transfer market for all these 'odd' scenario's is risky business.

The GM brought up the concern. All I did was offer a potential solution.

I don't understand the "risk" though? Can you elaborate? Seems there is none. Sales wouldn't be prevented. People could bid $1 million for a 50 year old if they wanted. If there's true demand, nothing will change. Other than some of the money going to BB instead of shady sellers. (Why do you want to protect shady sellers?)

Also, you realize that if there was true demand... you couldn't buy a scrub for $5k, then sell him for $100k 2 weeks later! As you couldn't have bought him for $5k in the first place.

Its not like it affects other sales directly.

Well, using your logic, neither would a specific rule limiting profits on players over 45? Or on players making under $1000 per week. Game manual already implies says that it's pretty much illegal anyway. So why would you, or anyone else get upset? I've probably got more of these players than anyone, & wouldn't be mad about BB capping my profits should I sell.

In real life, these events happen. Think of BETA video cassettes. they are worth RIDICULOUS amounts of money now, because of their 'antique' value.

The value of antiques doesn't oscillate 10000% from week to week. You don't go to an auction, & buy a tape of "Back to the Future" for $5. Then go back to the same auction site in 2 weeks and sell it for $200! Then next month buy another for $5. And so on. (BTW, glancing at ebay... Betamax tapes seem really cheap? Both real movies & home tapes? )

well firstly, i didnt check how much betamax tapes were going for on ebay, i was just using that as an example to highlight my point.
of which was the fact the betamax tapes selling for whatever price, doesn't affect the price of VHS/DVD/Blueray.. anything else, other than betamax.

surprised that they are cheap though?

anyways.....I say 'risky business' not so much for the transfer market, but more for the integrity of the game......., because eonce you make the rule '40 year olds who are selling above $100k are capped profit'... or whatever .... it leaves BB open for more and more 'subtle rule changes'.... suddenly everyone will want Hof'mer draftee's capped at $2m, scrubs with announcer shouldnt sell for more than $1k, you can't fire a player who just scored 50 pts, players can't have a salary above $200k etc etc etc....
So thats what i refer to as 'risky business'. im just not a big fan of making all these subtle little rule changes to suit a specific thing, which has little if any impact on the game, it just leads to more and more.

which i guess answers the rest of ur comments - I agree with what ur saying, i dont particularly disagree with your solution..., i just don't want little 'rules' made here n there in this game, particularly with the transfer market.

also - just found a Mint condition sony betamax player, AU$500. hilarious haha.

alright, i gotcha.
Kind of a "slippery slope" thing...

I guess one would need faith that they'd only enact rules in a very limited fashion. And only in super obvious situations. TBH, never even considered any potential bleed-over from this case. (The "old guy market" is basically off in its own universe IMO.)

You do have valid fears though.


Last edited by shikago at 9/26/2013 10:55:03 AM

But this team quickly bought 5 similar players in 2 days.
So seems like it actually was made to impact the floor! Probably wants to use an "as bad as possible" lineup or something...

Could he be going for an Achievement? (Team over or under a certain age)