BuzzerBeater Forums

What a d-bag. I'm going all out against you when we play. Maybe I'll get within 20 points of you.

Hit me up on AIM when you can - 8/14 is fast approaching

Your loss on 8/7 comes first.

Point being you received/had money, bought some trainees and now you're arguably one of the top teams in the league.
He received some money, did not get noticeably better and has no apparent long term plan.

i really feel i dont have to justify myself to you, since you're team looks f***ed long term, but why not.

when i sold off last season i had 10 mil in the bank. i also had an overdue need to change trainer/pr manager/etc. The last two are cheap the first isnt.

i still had some saleable assets. there were 3 scenarios i was facing with the 10 mil.

1) player prices crash. if this happens. quite rightly i should have not only sold off 10 mil of players, i should have sold off EVERYONE, i kept my best two guards which could have been another 3 or so mil each, a mediocreish center and some useful depth pieces. Lets say i raise 18 mil and am left with no one with a salary over 6k. In that case if prices crash by half my 18 mil isnt worth 36 mil (since wages are the same), but i can buy alot more player for sure.

THis is what i thought would happen. It was my feeling wih the aging of all the good players at once (remember season 4 or 5 trainign speed was stupidly fast, and the best players were getting old)

I couldnt prove this though. Talked to some people i respect in this forum and more offline, so i didnt plan for this scenario

2) player prices stay the same. this would be caused by an increasingly juicy sponsorship/tv/what have you deal. The end of season announcements seemed to point that potential direction, with wage reductions etc. In which case there is an economic advantage to being competitive in whatever division you are in (ticket sales/merch etc!), and at the same time, i could rebuild with my 10 mil more effectively.

3) player prices go up dramatically (i think at this point that could really only be caused by buzzerbeater doubling in membership. Since i dont see bb adds on ussmariner.com anymore or a few other sites), i figured that WOULDNT happen.

i planned for mostly #2. i sold most of my old players, put most of the money into a 23 something with friendly wages who i can occasionally give one-one training to and jump shot training (he needs it most as a pf, the wages are quite low for the huge skill set)

i bought a center who was younger, same wages, and almost 2x as good as ortega. I kept my best merchandise players.

i drafted an excellent trainee, whatever all y'all think witht he #2 pick (i was really planning to sell him and buy a guard)

i have a plan. i will be ok.

You're right, you don't have to justify yourself to me. However, I can assure you I am decidedly not F-ed long term.

In the spirit of healthy conversation I will say that I am a little confused with why prices crashed a little bit. Wages went down and income stayed the same at worst or went up at best. So more money in the pot = higher prices right? Or did the lower wages, higher income cause more people to hold onto their guys, limiting demand for replacement players?

I also highly doubt you bought someone 2x as good as Ortega. How do you measure the scale of "goodness?"

In the spirit of healthy conversation I will say that I am a little confused with why prices crashed a little bit. Wages went down and income stayed the same at worst or went up at best. So more money in the pot = higher prices right? Or did the lower wages, higher income cause more people to hold onto their guys, limiting demand for replacement players?

I'm not 100% sure on this, but here's my theory. Even though wages went down overall, there are more high salary players in the game now than a few seasons ago. So there's two competing factors affecting salaries: (1) good players are moving into the "really expensive" category since many, many users have figured out effective training regiments, and (2) a global downward adjustment of wages.

While this works overall, it's not evenly distributed among all teams. I'd guess that (1) disproportionately affects the higher division teams, since it's the players that already have pretty high salaries and are being trained that get the real exponential salary increases (e.g. 100k->300k), and those players tend to be on teams with the higher division incomes. Factor (2) basically hits all teams, and while it's still bigger for higher salaried teams, I don't think it's quite the same exponential relationship that we see with training. The net effect, I think, is that the higher salaried teams get hit harder, since they're bearing a larger portion of the training-based salary increases, compared to the portion of the wage reduction that they see. So the teams that usually have money to spend, well, don't. And the teams that had less to spend have a bit more, but still not enough to maintain transfer prices for top-tier players.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this--if I'm following correctly, it should be a pretty effective balancing technique for preventing upper division teams from running a way from the d3/d4 types--but I think the side effect is that fewer individual teams have huge amounts of cash, so there's no one left to prop up the high-end of the transfer market.

Of course, I could be completely wrong...

I agree.... in simpler terms (in simpler minds, my own) I think there has always been roughly a "budget ceiling" You know, basically what could we all afford. and in the last few years, some managers here are running into it and finding that they need to solve it any which way before it takes them down. Training up good players like we all do, and buying/owning good players like we all do is part of our competitive arms race... but the long term finances begin to impede.

one also overlooked point, is it is really easy to train up a reasonable center. almost every team at this point has 2 or 3.

when i was shopping for players starting about last year, i think we finally saw the point on the curve where an ostensibly better player went for less money due to salary concerns.

so if you decide you dont want a salary above xxx, then you need to find the best skills to fit there (part fo the reason i hated ortega was most of his salary was tied up in shotblocking, which for whatever its mystical categories, isnt as useful as say, inside defense)

so really, with the glut of centers especially, but also other easy to train players, i think prices naturally were a candidate to fall. some teams were ahead of the curve and started training super players with only 70k salaries (sharman had a few)
i think there is still value in that, but soon there won't be as much value as before (but its still better than just training 4 inside skills evenly, and watching salaries skyrocket for a big man who cant catch dribble or shoot from outside of 3 feet)

I can assure you I am decidedly not F-ed long term.

So, being 4 games south of .500 is all part of the plan?

I didn't actually come here to troll Hambone in the previous post, but it happened.

What I meant to say was (to you, specifically) "So will this scouting doohickey be ready to roll next week during ASW?"

Long term? Yes.