BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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?"

I'm going to say I hope so, but I can't guarantee it.

Short term you are screwed. I'm gonna eat your butthole tomorrow!


Edju, I think you guys need to be working harder on this scouting thing.I'm starting to wonder what a normal day is like for a BB.

Short term you are screwed. I'm gonna eat your butthole tomorrow!


Edju, I think you guys need to be working harder on this scouting thing.I'm starting to wonder what a normal day is like for a BB.

I'm just happy that someone thinks we're normal.