BuzzerBeater Forums

Maybe the transfer rules could be as the champions league..
Who played in a B3 match with another team and when he transferred an another team, he's ineligible for the B3 matchs..
Just an idea..

Doesn't make much sense on any level. Either you have a large amount of such monsters circulating around, in which case the measure is more or less irrelevant, or you're distorting the market so that the team that bought a given player first have an advantage throughout the tournament.

Maybe the transfer rules could be as the champions league..
Who played in a B3 match with another team and when he transferred an another team, he's ineligible for the B3 matchs..
Just an idea..

Doesn't make much sense on any level. Either you have a large amount of such monsters circulating around, in which case the measure is more or less irrelevant, or you're distorting the market so that the team that bought a given player first have an advantage throughout the tournament.

What kind of team would sustain $ 1 080 848 salaries only for two big mans for an entire season
Are you joking?

My comment is semi-irrelevant because I think there is a large amount of "divine" players and your case (a) holds.

But I think your argument is severely mistaken and unfair in case (b). If there is a small amount of "divine" players, the teams that use them first have an advantage, no doubt. But it's not unfair. They have had the player when it didn't matter so much (e.g. the early rounds). Now they have a choice whether to keep him for the late rounds and pay the extra salary (as steve karenn suggests) or get rid of him, but no one else would be able to pick him up within the same season.

I think this suggestion isn't crazy, but it's a rather odd special case of the "freeze rosters" option, which I still prefer (e.g. especially in a format like: freeze rosters after week 3).

My comment is semi-irrelevant because I think there is a large amount of "divine" players and your case (a) holds.

But I think your argument is severely mistaken and unfair in case (b). If there is a small amount of "divine" players, the teams that use them first have an advantage, no doubt. But it's not unfair. They have had the player when it didn't matter so much (e.g. the early rounds). Now they have a choice whether to keep him for the late rounds and pay the extra salary (as steve karenn suggests) or get rid of him, but no one else would be able to pick him up within the same season.

I think this suggestion isn't crazy, but it's a rather odd special case of the "freeze rosters" option, which I still prefer (e.g. especially in a format like: freeze rosters after week 3).

I also think that the "freeze rosters" option is superior.

But I don't see how option (b) can be viable in any form or shape. You're forgetting one critical aspect of the strategic options: "recycling" as many "divine" players as they can in the early rounds to make sure that they won't be surprised in later rounds. I don't see how this situation is superior.

It means that basically in the late round the teams will arrive with the final structure of their roster that they structured during the course of the season,because the best divine players would be out of the game

It means that basically in the late round the teams will arrive with the final structure of their roster that they structured during the course of the season,because the best divine players would be out of the game

If this is the desired result of the policy (as I think we all agree), one can just introduce a B3 transfer deadline, and be done with it.

Or there might be a salary cap for the team lineup which would be the same for everyone. So if it would be 1M and you bought a 500k center, you have just 500k at disposal for everyone else. That sounds to me more like a multiskill issue than like a NT monster event thing.