BuzzerBeater Forums

Be grateful this isn't a baseball sim - you wouldn't know half the ages on your roster.

As a silly reply I'll say :
We would if this is CSFBL, a baseball sim.

Here is your quote...

Except that you are comepletely wrong that ALL PLAYERS are drafted. Every team starts with 15 players, so the vast majority of players are not drafted at all. Every team was new once and every team started with 15 players.

Here is what I said...

you have to realize that (except for new teams) ALL PLAYERS were drafted.

Reading comprehension is very low here (not to mention the spelling is comepletely terrible). Do we have non-english forum members or just attract a certain breed?

My point was that the majority of TRAINABLE players received on the market were drafted. You can try to refute that, but I am confident the statistics would be on my side here.

Surprise! You actually do have non-english forum members in BB GLOBAL lol ...Also, some people suffer from dyslexia (a read/write dysfunction). Just sayin'

It can be, but I've had a lot of talent come to my team through the draft that I would not have been able to purchase on the market.

One of my best players, a defensive specialist, (5654515), came to me through the draft because of my scouting. Especially now that you can search the market by potential (you couldn't before, which made it easier to find bargains like Carl Glodowski on my roster), a Hall-of-Famer will certainly cost more than the cost to your scouting department. Then again, I should probably tell everyone not to scout so I will get the best players!

Wow! An amazingly rude and condescending reply. Thanks. I apologize for spelling completely wrong. Every team in this game was, at one time, a new team. Which means that every team in this league, some 50000 teams or so, began with 15 undrafted players. That would mean that any team starting in season 4 or later still has more undrafted players than drafted ones. Your point, as I understood it, said nothing about players being TRAINABLE. Way to A) be a jerk, do some revisionist editing, and C) be a hypocrite. You ought to learn the rules of capitalization before trying to come off as some erudite forum snob.

Apologize for coming off condescendingly (even though I did it on purpose). Good call on the bb-GLOBAL, as well. Thought this was American (or english primary) forums, seeing as how I never noticed any foreign characters.

That said, I took offense to your original post declaring that I was "COMPLETELY" wrong on my well thought out reply and said nothing about my main point. Even moreso as your post just rehashed something I had clearly stated. I think that deserves a reply and I have seen worse than 2 condescending sentences.

The main point of this thread was about the draft system being boring and in need of a redesign. I was replying in this thread to a fellow who felt the draft system was not useful, because people just use the transfer list to find trainees. My thought process was that the majority of the players you find on the transfer list (Trainable, as we were talking about the draft, not the core makeup of a team) were from another leagues draft (with the exception to new teams' players).

If you are going to reply, here is my main point: You can spend 280k for 3 players a week and try to get lucky with a good pick, or you can pocket it and pay much more for a good transfer trainee. There is a trade off. Thats all I was trying to say, though I could have phrased it better.

Good point. A team's draft position and the number of active teams in the league are the two limiting factors in this decision. If you are league champion in a league with 15 other active managers, the draft is probably not going to bring you an instant windfall ( superstar+ potential ). If you are in the bottom third of your league or in a league with a lot of bots, I would say spend the max on scouting and reap the rewards.

As far as my initial post to you, I'm sorry not only to have spelled "completely" wrong but to have used it at all. It was harsher than I meant it to be.