BuzzerBeater Forums

I suggest that we can have a limit of player Salaries or a salary cap like NBA.Because some palyers (especially Chinese players) like buying some well-paid players after a store of several seasons,and their money is much enough to hold on one or two seasons though the outcome is much more than income.If a lot of players do so,the game will be boring.In B3, I hope to see more fantastic games but not a team with high salary sweep its rival。

Actually if a lot of the players will do so the game will become more interesting, as the rich teams would lose money. You need to drag out the money reserves of the "old ones" in order to make the team more competitive, and a salary cap is in the end both protecting the big money of some teams aswell as erasing competition on top, as all top teams might look more or less the same when operating at the brink of the cap.

Just think about it - if you have 200 Teams around the world who can either pay the full cap (losing maybe only 10% of their stock money every season) or go on a spending spree losing 60% a season, what do you think will happen with the 200 teams easily paying the max salaries and still not losing money quick enough for other teams to catch up?

And if you have those 200 teams all operating a let´s just say 1.000.000 salary roster, play LI and m2m, wouldn´t you think the teams would become so equal that it´s just about those random injuries and maybe game shape and homecourt, and not at all about "freak rosters" and mad scientist tactits?

Assume that the limit of player Salariesthe for 1.300,000.
I think that B3 will become more interseting.

There is a huge difference between limiting the salary each player can get and a Salary-cap.

The first just lowers the salaries, and by that giving another advantage to those old teams.

Salary-cap, on the other hand, make the game more competitive, as all will have (almost) the same value of players.
Of course that a proper definition is needed in order of allowing new teams to be able to pay that amount and still to improve their team's future revenue. and on the other hand, not to make it just about them and allowing the richer teams on each division able (but less) to compete on B3.

There are few suggestion threads on that topic that I've opened.

Turbato, one of the best player in BB, has been sold for 276k to a IV Spanish team with only 2 players.

Wow, I totally missed that one - almost made me puke.

In a few seasons owners might have to pay to get rid of those players...

So one will get much more skill for much less money???
Not sound the right way to close a deal.

In case one keeps improving a player, and cannot pay him, he should decide whether to fire/sell him, or others.

He also can decide to train him less, and don't get to this situation.

In any case, there should not be salary reduction, unless his salary is above something (any) team could pay.
On those case, it means that the skill cap should be changed, and not the salary for those players.

Another argument in favor of opposing the "salary reduction" is that as lower division teams cannot afford all of the players in the market, the same should be the case with higher divisions' teams.

A player like Turbato has had his salary cut by a third already if not more.

Where do you put a limit ? How much is acceptable ?