BuzzerBeater Forums

I have always been told to be leery of keeping and by 30+ players. While I admit younger players give you a great future, they are just so expensive. I will still be training guards for a few more years so do I buy the older, cheaper big men or try and save up enough money to buy a younger one that will last awhile? The price difference is really huge. What are your thoughts?

I think you should look for older big men, in the 30-32 range. Beyond 32 they start dropping skills, so I would rather avoid those. I would imagine that you would need big men with salaries below 20k (maybe even below 15k?), so you should try to get cheap vets in the transfer list.

You can estimate if it's worth it or not. Let's assume a 30 year-old guy costs 200k and a 26 year-old guy with the same exact salary costs 600k, and assume they both sell for 100k once they get to 33. The 26 y.o. gives you six seasons, and costs 500k in total (600 you paid minus the 100 you get back), whereas you need three 30 y.o. guys for those six seasons, and each costs 100k (200 you pay minus the 100 you get back), so 300k in total. In this case it would be cheaper to buy older guys and then replace them. It's just an example, you can get a better idea using the real estimates.

Skills don't drop until 33.

When you are buying, bidding price obviously matters but so does salary.

As long as the player is 32 and younger, I've found it easy enough to sell what I originally paid.

Be patient on the transfer wire. Have a set figure you want to spend. If it is beyond that, several users are involved in a buying war, or the player isn't home grown, wait for the next one.

You can also consider keeping the player past 33. Can he be a valuable backup even if he sheds a few skills during the year? If he is coming off the bench, it's a lot cheaper to just keep him vs. selling for really low and buying a younger bench player just to take his place.

Go with the old guys for sure. Read this for more info: (225889.1)

I subscribe to a general school of thought on this: Value per Year.

Lets take two examples:

Example A: Player 1 is 27 and sells for 425k. Player 2 sells for 180k and is 32, and similar players subsequently sell for 180k.

In this example, i like player 1. He'll last me at least the next 5.5 seasons, whereas player 2 will last me at least the next 2. The first year of declining skills is not so bad that it detracts me from keeping him most of the time at a D.IV level. What i do is i say "What is the long term cost?". In player 1's case, lets just say he's useful for 6 full seasons. that's 425/6, or roughly 71k per year. Player 2 is likely just as good, but at 90k a season, I'll have to buy at least 3 players to reach the same amount of time covered by the one. And it's not necessarily a guarantee i can get him for 90k per season rates the rest of the way (it could be 70k or 110k for comparable players based on changes in the market).

Example B: Player 1 is 27 and sells for 800k. Player 2 sells for 70k and is 34. In this case, player 2 typically is a declining superstar player of the same caliber that player 1 is, minus those few skill sets that left him at 33. but he only costs me 70k for the one season. The younger player costs me 133k a season. I feel like in this case i'd be comfortable picking and choosing veterans for the next 6-7 seasons rather than spending 800k for a similar young player based on the difference in valuations.

I think because of this example, you have to really decide for yourself how much value per season the larger priced younger player is going to cost you. Additional considerations are usually revolving around how long until a replacement is ready (lets say your developing just 2 guys at PG and you want a starter caliber for the few games to get you out of relegation as one example), and the general age of the rest of the team (if you have 1 starter at age 31+ it might make more sense to get an older guy than say 3-4 guys at age 31+ on your team).

I think guys right at 32 are the worst to buy. Teams tend to think that they are still worth something because the have 1 full ratings year left. 33-34 guys drop off in price drastically, and are usually smarter buys as long as a few drops over the course of one season doesn't impact you too much. A lot of times a player at age 34 with the exact same ratings will be 4 times cheaper based on my analysis of the trade market than guys that are 32. Is that oneish year worth 4 times payment? not usually.

Hopefully this helps.

Your examples don't work for a number of reasons:

First, you are assuming a value drop to 0 for any age 33+ player the year after you use them, which is obviously not the case. In the first example if both players would sell for 80k at 33 then the older player is actually cheaper per year.

Second, in focusing only on cost per year, you are ignoring opportunity cost and the time-value of money. 100k saved now is worth substantially more than 100k four seasons from now, because if you invest that money in your stadium it could easily return 150k in that time period (plus the future value of the seats). This is a massive disadvantage for younger players where you pay a large up front cost to save you money down the road.

There are more things you are leaving out as well. I suggest you look at the thread I linked earlier for a more detailed analysis.

It doesn't matter what the valuation is after 33. Is my 27 year old in 6 seasons going to drop absurdly different than my 32 year old in 2 seasons? You want to challenge me with some statistics you can, but i'd gander that only in certain circumstances is this true. Then there's another assumption made that at some year after acquisition the price might be right that you can sell said older player for nearly the cost per year that you got him for. There's no guarantee that either player upon hitting 33, 34, or the point at which the player no longer holds value that there will be a good market for him.

On the time-value of money, that argument only works assuming that the owner has a clue what they are doing. If i look down the first few leagues of division 4, i can run out of fingers real fast counting the number of teams that either sell out every game because they don't build enough, and a smaller but still solid percentage that have not hit capacity in some time because they either don't have the right prices or have expanded to ridiculous proportions and wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars short term. Sure, at some point the investment helps, but it could just as easily be as dead money as the money spent on a 27 year old.

I'm not saying your theory is worse than mine, but just like my argument yours is both full of hypothetics and excludes potential market and team conditions. Its a situation by situation analysis that needs to be made based on what team you are looking at.100% conditional.

It doesn't matter what the valuation is after 33.

It absolutely does matter, because it is not the cost per year that matters, it is the drop in value per year that matters. As long as the player is worth more than $0 on the market at the end of the time period you are looking at, it is a crucial part of the calculation. Your calculations are only valid if all players drop to 0$ value at 33+ which is obviously not the case as these players can always be sold for something. The less time you own a player the more important this becomes, so while it may not be too big of a deal on a 27 year old, it makes a big difference in calculating the real value of a 32 year old.

On the time-value of money, that argument only works assuming that the owner has a clue what they are doing.

Actually this argument is important even assuming the manager sucks. The manager doesn't need to get max value out of money they spend, they just need to get any value. More expensive players on average have more salary efficient builds which saves money, and even on horribly managed team the average value of new stadium seats is more than 0.

I'm not saying your theory is worse than mine, but just like my argument yours is both full of hypothetics and excludes potential market and team conditions. Its a situation by situation analysis that needs to be made based on what team you are looking at.100% conditional.

No model is perfect, but that does not mean they are all equal. My model (as it appears my other thread, haven't said anything about my model in this one) accounts for some very important things yours doesn't and is thus more accurate.

Last edited by w_alloy at 10/14/2012 5:00:48 PM

I'm really not interested in fighting with you, so i'll speak in general to anyone who actually wants to read someone else's suggestion for what they are. Hopefully they aren't so elitist when considering someone else's opinion, or at least aren't interested in whether it's 100% to their liking:

The reason why i suggest value is moot at a given point, whether it be 0 or some random value, is because i assume one thing between the 27 year old in my example and the 32-33 year old. Regardless of how useful they are after 32-33, if they were the same skill-set at the time of acquisition then when they hit decline most of the time they'll be in the same sort of value range. Therefore, it's not that i discount the fact that a player might not be capable of helping ones team. That is more of a call that you the manager can take. You know how much better that guy is than the minimum required to start for you more than i do.

It also depends on the position ones team is in, as i tried to suggest a bit earlier. Relegation avoidance and trying to make that playoff push make it very appealing to get that cheaper veteran (31-35) than a more expensive 25-27 year old. If you're a season or two away and want to get someone that can help you past promotion, then maybe it's worth the extra dollars to get that younger guy instead. Entirely based on ones own team.

Last edited by FuriousSK at 10/14/2012 11:43:36 PM

I'm really not interested in fighting with you, so i'll speak in general to anyone who actually wants to read someone else's suggestion for what they are. Hopefully they aren't so elitist when considering someone else's opinion, or at least aren't interested in whether it's 100% to their liking:

I'm sorry that I offended you, I'm not looking to fight with you either. I believe you are making a simple math mistake that is leading you and people who read your post to incorrect conclusions, and that convincing you that I am right is still fully possible and in the best interest of everyone involved. Making this math mistake is common and has no bearing on who you are as a person. Please humor me and try to see where I am coming from.

The reason why i suggest value is moot at a given point, whether it be 0 or some random value, is because i assume one thing between the 27 year old in my example and the 32-33 year old. Regardless of how useful they are after 32-33, if they were the same skill-set at the time of acquisition then when they hit decline most of the time they'll be in the same sort of value range. Therefore, it's not that i discount the fact that a player might not be capable of helping ones team. That is more of a call that you the manager can take. You know how much better that guy is than the minimum required to start for you more than i do.

Just because they end at the same value does not mean it affects both players the same. The fact that you own one player for longer changes everything because the net cost per year is what is important. Consider these two ways to evaluate this player:

Player A: 27 years old, worth 450k, will sell for 125k right after he turns 33.
Player B: 31 years old, worth 225k, will sell for 125k right after he turns 33.

Using your method:
A: 450k/6 years = 75k per year
B: 250k/2 years = 113k per year

Using alternate method:
A: (450 - 125)/6 = 54k per year
B: (225 - 125)/2 = 50k per year

Using your method A is clearly better, while using the alternate method B is clearly better (considering experience and the time value of money).