BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > 30years old+ Players

30years old+ Players

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
11
243343.1
Date: 6/11/2013 3:14:06 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
11
Hello, i just moved up division and took a look into my rivals. Many of them have 34-35 years old players with 60k salary, but i decided t invest in new players and training them (my players are 18-25 years old). Whats better?

From: RottenMan

This Post:
00
243343.3 in reply to 243343.2
Date: 6/11/2013 4:43:33 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
11
yh i know, that;s why i ask. But it worths spending 200k for a 30-35years old but very good player?

From: ig

This Post:
22
243343.4 in reply to 243343.3
Date: 6/11/2013 5:14:02 AM
Jerusalem TET
Ligat Ha'al
Overall Posts Rated:
207207
Second Team:
Jerusalem TET Utopia
there is a huge difference between 30-32 leveled players and 33+, since the last ones drop skills during the season. So if the salary is within the budget, for the first group the answer is yes. For the second group, depends on the salary. Sometimes it's worth to hire an aged all-around SF with a relatively small salary, considering that a drop or two in some skills will not affect too much.

This Post:
00
243343.5 in reply to 243343.3
Date: 6/11/2013 7:47:51 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
129129
The most I have had a player drop in salary was 20%. The risk of older players is that they will perform under their wage.

What I like to do is have players that are salary efficient. Therefore for most of the season the vets will perform beyond their wage, but towards the end of the season they may falter a bit. However, trainees can make up the difference especially when they become good enough to be regular starters.

I prefer to pay less for a player. The return on value is quicker. That means I can dump more money into other things like my arena, training players, the draft, etc.

This Post:
00
243343.6 in reply to 243343.5
Date: 6/11/2013 12:14:31 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
4141
Exactly. 33+ years are cheaper than their younger counterparts. While they lose skills, its only 2-4 drops at age 33-34. So it's not that bad. Now I wouldn't spend 500k on 70k salaried center that's 33, but I wouldn't mind buying one whos 30k salaried and cost me from 75,000 to 150,000.

This Post:
00
243343.7 in reply to 243343.1
Date: 6/11/2013 8:55:06 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
455455
My theory is that you can only train 2-3 players effectively so why would you fill your roster full of players that are still in their training years when younger players are more expensive to buy?

So I generally keep 2-3 players 25 and under and the rest of my roster is 27+. But 34-35 might be bit too old, that's when their skills really start slipping. Depends who you can afford to buy too.

This Post:
22
243343.8 in reply to 243343.7
Date: 6/11/2013 9:22:55 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
129129
I think the best way to get an established team quickly is vets + homegrown trainees.

Money needs spent on the arena first and foremost. Once the arena is fully built then the roster can be adjusted to meet team needs.

I won't get any further than that. Because I think I have a strategy that will get me to the NBBA rather quickly. Perhaps in 4-5 more seasons. However, I don't know if I can do it like the BloodyEagles who seem to prey on the stupidity of bidders. Who would pay 1.4 million for a 100K 31/32 year old? Someone I suppose. 200K for a 5K star?

Whatever works I guess.

From: Wakes

This Post:
00
243343.9 in reply to 243343.8
Date: 6/12/2013 4:00:50 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
6868
One of the teams in my league got $1.6 M for Pericle Sinibaldi ((10074237)) a few months back. Tremendously impressive.

As to the original poster- I'd only recommend buying those 34-35 y/o guys as complementary pieces to an already-solid team you're trying to get over the hump, or as players if you need to get to the salary floor, as they're less expensive. Otherwise it just cuts into your profit for a time you can actually use it.