BuzzerBeater Forums

I see tre potential PF,with different characteristics selling in the market nearly at the same time,and I like to show you the crazy oscillations on the market,in the same moment of the day and of the season

First player 27 YEARS OLD
Jump shot: average Jump range:average
Out.defence :mediocre Handling:inept
Driving:mediocre Passing:inept
Inside Shot:sensational Inside defence:tremendous
Rebound:sensational Shot Blocking:respectable
Stamina:pitiful Free throws:respectable

Experience:average

$ 2 150 000



Second player 26 YEARS OLD
Jump shot: mediocre Jump range:mediocre
Out.defence:awful Handling:respectable
Driving:respectable Passing:awful
Inside Shot:tremendous Inside defence:prominent
Rebound:stupendous Shot Blocking:mediocre
Stamina:pitiful Free throws:strong

Experience:average

$ 1 530 000


Third player(free agent) 27 YEARS OLD
Jump shot:strong Jump range:respectable
Out.defence:strong Handling:respectable
Driving:pitiful Passing:pitiful
Inside Shot:wondrous Inside defence:prominent
Rebound:wondrus Shot Blocking:strong
Stamina:mediocre Free throws:awful

Experience:respectable

$ 2 019 500

You call a player with less than proficient JS a PF? These guys are all Cs with good secondaries at best... The 2nd player has much fewer side skills than the other two, his only interesting points are his IS and RB. Cs in particular have taken a hit in the new market, so these prices do not surprise me.

On the 3rd player, he has good skills (probably the best of the three at PF) but would not come up on any of my TL searches. He is already old and has almost no FT skill to speak of. Not very good if you run an inside offense.

You call a PF only a player with at least proficient JS?It would be a SF without outside defence...
The first and third players are surely PF,and the second,also if not with his performance at his best,can easily play in that position
When we talk about market prices,we have to understand what we're talking.There are PF with low/good price in the market,it depends on your needs and what you're searching

Well, at lower levels I would take strong JS, but I assumed you were talking about a division II or higher type of PF. I guess you can play a C type at PF, but this is generally limiting your offensive options, at least in my opinion.

Anyhow, just telling you why these guys are selling for cheap. Do not shoot the messenger.

Well, at lower levels I would take strong JS, but I assumed you were talking about a division II or higher type of PF. I guess you can play a C type at PF, but this is generally limiting your offensive options, at least in my opinion.

Anyhow, just telling you why these guys are selling for cheap. Do not shoot the messenger.

You assumed wrong.I was talking about the fact that when we talk about market prices,we have to undertsand what we are talking about.
If someone complain about an high price for PF,just to make an example,we have to understand what we are thinking about when we use the term PF
The players I listed aren't top division Pfs,while they can play from the bench in the top divisions(maybe not the second one),but are much more different than classic Cs(except for the second one,but I like the driving/handling respectable,which are relevant in a big man).They are legit middle-high level PFs,and they were selling at low price for their value,so it's hard to say"there are no Pfs on the market at a low price"

The players I listed aren't top division Pfs

I still disagree. As a lower division manager, I would rather take a PF who had less inside skills (or at least more balance, something like 3x prolific IS/ID/RB) but more outside skills than the players you mentioned. I would want a player who carries less salary but who still gives me the flexibility to run any offense and defense.

Anyhow, that's why I had to make an assumption. The players you mentioned are ok at C for a division II team, at least in Canada. But I don't think they stack up at PF in any division, unless you don't have the money for a true PF.



Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 4/29/2010 7:30:10 PM

The players I listed aren't top division Pfs

I still disagree. As a lower division manager, I would rather take a PF who had less inside skills (or at least more balance, something like 3x prolific IS/ID/RB) but more outside skills than the players you mentioned. I would want a player who carries less salary but who still gives me the flexibility to run any offense and defense.

Anyhow, that's why I had to make an assumption. The players you mentioned are ok at C for a division II team, at least in Canada. But I don't think they stack up at PF in any division, unless you don't have the money for a true PF.

If the lower division manager would be promoted,that kinf of player would be weak at both the Sf/PF position,would be simply a good sixth man from the bench,so it would be better to save money and buy later a better player to make a real jump
As i see the matter,lower is your level,less outside skills you had to search in a PF,because there are relevant differences between the level of PFs inside skills in the league;at the top level,when the inside skills are nearly at the same level,become more important the outside skills to make the difference as the various big mans in the laegue
The economic sustainability is another matter,if you decide to buy a player you should yet know what is your economic budget,or you should wait

And clearly we just have different styles of playing the game.