BuzzerBeater Forums

And this is because teams cannot afford all available players like him, there is no demand for the best players in BB. This is just rediculuse

Oooorrr maybe there's just too much offer !

What are you suggesting? Stop training world class players, just train average players?

Russell Westbrook vs. Dejounte Murray

Stats 2021/2022:
Westbrook: 18.5 Pts, 7.4 Reb., 7.1 Ast.
Murray: 21.1 Pts, 8.3 Reb, 9.2 Ast.

Salary 2021/2022:
Westbrook: 44'000'000
Murray: 15'400'000

Who's more valuable in a trade?

Russell Westbrook vs. Dejounte Murray

Stats 2021/2022:
Westbrook: 18.5 Pts, 7.4 Reb., 7.1 Ast.
Murray: 21.1 Pts, 8.3 Reb, 9.2 Ast.

Salary 2021/2022:
Westbrook: 44'000'000
Murray: 15'400'000

Who's more valuable in a trade?

I am not a big fan of Westbrook, I think he is overestimated like some BB players with 200k+ salary but less than 130 tsp. Who's more valuable in a trade? Greak Freak or Murray? That should be your question

Two very different players, different positions, different play styles. You cannot compare apples and oranges.

But let's do it anyway: Of course everyone would want Antetokounmpo. But not all teams can afford to pay his salary, so they go for players like Dejounte Murray.
Now, should everyone be able to get Antetokounmpo? Well, in fact, they already are! Every team in the NBA could get him, they would just have to give up certain things in order to make it work.

And that's my point. It is not impossible to get a 200k player as a Div. II team. You're just playing a very dangerous game and you have to find a way to make it work. Most teams don't want to buy a 200k player (Antetokounmpo), so they go for lower salary players which results in higher prices for those "Dejounte Murray's".

Another real life example: Everyone thought it's impossible for a team like the Warriors to get a player like Durant...

You are right, it was a bad example, just wanted to make my point clear. But it is also bad example to compare NBA trades with the BB transfer system. NBA teams dont pay fees to buy a player. This is why my first example was with football players.

IMO, better players must have more value. Again, lets agree to disagree

Actually, it was a great example. I had to think about my answer for like half an hour

Don't get me wrong, the new merchandise income (which is the topic of this thread) would solve my biggest problem, finances.Like I said before, I'd get 50k more per week.
BUT: It would just make the rich teams richer. It's like saying everyone in the company gets a 10% raise. The CEO makes 2 million more per year while the average employee gets an extra 5k per year.

Dear Alonso and BBs,

To sum up what I've said in many seperate messages in this thread: This will just increase the gap between big and small teams. It is very unfair to lower league teams:

and now the mid-low table teams have an incentive to get one of those stars. [...] it won't be worth to bring a 150k player into D2 team just for the sake of this new merchandise income.

These two statements contradict themselves. Only teams that already have a top player with a high salary would benefit from this.

My team's top player has a salary of 204k. 15% of this per week means I get 30.6k per week, 428k per season.
A team in my league has a player with 11k. That would be 1.6k per week and 23k per season for him.
Difference: over 400k per season. And don't forget that it's already a lot easier for me to make money than it is for him.

My suggestion: Add levels + fixed amounts, no percentages

Something like this:
Player salary / Additional income per week
0-10k / 5k
10k-25k / 7.5k
25k-50k / 10k
50k-75k / 12.5k
75k-125k / 15k
125k-175k / 20k
175k or higher / 25k

My team: 25k per week = 350k per season
Other team: 7.5k per week = 105k per season
Difference: 245k per season

I still don't like the idea, but I can live with the alternative I'm proposing here.

How about not changing the Formula... just add a multiplier to decrease all Players' Salaries to a Certain percentage.

for Example you want to reduce Players Salary to 85%:

Proposed_salary = Current_salary * 0.85 (85%)

This will just increase the gap between big and small teams. It is very unfair to lower league teams

This should be something to be considered.
As someone who promoted from DIII (salary floor a little over 100k) to DII (salary floor 255k), there's definitely a huge gap between teams/divisions.
For more balance and competition, the gaps should be smaller. Not saying between every single team (there's always better run teams, players, etc.) but as a whole. Such huge gaps will make the game very hard to play for newcomers. And that, in a way, goes for staff too... I'm not sure how new/smaller teams are supposed to get revenue, good players and upgraded staff at the same time. The values I see going for the staff (not even the top tiers) are going over the roof (or so it seems to me). I agree that it should take time for a small team to develop and grow and all that but they must also have, at least, some access/way to get there (can't complain since I promoted but still).
Right now the gap is so huge, that if I demote (which I think is likely), I suppose I'll have to undo what I've been forced to do when I promoted (add salary because of the floor) or go bankrupt lol
I believe this not to be case everywhere but also a byproduct of some countries having lots of (competent) players and more "advanced" leagues/divisions/staffs, while the rest of the countries will naturally struggle to keep up with their pace since they have to compete in the market with them, with less resources to start with.