BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

We had some discussion about the BB economy in Finland's BB Discord and I would like to share our thoughts. In general, we think that all these suggestions should not be implemented at the same time, because it wouldn't be clever to add billions of dollars to the game every season with massive changes to current revenue and cost structures. We should all understand that every 1k that we give to all teams, is about 180 million per season to BB overall so therefore we would make only minor changes at once and then go to the next one if still needed.

As a background, we think that there are couple important issues that could be solved:
- Top players with high salaries and high TSP are valued too low at the moment
- Training is too expensive, especially for the MVP, HoF and ATG prospects
- It takes too much time for newbiees to catch up with more experienced teams

Therefore, we have made a list of possible improvements:

- Lower the salaries at the highest salary group. This would basically mean that the main skills effect for the salaries should be reduced (e.g. JR and PA for guards and IS and RB for bigs). It would be also good to avoid "free skills" so that every skill points counts to the salary, but the best players would get their salaries still reduced overall. It would of course have some effect for lower salary players that are one dimensional, but that's not our main goal with this suggestion.

-More merchandise revenue. I think that the current suggestion in this thread is quite good, but I would reduce the percentage that was suggested (maybe 5-10% of the top player's salary?) and implement one or two other changes in addition.

-Increase spectators for lower divisions. This would support mainly the newbiees and lower level teams that are trying to get to the top league. Also, if the economical cap between divisions would decrease, this would mean that the top league team that got relegated wouldn't have to sell all their big salary players to be compliant economically.

-Increase staff supply to the marker. If there would be more staff to choose from, this would decrease the current costs of high quality staff and allow more money to be spend on buying players and paying player salaries. This suggestion is also to reduce training costs.

-Increase TV-Revenue. This would have two effects as it would give more revenue but also increase salary floor. So in general the benefit would go to the new teams and teams that are over the salary floor anyway. It might also help with the tanking as it would decrease the revenues for team that are under the floor.

These are neither in any order nor should be implemented at the same time. We think however that it's more advisable to make small changes to many areas than one big change to e.g. merchandise, as the added income would go to one particular area and encourage one particular action.

Please give your thoughts about our suggestions from Finland's BB Discord!

Please give your thoughts about our suggestions from Finland's BB Discord!

Top players with high salaries and high TSP are valued too low at the moment -> True. But more of an economy problem, I think.

Training is too expensive, especially for the MVP, HoF and ATG prospects -> Training sounds messy with all the different minutes, depending on age. Although training shouldn't be "easy" as I read somewhere, it should be "natural" (I mean allowing space for error with the minutes, since we have "low" control over them) and "wanted" (having players constantly playing 48 min for better training doesn't seem realistic, fun or even fair in terms of a player career and such but it's how it works).

It takes too much time for newbiees to catch up with more experienced teams -> Tell me about it. The gap is HUGE. Especially on salary floors and financial resources (I've been waiting 3 months+ to change my coach and I can't, since it would kill my season budget, since I'm a semi-newbie. New players can't compete against long term players in open market).

Lower the salaries at the highest salary group -> Not sure. Maybe a higher hard cap would work too? I think the goal is for teams to have (somehow) cap space to have 2/3 top players and a well rounded support cast. Maybe training is coming too fast, maybe not. If there's only a few teams that can afford those players but twice or three times as much are developing them, there will always be too many of them, which will make them overexpensive, not to mention unfitting to budgets. Doesn't seem easy to solve without other changes?

More merchandise revenue -> If salaries are going to be lower and caps bigger (but closer), this shouldn't be really needed, I suppose. But it depends on how things would be adjusted. The problem is really those great players becoming untradable and unfitting to team's budgets.

Increase spectators for lower divisions -> Seems to have potential. Though there's the need to increase the arena first. Maybe the attendance % shouldn't go down as much, to keep attendance figures higher in the lower divisions?

Increase staff supply to the marker -> Yes, please! Millions spent constantly on staff is a huge economy drain. That's money you won't have for players, training and the rest. Maybe SOME staff should be "earmarked" for lower divisions only, in an attempt to "free" them from the richer teams. Maybe not fair but gotta look for improvements somewhere.

Increase TV-Revenue -> Might help but mostly get closer gaps between divisions. I just got a jump from around 110k to 250k from III to II Division, which is something of a slow death, if I demote again not to mention, I'm somehow/very ill prepared for my new division.

Also agree that some changes should be gradual and, eventually, according to the needs that arise.
Thanks for your (group) post and feel free to reply, if you feel the need.

Last edited by Moresbi at 8/9/2022 4:16:02 AM

Thank you for your comments! I have no topics to argue, but maybe one clarification of our suggestion:

Increase spectators for lower divisions -> Seems to have potential. Though there's the need to increase the arena first. Maybe the attendance % shouldn't go down as much, to keep attendance figures higher in the lower divisions?

I think teams have two options to accomplish this: increase amount of spectators or use higher ticket prices. So I suppose that if there's change to increase spectators, it would mean that team with completed arena would get more spectators or have same amount of spectators than currently with higher tickets prices. Same applies with teams that don't have completed arena.