BuzzerBeater Forums

I made also 230k weekly profit on average, last season, having promoted to D2.

I was 2nd to last in salaries, ranging 110-150k below my league's average salaries.
The one team that had less salaries than me, was a 4 (not trainable)player roster team, totalling 7k in salaries.
That team averaged 170k per week profit, throughout the entire season.

230κ + 170κ = 400κ

Question:
Of the 3 numbers above, which two should be less, in order to fight inflation?

That simple.

Bonus.
Since 1st rule of inflation is obviously gone out of the window...yeah i mean "you do not talk about inflation", i present to you the 2nd rule:
Please, please, pretty please, at all costs, DO NOT LET BB-Marin again, make a catastrophically vague announcement, like the one he did in season 33 regarding potential luxury hoarding tax!


Last edited by maddoghellas at 2/24/2016 4:06:51 PM

Cheeky!
That's why rule no1 should never be broken!

I think the lack of high salary(>60k) FAs is having an affect on inflation. We're losing these players so there are now less high skill players to go around.

Also, about I'm not sure about mangers making too much money. Teams in the past could make more money since the salary floor either din't exist or was lower and there was no over extension tax. I'm sure that pre-salary floor D1 tankers could bring in as much as 600k/week maybe even more. Yet back then, prices were still lower.

I think whats causing inflation is not high weekly revenues, but the fact that managers have accumulated too much money. Since teams usually turn a profit, and get continuously get richer prices will trend upwards over time. That's why I think the hoarding tax is the way to go: limit the amount of money managers can accumulate and prices won't be rising indefinitely.

No worries, it's all in good spirit, that's what matters.

Also, about I'm not sure about mangers making too much money. Teams in the past could make more money since the salary floor either din't exist or was lower and there was no over extension tax. I'm sure that pre-salary floor D1 tankers could bring in as much as 600k/week maybe even more. Yet back then, prices were still lower.

The salary floor was introduced due to the increase in tanking. They also added a number of randomly generated free agents daily until the market settled as it was also inflated back then. Inflation stabilized (for a while).

The floor reduced the impact of tanking, but didn't remove it. If you halve the money a team can make from tanking, you slow it down significantly. If it is still profitable, when twice as many teams work it out, you're back to square one. No one can understand how making less money will make things cheaper, so they blame things like utopia and teams not training, rather than accepting the fact they make too much money.

They also added a number of randomly generated free agents daily until the market settled as it was also inflated back then. Inflation stabilized (for a while).

They didn't add randomly generated players. Free Agents have always been players from retired teams.

No one can understand how making less money will make things cheaper, so they blame things like utopia and teams not training, rather than accepting the fact they make too much money.

Its not the fact that teams make so much money, its that they have alot of money. Making less money will not automatically make things cheaper if teams still have such large bank accounts. If the BB's decided tomorrow to reduce every team's profits to a flat 30k, prices would still be high since teams still have so much money. What if the BBs decided to start applying the luxury tax at 10 million? Sure we would see a spending spree, but after a while prices would fall. In fact a low luxury tax threshold, with high profits is good for mobility, since new users are able to bridge the gap more quickly. Low profits mean new users will take a long time to catch up.



Last edited by Mountaineer at 2/24/2016 6:27:34 PM

They didn't add randomly generated players. Free Agents have always been players from retired teams.

Not true. This was well before they implemented the free agency rule.

If the BB's decided tomorrow to reduce every team's profits to a flat 30k, prices would still be high since teams still have so much money.

I agree to a point, but eventually they run out of money. Then it would take 6 times longer to accumulate than if they were making 180k. Still, 30k is a bit extreme. I don't think anyone suggested that should be the max.

What if the BBs decided to start applying the luxury tax at 10 million?

Let's say, for argument sake, div1 teams make 5% of the teams in BB. They should have the top 5% of players. In the current system, div2 and div3 teams have access to almost the same weekly profit, and can amass the same total amount. As it sits, I would say a conservative guess would be, 50% of teams have the earning potential to access those top 5% players. I know I can in div3. I've seen teams in div4 spend near 10 million on a rookie.

No universal limit on what teams should be allowed access to will work, unless it's divisional. Maybe a structure where div1 is capped at $20 million, div2 at 15, div3 at 10, etc.

In fact a low luxury tax threshold, with high profits is good for mobility, since new users are able to bridge the gap more quickly. Low profits mean new users will take a long time to catch up.

Who are they catching up to? Not every team is destined for the top. The goal should be build to a sustainable position to the league above you, not hoard cash until I can buy success at the highest level.

Interesting, I didn't know about these randomly generated Free Agents, could you tell me more?

I agree to a point, but eventually they run out of money. Then it would take 6 times longer to accumulate than if they were making 180k. Still, 30k is a bit extreme. I don't think anyone suggested that should be the max.

You have to remember the money they spent didn't just disappear, it goes to other managers who can now spend it on more players. Also, the player they bought is an asset worth quite a bit. Really good 32 year olds can still sell for 5+ million. If a team buys a 28 year old for 6 million and then sells him at 32 for 5 million, even with really modest profits (ie 30k/week), they will still be richer at the end of that transaction than before they bought the player, so no they won't just run out of money.

I agree with you guys that weekly profits affect inflation. The higher the weekly profits, the more prices will increase over time. However, the prices themselves are a function of the money that teams currently have in their accounts. Too illustrate my point imagine two cases. In the first case, the average team has 50 million dollars, but the average profit was 0. Teams aren't making any profits, but would prices be high? Absolutely, they'd be through the roof since every team has so much to spend.

Now imagine this case, the average team has no money currently in the bank, but the average profit is 300k/week. Prices themselves would be really low, however they'd rise fast (high inflation), since the amount of money teams have is increasing quickly.