BuzzerBeater Forums

I see those payments going out as the exact same thing as huge contracts on rookies in the NBA or any other sport. Kobe getting a 3.5 million 3 year contract. Shaq with a 41 mil 7 year contract. The big star rookies will get paid huge amounts in any sport. I don't honestly see why it would be any different here.

I see those payments going out as the exact same thing as huge contracts on rookies in the NBA or any other sport. Kobe getting a 3.5 million 3 year contract. Shaq with a 41 mil 7 year contract. The big star rookies will get paid huge amounts in any sport. I don't honestly see why it would be any different here.

I don't see any rookie in NBA earns like the old players,because rookie contract don't allow this

Best Rookies:John Wall $5,144,280 Blake Griffin $5,357,280

Stars with a long career:Dirk Nowitzki $17,278,618 Kobe Bryant $24,806,250


And in real life Wall and Griffin's Skills are much much closer to Dirk and Kobe' skills than a 18years old rookie in BB compared to the top players in BB

So I see enormous differences

No real difference there actually. I've seen several older players go for 3-4M as well, it's not too uncommon. True, no players go for 20M in Buzzerbeater, but that's more a function of the way the market works than lack of realism.

You don't understand that the problem is not in the "absolute price" but in the "relative price"
3 M for a 18yold rookie when a full trained top player is paid 10M means a thing,a rookie paid 3M when the same previous top player is paid 4M mean all another thing
The point is always the same:how much a player cost considering all the factors(age,height,potential,ecc...) compared to the overall market
The scale of the market is out of mind actually,because it's not that a top rookie worth as a medium level player,actually happens that a top rookie worth as a top player,that doesn't have seanse because in the better situation at the end the two players will have the same skills,but you could not create value with training during that time you spend to make your rookie a top player

Alright, to put it another way, people *in this game* will pay for rookies what they will be worth once they're trained since they can see the maximum potential in a player. If in the NBA team owners could see that Kobe was going to be a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame and able to easily lead his team to championships after a few seasons of training would he have been signed for more? I'd argue that any team that possibly could have would have taken the loss during training years and signed the man for 10s of millions a year to lock that kind of talent on their team. Since in BB you *can* see that potential, players go for what they will be worth.

Alright, to put it another way, people *in this game* will pay for rookies what they will be worth once they're trained since they can see the maximum potential in a player. If in the NBA team owners could see that Kobe was going to be a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame and able to easily lead his team to championships after a few seasons of training would he have been signed for more? I'd argue that any team that possibly could have would have taken the loss during training years and signed the man for 10s of millions a year to lock that kind of talent on their team. Since in BB you *can* see that potential, players go for what they will be worth.

Eddy Curry has potential,but he didn't lived up the expectation,and the same happens for a lot of other players.So while it's normal that a rookie with all the possibilites to became a top player worth a lot of money,it's not normal that they worth as the top existent players,because it can happen that for wrong training,or bad injuries,the player fail to reach the top level
In 1996 Kobe worth as Vlade Divac,that was a very good player at the time,but he didn't worth as Micheal Jordan,because while the Lakers could see Kobe potential,they weren't sure that he would have developed to reach the level of the strongest player in the NBA at time
Then Kobe almost reached Jordan's level,but it takes time and training and also loss to do that

Maybe they think the economy will rise with the fall of wages.
Maybe they want to train their own players in such a way that no players like that are usually available on TL.

Buyers put the market prizes, nobody forces you to buy, nobody denies your capabilities to invest in the draft.

Following the reasoning(?????)of some users here,it seems that TPA doesn't have a reason to exist.
Because if market is free,if buyers can do whatever they want,if we want to close both the eyes about the consequences of certain market transfers,basically there is no reason to have a tool to check the market and correct its distortions
And then,there is no reason to have taxes on the sales of the players,because if buyers can do whatever they want,also the sellers should have the freedom to do what they want,as daytrading,divine trading,and whatever else wants
And at this point,with all this freedom,why the teams should not be allowed to have youth team,to train their players without the risk of losing games and money?And why not a second team to raise money?And so on...

Is this really the game do you want to play?

That's blowing things out of proportion quite a bit.

The TPE acts as a guide to prices on players. However, there are times when it fails. One of these times is at the beginning of every season when new trainees are sold. Since players haven't gone for quite a bit for many weeks, the TPE for all these trainees is going to look low. Then after a few sales, you see them rise to astronomical heights compared to what they state. Once the buying rush for new trainees dies down, you see the TPE settle again to normal levels. It doesn't affect any other area besides the 18-19 year old market really, and then, only for a few weeks.

If, on the other hand the TPE is supposed to be set in stone as "YOU WILL NOT SELL ABOVE THIS LINE" prices for all players would deflate over time, since the maximums would never ever be raised. The only time you would see a new TPE set is once it has finally fallen to "There have been no players like this transferred recently". Given the choice between a few weeks of a small group of player's TPEs fluctuating wildly and a general overall depression in the market, I'll take what we've got now.

I don't wrote TPE,I wrote TPA man,read better the posts of other users before answer...

From the rules:

It is against BuzzerBeater rules to bid above market rates on a player.

If the transfer price was determined to be unreasonable, the GMs are authorized to fine your team by an appropriate amount

TPA,Transfer Price Adjusted,when GMs think a bid is over the market value of a player and subtract money to the seller to balance distortions of the markets

Now the questions is:How can they determinate the "ideal" value of a player to check if a sale deserve a TPA or not?
It's not easy,they use empirical and logical guidelines.
The golden rule,surely is that rookies should not worth as the best players affordable by BB-teams,surely,because it's not realistic,logic neither in the spirit of the game that there's no reward for training a player,when only with the draft you can have a player of the same market value of NT players(salary monsters market price is a problem apart)