BuzzerBeater Forums

But this would cut off a wonderful group of opportunities for the game to expand. Could you imagine getting into a bidding war for a 90 year old player that pays you 100k weekly? And then getting into a bid war for a level 7 doctor just so this player doesn't die of heart disease? Imagine how many more new users would stick around.

Let's take an average new user for example. Okay he signs up for BB. Awesome. Cool. Nothing exciting has happened yet. But wait, trust me, something exciting will happen. Just be patient. Then he sees that it is recommended to look at the game manual. Alright that's nice. But that's not the exciting part in case you haven't noticed. Then he reads "After a player's skills drop below a certain level, he will begin paying you salary just because you kept him on your team" http://24.media.tumblr.com/0e6c7b3a58f1c81737ff16c4d19bec... WHAT IN THE WORLD MY GOODNESS THAT IS CRAZY. His reaction from reading that would probably go from something like this http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_leutggyfu01qf8yek.gif to http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_leftlcc6W71qf8yek.gif and bam, a future B3 winner is born, all because he was intrigued by this new change to BB.

So many great things could come out of this change. It has to be done.

yeah right, and the new to buzzerbeater will quit just on seeing this thinking it is utterly nonsense...
The old players are fine as they are : cheap subs for GS and pride in keeping them. there are other stuff going on which are tremendously more interesting !

So I propose to you that we allow salaries to go negative.

The problem with that is you could have a team of 100 players that pay you 20k a week and make 2 million a week. Negative salaries would cause teams to make an infinite amount of income every week because there is no limit on how many players a team can have.

Dunno, man, MJ is currently 50+ and he probably still makes more money in one week with the shoes nike sells with his name than you and me will make in our entire lives.

+ he still can dunk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptzdaPJU4ZU

Maybe some see it as nonsense but if something like this turns them off enough to make them leave, then were they really going to stay in the first place? I see low risk high reward here.

That is a fair point, but there's something that I forgot to mention in the original post that will help clarify this. As we know, old people are much more injury prone than people in their 20's. We should make these contracts function so that if the old guy is injured, he will not pay any salary towards you. And injuries will be very common, something that can happen even if they don't play in a single game. Here's an example http://imgur.com/RnUbGKS

Notice how the injury lasts for 8 weeks. That means that for these 8 weeks, you are getting absolutely nothing out of him. Probably even considering selling him. It's just another realistic aspect to add to this system.

And another important note is that it would be very difficult to buy 100 of these players. There would be too much demand in the transfer list for them. No one has that kind of money, and no one will even if they are getting paid weekly.

This is completely true! However, endorsements are not being considered in the graph I displayed earlier.

moflaffle I think you are probably the smartest person I've met.

That's great but I'd rather hear what your opinion is about the suggestion that I've made.