BuzzerBeater Forums

I made sure that at least one of the players I bought was from the USA. And if I save in the $100-200k range, I'll feel free to spend that much for a rookie. That won't get me the best of the best, but I've been seeing 18-year-old perennial all stars in the $3k salary range go for under $100k. One of my purchases in a perennial all star making $2846, and I got him during during a trading peak time for $36k. And his skills are just about exactly what I was looking for to go with my planning training schedule this season.

So maybe I won't get an all time great with a $6k salary, but the odds seem very much against me drafting a player who's any better for what I can buy for $200k on the TL, and shopping the TL gives me more control over the skills I'm taking on, while the draft is a crap shoot.

haha. Well maybe I'm just biased because I got a good draft :P

I understand that drafting is a risk, but I think that spending 10k a week (which is 140k a season) isn't all that much for the chance of uncovering a decent player.

Lets say you draft at 10k a season every season. All you need is for 1 season to get a good player (like an 18 year old MVP with 6k salary). Lets say it takes you 4 seasons to get a player like that. That means you have spent 560k on scouting. You will get a lot more than that just from that 1 player good player being sold. And you will also have gotten 11 other draftees and if any of them are even half decent you can make a nice trainee out of him, or sell him for a decent profit.

However if you are always picking near last, then I can understand your scepticism. If you are in an active league, any good pick you might see is almost certain to be picked by someone else.

Personally I'd prefer a new draft system that was done weekly. So I can choose which players to scout, and be able to see the info I get on a player each week.

Personally I'd prefer a new draft system that was done weekly. So I can choose which players to scout, and be able to see the info I get on a player each week.

If we could see reports each week, and we already see that our scouts have (randomly) uncovered at least, say, 5 1st round draft candidates, we could stop spending on scouting if we only care about drafting one really good player, while those teams not so lucky have to keep spending on scouting until they turn something up.

And I don't think I've yet drafted a player I couldn't just as easily buy on the TL for under $140k. Well, maybe one. But even scouting just one player per week I could get lucky, too. But don't discount the advantage of targeting a player with specific skills that comes with scouting the TL instead of scouting random rookies. It's always a little painful to draft a player who has real training potential, but who just doesn't fit into a larger training plan.

Maybe something you are overlooking, but if you spend the max in the draft and are likely to finish near the bottom, you have a chance of drafting a really high quality trainee for only $640,000. For example, a guy with superstar+ potential and $5,500+ salary goes for about 2 million on the transfer list right now. There was another draftee who went for about 6 million in recent weeks, too.

So it gives low level teams a chance to spend a small amount of money and get a chance to get a player they otherwise would not be able to afford. If they win this lottery, it really puts them head and shoulders above the competition.

Yes, it is only a chance. But I could argue the other side. If these players were abundant and easy to obtain, then they would become basically worthless.

On the other hand, does it make sense for a division I team to invest crap loads of money in the draft? Maybe not, but that's something left to the individual manager to decide.

But consider this, they make a draft of 100 players instead of 48 players. And they make the drafting system weekly so that we pick who to scout and we see the info of that scouting after each week. You say the other team might have to keep spending on scouting if they aren't lucky to find one, but that is what scouting is about, you are going to go out and look for talent. If you don't find any then bad luck, if you do then great. Having 100 players is necessary otherwise a bottom team could scout all 48 players once and only scout the good onces twice, where as having 100 players means that there is some randomness.

This was only my first season, but I don't believe I could purchase any of my players on the draft for under 140k. Let alone all 3 of them, that are Australian and increase my merchandise value.

I do understand that targeting skills on the TL can be very advantageous. But you don't know for sure that you will get him, other people are bidding as well. Plus I prefer having Australians so it makes it harder. It is painful to get a draftee that doesn't fit with the training, but you can either change your training, or sell the player for a nice profit.

The problem here is quantifying risk. When people use "gamble" or "take a chance", then that is not investing. Anecdotes about big winners in the draft are heartwarming, but do little to come to a realistic assessment of the utility of getting decent draft picks.

I write in this stentorian tone because of frustration with trying to figure this out. In some ways, this is perhaps one of the more realistic aspects of the game, because I can easily envision where my $5000 a week goes: for Joe Slobovich's expenses and hotel rooms as he follows his wizened old nose about the countryside tracking down rumors about the Next LeBron James. He could get lucky, or maybe he does know what he is doing, or he could be drinking my salary in hotel bars talking to bitter floozies who recognize an easy mark, flirting with low, husky voices damaged by too many cigarettes and looking good only because the lights are low, pretending to be entertained by Joe's stories about how he was the first person to see Oscar Robertson.

So if I hire ole' Joe, will he deliver? Who knows? It's not like hiring a doctor or trainer or PR man. What are Joe's chances of bringing me something of value? One chance in five? ten? twenty? Or another way: for $70,000, what are my chances of getting a decent player valued at $150,000? or getting that PF I need? or of getting three 19 year olds whose best days are already behind them?

For these reasons, I have decided I am not going to spend a penny on that boozehound Slobovich, I don't care what his reputation is. (I've heard he was the first to see Hakeem Olajuwon in Lagos!) Draft day is like opening presents on Christmas Day, mysterious gifts that show up on my roster, with the occasional keeper. If I need a PF, I'll will go where I have a bit more control and discretion and can evaluate the risks a bit more clearly, the Transfer List (although the pitfalls of that is worth a separate thread altogether).

I understand what you are saying, but what if you know your team is going to come last this season (or very close to last). Why not spend 40k a week on scouting. That is 560k. Chances are that you are definitely going to uncover a good player that is 18 and has great potential. That 1 player alone, which you are gauranteed to get as you have 1st pick, is going to be worth more than 560k. And the other 2 players are probably going to be decent as well.

Since season 1 the draft didn't satisfy users and if I remember well BBs too. 2 seasons ago I knew to be relegated cause I wanted to do that so I've invested money in scouts. Well, my best drafted was a 19yo potential MVP, last season I've invested less money and of course the players drafted aren't players but human waste. I tried to saw in these 2 seasons if someone else had better luck in my divisions but I didn't find anyone, it means that no one player worthed a lot of money on the market. At the end for me it is sure that:

1. Draft = random
2. Money invested are wasted
3. Not all the divisions can see one perennial all star
4. There are teams that receives a gift of 3m cause they're soo lucky to pick a good player

This draft not should but must be changed

Sorry for the other post ;)

How would it be changed without fundamentally changing the game? Should their be no Hall of Famers or All Time Greats and instead every team getting a couple of 4k waged potential Allstars?

Why even bother with a draft in that case.

Randomness does not imply that investing is a mistake

Charles, I've an idea I will leave my bank code, you start to pay and at the end of the season I promise you that I will make you a gift. Of course it can be extremely good but can be also a 2 cents gift :p

Excludining jokes I understand your point but the real world is another thing, honestly if I can suggest a way to change the draft I will link the income of every team to the final result of the draft. It means for 2 players I could accept the random but with my first choice I'd like to have the possibility to have or not a great draftee in my roster. If I earn 100k/week I can decide to spend the 10%-50%-100% of the income every week to have at the end of the season a player that can be horrible if I invest 0% but that must be a 18yo with at least good potential if I've invested the 90% of the weekly income.
In this way there aren't difference between the divisions, the teams that are saving a lot of money can decide to continue to earn money or to have a good player. This idea has a big problem, if I earn 1$/week I can easily put the 100% in the research but you can avoid it linked the % of investmens at the average income of the league. In my division we lost -78k/week so also in this case my idea seems not so good but at the end the concept is that if I want to have a good 18yo I could have the possiblity to draft him and this possibility is related to the money I want to spend, more money better player. 2 seasons ago I wanted a good 18yo and I would spent even 5m to have him, with the current draft I think few teams are paying 40k/week