BuzzerBeater Forums

I'm sorry if I missed the forum, I never heard of suggestions forum, so I couldn't possibly know to put it there. Never mind, though.

I agree with you completely. When I said potential, I meant the whole training possibility: an 18-year-old has a season more to train then a 19-year-old - so there's more potential for his better training. While reading my post, I knew someone would misunderstand that. Never mind that too.

I trust you about the market difference between 18- and 19-year-olds. However, I don't think that's a strong criterion because the prices change, and there are more wise and less wise traders.

About your salary comparison - how hard it is to find a 19-year-old with a 6,500-7,000 salary? Is it same as with 18-year-olds? I agree that the salary range for 19-year-old draftees should be higher, and even go above $10,000 because an average 4-5,000 18-year-old when trained through a whole season can easily achieve that salary. Depending on draftees potential (9, 10, 10+) these salaries could go even higher, but that would cause too much disturbing among the managers, the balance would go to the other side and leave the 18-year-olds discriminated against. Nevertheless, I would agree on rare exceptions, as always - there are from time to time out-of-this-world talents.

So I would say that your proposal on scale and range of salaries is great. Let's just see, maybe there are some other opinions. My only goal is to make this game better and more exciting, and I really believe that the draft system gives space to make it so.

Also, after drafting an 18 year old $4,500 salary player this year, and training him all year and getting pretty good training results (10 pops all up... could be better i know), his salary im expecting to end up is about $6,500 - $7,000 (according to Buzzer-manager website).

So lets use salary as the comparitive unit. - If the current highest salary of a 19 year old in the draft is say, $6,500, what do we make it?

But you can't compare two 19-year old players, both with 6k salary, one coming from the draft and another coming from one season of training with your team.

19-y old from draft will not have any skill above respectable and will likely have "averages" and "respectables" spread through most skills, while the trained 19-y old will have "proficients" and even "prominents" in those skills that matter for his position. That's a big difference.

About your salary comparison - how hard it is to find a 19-year-old with a 6,500-7,000 salary? Is it same as with 18-year-olds?

it is at least easier to get him, when we don't talk about the first pick.

When I meant higher starting salaries for 19-year-old draftees, I didn't mean respectable and average skill all over, but higher skills than respectable at some categories, just like he was trained.

I like this thread and I strongly agree with this:

The best 19 year old in the draft, should be better (in terms of skills) than the best 18 year old in the draft. But not potential.

Maybe the solution could be putting a different "cap" for drafted players. For example, 18 years old players cannot have skills above "average (6)", while 19 years old players cannot have skills above "strong (8)".

Average and strong are just examples, of course.

I also like this concept and agree that 19 yr olds should be "advanced" players

Also I think 19 year olds should have more expierience coming out of the draft the 18 year olds. So maybe all 18 year olds should have atrocious experience and 19 year olds should have either pitiful or awful experience.

I don't understand with such an emphasis on U21 and NT why there are just 18 and 19 yo players in the draft to begin with. If you're gonna have multiple ages, why not have up to 21 and then why not have a wider range of starting skills for them all.

Either that or all the players are 18 years old. 18 and 19 make no sense to me personally.

I dont think the rule should be so blanket. The worst 19 year old in the draft should definately NOT be better than the best 18 year old.
And someties you will get an 18 year old with better experience than a 19 year old. As with all the other skills. Maybe the 19 year old blew his knee half way through the season, and missed all those games (and as such, didnt pop as much).

I think earlier suggestions of having a cap is maybe a bit harsh? maye it should just be a 'general' rule. Because generally, an 18 year old will only ever have maximum respectable in any such skill. And generally, for 19 year olds, it should be strong. BUT i dotn think it should exlude entirely the possibility that an 18 year old can have strong in a skill.

I dont think this would require much change, its only a small scale change to reflect the generalisation that, 19 year olds are generally better than 18 year olds, which currently, is not really shown in drafted players. and if it is, it needs to be more.

if you look at the top picks of the last NBA draft, i had to agree with you the good enough player get in the professional ball as early as they can and just the dudes who still need development stay in college to reach the level.

I believe in the draft last year they was pretty surprised that a senior was picked in the lottery and that this don't happen the last years, and they are pretty few seniors who got picked in first round every year.

For sure you could argue if the BB 18 vs 19 more like sophomore vs rookie which the age difference implies, or rookie vs senior which are the extrems in real life. I go more with the extrems.

Yer i agree i treat 18 like a rookie and 19 like a senior.

But as per other suggestions here, maybe we could be scouting 20 year olds? So we could have 18 - rookie ... 19 - Sophomore ... 20 - Senior.

I dont know about drafting a 20 year old. Maybe in the lower divisions, this would be more suitable? i suppose even in higher divisions, if the skills are high enough, it still becomes a viable 'sellable' draftee.

I think it would be good.