BuzzerBeater Forums

Still, they play for him for free (well, not free but for cents). If you can't sell a player before paying him a week of salary (it was implemented a couple of seasons ago because lots of managers made players play for free) then why can you fire them without paying?
Also it can hurt NT teams if someone's doing this in the first weeks when players are not in the team (for example to try new hopes).

well, paying transfer price is somehwat like paying for acquiring a player. Another thing is you pay salary for week, if he doesnt play why should you pay? Person acquiring those players still pay for them, not to them but for having them, that whats matters, he cant get them for absolutely free out of nowhere. Like i imagine 20 20 20 guy get him for free then fire. And that price is so ridiculously low and makes him posible to benefit from it isnt his problem. We have free economics, and to be honest the fact those junk players are worth nothing is of NT FARM TEAMS, who grew them. DO you expect to take care of ur farmed trash? You farmed, you take care, dont whine. Thats my point of view. and the fact those kind of players are retiring after getting fired makes whole comunity and market also healthy, so i see only bennefits. In my eyes hes doing a great job for both managing his team to win some games and to punish farming and obesed nt enthuziasts. if you so enthuziastic and you need a player why dont you get it? it costs nothing like you said lololo.


So the problem isnt that he buys them for cents. the problem is why they worth cents? the fact the FARM teams, haha

Last edited by Gajus Julijus Cezaris at 1/19/2014 10:48:57 AM

if he doesnt play why should you pay?

Why would you buy him if he won't play? So they play, believe me (as they did, check box score). But if they play why shouldn't you pay?


Transfer price is payed by the seller, not the buyer so don't count it as a "price for playing"
In a certain point of view I agree with you. I always said that training these kind of monsters are pointless as it is hard (or impossible) to keep them. I'm against farming as well. I also think it's not cheating as it isn't against rules. My point is that it's unfair. It's unfair that this guy bought two players for 22k, their salary would have been 450k+ and he could fire them without paying. In other words he had a huge advantage against others who are paying their players every week. And he can do that every week, saving even 500k a week. If he should have payed a week of salary he would have payed 450k for two players job that is worth 450k. Sounds more fair to me.

In my eyes hes doing a great job for both managing his team to win some games and to punish farming and obesed nt enthuziasts.

And in my eyes he found a whole in the rules and used it unfairly. And he is not Robin Hood to "punish" anybody. By the way I'm pretty sure he's not doing it to help the game or anybody, but to earn some extra (unfair) advantage over his rivals. To me is like exploiting a bug which shouldn't be rewarded but repaired.

I know those players would be retiring soon and no problem with that. The problem is that he got unfair boost from them. I don't mind if he buys these kind of players for a week but he should pay at least one week salary for their play as he used their skills and they helped him win.

I still don't understand what is your problem with this suggestion. The monsters would be retiring anyway. If there would be a restriction on firing them like on selling them, it would change only one thing: nobody could get extra advantage on these players for free. What's the problem with that?

when we will get rid of farm teams, then in the market good players would cost way more than their salaries, wont be no problem at all. For now market is sick cause of farms flooding all those "Talent" there. I think even if it would be fair to pay atleast one salary for a player it is unnecesary.

As i said before i see the problem in farming and salary uneficient guys training, not in using them and the fact we getting rid of them is aplausible.

Last edited by Gajus Julijus Cezaris at 1/20/2014 12:31:22 PM

Having to pay one week salary would not change the life of those players, they would one day or another retire,

well, thats what i want, unwanted players retire. Nts dont have monster trees under the basket anymore. everyone happy. And if you would really wanted to sustain his salary you could. we have great example in lithuania atgrubnagiaii there sustained paulius jovas vaidvila monster 320k salary multiple seasons, basicly he started and will end career on that comand. didnt got droped from lbbl, saved some cash and now sustaining another 2 nt players.

basicly if you say you cant sustain salary you say you actually dont need him, and if he isnt needed for anyone, he must retire:D

Last edited by Gajus Julijus Cezaris at 1/20/2014 12:43:28 PM

If you quote a half sentence, read the other half as well.

but at least it would be less tempting to abuse the system with them and have an unfaire advantage

Here's the point.

the fact those junk players are worth nothing is of NT FARM TEAMS, who grew them. DO you expect to take care of ur farmed trash? You farmed, you take care, dont whine. Thats my point of view.

Wolph! You finally made it out of Japan?!


Anyway, I don't think anything should be changed. Most of the time, when you fire a player, you're either on the brink of brankrupty, or you're just firing your newly acquired useless rookies. In those cases, paying one week of salary would be unfair in my mind.

Actually the problem is when you buying a 250k salary player for 10k, play him on 2-3 games then fire him just before salary.

Rookie salary is not a big amount. When you go bankrupt, you don't buy 250k salary guys.
Anyway, the rule could be this: you can't fire a player who played a game on your team, before giving him a week of salary.
This way, rookie salary doesn't count as they didn't play a single minute for you. When you sell a player who was part of team for weeks, months, years, the rule doesn't affect you, because you already paid a week of salary earlier. The only case that this rule counts is the case mentioned in the top row.