BuzzerBeater Forums

I understand your points and all I can say is we will see next season if the increased salaries will have the impact that they should: not just on the transfer market but also on profits.

This is what I expect: players with 500K+ salary should be relatively plentiful and affordable on the transfer market next season. Any division I team will be able to pick one of these guys up with relatively low up front costs. However, given that the break even point, salary wise, for a division I team is somewhere between 650K-800K in salaries, getting one of those players pretty much means you are either A) bleeding red or have very little talent to surround him with.

Or take my team as an example. I currently make a 350-400K profit per week. Next season I expect that will come down to the neighbourhood of 275K, without even making a significant improvement to my team (besides training). Then again, I also want to add a star player or two to my team. If I am not careful, I could be just barely breaking even. And I do not even expect to add a player with a salary of more than 125K.

Finally - if a team is able to coast in his division and make nice profits without threat of demotion, that's a failure of the managers who are not pushing him plus a compliment to his astute financial abilities. It is not a failure of the economic system.



Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 2/22/2010 2:58:26 PM

I also think that the most successful teams in the future will not be teams who buy hall of fame players and turn them into 500K monsters. The most successful teams will be those who develop multi-skilled players with salaries of 150K or less (think 9x sensational, 8x tremendous, etc).

However, that kind of player takes a lot of time to train. Hence a lot of long term planning is needed. ;-)

I agree with the most part of your thought but not with that

I know few teams newer than mine can say they've taken in as much cash as my team has this year playing near the bottom of the standings, and that I could even afford to sell a couple of players without losing much talent on my roster and have enough cash scraped together to land a player making $40k and not worry about where my next million is coming from. AT the same time, there are teams that have been around since the first or second season that I see spending $7 or $8 million on a player, and I KNOW that wouldn't clean their bank accounts, and I just can't compete with that. By the time I'll be able to spend $7 million on one player, those teams will have enough cash to outbid me and the make the market for those players more like $10 million (and they'll get that cash by selling players that now cost $3 million on the TL and selling them for $5 million).


Not to pick on a team in my league, since everyone is playing by the same rules and I think the team manager seems like a really good fellow, but I'll call the San Jose Sharks in my league up as an example of how an older team can sell all of their players, focus entirely on training young players for most of a season, then with a few weeks to go buy a big free agent to rescue the team from relegation. It remains to be seen if he can pull this off, but the point is that even a team with an extreme case like his could afford to buy his way out of automatic relegation, even selling most players for less than he's bought them for like it seems he's often done, and newer teams just can'

Certainly who started before in the game have more advantages,but if they are able to maintain it,also using unusual strategies,it's a their ability.If buying a great free agent,your league mate is able to win a lot of games and save himself from a relegation,it means that you should improve your teams to avoid his behaviour(beating him also with these new players).He find a legal way to make money,assuming all the risks of the case:when he has to afford the playout against strong teams as in your league are,and with the concrete possibility to be relegated and to have difficulties to return in II division,he is free to do that

I don't like who has this behaviour,being sure to remain o knowinng thet there will be any difficulty to return in the previous division,stronger and with much more money,because he plays against weak team



@HeadPushPaper

The problem is that salaries in BB have not yet reached the point where teams have to burn out their cash reserves and in most leagues you can sit around and continue to make nice profits. The changes to the salary structure should provide one solution, I hope.

In these days I lose something?Wasn't the same question,explained with other words(without sarcasm/irony in these words,man)?
(129389.429)

Or take my team as an example. I currently make a 350-400K profit per week. Next season I expect that will come down to the neighbourhood of 275K, without even making a significant improvement to my team (besides training). Then again, I also want to add a star player or two to my team. If I am not careful, I could be just barely breaking even. And I do not even expect to add a player with a salary of more than 125K.

damn i never made that much even in the cash days, i am currently "down" to 50-130k(more often 50)

I beleive you will will get come very soon tot his 125k players, because if all teams amde that money you will need it soon.

I get what JM-Judgenik is trying to say and I do support it.

He is trying to say that people should get rewarded for starting with low prices by getting cuts on the taxes they have to pay.

This will encourage people to use the transfer market and discourage starting with high prices...

so if a team wants to sell a player that they get 85% of the profit for... if they start selling at a lower price such as 200k than that 85% profit would turn into 92% profit...

I think this idea would work but for this to be implemented wouldnt there have to be a value for each player set up... Starting with 200k at a guy that has all "respectable skills" isn't the same as starting at 200k with a guy that has all prolific skills...

Wait a second, you mean if the price of player is setted lower than for which he is sold, the percentage cut for the club should be higher than it would be normally?

I dont know about percentages, but this makes sense and I think it could work.

The way I am understanding the idea is helping the seller to balance risk. When placing a player on the TL, there are, basically, two options: low ball or shoot the moon. Low ball can successfully draw the player a lot of attention and result in a fair / decent price, but there is a chance that, for whatever reason, the bidding never catches fire, the prices do not rise, and a good player becomes someone else's bargain. With a high initial price, I find that if the price is deemed fair, there is never a three-day bidding war -- more like a half-hour bidding war, if things go well, and the price received is almost by definition acceptable to the former owner. In other words, there is a greater risk of a low initial price failing to produce what the owner deems a fair price.

By fiddling with the transfer tax, a little of this risk can be mitigated. Not much mind you -- on a $500,000 player, we are talking maybe a $50,000 difference in the tax if it were to be reduced by 10% -- but enough to help encourage managers to begin with a low price.

I wonder about the effect this could have on day traders. Say a day trader buys on Tuesday a player for $400,000 and flips him for $750,000 on Thursday. If he were to take more of a chance on a low starting figure on Thursday's price, then maybe he find fewer greater fools.

Indeed!

Imagine a player which real value is 1000 000.

Because you done some trades that week already, train him only for 3 weeks and want to sell right away because he is not so efficient for you right now or whatever, you will put him on TL with a notice that you can get from him 87 percent of his price.

So if you will put him for a 1M and sell him for that price, but you will get in fact 870 000.

However if you will set the price to the half (lets say) 500 000 and he will be sold for 1M, the percentage loss could be halved too - so you will get 93 percent, therefore 930 000.

...

I dont see anything wrong in the idea that these percentages would be tweaked lineary according to what price you set/how many you will get...

Because if you will put him there for 0 - will be the same for you, if he will be sold for 870 000... because you will get 100 percent. And everything tops that is your bonus...

first of all we need more stable servers, else the bb will get many angry users with such system.

And i don't see a real benefit of it, maybe there wll be someless players listed and lot more bidding wars - which especially hurts players who can not list at prime time where enough users online who could compete in a bidding war so maybe more user was the second necessarity for it.

Im not surprised the transfer market is out of control, its a consequence of how the economy is on BB.

Nothing more to say.