BuzzerBeater Forums

Right, but I never said that all the 19 years old players should be better than 18y. and that's what he understood from the message.. it's clear that there is some 18y old players are much better than 19-22y(Lebron James at age 18 was much better than very senior foxes). but I talked about the talented players of age 19y in the draft system.. but again, all relative .

Anyway, the whole suggestion it to makes general change and not just between the rookies ages .

Last edited by Warrior at 11/2/2008 12:45:46 PM

whole respectable 19y could be good difference sometimes, human talent is unexpectable, so your point can have good reflection afterall

i agree the drat right now is not nearly optimal...i think you should give olders an advantage on youngers and rise the averages of the rookies higher,there's a whole diffrence from 1 draft pick and the last but if this game want to be like the real life then the first draft pick should be good enugh to play in the first 5 in his team in the NBA 1 draft picks are scoring 20 points in game most of the time and sometimes more but here you will be lucky if your new player will make a 10 poitns average...there is a lot to change in the current system for my opinion.

Well if you'd change the system in order to some draftees being stars already from the beginning you'd have to change the training system to - a normal player will not make the progress he is doing i BB in the real life.

Of course 19y old players should not have a skill advantage - it would be nonsense since it would remove the reason for picking the young 18y old (since 19y old are not training that much slower and the 19y old would be closer to your starting five). The skillfull 18y olds are and should be the real stars of the draft and should never be less skillfull than their 19y old counterparts.

Further, it is a good thing that the quality of the dragtees is not improving as the managers do. Of course all of us improve (to a certain level). That is natural as more mature teams will have more fans and better finances. If the draftees improved along with this we would just make better and better teams and never really have to be tactical and choose where to focus and how to gain the edge over our opponents. I think that'd be boring...

Did not go through the whole thread.

What I suggested some time ago was to have a different evaluation scale for different ages. If a 18yo with a certain set of skills has a 4 balls rating, a 19yo with the exact same set of skills you could have 3 balls.

But now that the age becomes visible with a second scouting my suggestion has become quite a bit weaker.

i didn't ment for ALL number 1 picks...only the number 1 pick in the whole draft the pkayer all the teams trying to get you know they do a lot od buzz around them so why in the game the best plaer in the whole draft still might be on the beanch becouse his not good enugh for the first 5? why does a team manager invest 40K each week for 11 weeks paying 440K in season for a pkayer worth less then 200k in skills(not taking the pontentiol price rate)? if i'm a low rank team in the league and i'm givinf 440K i'm expecting to get A STAR if i pick the first player and if not then AT THE VERY LEAST A PLAYER THAT CAN PLAY GOOD IN MY FIRST TEAM,if not then the game dosn't help the low team in a helpfull way and thay invest a lot of money to get something that with a lot of luck might be worth the investmant mostly not...how many draft pciks are worth more them 440K right after the draft? without superstar potentionl and more i don't think you will find enough...it's logical that if the draft should help low teams(as said in the rules)and they invest 440K then at least they could have the option to get a pkayer that worth this money not 3 that toghter worth it...i want the draft to be closer to reality and what to do there are players that in age 18 are better then players in age 30 and can start in the first 5 before them in this game it's almost impossible i'm enjoing this game a lot but after investing year after year in the draft i'm positive it SHOULD change and the faster the better the 19 and 18 age players skills are not so importent but not even one pkayer with one "strong" skill in the whole draft(didn't seen one)is so weak you get the best player in the draft and wait for a center that you can put in the first 5 and then you can a player to warm your bench at least,i'm a high rank team in my leauge but the low team should get stronger in the end of seasen and that just don't happen with the current draft system

Train the player for a season and he might be worth a lot more. Train him two seasons and he will increase in value even more.

I think that is how you mainly benefit from the draft not by selling players straightly after the draft.

Can anyone who been around for some seasons comment on my ideas?

It can go either way, if you draft a young guy with a decent set of starting skills and high-ish potential then he can sell for quite a bit, simply because of how good he can become. But obviously if you train that same player for a few seasons, he can go for 10x that value.

I think it all depends on what your training schedule is. I sold a guy a couple of seasons ago for $500k that was a great prospect but came to me a season too late, so he just didn't fit into my plans. On the other hand, I bought a guy for over $1m because he fit exactly into my training plans and had decent secondary skills. Chances are I won't sell him but train him up to a decent level and then keep him because he's more use to me here than in another team. Plus, my finances are very healthy and I profit almost every week, so the whole "train+sell" issue isn't as important to me.

On a more global scale, I would agree with you, the main benefit of the draft is getting young players for free, training them and then selling them. But it's not the only way that the draft should be used.

For fun I checked the draft from my own league and top league in my country. Seems like the draft has not been too useful for most teams.

In top league most of the teams kept their drafts but they have played very little time. Strange decision though to have a player that only get a few minutes once in a while for a scrimmage. I would sell or sack instead.

In my league none of the players from this years draft has been that influential and from last years it been similar.

What I then get a bit curious about is the comparison between starting teams and drafts. From this little research I get the impression that starting teams got maybe a bit too good players in comparison. For me it would be logical that the starting teams almost only are there to be replaced. At other manager games they are very much like the local not so talentive players.

Anyone that got an opinion about this? I play my first season so surely got no possibility to more than reflect about this and maybe do it completely incorrect. I bought some cheap players but still two of my starters are from the team I was given and they are no worse than the rest of my players.

raft sld be able to upgrade a team. At least the 3 best players in the draft should be players of more than 6000$ salary. 5 more of over 5000$ salary.

This is my opinion. Not necessarily a star, but a player that can actually upgrade a weak team.

I don't know if it is so, I don't know what A or even A+ players look like, since this is going to be my first draft, and I don't know how many A's are in the draft anyway, (and I am picking last so my chances to get one of them are slim). I just hope that the weaker teams chances are better than in the lottary...

In whole Czech republic we have last season's draft only 2 players over 6000$ salary and 3 more over 5000$ salary.
It was only 18 years old players, so may be some others 19 years old also had salary over 6000$ or 5000$.
I didn't count players with potencial below starter (4) and players drafted by computer managed teams.
Czech republic had over 200 active teams at the time of that draft.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 11/12/2008 11:26:01 AM