BuzzerBeater Forums

Well since this big mans makes the difference between winning or losing i dont think they will leave their nt's even if they arent on their best shape.

Apart from that, another thing that will happen with the new rule of the salaries, is that the transfer market of inside mans is going to go down, not just a bit, im sure it will go down for a huge variety of inside mans with salary 50-150k and we will see great differences of prices between outside players and inside players.

We will see how training inside skills and selling after this players, it wont be really worth since there will be more offer than demand, so my advice for all the managers who expects to make money from their training, turn to outside skills that will be more valued, because the market of the outside players will be more or less the same.

I'm also expectating this thing happens because next season i am planning to sell my outside rookies for a great amount of money, so at the same time this new rule it will be good for my team, since i dont have big salaries.

So apart from that the inside man transfer market will be cheaper in the next months on the next play-off we will see how the teams will hire the 200-400k guys for just 1-3 weeks for their play-off so that dates it will be a good time to speculate and try to make the inflation goes up for a short period of time since BB's does not care a lot on markets prices.

Well - the arguments about the big men with $150-200k salaries becoming passed around like hot potatoes sort of makes sense. I just don't think knowing the BB's they will let this happen. Sure there is now fresh belief that the balanced players offer much more economical output but the fact remains that the $200k guys with average/respectable handling will win over a triple tremendous with nicer secondaries. That being the case, I would vote for a penalty for perennial transfer listers (someone mentioned a GS drop) or another transfer deadline whereby you have to have owned a player before 'x' date for him to be eligible in 'y' trophy, or we'll just see teams making a run on trophies in the latter stages. This itself will help maintain some kind of respectablility on the price tags of the so called 'unaffordable' big men but the game will take on a disappointing dimension if a complete category or position of player is ignored by the mainstream for long periods of the BB season.

Last edited by Superfly Guy at 3/20/2010 11:25:00 PM

I don't see the problem with rent-a-players, especially in an environment where transfer prices are pretty stable.

Assuming the owner doesn't qualify as a day trader, transfer tax on a 3-week hold is what, 85%? So if you buy and resell the player for $5M, and he has a weekly salary of $200k, then you just paid $2.1M for 3 weeks of your mercenary. By contrast, your competition has the option to buy-and-hold similar players with a more well rounded skill profile who only have a weekly salary of $150k but sell for $7M because they're more balanced (or whatever situation actually prevails). It's another trade-off. Do you want to pay $700k a week for a 3-week rental of a huge salary player? Or do you want to build a team you can buy & hold, and have a better long term result?

To me, allowing people to have meteoric flare-seasons where they rent the best roster money can buy and then wind up pissing away all their capital is a necessary and beneficial tactical option for this game. Otherwise, there will be dramatically less turnover among the top teams, and a new owner is going to be a lot less likely to get drawn into the game to the point where they'll stay, because the league structure is so fossilized that the new owner doesn't see much of a chance to ever make it into the top two league levels.

I don't agree with any kind of penalties towarsd anyone,for the perennial transfered players there are yet the taxes on the trade
I see that tha announced rise of the salary will not happen,and the question of how mantian certain players will be solved rising the economci disponibilities.
But,these question,should be afford very seriously,because the arena cap was decided because the ecnomic inequalities in the market.Team with the same level of expenses in the different parts of the BB worlds,have very different possibilities in raising the money,the question little/big country is always the same
If the cap should rise for everyone,who yet earn very much,will earn much more and willbe only a great inflaction in the market

I see that tha announced rise of the salary will not happen

Where did you read this?

I see that tha announced rise of the salary will not happen

Where did you read this?

I don't understand why the salaries should really raise.The measures chosen to solve the problem of inflation left the same previous situation:who has previously the money became richer,who had to fight in a more competitive contest has the same previous difficulties to raise money
And surely a raise of the salaries will damage more who is living in a worst situation

if the managers have the money,they will spend it for what they need(or what they think to need) for their team,I think it's normal and right
The problem is that a general decrease of the incomes(or an increase of the salaries as BB annunced a season ago) of the teams,will affect much more who yet doesn't have the money to act on the market,instead of who nowadays spend large amount of money on a player
But in this economic situation,the users who doesn't have the money aren't who made bad strategical choices,but who have to afford high expenses(for their incomes) because they are in competitive championship.
The principle of the BBs economy should be instead to compensate who mdae the right choices,no matter in what country he live,not to prize who act as a trader,farm or plays in very few competitive championship