BuzzerBeater Forums

I am pre-empting the likely diversity of new player skill sets/potentials/wages hitting the market and am suggesting that valuations on players need to be given more room for movement so that new trends are established.

Trends in what? I don't understand how inflation would do anything other then just raise the rev/exp from transfers. It's basically just a wash if you're a regular team and you make a few moves every season.

Prices go up and dow. If your buying at the same time your selling it mostly evens out.

I am pre-empting the likely diversity of new player skill sets/potentials/wages hitting the market and am suggesting that valuations on players need to be given more room for movement so that new trends are established.

Trends in what? I don't understand how inflation would do anything other then just raise the rev/exp from transfers. It's basically just a wash if you're a regular team and you make a few moves every season.

Prices go up and dow. If your buying at the same time your selling it mostly evens out.

If we continue as we are then there are becoming pretty rigid bands of prices for certain types of players. This is fine for the time being but shortly (i predict) we will start to see some different types of players hit the market (mono-monsters/multi skilled/higher pot equivs to the allstars)

If the average team has 500k in the bank and its only growing by 50-100k a week then the players trading hands mainly with div.1 and 2 teams will only have their prices set by those teams capable of buying them.

If the average team has 2mil in the bank and is growing by 250-300k per week this would likely lead to more competition at the top end for signatures and with more teams competing at auctions we can really gain an understanding for what types of players should attract what level of fee.

Sure its relative and the top top players would likely still end up in the hands of the top Div 1 teams but I believe the trends would re-establish a la season 4/5 when you could train inside and buy non-trainee guards or vice versa.

Now it makes less sense to trade for profit and i bet more teams therefore look to train to keep meaning less money flows in and out of the transfer market which ultimately makes it more difficult for up and coming teams to even think about adding any of the top players for sale to their roster.

Last edited by Superfly Guy at 5/22/2009 2:00:57 PM

was i complaining? (very unlike me!)

don't ask me to do the maths but if the top players are only being available to the minority i was merely suggesting that an increase in money flow throughout the BB world 'could' alter player prices for the better via getting back to a training for profit vs training to keep.

If only 500 teams can afford the player in question sure its nice and easy. If the economics of the game expand so that 5000 can compete for the same player the bands would widen and allow for different types of players to perhaps command different valuations than we are seeing today.

Many division 1 teams have settled rosters so i am suggesting that a lot of players arent changing hands as the player prices have stagnated to the stage that depending on what time of day you go shopping you can pick up players significantly better than others for the same price.

If transfers went back to $1k - $10mil as opposed to $1k to 5mil then i believe that prices will be more consistent.

Maybe im not conveying what i want to say across correctly but i know that selling then buying is all relative, i just believe expanding the market of buyers WOULD gradually change this.

If only 500 teams can afford the player in question sure its nice and easy. If the economics of the game expand so that 5000 can compete for the same player the bands would widen and allow for different types of players to perhaps command different valuations than we are seeing today.

Okay, so how do you propose expanding this base? The only way to do so is to give more money to the 4500 other teams (dII?), while keeping the streams for the original 500 and everyone else below the top 5k static.

Any increases provided across the board will result in no competitive change, but higher purchase/sale prices. That's a great idea if the goal is to increase the amount of money agents get. Otherwise it serves almost no purpose.

Last edited by brian at 5/22/2009 3:23:11 PM

I honestly think that just an increase of money would change the dynamics of the market.

More money won't just create the same rational relative decision making. Maybe i'm just crazy.