BuzzerBeater Forums

As far as your first point goes, having a balanced player is the key to building salary efficient players. A player with all 8s could be a valuable PG quite quickly, I would think you could end up with a 8-8-12-10-10-12/8-9-8-8 PG in season two, which I would take right now for my D3 team and he would be a very cost efficient player. I don't know if that player would start every game, but I would have no problem starting that player at PG.

As far as your second point, IMO the attributed (or "stats") you have to sacrifice are the high end attributes, it may not be a good idea to have legendary OD on a perennial all-star potential player as you won't have another attribute over the 13-14 range (unless you want the player to be terribly unbalanced).

1) 2 types of positions that probably won't need 8 on Rebounding (but elite NT teams won't mind) are the PG/SG spot.
2) with all 8, it's just about a dream to have for any SF/PF/C unless some team doesn't want it to keep a low salary. But in this case, the type of player mentioned above is worth more than the type of trainee he's looking for. Just sell the 888 guy and buy the 1/8 or whatever.
3) referring to item number 2, if he really wants a low starting skill player, geezus just sell the dude above as there are plenty who'd want it.

Oh sure, I'm sure NT teams wouldn't care even if someone managed to create a 400k salary monster.

I think that combination only works perfectly for SF (at nearly any kind of potential) or guards/big men if their potential is high enough (like MVP or higher). The secondaries would kill other big men if the potential and height were high enough that you could train his primaries enough. However, imagine that kind of skill distribution on an allstar potential. Yes you can make a nice player and train him through the cap but he will still be limited (and you won't be able to exploit particularly low skills in order to prevent him from capping).

Your last point is a good point and I agree in general, but it's more due to inefficiencies in the market than real value. A better argument is that it would take fewer seasons to cap this guy compared to others and the cost associated with that is not negligible.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 10/14/2014 11:52:02 AM

Holy hell :O

Yeah the salary should definitely be over 8k. I guess the second has a 7 somewhere or very low sublevels. How could you scan all the draftees by salary?

Last edited by Lemonshine at 10/14/2014 1:58:03 PM

I looked up all the 19yo's and if any player out there has 8x10 it has to be these guys: (34411444) (34378511).
There were some guys with a 7k something salary as well.

Close but not enought for this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiMHTK15Pik&channel=ch...

Omg there was a program and we actually did all that scouting by hand every season...

Thanks a lot Manon

Last edited by Lemonshine at 10/14/2014 2:57:31 PM

Yeah, but rarely today do we find someone who possess the sort of ineptitude to keep pumping his salary towards 400k let alone 300k without having a plan already in mind on how he'd be able to keep him, no matter what the position. And the only bad thing about having any of the 8 is for rebounding on guards

No the guards are out because the salary would balloon with 8 rebounding. In fact I think it's probably next to impossible to make a SG with 8 in all the inside skills. I didn't reiterate the point I made before since I thought we agreed.

The secondaries would kill other big men if the potential and height were high enough that you could train his primaries enough.

Besides I did say this, didn't I?

why you think those all 8s is not a nice thing... because we're dealing with... low potential???

I think it's pointless because you can't create a salary efficient player. At all-star level, the examples you're using, your player will soft cap at 21 probably (3 seasons of training), but his primaries will be too low despite great secondaries. Your guy would be an amazing U21 player, but he's unlikely to be a starter for any playoff team in DII or above.

It's like you prefer this guy: (http://i.imgur.com/2WPbo2c.png)
over this guy: (http://i.imgur.com/imy9x7M.png)

Clearly having all 8s does remove some control over how and when you can cap a player. I will take your example
more like, I'd prefer this guy:http://i.imgur.com/BHNKrWE.png at 26 over your guy:http://i.imgur.com/imy9x7M.png. At any position every day of the week and twice on Sunday as it would destroy the second at any position

Now, if you tell me your player takes 4 seasons to make and mine 8, that would be true, but you also have to consider that my guy can be made while yours can't. With a 10x8 starting point your guy would soft cap here: http://i.imgur.com/1NlSHMj.png while mine would soft cap here http://i.imgur.com/CQvmaYx.png. You can't increase RB and ID without increasing SB (and IS without increasing JS), the the salary increases and the guy hits a wall sooner rather than later.

You could be smart and try to expand his secondaries fruther, too bad that his primaries would take a further step back and in that case he'd be probably be a SF rather than a big man. Therefore it only really works (a) to save money and time on the training to obtain an inferior player in the long term but better in the short term, something that you never considered so far; or (b) make a SF.

If the guy has HoF potential on top of starting at 10x8 then it's another story altogether, but this is exactly the reason why I made a point about potential.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 10/14/2014 9:59:28 PM