BuzzerBeater Forums

You think "supply and demand" of players is the root of the problem. I say no, too much cash chasing too few worthwhile players is the root of the problem. It would be easy to see who is right -- leave the same number of players and managers in the economy and start withdrawing cash. If it helps, I was right. If it has no effect, you were right.

Just catching up on my Sunday afternoon BB blog reading here, and this thread is quite interesting.

Mr. Franks,
It seems like the second sentence here, bolded, is a solid example of 'supply & demand' causal factors taking place, the 'supply' of too much cash being high and the demand on the 'few worthwhile' players also being high (and supply of them being low, of course).

If your answer is to remove the cash, it seems that would be a really hard thing to do. I read through most of your posts, and I may have missed it, but how would BB skim cash out of teams? How do you determine how much cash? Who gets hit?

Also, you've made the statement several times that bankrupt teams have pumped 100% of their funds into the transfer list economy. From my understanding of this game, that statement is not true (most 100% of anything statements are not true). While I agree that their funds have all gone to expenses related to managing a team here in BB, I think that rarely does a team blow out it's entire cash-wad on buying players (but if/when that does happen, I agree that would be pumping 100% of their newfound cash into the transfer list economy). However, there are many other cases that drain a new team's bank account - I think more times it is the salaries of their purchased players that sinks them. and those salaries being paid don't prop up the transfer market at all. Also, as has been mentioned by other posters, new teams also pick up trainers with a too hefty salary, which will soak up all their funds and take them into the red while not adding cash to the transfer market.

None of these examples always happen (in truth, I can't name the percentages on the pie graph that shows how much bankrupt teams have spent in various areas to make them go bankrupt, but neither can anyone else). More accurately, the ways teams go bankrupt are a combination of various factors, many of which don't put money into the transfer market. And teams go bot a variety of ways as well, and often times have nothing to do with being bankrupt, and thus also don't prop up the transfer market.

Just my two cents,

Iguanadon

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and reasonable post. You should apply to be a GM.

As far as supply and demand, the supply of players is at issue, as well as the demand by managers. Of course this is part of the issue. Where some contentious posts developed was over the role that cash plays in this formula, since the game has too much cash and the prices of TL players is outrageously high, as plenty of others besides just me have observed. GM's have denied this, turning a blind eye to it and mocking anyone who tries to make the case for this imbalance in the economy.

Adding players and removing cash are both possible, and the initial steps would not even be difficult. Players can be added through lowering the threshold on free agency. Cash can be controlled through a reduction in TV contracts. Additional steps are also available.

Of course not every bankrupt team has pumped a lot of money into the economy. Some have, though, as you correctly observed. GM's also fought against that idea. BTW, your observations about the pitfalls that lead new managers to bankruptcy would form the base of a very constructive effort toward reforming aspects of the game with an eye toward retaining new customers.

Have a fine Sunday afternoon.

None is picking a fight.

If BB.Marmin create a bank account tax or fee it will kill the game, plain and simple. You can not fix a economic spending stall in buying with a tax penalty on the consumer( bb managers). You just took money out their pocket to survive the issues and plan ahead for the team successes.. You have to stimulate the economy which means push mass money into it. But money is not the direct issue here.

Player quality is. I repeat "player quality"

In order to fix stall in consumer confidence in buying . You have to lower the prices of the product which the 1st logical things to consider. Or create a way for a diverse products to enter the economic market to free up money in your buyers. You can't force someone to buy or tax them for not buying.

The third things you can do is give them money to put into the market. But money is not the issue here. "Player quality" is. taking away team economic planning freedom is not good, who care if the manager has 100 million in the bank account. there guide line rules on flippers. . guidelines rules on training.

What you have in the bank does not hurt the market. Tottally different system. what you have in your bank account doesn't raise cost. People buying bad player of the same skill does, the same style of player just made better does. People are training and keeping their players for tax exemption.. People are selling bad player higher for tax exemption. Which is hat a lot wanted, people to train rather than to buy. I disagreed with that in very heavy fashion

Hey look what ever Marin does . I hope listens to good reasoning. raiding some mangers bank account just because they're not buying in bad economy is going to start a riot. There is no easy fix to the BB market. He wanted people to train and that what they are doing. Some sell them on what they could be,

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 4/12/2015 7:36:46 PM

That is fine , I have a business degree in management also finance.

What about if you're still winning and still making money? Surely then you couldn't be punished for having a large sum of cash stored.

I think it's a bit more filled with grey areas than just being black and white.

When I read your posts I imagine the giant panda speaking to me. It is comforting, yet also slightly unnerving.

The accurate bit is always going to be up for debate, but it sure is fun

When I read your posts I imagine the giant panda speaking to me. It is comforting, yet also slightly unnerving.

I am............

The Great......


PAAAAAANNNNNNDAAAAAAA!!!


*cough*


*tumble weed*

When everybody signed up to this game they were expecting a basketball world simulation, right? So, let's see what happens on the real basketball world out there...
- In the mid-70s the average NBA salary was about $130k, in the mid-80s it was about $300k, in the mid-90s it was about $2.5M, in the mid-00s it was about $4M and in the mid-10s the average NBA player is going to make more than $5.5M due to the new TV deal... Talk to me about inflation, right?!?
- Joe Johnson is going to make nearly $50M over two seasons, Eric Gordon will make $30M over two seasons, Gerald Wallace another $20M over two seasons and JaVale is going to make nearly $15M a year for throwing passes in the sixth row. Talk to me about overpaid players, right?!?

And if the top league makes that kind of money, isn't it logical to expect the next league down to make less, and the next league down to make less than that, and so forth?

But we're talking more about the cost of players on the transfer market than the salaries.

You have to stimulate the economy which means push mass money into it.

You have to lower the prices of the product which the 1st logical things to consider.

The third things you can do is give them money to put into the market.

Well, it has to be one or the other, you can't have it both ways. I agree with the part I bolded.

Adding players and removing cash are both possible, and the initial steps would not even be difficult. Players can be added through lowering the threshold on free agency. Cash can be controlled through a reduction in TV contracts. Additional steps are also available.

This part in bold would be particularly useful at increasing overall supply of players. Heck, to be honest, I'd love it if the cut off on Center salaries coming in off of bot teams was $15K instead of $35K. Even in DII you can use some nice backup bigs with salaries in the mid 20's.
As a recap for everyone (just in case there are some new folk reading along), players on a team that go bot only hit the transfer line if their salary is over: $20K for SF, $25K for Guards, $30K for PF, and $35K for C. Players that get fired from an active team hit the transfer line if their salaries are half that or greater. I'd like it if players from teams that go bot had the same filter as players fired from active teams.
However, I certainly think that there was method behind instigating these limits, and I'm pretty sure that there are factors and data being watched behind the scenes that we are unaware of that the Buzzerbeater Executive Team uses to determine when a shift needs to take place.

With regard to a reduction in TV contracts, I would not want to see that happen, as TV Contract income is a part of weekly operating income, and thus many teams have built their future upon it. Taking that down a notch will force teams to make changes in their day to day operations which have been carefully blueprinted up to this point.

I also wonder what the impact of a large number of Utopia teams going bot is going to be... Granted, many players that had been purchased by these teams probably won't meet threshold and thus will be given their walking papers and sent off into the void. What the loss of these team also will do, perhaps, is reduce the demand on players in this $10-$25K range that seems to be a large issue here. Thus, that could provide some relief on the transfer list pricing on those salary ranges.