BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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

Well, that explains everything. You "Business"-guys rarely have a clue about macroeconomics.

In my opinion the amount of money in the BB-Economy needs to be monitored very strictly and if it exceeds a certain amount taxes or other measures should be introduced.

Well, that explains everything. You "Business"-guys rarely have a clue about macroeconomics.

People always generalise things.

Tsk tsk.

Got to disagree on these 2 since one begets the other:
Though many of these tie into one another
as in spend to earn
as individual stand alone they are as you say but they are not stand alone
that is too simplistic

11. Arena expansion cost. Money thrown down a hole.
3. Attendance revenue. Money created from nothing.

higher player salaries = more wins = higher attendance revenue
add expansion to the above = even higher attendance revenue

Scout players - hire good staff and train = better players
better players = more wins, well you get the idea

I'm afraid to respond because the thread's blown up over the weekend and I can only imagine what's going on now, but in this case I didn't mean money thrown down the hole is being wasted. I just meant that the dollars you spend on arena expansion don't end up in another person's pocket, who would spend them and continue the exchange of those dollars in the economy, with all the residual effects thereof.

Last edited by GM-hrudey at 4/13/2015 9:55:16 AM