BuzzerBeater Forums

if you are shopping players in the under 20k salary range...then aren'T they pretty much all worth 100k or less (unless they have potential and are young). If you consider what a trainer costs, claerly its not worth training players that are worth so little.

No, many of those players go for 300k or 400k or even higher. We've already seen the profiteering on Tuozzi from my roster, we can see the star potential FW I picked up a couple of seasons back previously sold for over 400k (though I don't know when he received his massive FT training, so he may be a poor example). I'm seeing guys on the TL who are 24 with star potential with transfer compares generally in the 300-400k range.

Heck, capped starter potential players can go for over 100k if they're fairly well balanced. I would never suggest training one of those personally, but I know I got three good seasons from an about 11K center type. He sold for 270k earlier in his career. I had another 6th man type that I picked up in V that lasted to be a backup in IV - again, not a guy worth training, but one that could play SF or PF at my level - he sold for over 150k earlier in his career. And none of these guys were close to the caps for star potential.

There's a major gulf between where you think new players start at and where the reality is, if you're espousing the "oh, go spend hundreds of thousands on premium trainees since they'll last with you" theory. When the time comes that they can afford to do so, by all means it's ideal. But going for bargain trainees early on that have a decent resale value in the low-salary price range where a large number of users actually reside is something that can work while the team develops the infrastructure to support higher priced trainees and higher salaried players.

you got guys making 21k, 31k, 55k that i see, and several in the 10~20k range.
Solano made 19k, Vlimas made 20k. that looks like player's you got in terms of salary amount.

I looked at your recent transfers. I see the one player you sold, the guy who bought him is now daytrading him to a new account it seems, arleady a bid of 700k. I think we should report that, brand new account bidding that much on a player worth aroudn 300k.

Look for Cassanavate, i paid too much for hi ma few seasons back and barely moved him out for 299k. That, like I said is about topend I think for your star potentials. Even if we grant you that one you sold for 450k.... I see sales of much mcuh less in your transfer history.

Yes, now, in III. The 55 and 31k guys were additions this season, which still puts me below league average but were guys that filled a major hole. The 21k guy I had last season, as well as the 16k and 13k pf/C big men and two that were around 11k that were replaced by the new ones. The guards of course had lower salaries last season.

And of course you see sales of much less in my transfer history; I've essentially sold four "trainees" in the time I've played the game. One was a scrub I picked up for 8k or so in free agency with very low potential (6th man) who I ended up selling for around 140k. I'm not sure how he went that high, though, and I consider that a lucky bidwar rather than anything I've done. I sold a guy I picked up at 1k after the draft for 75k after a season of training, and then sold the guy I bought at 10k for 450k. The only other player who I would ever considered a serious trainee was an MVP draft pick who I got some pops on the first month of the season and then sold. Oh, there was an original player that was also 6th man potential and arguably a small forward who took the extra training minutes and sold for 8k, but that's also not at all of note.

The other three main trainees from that time period are still on my roster, receiving occasional 1v1 training and possibly 2pos passing when I need to play stronger league lineups. With them is the Allstar SF/SG I picked up when I sold the MVP, and three 18 year old big men (one a draftee, the other two TL guys) who are all 7-8 potential (and the star draftee who's a 6-10 PG who will be cup fodder and RB minutes soaker).

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Now I'm rolling on the floor. The last refuge of those who can't answer an argument is to head to Ad Hominem Avenue.

If you really want to learn something about this approach to BB, you need to get out of your mindset that everyone starts in D2 with D2 TV contracts, D2 attendance/pricing ability, and the ability to avoid relegation by playing against a bunch of bots. This is not what the vast majority of BB managers experience.

Furthermore, spare me your prattling about trainer costs and whether you made more money 2 years ago by day trading, or exactly what my transfer balance is. We are discussing here whether training high potential players gives significantly more return on investment than training lower potential guys (check the thread title). It's not a complete cost-benefit analysis, nor is it an analysis of how to maximize overall return on investment. Those are interesting and important questions for sure, but in some sense they are a separate issue. Stop conflating them, or start a new thread to discuss them.

In the example I gave above, there's no need to include trainer cost, because they are the same for both conditions..
But that example is pretty illuminating by itself. It shows that you must regularly sell a 5 season trained player for 1.3 million more than what you bought him for, to be even with a 3 season trained, lower potential guy. You can call it a false theory, or that I'm blowing smoke, but you really haven't argued with that outcome. You just ignore any all all examples of star guys who sell for decent prices (remember that TPEs are based on actual sales). Still, even assume the prices are 300K. That just slightly reduces what the high priced guy needs to sell for to get to break even point.

And as I have said many, many times, this analysis doesn't show that the best approach for all teams is to train star potential players and only star potential players. But it is certainly a far cry from "training star potential players is worthless."

Lolz.

You clearly missed the point where I said that my example was a limited case of circumstances of relative cost in training high versus low potential players. Whether there was any net profit in creating those players isn't relevant to that case. So one last time: it's not a complete cost-benefit analysis. Cause here you go bringing up other considerations, like how well the Horde did. Well, the Genghis and the Horde is a very good team, but he also has not invested what I have in the arena, where he's 5000 seats fewer than mine. A strategic choice that every manager has to make, And I'll admit that he plays the TL more effectively than I do. That's not a part of the game I enjoy enough to spend a lot of time on it. Still, really all of that is extraneous.

And I do agree that training better, higher potential players is something most teams would benefit from at a certain point in their life cycle. Or else why would my main trainees be 7,8,10 potential, with one of them a top prospect for USA U21 next season?

You've brought in 1.3 million over the life of your entire career on trainees and non-trainees alike. Even if that 1.3 million is ALL trainees... you subtract trainer cost and initial purchase, plus any scouting fees you paid....and you are no profiteer. You are a guy working at McDonald's lecturing his coworkers about the stockmarket. And I'm thinking to myself now, if you know so much about the stockmarket...why do you work at McDonald's?????

It's almost exclusively *NOT* trainees, actually. I know this is a difficult concept to grasp, but the name of this game is not TransferMarketBeater, or TeamRotationForProfitBeater. I am not saying that training low potential players is always the way to go -- when you can afford to train better players (and I'm talking salary too), that's going to be better. I'm not lecturing on how to be a profiteer. What I am saying is that for teams just starting out, who should be putting their money into the arena, that rather than spending 300k per trainee acceptable for YOUR level or trying to churn some small margin on stamina/ft training on guys under 10k, it's entirely possible to move up by INITIALLY training lower tier prospects, and that those prospects can actually help a team in IV and in III.

But your constant McDonalds references just show how out of your area of expertise you are here. In some countries, sure, you can roll over in money so quickly that you're essentially starting off with the ability for premium players. In countries where you start at 5, though, you may have to work McDonalds a few seasons to be able to afford to go to college and get a better job.

Sell a few players for 300k + (not 1 or 2, but a couple, in a few cycles) and get a total sales over 2 or 3 million, better yet try to actually have a positive number in your transfer history not -2 million.....

Util then you don'T belong in the conversation. I can'T stand people who talk themselves up as experts and push theories with no practical experience. ITs just ridiculous.

How many games have you won in V? In IV? In III? And yet you presume to lecture from on high that what has worked in multiple instances AT THOSE LEVELS is worthless?

Believe it or not, I don't measure my success by my transfer balance, nor by what happens to my players when they're gone, or whether they appear in the NT. I don't believe that one should be following the exact same strategy when in V as they should in I. And I don't believe that players who are still capable starters after two promotions are ever "worthless" trainees. Maybe they aren't the most "profitable" and maybe I'm not going to be able to say that my first four or five trainees in this game will ever be stars at the top levels of the game. But there's absolutely no reason to spend the extra money to train guys to a level that no team can reach in four or five seasons, and then just turn them over to guys like you and the guys in the NBBA, who do have need of those players.