BuzzerBeater Forums

I understand what you are saying, but what if you know your team is going to come last this season (or very close to last). Why not spend 40k a week on scouting. That is 560k. Chances are that you are definitely going to uncover a good player that is 18 and has great potential. That 1 player alone, which you are gauranteed to get as you have 1st pick, is going to be worth more than 560k. And the other 2 players are probably going to be decent as well.

Since season 1 the draft didn't satisfy users and if I remember well BBs too. 2 seasons ago I knew to be relegated cause I wanted to do that so I've invested money in scouts. Well, my best drafted was a 19yo potential MVP, last season I've invested less money and of course the players drafted aren't players but human waste. I tried to saw in these 2 seasons if someone else had better luck in my divisions but I didn't find anyone, it means that no one player worthed a lot of money on the market. At the end for me it is sure that:

1. Draft = random
2. Money invested are wasted
3. Not all the divisions can see one perennial all star
4. There are teams that receives a gift of 3m cause they're soo lucky to pick a good player

This draft not should but must be changed

Sorry for the other post ;)

How would it be changed without fundamentally changing the game? Should their be no Hall of Famers or All Time Greats and instead every team getting a couple of 4k waged potential Allstars?

Why even bother with a draft in that case.

Randomness does not imply that investing is a mistake

Charles, I've an idea I will leave my bank code, you start to pay and at the end of the season I promise you that I will make you a gift. Of course it can be extremely good but can be also a 2 cents gift :p

Excludining jokes I understand your point but the real world is another thing, honestly if I can suggest a way to change the draft I will link the income of every team to the final result of the draft. It means for 2 players I could accept the random but with my first choice I'd like to have the possibility to have or not a great draftee in my roster. If I earn 100k/week I can decide to spend the 10%-50%-100% of the income every week to have at the end of the season a player that can be horrible if I invest 0% but that must be a 18yo with at least good potential if I've invested the 90% of the weekly income.
In this way there aren't difference between the divisions, the teams that are saving a lot of money can decide to continue to earn money or to have a good player. This idea has a big problem, if I earn 1$/week I can easily put the 100% in the research but you can avoid it linked the % of investmens at the average income of the league. In my division we lost -78k/week so also in this case my idea seems not so good but at the end the concept is that if I want to have a good 18yo I could have the possiblity to draft him and this possibility is related to the money I want to spend, more money better player. 2 seasons ago I wanted a good 18yo and I would spent even 5m to have him, with the current draft I think few teams are paying 40k/week

I'm not going to respond to most of these comments because I want to let the debate flow without outside influences. However, I do think I should mention a couple of things:

1. Draft = random
2. Money invested are wasted

Randomness does not imply that investing is a mistake. You should bet with me on a coin flip if I give you 2:1 odds, but you should not bet with me on a coin flip if I give you 1:2 odds. In the case of the draft, it is more complicated because whether your investment is wise probably depends upon the investments of the other people in your league and on your league finish. It is very likely that the correct amount for most teams to spend on the draft is neither $0 nor $40k/week.

It depend from the rate of randomness...I choose the first player in my draft list this year,investing a decent amount of money in the year(10/k week),and i picked up a 19years old with potential sixth man.Now,I'm not pretending to have a players with 7k salary and potential all stime great every year,but with the first choice,I'd like to have at least a decent player for my team
If you put the 19years players in the draft,you should make him a little bit stronger than the 18years old,so also if they will be disadvantaged from having one seson less than the other in their future training,they could be useful from the first moment.
i don't think this reasoning is out from the world...

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 3/27/2010 7:55:47 AM

the only 5 ball with potential that i see was a 19years old center that i put in the fifth place in the list,if i remember well(and i was looking for a guard in the draft).And i see eight or nine players with five ball rating...What should i do in that situation?
My proposal will at least make the random less randomic,if i pick up a five ball,also if old and with low potential,had to be at least useful from the first moment,also if only for the cup

What you are talking about?
I hat the eleventh pick in the draf,but also if I had the first pick,surely I will not spend 40k/week for the draft,because if I'm sure to pick every player I want in the list,spending less for week(10-20K) is quite enough to see good players and to pick them
And the reasoning is more general than a mere question_first-second pick
I have no interest to train him in the future,because he will have few value for his skills because of his potential and his age...and I'm talking about a 5 ball skill rating,if you think that the other players of the draft should be worse than him,you had to think about the fact that the main part of the players of the draft are useless