BuzzerBeater Forums

Thanks for continuing the discussion Simon, very good post, and I agree with most of it.

You have only ever needed short-term players because you were in position to promote each season, bringing you more cash and forcing you to compete at a higher level in the near future, and thus making it easy and necessary for you to trade-up relatively often...

...And that makes other strategies for increasing the performance-cost ratio important.

I follow the school of thought that teams should have two modes, "make a lot of money while not demoting" and "try to promote". This strategy works great in either mode (or anywhere in between), so great that trying to do the former has accidently put me in the latter category two times in a row now. If promoting wasn't realistic last season I could have just stuck with the cheap, profitable roster I had assembled and set myself up for the future (like I am doing this year, my revenue is more than double my expenses and I'm not trying to promote).

I firmly believe this is the best way to have a high performance to cost ratio which is why it is applicable to a large range of goals and situations, including all the situations listed in your post. In fact I think it is even better for teams in worse circumstances since maximizing a weak cash situation is its biggest strength.


I would like to make a longer post on the riskiness of owning older players, and address some other things in your post, but it will take more time than I have now. Hopefully I remember to get back to it at some point.

I have always been told to be leery of keeping and by 30+ players. While I admit younger players give you a great future, they are just so expensive. I will still be training guards for a few more years so do I buy the older, cheaper big men or try and save up enough money to buy a younger one that will last awhile? The price difference is really huge. What are your thoughts?

I would go with 2 older guys with sum of salaries as of the 1 younger player.

Why? 2 older guys give you options in rotation (therefore better game shape management), they are probably more experienced then 1 younger player and if one gets hurt, the other can jump in.

Another point to take is this - opponent can have a beast at position where you have that one guy. Your 1 younger guy maybe can't defend opponent and can't score against him. When you have 2 slightly worse guys, they can compensate that. Opponent will probably score but your guys can play at 2 positions (PF and C), take turns on defending the "beast" and you'll win that battle (if ent and effort are equal). Maybe they will force fouling out of the "beast"? There are two of them still even if each fouls 4-5 times...

So to ignore all math and economy discussions in this thread, I think 2 older players beat 1 younger.

PS I saw your activity in transfer list and I think it's a mistake. Time will show...

well for longitvity i would take some younger player they will reap better rewards for you in the long run. Finacially and as team wise. i dont think smart bet to buy a old player just to regulate, while it s very sure bet that will you regulate becuase the skills and exp they have..

In long haul you cant sell them back and they lose value so it to me its not good idea( * this depend on fast you sell them back lol*) . But if you want to regulate and promote then by all mean buy a older more exp player and play the proper tatics. But i think a group of young beast will do alot more better things for a team in the long haul. Money wise and team wise

Haiku summary:

cash and as team wise
young beast alot more better
old men regulate

thats not really what i said though.

When i made the initial comments i did, my intent was that a team would have a position (guards, SF, or bigs) that they were training between 2 and 6 guys depending on whether or not they believe in single or 2 position training. On top of that trainee position, i figured that they should have 2-3 guys that are middle aged that can last a longer span of time. The cheaper veterans often have some holes to boot (most of the time the cheaper 32 year olds, IE the 5-30k investments, have a significant hole that the 200-300k veterans do not), so to a degree if you invest in the right younger player, i find he has quite the bang for the buck. See Lartaun Eskibel, my PG, as an example of someone who has made my team exponentially better in D.IV, and might make me go even further down the road. Finally, with the remaining 2-5 positions you have (dependent mostly on your training philosophy), you would invest in the 31-32 crowd, and maybe occasionally invest in an even better 33 year old and live with a few drops within the next 1.5 seasons.

My reasoning was based on the fact that sometimes one doesn't have the time to find more than 6-7 vets every other season for their team. And sometimes, it's harder to find exactly what you want right off the start. Additionally, i don't believe that this game forces you to play absolutely brilliantly financially, and punishes you for not developing your own talent starting at a relatively low level, by letting you get stomped once you reach a certain point. Try for example developing 3 players at PG at the D.II level. not going to work out well when the 5k salary player is facing a 30k minimum across the floor, sometimes an 80k+ guy.

So my advice in full is don't center a team around 31-33 year olds at all positions all the time. You need a good mix, and it's important to understand development by doing it yourself at some point, and you can afford to do it during games more at an earlier stage than you will later on. Additionally, right now in the market 32 doesn't have a particularly good market price point in comparison to 31 year olds, or 33 year olds. so i might actually steer you away from that if you want my advice and look more closely at 31's and 33's.

Last edited by FuriousSK at 10/31/2012 9:13:38 PM