BuzzerBeater Forums

We want realistic things, as possible.

The players bought after the economic update are like the borrowed players, where their main team pays their salaries. So far, quite okay. But when those players are fired before the next economic update, they don't return to those teams that paid their salaries last time!

In my opinion, the best and simplest solution is to be like for the staff is and to pay a severance when they are fired. Even that means that those players receive more than one salary. But this can be the price because they remain without a contract, to say that.

You are in right, but, this topic was discussed thouands times since 2007.
It is 1 line of code and seem that the BB Managed ignore it.
So,you can use this "non sense feature" for your team.
Regards

Honestly, I doubt that's a viable strategy on the long term, so I'm not in favor of changing the fact that you don't have to pay salary for fired players.

I tried to present a situation that I believe is quite workable.

In division III,
the team has 5 main players and other low-salary players with a total salary of $250,000.
Each week, I spend an extra $1,000-$2,000 on each of three players with salaries over $100,000, and then fire them before the financial update.
If the opponent that week is weaker, I can choose weaker temporary players instead, adding flexibility.
Before the playoffs, I recruit players normally and keep them until the playoffs are over.

Let's assume there are two other teams:
Team A has 7 main players and other low-salary players with a total salary of $350,000, keeping the same roster all season.
Team B has 5 main players and other low-salary players with a total salary of $250,000, only recruiting players normally before the playoffs and keeping them until the end.

Compared with Team A,
the strength might be similar, but the economic advantage is clear.
Team A might end up with a net loss of around $1.4 million per season, while the “hire-and-fire” plan might result in less than half of that loss.

Compared with Team B,
both teams spend about the same amount, but the difference is in strength.
Team B's regular-season performance may be worse, while the "hire-and-fire" plan could perform closer to Team A.



Last edited by little Guest at 10/24/2025 8:25:56 AM

Thank you. Yes, imo it is the Div3 or lower who are mostly afected by the hire-and-fire strategy, where the skill points brute force > game shape. It is very likely I would consider working with a Sport Psychologist in my hire-and-fire season (for my Saturday game). I would do that for the most weeks in the season and then transform into Team B. The end result should be: as prepared as Team B for the Playoffs, but being a higher seeded.

To me it's a pretty simple solution if you buy a player and he plays in a league game or cup game, you have to pay at least one week salary before firing him. I would hate to see something implemented that would prevent people from buying scrimmage scrubs and having to choose finances over game shape.