Free Agency issues in GM a Team

[babyjax13]

Obviously I've messed up in free agency since I am receiving the same complaint from several people that there is no competition in signings. I want to rectify the situation to keep the game running smoothly.

1st - My reasoning for the method I was using:
A) I didn't feel the players that signed would have any better combinations of money/location/chances at a championship, etc.

B) I want to avoid the mess we've had with complaints that offers with free agency were unrealistic, obviously the solution was worse than the problem.

2nd - Options to rectify
A) Rescind all signings, start fresh: Personally I don't like this offer since I already committed players to particular teams, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but if teams are willing to do this and it is the overwhelming sentiment that it should be done, I'll do it.

B) Freeze all free agent signings until open free agency: I like this option best, you may not. I think all contracts were realistic and very good offers but I do see the point of competition in this game.

C) Continue on the same course: Most likely no one wants this solution.

D) One of the top three options and someone else take my spot as commissioner: I want this game to run smoothly, if you think I can't do it I don't think I should waste my time or yours - if you want this option I suggest that you be willing to invest a ton of time in it and take the spot yourself.

Thank you for your input.

[roc]

Unfortunately the option(Option B) you like best is probably the worst solution as it gives the GMs that already signed their FAs a huge advantage over those that didn't.

I think Option D is also out of the question since I feel your motives were good and were hampered by the way rules were not set up before the game actually got under way. I think your heart was in the right place and you can do the job fine. It is not an easy job to be sure but you will get the groove of things once we get situations ironed out.

as for the 2 options that are left...

Option A would suck for the few GMs that already signed FAs but best if you want to have any competition in FA signings.

Option C is the only fair choice if you don't consider option A as it gives the same benefits to the GMs that have not signed their FAs yet.

[The J Rocka]

Might as well start fresh with UFAs. The RFAs that have already been signed and traded away should be left alone.

[BlackIce]

I vote option C, but I'm biased as nuff of my players are FA's.

[sterncohen]

I vote option C. There is no way of doing free agency that will please everybody. I think all of the signings you've approved so far are realistic ones; some may be a little low, but then again some players do sign quickly with their own teams if they like their situation and feel they won't get much more elsewhere. And, being this far down the road, I think consistency (giving other owners the chance to re-sign their own FA's under the same rules) is preferable to changing course.

[The J Rocka]

I'm not really complaining with how it has gone down so far. Then again I'm the Wolves so top FAs are allergic to my franchise. There are still some good options still available out there.

A or C, doesn't really matter. I must say it has been realistic in terms of the outcomes of FA landings but to a team that has a lot to spend with only second/third tier players available, I could see some getting irritated.

[Warriorfan]

In general the signings have been more realistic than usual so no problem with outcome so Im good with option c plus with the Lewis clause there are more options in a avg class

[roc]

with the amount of FA signings and then trades that already happened I expect Option C will easily win since those GMs have most to lose

[Devilanche]

1st - My reasoning for the method I was using:
A) I didn't feel the players that signed would have any better combinations of money/location/chances at a championship, etc.

C) Continue on the same course: Most likely no one wants this solution.

if you think the offer was already fair then no difference when the sign since a player can give hometeam discount as well. Chances of a ring is overrated imo, especially since there's 4-6 realistic contender every year and it's usually either those that are big names(potential hall of famer) seeking 1 ring, or those minimum guys that money isn't really a difference anywhere.

[lukekarts]

Which signings were unrealistic? I've wanted the 'owning' team to have the early signing ability for some time in these games so I'm for it.

For the general public awareness my offer for Barea was rejected for being too low.

[RiotPunch]

There were some restricted free agent I would have liked to bid on, but I don't know what the best solution is for this. It's a messy situation any way we do it since S&T's have occurred.

[babyjax13]

I'll let this topic go for a bit longer before I make any decisions. I could just keep the signings that ended up being S+Ts and put the others open for bidding.

Luke, what I am doing is something I have wanted to see for some time, but I should have waited until I had all the rules ironed out. I was a bit trigger happy for starting and should have just kept trading open until free agency started on the 5th.

[babyjax13]

Most of the feedback seems to be in favor of option "C", so that's what I am going with. Prior to next round of free agency (in about two months) we'll have a topic open for a couple of weeks to iron out how we want to do it. I apologize to those that are frustrated with the way free agency has been handled, but the rest of the game will be smooth sailing.