04-23-2025, 09:47 AMaleks Wrote: To comment on the gm perspective of this issue, I can say that the free agent process HAS become smoother. It is easier to see by a very large margin what free agents are actually available to sign. Free agency was definitely a mess prior to the changes in moving free agents. A couple teams did make errors in ensuring that their budget or contracts or whatever were done. It's hard for me to rag on any of that because honestly GM tasks have me riddled with anxiety every off season for this exact reason of missing even one guy. I can pour over my gm tasks non stop and I STILL missed some stuff, I regressed a guy a little late, I missed a contract for a prospect I was supposed to sign, I missed a send down/release, either way, I was lucky enough to either catch these things or be told by someone else. The point I am trying to get across is that GMs should have compassion to each other for these things because it could very easily be you next season.

The second thing I wanted to touch on is that although the free agent process has been improved, is it really worth it if we allow active users who want to play for certain teams fall to the wayside? Crasherable contracts becoming void, in my opinion, would not have mattered in the case of TBB (I do not know if it's the same for any of the other teams) because even if TBB had effectively removed the ability for sizz to negotiate with other teams, it was very clear that he wanted to only play for TBB. I have been told that sizz is one of the most active users in the TBB locker room and contributes in their war room. Is it worth tearing people from the teams they like, like this?

I think there was lots of productive discussion in this thread outside of the usual suspects and I'd like to see a case made for sizz not being allowed to play for the team he wants outside of what is basically a clerical error.

I do think you're right that it wouldn't have mattered in the end functionally if the player was crashered or not. It's clear he wanted to go back to his team, he could have just signed after the freeze. The big issue here is that the movement requirement wasn't fulfilled, and the player played without a contract.

When we asked the team about this, the response wasn't "oh he's crashered' it was "we forgot to sign him" and then later after we had explained the consequences of both not signing and not moving, the "loophole" of "he was crashered" was brought up after the fact. At no point were we given the impression that the team actually believed the contract was a done deal at the time of crashering, it was fully acknowledged that the signing had been overlooked.

Again, we all feel pretty icky about players not being able to play for the teams they want to play for. But we also feel icky about people getting away with not following the rules while other people are following those rules. We just want this process to be as easy as possible for everybody, and that requires cooperation from everybody. Also, as I've stated earlier in the thread, I am so, so open to suggestions for any other kind of consequence for this rule that will actually work, and doesn't screw over the entire team just as hard as this screws over one singular player. A cap fine would likely mean some other player would have to leave the team against their will (unless the team in question is rolling in extra cap space), we can always remove picks but there are only so many picks you can remove, and that doesn't leave us much wiggle room for the cases where a team neglects to move more than one player. (Like, say a team doesn't move four of their players. Do we fine them four picks for that? Or do we just make a flat price where if you miss one you might as well miss them all?)