In-Season FA Setup

[Jake0890]

The way we're doing in season free agents now is really messy and hard to operate.

Instead of titling signings with "Wizards Sign" or "Bulls Sign" can we implement a rule where all signing's titles should be the players' names?

So if I wanted to sign Michael Jordan, the title should be "Michael Jordan" not "Wizards Sign". It allows people to see who I'm signing without clicking on the thread.

And every signing should be in a separate thread, not 2 in one thread.

I hate having to dig through every thread to make sure someone didn't already put in an offer for them just because their title doesn't say who they're signing.

We're already doing it with the coaches, I have no clue why people aren't doing the same with the players.

[Dennis]

+1

[Myles]

That should be how it's done.

[Marcos_Beck]

The way we're doing in season free agents now is really messy and hard to operate.

Instead of titling signings with "Wizards Sign" or "Bulls Sign" can we implement a rule where all signing's titles should be the players' names?

So if I wanted to sign Michael Jordan, the title should be "Michael Jordan" not "Wizards Sign". It allows people to see who I'm signing without clicking on the thread.

And every signing should be in a separate thread, not 2 in one thread.

I hate having to dig through every thread to make sure someone didn't already put in an offer for them just because their title doesn't say who they're signing.

We're already doing it with the coaches, I have no clue why people aren't doing the same with the players.

I've already seen your post and I've edited the post name. Also I made that post only for Camby's sign and I'm gonna create another for Rudy's sign.

My bad guys, I'm sorry for any inconvenience.

[Rizzo]

Yup, this is how it was supposed to be done the whole time. I don't think we had many (any?) instances in oCSL (original/old CSL, yup, just created that name) where more than one team went after the same free agent during the season.

[Jestor]

Why did we even bother claiming free agents? The simmer just gave it to whatever team posted first, which is kind of bullshit in my opinion. I could have kept Brooks then and just traded out Kelly and Bazemore's expirings.

[Jake0890]

Why did we even bother claiming free agents? The simmer just gave it to whatever team posted first, which is kind of bullshit in my opinion. I could have kept Brooks then and just traded out Kelly and Bazemore's expirings.

Yeah, looks like the person signed with whoever claimed first regardless of role or anything else. I think the exception I saw was Marquis Daniels, but other than that...

Lost out on Camby and Pryzbilla.

[Jestor]

Daniels wasn't an exception. Houston claimed him first in their mass cut/sign thread. Feel kind of ripped off right now TBH. If I'd known that, and that you could claim players before cut was processed, I wouldn't have bid on Daniels and gone for Brewer instead.

[Marcos_Beck]

Why did we even bother claiming free agents? The simmer just gave it to whatever team posted first, which is kind of bullshit in my opinion. I could have kept Brooks then and just traded out Kelly and Bazemore's expirings.

Yeah, looks like the person signed with whoever claimed first regardless of role or anything else. I think the exception I saw was Marquis Daniels, but other than that...

Lost out on Camby and Pryzbilla.

Me and you had similar roles for Camby. I have 3 quality big man (Taj, Noah, Booz), you have 4 (Nene, Gortat, Seraphin, Booker), so I'd even say Camby was a better fit here.
Similar roles, I think there would not be any other way to choose where player is going but signing him to the first team. I mean, how are you going to analyze who's the better fit for the player when both teams have similar roles for him? And same money too?

Also, my other signing, Fernandez. At first it made 100% sense to send him to BOS but Dennis acquired Dragic to start at the 2, so Fernandez won't a guaranteed place as a starter as he'd have. He has the CHANCE to start at BOS, and the chance to start for me, as aside from Rose, Butler, Noah, I have 2 places open in my lineup, one for Taj (if I don't trade Boozer for another PF) and other for Kirk, but Fernandez may as well start here since he has the same skill set of Kirk while being a real SG, taller, and better shooter.. I mean, I think both were great fits for my team and no other team offered the players better roles..

Of course you might say I'm not saying a thing because I got both.. But.. I really don't see a reason to question at least those two decisions.

[Jake0890]

Why did we even bother claiming free agents? The simmer just gave it to whatever team posted first, which is kind of bullshit in my opinion. I could have kept Brooks then and just traded out Kelly and Bazemore's expirings.

Yeah, looks like the person signed with whoever claimed first regardless of role or anything else. I think the exception I saw was Marquis Daniels, but other than that...

Lost out on Camby and Pryzbilla.

Me and you had similar roles for Camby. I have 3 quality big man (Taj, Noah, Booz), you have 4 (Nene, Gortat, Seraphin, Booker), so I'd even say Camby was a better fit here.
Similar roles, I think there would not be any other way to choose where player is going but signing him to the first team. I mean, how are you going to analyze who's the better fit for the player when both teams have similar roles for him? And same money too?

Also, my other signing, Fernandez. At first it made 100% sense to send him to BOS but Dennis acquired Dragic to start at the 2, so Fernandez won't a guaranteed place as a starter as he'd have. He has the CHANCE to start at BOS, and the chance to start for me, as aside from Rose, Butler, Noah, I have 2 places open in my lineup, one for Taj (if I don't trade Boozer for another PF) and other for Kirk, but Fernandez may as well start here since he has the same skill set of Kirk while being a real SG, taller, and better shooter.. I mean, I think both were great fits for my team and no other team offered the players better roles..

Of course you might say I'm not saying a thing because I got both.. But.. I really don't see a reason to question at least those two decisions.

I couldn't care less that you got Camby because as you pointed out the situations are nearly the same. My problem is that EVERY SINGLE PLAYER was decided by first come first serve.

We had this discussion on the other boards. If you don't believe me, here: http://csleague.forumotion.com/t1141-chicago-signs. New Orleans got Jordan Hill even though Chicago claimed first.

It shouldn't have been like this.

[Marcos_Beck]

Yeah, I got your point. My comment was like.. Point your issues. I mean.. Let admins know, here or by PM, which "bad" decisions they may have make.. I mean, I'm looking here, and every FA signed was signed for the team with the best role available in my opinion. And, as I've said, when there are two similar roles in play, there's no better and fair decision to sign the player for the first team who wanted him. Not because it's the best way to do things, but more because there's no other fair way to do things.

[Rizzo]

I think NY could have been the best landing spot for Camby. Legit backup minutes at the 5 and in a place he has played at before.

[Dylan]

First come first serve isn't something new. It's ALWAYS been this way and intended to be this way. In season FA is too hard to handle otherwise. It's only for the minimum and where the player goes should not be at the discretion of the simmer. Parity then becomes an issue.