FAs not talking to teams

[SirMichaelJordan]

My guess would be that the players do not want to play for the manager. Was there a specific message explaining why he would not sign?

Hopefully Matt or Markus could come in here and clear this up.

[kevrock]

That would be a problem, as we have staff disabled in our online league.

Our one theory was that it had to do with GM reputations, since both GMs were inactive and had poor reputations. So we reset the GM, but there were no changes.

However, it's still possible that the GMs were the cause if these biases against teams are set in stone at the start of Free Agency.

[Anyone]

It sounds like there's some sort of bug in the logic, because there shouldn't be one factor that excludes most players from the same teams.

The biggest things that I'd think ought to matter, with the coaching system disabled in the game (I was thinking as I read it that some players didn't want to play for managers with very poor reputations, especially such reps combined with being Controlling or Temperamental; but that system is turned off, and shouldn't apply to all players if it were on, but some elements of personality).

As it is, the player should think he'll get playing time, which for each position on a given team would be different; a player with strong Desire For Winner should think the team can win (I can see most or all players requiring more money to play for a team they think will lose, but a flat out refusal to negotiate should only happen for at least High Desire For Winner); and the player may give preference to teams nearer his hometown, though I can't imagine refusing to negotiate at all on that basis.

One of those is personality based and should vary from player to player on that basis, and the others (with whom the player will see playing time and location relative to hometown) would differ from player to player.

Some sort of bug is a factor if most players won't negotiate at all with the same group of teams.

[MKG1734]

I posted this in the bug report forum

[silverwolf]

This is hitting me in multiple leagues. It's worse for the teams at the bottom, but it's really a drag. Any league on 15 I'm in I am warning about this "feature" big-time before any change is made.

[Matt Arnold]

Currently, other than refusing to play for the manager, the other reason players will refuse to sign is with a rebuilding team. We were a little too aggressive in that check, so can tone it down a little bit more.

[ThePretender]

In addition to toning it down I might recommend changing how they feel as the season goes on. Being paid by a team you don't want to play for is much better than not playing at all. In my league I'm a rebuilding team so I understand why certain backups may not want to play for me, but at the same time, if it's June, or July (or in my case, September...) these guys should be willing to sign with anybody.

[SirMichaelJordan]

and maybe make it so that those players don't sign long term deals.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

In addition to toning it down I might recommend changing how they feel as the season goes on. Being paid by a team you don't want to play for is much better than not playing at all. In my league I'm a rebuilding team so I understand why certain backups may not want to play for me, but at the same time, if it's June, or July (or in my case, September...) these guys should be willing to sign with anybody.

Agreed.

I'll add that baseball players are more mercenary than most. Players will leave a WS Champion to get paid by the Marlins and so on. I think the threshold for player choosiness should go away after the New Year. To me the module should default to asking for more money as opposed to not wanting to sign. Money drives the market. Choice is a distant second.

When the market for services consists of 30 teams, an over-inflated sense of entitlement makes no sense outside of the top 5%-10% FA.

Edit: I include the Manager in this. MLB and most sports leagues are very small, highly visible populations. Having a **** list of people is self defeating. Again it makes no sense for a player to reduce his market, unless he is in the top tier, by adopting rigorous "play for, not play for" criteria. It's ridiculous to think that a mid level player would eliminate 3 managers plus 5 teams and think that cutting his market by almost 1/3 is a good strategy. Getting paid and getting playing time is the goal.

[MKG1734]

Originally Posted by RchW

Agreed.

I'll add that baseball players are more mercenary than most. Players will leave a WS Champion to get paid by the Marlins and so on. I think the threshold for player choosiness should go away after the New Year. To me the module should default to asking for more money as opposed to not wanting to sign. Money drives the market. Choice is a distant second.

When the market for services consists of 30 teams, an over-inflated sense of entitlement makes no sense outside of the top 5%-10% FA.

Prime example:

Dan Haren essentially stating he would retire before pitching for the Marlins instead of a west coast team in real life during the 2014-2015 MLB offseason.

Result:
Dan Haren has made 4 starts as of 4/27/2015 and is collecting on his $10,000,000 salary

[RchW]

Originally Posted by MKG1734

Prime example:

Dan Haren essentially stating he would retire before pitching for the Marlins instead of a west coast team in real life during the 2014-2015 MLB offseason.

Result:
Dan Haren has made 4 starts as of 4/27/2015 and is collecting on his $10,000,000 salary

That was a trade but your point is relevant. My principles are not worth giving up $10M either.

[SwedishChef]

i think instead of saying no at the inception, the "choosiness" should be factored into whether they actually accept the offer or not. as of now, if a guy says no, you don't even get to offer him 5X market value for him to consider.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by SwedishChef

i think instead of saying no at the inception, the "choosiness" should be factored into whether they actually accept the offer or not. as of now, if a guy says no, you don't even get to offer him 5X market value for him to consider.

Right. Almost always, a FA should be willing to hear your offer. He might want twice as much to play for a rebuilding team or, if his personality traits (such as Adaptability and Work Ethic) conflict enough, also twice as much to play for a hard line (Temperamental/Controlling) manager-- meaning for certain players if both factors are true they'll require 4 times the money to play for you, though some players (such as "humble" types) might prefer a hard line manager, and most won't care much.

And once it gets to be the New Year, they should become more willing to play for anyone that pays somewhat fairly. By March they should pretty much be open to a one year contract even well below market value from anyone, because they otherwise might make nothing that season.

[IsaacR]

Same deal happened in my online league, but mainly with teams that had losing records. Another thing: in my regular league I have a manager described as "easygoing" and quite a few players say they don't want to play for him.

[Dr.K]

I've had this issue too, could it be the personalities of the free agents clashing with the manager? Which is what I think it is.

[majesty95]

Originally Posted by kevrock

This is happening to a couple teams in our online league. There isn't any rhyme or reason to it that I can deduce. Is there a way to disable this "feature"?

I wonder if turning off player personality and player morale would solve it?

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by Dr.K

I've had this issue too, could it be the personalities of the free agents clashing with the manager? Which is what I think it is.

If it were, it would happen with only a minority of FA's for any given team. Even though I haven't experienced it personally, from what people write, there are teams shunned by almost every FA.

[ThePretender]

I'm in a league with no morale/managers. I'm a rebuilding team and virtually none of my FA will talk to me. It's got more to do with your org, your w/l, and rebuilding.

Like I said before, players just need to ease up after X date or ask for more cash.

[kevrock]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Currently, other than refusing to play for the manager, the other reason players will refuse to sign is with a rebuilding team. We were a little too aggressive in that check, so can tone it down a little bit more.

Any update on this? I'm a rebuilding team with a solid pitching staff and I can't negotiate with 60% of position players, even at need positions.

Thanks!

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by kevrock

Any update on this? I'm a rebuilding team with a solid pitching staff and I can't negotiate with 60% of position players, even at need positions.

Thanks!

Next patch will be much better. Current ETA on that is sometime next week most likely.