Matthew McRary - How would this happen in FA of MP?

[Flasch186]

In our league we have a UFA signing rule regarding contracts that can result in an 'illegal' contract being voided.

Also due to my error we re-ran FA1-7 twice.

How did the player end up signing with Austin:

From the player card:

FA1-2 STL signed him to an illegal deal, voided
FA1-6 CHA signed him to an illegal deal, voided
FA1-7 STL signed him to a LEGAL deal
FA1-8 AUS signed him to a LEGAL deal

from the in game transaction log for FA1-8:

STL offer withdrawn due to lack of cap room (in 1-7 he signed another player and received another via trade)
AUS signed as a UFA from STL

What team should the player be on? Why is he showing up in the FA Pool of FA1-8? Would the rewind of FA1-7 still left the transaction artifact of him signing on STL there yet on the second, valid, run, he didnt sign with STL and that is NOT reflected on the logs?

[Flasch186]

FWIW, the weird part is that he was signed as an UFA from STL. In other cases where a deal was voided a subsequent signing in FA simply says "Signed as a Free Agent".

[stevew]

Aus.

[Flasch186]

Aus.

Can you elaborate?

[AlexB]

If STL didn't have the cap room, in effect he was never signed by STL, so went back into the FA pool to be signed by AUS next round?

I agree with stevew

[stevew]

What shorts said

[Flasch186]

but wouldnt he have not signed in FA1-7 than?

[wade moore]

Wait, I'm confused.

Are you saying in 1-7 the offer by STL was withdrawn due to lack of cap room?

If that's the case, I don't understand how there is a mystery here.

[Fonzie]

Where's flere when we need him the most?

[Flasch186]

Wait, I'm confused.

Are you saying in 1-7 the offer by STL was withdrawn due to lack of cap room?

If that's the case, I don't understand how there is a mystery here.

No in 1-7 the player accepted an offer to go to STL from the FA pool.

However, for some reason, that player remained in the FA Pool where in FA1-8 the player accepted an offer to go to AUS....from STL.

[AlexB]

TBH, is it important? The guy should be on AUS and is. It's a reporting issue rather than an allocation issue - it worked out how it should do, use a little suspended disbelief (remember this is a computer game ;) ) and move on. The only problem as far as I can see is that he is listed as a FA signing from STL rather than simply a UFA signing.

If it really bugs you, report it to Jim, but it appears a non-issue to me (and I can be quite anal about some things!)

[Flasch186]

I see what youre saying and in this case AUS gave up his rights back to STL BUT the issue came in when STL raised his voice on the issue stating that the player shouldve remained on his team from FA1-7 so it became an issue re: rewinds, etc.

[stevew]

STL has unclean hands due to the previous illegal offer. AUS has clean hands, therefore he should be awarded the player. And if STL can't add correctly(which caused him to be over the cap anyways), then tuff shit.

[Flasch186]

Fair enough.

Further investigation has people saying that there was a duplicate player created in FA while one sat on STL's roster. This certainly is a bug that occurred through the voiding of contracts, I guess. However it very well may be unrepeatable.