I am bidding on an int. free agent by only increasing the bonus amount, not trying to adjust the contract type. At a certain high level I was still being outbid so I increased my offer (bonus) by $1M. The next message I get tells me the int. FA has rejected the contract. Message: " It would unethical for my client to pretend that he could live up to the expectations that contract would place on hi......"

It appears that there is a maximum limit for the size of the bonus an int. FA will accept. Go over that amount and they reject the offer (big X next to their name). In over 100 seasons of bidding on int. FAs I have never seen this. Anyone else had this happen to them? Is this a bug? Is this a new "feature" they have added recently that we were not told about?

There was a post a couple weeks ago like this...2 owners, last day of IFA, one bid $20 mm and response was like yours. Other guy bid $18mm and IFA took it. So, yes, there is an "ethical limit". If not too late, it seems reducing your offer a smidge might work

Posted by Scotb50 on 3/14/2021 10:58:00 AM (view original):
There was a post a couple weeks ago like this...2 owners, last day of IFA, one bid $20 mm and response was like yours. Other guy bid $18mm and IFA took it. So, yes, there is an "ethical limit". If not too late, it seems reducing your offer a smidge might work

An "ethical" limit is something new. When did they add it to HBD? Any idea why they added it to the game? It makes no real life sense because nobody would reject a higher bonus for a lower one.

I was involved in that earlier one. It isn't new, but it doesn't happen all that often. Far as I can tell it happens when because the player really isn't worth 20 million or even close.

Yeah, while rare, this goes back a while. Anyone had this happen on an initial bid? I wonder if maybe offering too many bids plays a part?

I have been a heavy player in the int. FA market most of my 119+ seasons, have never seen this before, and hope I never see it again. The player in my case is worth around $20M IMO but will end up taking less due to the "ethical limit". Dumb! This would never happen in real life.

I’ve been getting paid more than I’m worth for years and I haven’t offered any of it back.

Lost the IFA to another team that I would have easily outbid. A catcher who can put up a .400+ OBP is a rare find in this game and worth more than the $17.2M he ended up taking. Because it is late in the season, this stupid, unrealistic addition to the game is likely going to cause me to be stuck holding $30M+ in unspent prospect money at the the end of the season. When you are trying to rebuild a team, being screwed over like this is really frustrating.

There's probably an embedded formula in the code that restricts what an IFA is willing to take. Original intent was probably to prevent n00b owners from overpaying for IFA's.

If he really is a stud catcher then it should not happen.

Link the player

It's probably tied to OVR. A "stud" catcher can be < 70 OVR.

At age 18 his hitting ratings are already better than some catchers you see at the ML level. With proper development he will be one of the better catchers in the ML in a few seasons.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hbd/Pages/Popups/PlayerBlog.aspx?pid=10946905

(Having trouble posting player off the clipboard. You will have to copy and paste the link above. Sorry.)

I may be wrong but I do not see the great part. 0 speed is tough to overcome. Also if players are worse then this at the ml level then that's not ok unless they have great def ratings.

This just happened to me last season. I had the 2nd most budget left for IF on a rebuilding team.......it was one of the worst group of IF I have ever seen so I had 30 mill left towards end of season. Logically I tried spending my money on the best available player and my 18 mill offer was rejected for an offer 1 or 2 million less. This is beyond stupid if they are making sure noibs don't overspend. Why the hell should anybody be trying to tell me how to spend my money!?!?!? If someone blows their money on a horse **** IF that's their problem. **** ****** me off. Apparently I'm better off sitting on the 30 mill than signing someone smh.