I just think Free Agents helped keep the prices realistic (in the confines of the game). Good free agents would also sell for 3m... but then people couldn't sell their lousy players for 2.3m ad example
What rookie owner has $2.3 million to bid on a "lousy" player? And why would an auction for a free agent inherently find that player's "real market value" whereas an auction for an owned player would not?
I think much is being made over free agency's theoretical ability to hold down prices. I doubt it would be of any significant effect in the face of increasing player salaries and revenues.
What do you mean for "rookie owner"?You maybe mean a users who is on BB for a long time,so he has this great amount of money.But the term "rookie owner" could describe another kinf of user.A user who plays for a long time in BB,but doesn't still know well the game(ie,a user who train shot blocking until marvelous level without seeing any improvement in his player's performances),but have the money to spendo on the market because plays in a league without a great competitivty and thanks to enormuos palaces has the money to spend on the market.These users overpay some players and create an enormous inflation flow,not connected at the real value of the players or the incomes(different for competitivity in the various countries and in the various divisions of the same country),but to their incompetence,which is reflected on higher prices on the market
But the old system of free agent was bad before it looks only to the salary,why don't reinsert the free agent on the market,but with a minimum of skills for a certain role(ie, a guard had to have at least than 10/9/9 in Js,Jr and Od))?