Procedurally, the Jack Crasher rule makes sense. From HO's and GM's perspective, the contract post is just a formality to confirm contract negotiations that typically happen in private channels. It reduces excess discussion in the contract subforum and gives GMs more stability.

From the player perspective, the Jack Crasher rule as written is an enormous roadblock on contract negotiations that only benefits management. I believe it's inherently broken, and can't be fixed in its current permutation. Here's the problems:

1. Negotiation flexibility

The Jack Crasher rule puts all of the communications onus on the players and absconds all responsibility for the GMs. Players have to be extremely careful with their language under the rule as written. With no context, a player who says "I would need more than 3 years" is safe but a player who says "I could do 3 years x $4m" has reflected enough interest to give that team standing for a complaint. Tiptoeing around contract details forces players to bid on themselves either too aggressively or too ambiguously, neither of which is a safe or optimal tactic in contract negotiations. Meanwhile, GMs can make any private offers or handshake deals they want and escape accountability.

2. Asymmetric "off-ramps"

Because the rule as written only controls player behavior, it creates asymmetric end-of-negotiation times for players and GMs. A player is locked in the second a handshake deal is done. Due to ambiguous rule text, a player is debatably locked in the second they make a concrete contract offer the team is willing to accept. The GM is notably not locked in at this point--their lock-in time is on forum post. The team can choose to go in a different direction and reject the already-complete handshake offer, and the rules allow them to without punishment. Players who make a handshake deal and change their minds before the post are punished; teams are not. This asymmetric rule puts all the power in the hands of the GMs and minimizes agency for players.

3. No equitable protections for players

Absent a punishment for teams, players have no recourse or protection that allows them any safety against GMs during contract negotiations. FAs are constricted by tampering on one end and Jack Crasher on the other, limiting their movement options and putting all of the negative pressure on the player.

4. It can't be fixed

There are completely valid reasons why a GM would want to change course on a signing. Trade offers, UFA holdouts--cap crunch happens. The Jack Crasher rule as a player restriction helps them in that regard. Locking the team into the handshake deal is an undue burden on the team. That's why the Jack Crasher rule is inequitable, unfixable, and should be abolished or completely reworked. GMs have shifted the weight of this burden onto their players, and the rule will continue to be a burden on free agent mobility as long as it exists.