TCMD - Forum Wide GM Mock Draft Discussion

[ny92mike]

I'll try to create a doc that we can all play around with the numbers, to find one that works later this week.

[Deadpulse]

13 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

Understand.  I would like to see some criteria built into this myself, but what do you think?

 

Have just one of the 3 bids have a "back up bid" which only proc's if that bid isnt excepted. For example, I bid on Bell, Suh, and Cousins and the back up bid for my Bell bid is Lynch. If my Bell bid doesnt win that my Lynch bid comes into play. However, if I lose Suh and Cousin's bid but get Bell, the Lynch bid never comes into play. 

[squire12]

45 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

I get that too.  But most players aren't big fans of playing under the franchise tag, because of long term injury and/or the possibility of poor play or whatever.  Seems to me like players prefer contracts designed that pay them solid money and that are structured that it would be difficult for a team to trade or release them.

 

Sure, but the franchise tag is vastly different than what you have in that contract.  It is 2x the franchise tag at just about every position except QB.  

[ny92mike]

2 hours ago, squire12 said:

Sure, but the franchise tag is vastly different than what you have in that contract.  It is 2x the franchise tag at just about every position except QB.  

True...

Give me a day as ive got company but yes I agree at 36 million the player would be crazy not to accept.

[IrishHooligan00]

I am so in to do this again. Just need to know what teams are available, Since I know @EaglesPeteC already got PHI on Lockdown. lol. When i get a chance and not at work I'll go through the previous posts, to see whats going on. 

BTW:

:

[Justone2]

On 3-12-2018 at 10:05 PM, ny92mike said:

The first thing we've got to figure out is when comparing different contracts, there are three main factors; the total number of years offered, the base salary and the signing bonus.

For example here are two contracts.

Contract Terms
Length of Contract:		5
APY Amount:		$17,200,000
Yearly prorated amount:		$3,600,000
Signing Bonus		$18,000,000
Total Contract Amount		$86,000,000

NPV Value =  $ 55,466,564

 

Contract Terms
Length of Contract:		3
APY Amount:		$24,000,000
Yearly prorated amount:		$6,000,000
Signing Bonus		$18,000,000
Total Contract Amount		$72,000,000

NPV Value =  $ 55,916,667

 

The total base salary is higher in the first contract because of the number of years, but the SB is the same.  The 3 year deal, the way it's structured is clearly the better deal and the most likely to remain signed the entire length of the contract.  

If the 3 year deal were to get reduced to a single year deal, would it still remain the better deal?

Contract Terms
Length of Contract:		1
APY Amount:		$36,000,000
Yearly prorated amount:		$18,000,000
Signing Bonus		$18,000,000
Total Contract Amount		$36,000,000

NPV Value =  $ 33,000,000

It's a massive one year deal, but what are the odds a player would sign it.  We know that most players don't like playing the year out on the tag, because there are no guarantees to protect from long term injuries or the event the player doesn't play up to expectations and doesn't receive a contract the following year.

The easiest solution is to have a fixed year tied to the player based on their current age, but I really don't like that idea. 

Using the these three examples, and a NPV rate of 20% applied to the base salary the 3 year deal would be awarded the player.  Are you guys good with this formula?

Again, removing the ability to include base guar., roster and workout bonuses gives us the results above, when including these other types of monies is when it begins to get difficult to figure out and we end up with the Nate Solder deals of last year.

    

Here is the workbook that I'm using to provide these examples.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qhWYoo00P4_mn-JEqAw3IZDcHy6q47J6bLGi7igWcZ4/edit?usp=sharing

I think the main problem with this is that it really depends on what the player has done the previous year. Especially for guys a little lower rated taking a one year deal can actually be really be the best choice. Take that one year prove it deal and then move on to get a bigger multi-year deal instead of settling for a lower deal for one year. So in the first rounds you should see more guys taking the longer bigger total packages in my eyes but when guys drop and don't get picked up i feel the one year deals will get more interesting for them to show what they can do that one season and then either sign a extension or move to another team.

For the reserve big i think it doesn't have to be for the same value or anything just the same position. 

[ny92mike]

19 hours ago, Deadpulse said:

Have just one of the 3 bids have a "back up bid" which only processes if that bid isn't accepted. For example, I bid on Bell, Suh, and Cousins and the back up bid for my Bell bid is Lynch. If my Bell bid doesn't win, that my Lynch bid comes into play. However, if I lose Suh and Cousin's bid but get Bell, the Lynch bid never comes into play. 

 

2 hours ago, Justone2 said:

For the reserve big i think it doesn't have to be for the same value or anything just the same position.

It sounds like we're all in agreement about this new feature and have similar enough thoughts that we can move forward with this addition.

What about the idea of restricting this option to a limited amount of bidding rounds or are we good with having this last the duration of the free agency?

 

 

[Deadpulse]

Its less and less useful as FA goes on IMO, therefore no harm in leaving it there

[ny92mike]

I'll work on something that we can tinker around with to work out the highest bid most likely get it posted today.  

We good with adding the feature of knowing if the offer is within the top 3 or 5 (let me know if we'd rather have the top 3 or top 5).  I'm pretty certain I can work out the formula for this and if I've got the time today will work on this as well.

The last thing to discuss is if we limit the amount a team can offer.  Last year, teams could submit contracts as long as that individual contract did not exceed the available cap.  So if you had 10 M in cap, no single offer could exceed that amount.

I'm suggesting this year that if a team has 10 M is cap, that the total of submitted contracts cannot exceed 10 million.

The theory is that GM's wouldn't overbid, or if they did they would most likely need to target lesser talent in the remaining bids.  However, teams in the top 5 available cap would have an advantage but maybe they should.

Let me know what you guys think about these options.

As always appreciate your thoughts and ideas.

 

[ny92mike]

1 minute ago, Deadpulse said:

Its less and less useful as FA goes on IMO, therefore no harm in leaving it there

Leaving it there would definitely make it a little easier to formulate.

[Justone2]

2 hours ago, ny92mike said:

I'll work on something that we can tinker around with to work out the highest bid most likely get it posted today.  

We good with adding the feature of knowing if the offer is within the top 3 or 5 (let me know if we'd rather have the top 3 or top 5).  I'm pretty certain I can work out the formula for this and if I've got the time today will work on this as well.

The last thing to discuss is if we limit the amount a team can offer.  Last year, teams could submit contracts as long as that individual contract did not exceed the available cap.  So if you had 10 M in cap, no single offer could exceed that amount.

I'm suggesting this year that if a team has 10 M is cap, that the total of submitted contracts cannot exceed 10 million.

The theory is that GM's wouldn't overbid, or if they did they would most likely need to target lesser talent in the remaining bids.  However, teams in the top 5 available cap would have an advantage but maybe they should.

Let me know what you guys think about these options.

As always appreciate your thoughts and ideas.

 

I think i agree with your second point. Makes the choices who you cut in advance more important and also a bit riskier. However it isn't as realistic i would say because in reality teams can sign a guy for more than their cap space.

[ny92mike]

Ok, I found one that Mknight and I was working on last year.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AO3GAh-WI7q4OiROvWUd-MVwg8v7h8tnhrsD_Ef4fXw/edit?usp=sharing

At the top you'll see the three contracts with the Adj. Contract Offer Amount showing which contract would be awarded the player.

All of these contracts are set up so that you can edit them to play around with the numbers.  

At the top, cell E10 allows you to change the NPV % Rate.  I really had to boost this number to get the one year deal to pull ahead of the 3 year deal, going as high as 60% .  

Personally, I think the NPV% Rate number needs to be less.  When you consider that the player being offered the 3 year deal is getting his signing bonus up front as well as the base salary, he'll make his first year 36 million compared to the one year deal worth the same amount.  Factor in the second year of the deal, with the player making an additional 18 million.  It just hard not to think that this would be the best deal for the player.  He's making 36 million the first year and an additional 18 million in the second and another in the third year.

While it sounded good earlier after really comparing the numbers, the one year deal is sounding weaker.

Give it a look for yourself and remember you can change the contracts around as well as the NPV % Rate number.

Personally, I think a number around 20 to 30% for NPV Rate is a solid number.

20% makes the order 3, 5, 1 where 30 puts the order 3,1,5.

 

 

[ny92mike]

7 minutes ago, Justone2 said:

I think i agree with your second point. Makes the choices who you cut in advance more important and also a bit riskier. However it isn't as realistic i would say because in reality teams can sign a guy for more than their cap space.

I'm fine either way, I just think this rule or something similar would have prevented or at least limited some of the massive contract offers we saw last year.

Another idea would be to use the rule but adjust the number by x percentage.  So for example if I've got 20 million in cap and the bids I'm placing equal 22 million it's all good because I'm allowed to go over by 20% of my available cap, giving me actually 24 million to work with.

This would cover the idea of the odds of a team not signing every one of the players they make an offer on but would also keep them within a number likely to avoid them going over the cap and spending beyond their means.  

[EaglesPeteC]

So much math being talked about here. My theatre degree is of no use right now haha

[squire12]

13 hours ago, EaglesPeteC said:

So much math being talked about here. My theatre degree is of no use right now haha

@EaglesPeteC let's start slow

2+2=