EaglesPeteC Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 Here are a couple examples of what I am proposing. Biggest cap hit for a QB next year is Drew Brees at $33.5 million. If you say that the MOST team can offer is 10% OVER that is $3.3 million , so the max contract for a QB would be $36.8 million 2019 cap hit DE Chandler Jones- $19.5 million 10% of the contract $2.0 million Max DE Contract- $21.5 million RB David Johnson- $9.75 10% of the contract- $975k RB Max contract- $10.7 If 10% is too low, we can do 20% etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted January 15, 2019 Author Share Posted January 15, 2019 Pete this is something I'm not for. This would just lead to a bunch of teams bidding the max and then we'd be using subjective opinions to determine who won the player. For me, I don't care so much that a team bids 20 million over what the normal offer should be, if they've got the funds. In years past this hasn't really been an issue until last year where the Nate Solder deal freaked everyone out. I don't want us to act like we know what the value should be and put limits on it. We've ran this without a ceiling for several years without too many issues. If a team has 80mil we shouldn't restrict them from spending it. Where I would like to put this attention is in the fa bidding sheets themselves. I'm thinking that if we just knew that we were within the top 3 bids, it might help with acquiring more players per round. Realize if the bidding was getting too high. So if you created a contract for 30 apy and it says you're top 3. Restructure that offer to 15 million and it still says you're top 3. This too has its drawbacks because someone could change their bid last minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 21 minutes ago, EaglesPeteC said: Here are a couple examples of what I am proposing. Biggest cap hit for a QB next year is Drew Brees at $33.5 million. If you say that the MOST team can offer is 10% OVER that is $3.3 million , so the max contract for a QB would be $36.8 million 2019 cap hit DE Chandler Jones- $19.5 million 10% of the contract $2.0 million Max DE Contract- $21.5 million RB David Johnson- $9.75 10% of the contract- $975k RB Max contract- $10.7 If 10% is too low, we can do 20% etc etc You’re going to get 5 offers at the max price and it’ll be impossible to award the player to someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EaglesPeteC Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 Well fine! I guess I’ll just take my ideas and go home!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 10 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: You’re going to get 5 offers at the max price and it’ll be impossible to award the player to someone. Not really. We can enter an epic rap battle and decide who wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, D82 said: Not really. We can enter an epic rap battle and decide who wins. To the death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 7 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: To the death? Of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainpd Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 34 minutes ago, ny92mike said: Pete this is something I'm not for. This would just lead to a bunch of teams bidding the max and then we'd be using subjective opinions to determine who won the player. For me, I don't care so much that a team bids 20 million over what the normal offer should be, if they've got the funds. In years past this hasn't really been an issue until last year where the Nate Solder deal freaked everyone out. I don't want us to act like we know what the value should be and put limits on it. We've ran this without a ceiling for several years without too many issues. If a team has 80mil we shouldn't restrict them from spending it. Where I would like to put this attention is in the fa bidding sheets themselves. I'm thinking that if we just knew that we were within the top 3 bids, it might help with acquiring more players per round. Realize if the bidding was getting too high. So if you created a contract for 30 apy and it says you're top 3. Restructure that offer to 15 million and it still says you're top 3. This too has its drawbacks because someone could change their bid last minute. I don’t think we should know where our bids stand. The buzz for me is not only guessing on how much to bid on someone but to hear results of who has and who has not been bid on. This creates some bargains and some overspend but imo the large amount of people who are interested in participating in these are sensible and try and be the best GM possible. If some has cap space let them spend it and those who haven’t shop for bargains. That to me is realistic and how it happens irl. I don’t think we should cap bidding as we don’t really know where it will land irl. I know a couple of bids have been stupid and those loop holes have been addressed. There is always a way round the system but this is set up for fun. My opinion is the this mock is spot on and fortunately I don’t believe that anything needs changing and one of those debates where there is not a perfect solution. I am not criticising the suggestions as I know you guys are looking to make the experience better but ideas were asked for during and after last years mock and no perfect solution could be found. Too many rules ruin the fun the right amount of rules make it fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EaglesPeteC Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 24 minutes ago, D82 said: Not really. We can enter an epic rap battle and decide who wins. This is the fairest way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 34 minutes ago, mountainpd said: I don’t think we should know where our bids stand. The buzz for me is not only guessing on how much to bid on someone but to hear results of who has and who has not been bid on. This creates some bargains and some overspend but imo the large amount of people who are interested in participating in these are sensible and try and be the best GM possible. If some has cap space let them spend it and those who haven’t shop for bargains. That to me is realistic and how it happens irl. I don’t think we should cap bidding as we don’t really know where it will land irl. I know a couple of bids have been stupid and those loop holes have been addressed. There is always a way round the system but this is set up for fun. My opinion is the this mock is spot on and fortunately I don’t believe that anything needs changing and one of those debates where there is not a perfect solution. I am not criticising the suggestions as I know you guys are looking to make the experience better but ideas were asked for during and after last years mock and no perfect solution could be found. Too many rules ruin the fun the right amount of rules make it fun. I agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 1 hour ago, ny92mike said: Pete this is something I'm not for. This would just lead to a bunch of teams bidding the max and then we'd be using subjective opinions to determine who won the player. For me, I don't care so much that a team bids 20 million over what the normal offer should be, if they've got the funds. In years past this hasn't really been an issue until last year where the Nate Solder deal freaked everyone out. I don't want us to act like we know what the value should be and put limits on it. We've ran this without a ceiling for several years without too many issues. If a team has 80mil we shouldn't restrict them from spending it. Where I would like to put this attention is in the fa bidding sheets themselves. I'm thinking that if we just knew that we were within the top 3 bids, it might help with acquiring more players per round. Realize if the bidding was getting too high. So if you created a contract for 30 apy and it says you're top 3. Restructure that offer to 15 million and it still says you're top 3. This too has its drawbacks because someone could change their bid last minute. I would like for a team that feel they might be 1 major player/piece away from a top contender to be able to really be aggressive for that player. Putting some form of bidding cap on positions or players would negate that process. As long as the ramifications of creating a big over spend type contract influences that teams ability to pursue secondary players due to various reasons, I see no problems. I believe the affect on the following year funds helped with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted January 16, 2019 Author Share Posted January 16, 2019 What about this suggestion? In years past the rule for bidding on players was that you couldn't offer more than what you had in avail. funds. So if you had 20 mil in cap, you could potentially offer 20 million per contract. I'm suggesting we expand that rule to include all fa bidding contract, not to include reserve bids. So if you have 20 million in avail. cap all 3 ufa and the 1 resign offer totaled cannot exceed that amount. This would require me to work out the formula to give an exact cap number as you build each contract, but it can get done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyNumber11 Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 What I would like is if there was a way we could do a priority. Like only attempt contract B if contract A was not successful. That way we don't end up with someone signing two players when they really only wanted one. The Solder contracts of the world don't bother me. It's when Solder and another FA end up on a team with 3 starting LTs that bothers me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted January 16, 2019 Author Share Posted January 16, 2019 46 minutes ago, LuckyNumber11 said: What I would like is if there was a way we could do a priority. Like only attempt contract B if contract A was not successful. That way we don't end up with someone signing two players when they really only wanted one. The Solder contracts of the world don't bother me. It's when Solder and another FA end up on a team with 3 starting LTs that bothers me. I believe the plan is to work something like this in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainpd Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 49 minutes ago, ny92mike said: I believe the plan is to work something like this in. I like this as long as the team still only gets the same amount of bids each round. So if someone chooses to bid on 2 players of the same position then the reserve bid counts as one of their three still Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.