TCMD - Forum Wide GM Mock Draft Discussion

[bcb1213]

I can do it Mike just might take me a day or two 

[ny92mike]

21 minutes ago, bcb1213 said:

I can do it Mike just might take me a day or two 

Which part?

[ny92mike]

20 hours ago, Forge said:

I find this to be a good idea. This will prevent people from getting 2 20 million dollar quarterbacks and things like that LOL. 

I don't know what kind of maneuverability you have with worksheets, but what I would add is a secondary section (similar to the reserve bid section), where you can have one "plan B" bid. You can make your offer, include a drop down box that they select which of their three FA bids this one would be replacing. If they don't get player A mentioned in the drop down box, we can review the back up bid for player B and see where it stands with regards to other offers. 

Earlier today, I kinda laid out how this would work.  There is room to add it in between the last bid.  The more I think about this I think we should include the Resign bid, not the reserve bids but just that one resign bid that is mixed in with the UFA bids.

There have been times, where I was hoping to resign a player and it didn't happen and was left to fill the needed spot in another round of bidding, so this new feature is growing on me.

I'm also like the idea of knowing if I'm my offer is within the top 3 or 5 highest bids.  Formula wise, this might be difficult because the sorting process to determine high bid would need to get looped back to each transaction workbook and I'm not certain how docs would handle this in terms of speed or producing unwanted errors.

I think we should also make the signing bonuses greater than or equal to the expected players SB up until their expected contract length drops to one year deals, maybe two.  Can't remember who mentioned this but said, that long term deals typically carried the most SB which is probably right.  

Also, I think Pete and I agreed on reducing the max contract length to 5 years with the exception being tagged players that receive extensions.

 

[ny92mike]

Also, I'm thinking we start getting our veteran GM's assigned to a team, as I think it would help getting more discussion and votes when needed.

@Forge

@EaglesPeteC

@BringinDaPain

What do you guys think?

I'm also going to attempt to work in a mini mock draft this year.  I missed having the second mock draft last year.  Perhaps have the mini mock be the more forum wide type where the OG is determined by the GM if they want to open it up to the public or not.

[bcb1213]

1 hour ago, ny92mike said:

Which part?

I have pff 

[Forge]

15 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

Also, I'm thinking we start getting our veteran GM's assigned to a team, as I think it would help getting more discussion and votes when needed.

@Forge

@EaglesPeteC

@BringinDaPain

What do you guys think?

I'm also going to attempt to work in a mini mock draft this year.  I missed having the second mock draft last year.  Perhaps have the mini mock be the more forum wide type where the OG is determined by the GM if they want to open it up to the public or not.

I think we can get the sign ups done whenever. There are enough regulars that participate

[ny92mike]

39 minutes ago, bcb1213 said:

I have pff 

sweet.

[LuckyNumber11]

I'll be Around for any questions to help answer 

[Deadpulse]

On 12/3/2018 at 5:21 PM, ny92mike said:

"if I miss out on player x, my bid for player y is used"

I like this, but making it limited is key IMO. Otherwise it gets too easy. When weighing whether or not to put an offer in should come with the fear that both get accepted you are FFFFFFF'd

[winitall]

On 12/3/2018 at 4:05 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 am a fan of using this set up.  I think getting rid of the roster and workout bonuses makes it easier to use and helps to eliminate the Solder deal.  With the example given, I think most people would agree that the 3 year deal is preferable to the 5 and so the formula agreeing is definitely a step in the right direction.  I think of the three deals, the order of preference for IRL players would be the 3, 5, and the 1 year deal in last which this matches.  I am also a fan of the other proposal with the backup deal.

[winitall]

On 12/4/2018 at 2:46 PM, ny92mike said:

Earlier today, I kinda laid out how this would work.  There is room to add it in between the last bid.  The more I think about this I think we should include the Resign bid, not the reserve bids but just that one resign bid that is mixed in with the UFA bids.

There have been times, where I was hoping to resign a player and it didn't happen and was left to fill the needed spot in another round of bidding, so this new feature is growing on me.

I'm also like the idea of knowing if I'm my offer is within the top 3 or 5 highest bids.  Formula wise, this might be difficult because the sorting process to determine high bid would need to get looped back to each transaction workbook and I'm not certain how docs would handle this in terms of speed or producing unwanted errors.

I think we should also make the signing bonuses greater than or equal to the expected players SB up until their expected contract length drops to one year deals, maybe two.  Can't remember who mentioned this but said, that long term deals typically carried the most SB which is probably right.  

Also, I think Pete and I agreed on reducing the max contract length to 5 years with the exception being tagged players that receive extensions.

 

If the docs allow it, I would agree with showing if the contract is in the top 3 of offers.  To be completely honest, I think this would also make things slightly more realistic.  NFL teams know what other teams are inquiring about a player and roughly where they stand.  Knowing if you are at least in the ballpark would be nice.

[squire12]

1 hour ago, winitall said:

I am a fan of using this set up.  I think getting rid of the roster and workout bonuses makes it easier to use and helps to eliminate the Solder deal.  With the example given, I think most people would agree that the 3 year deal is preferable to the 5 and so the formula agreeing is definitely a step in the right direction.  I think of the three deals, the order of preference for IRL players would be the 3, 5, and the 1 year deal in last which this matches.  I am also a fan of the other proposal with the backup deal.

I would say a player getting the 1 year deal would be dam happy to bank $36M AND then have another crack at FA the following year.

3 year, the 1 year, then 5 year is how I would view them.  Maybe even the 1 year above the 3 year.

[ny92mike]

6 hours ago, Deadpulse said:

I like this, but making it limited is key IMO. Otherwise it gets too easy. When weighing whether or not to put an offer in should come with the fear that both get accepted you are FFFFFFF'd

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

 

[ny92mike]

1 minute ago, squire12 said:

I would say a player getting the 1 year deal would be dam happy to bank $36M AND then have another crack at FA the following year.

3 year, the 1 year, then 5 year is how I would view them.  Maybe even the 1 year above the 3 year.

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.

 

[ny92mike]

Maybe we just need to vote on the most favorable contract structure because I don't think we're all going to agree on a certain type.