sparky151 Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 Just now saw the postponement. No worries Mike. You do a tremendous amount of work and I (and everyone else) are very appreciative. An early March start will still let us get through free agency in the mock before the real thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainpd Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 8 hours ago, ny92mike said: Alright bad news guys. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to postpone this mock draft. Between the workbooks being a mess of mistakes and them glitching I can't see continuing to send them out again and again only to have to resend them because I keep finding or others keep finding formula errors. I completely rushed to get them out and clearly did not allow enough time to effectively conduct tests to make sure the formulas were working correctly. This and the addition of added frustration by them glitching for whatever reason, is unacceptable to me and I don't expect you to put up with it either. Definitely not my best work. Time has been an issue for me from the late start on working on this project to being gone a full week and knowing that I'll be gone another full week around the end of this month, the timing of this mock could not have came at a worse time for me. I haven't even started working on the schedule or the guidelines that include the changes we've made. The question came up about updating the rosters to reflect the latest irl transactions but because trading has already been going on the roster will stay the same. I would suggest that we all just take a step back until I can get everything worked out. If you guys continue to discuss trades, boredom is going to have you making trades where the value isn't what it should be, just so you can say you're doing something, so honestly it would be best if you stopped negotiating trades this far out. This postponement is going to be at least two weeks long with a possible start date around the first of the month and perhaps later depending on which week I'll be gone for. If any of you decide that it isn't worth the wait, I completely understand but please let me know if you won't be participating so that we can attempt to find a replacement when the time comes. Apologies for this delay but hopefully when it does start we won't have any issues. I just can't put out a product like this knowing all the issues it has and expect you guys to be cool with it, or myself to ignore it. @D82 @EaglesPeteC @ny92mike @mike23md @Trojan @winitall @squire12 @RpMc @CHOMP_CHOMP @Justone2 @BringinDaPain @Dome @LuckyNumber11 @Forge @jrry32 @One Punch Man @NickChowaniec @mountainpd @KingOfTheDot @Deadpulse @sparky151 @cortes02 @DTMW78 @Cbrunn @Counselor @Tugboat @jch1911 @IrishHooligan00 @BowserBroncos @SirA1 @samsel23 @daineraider No problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugboat Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 It don't bother me none. I'm all about taking a few beats to save a lot of headaches down the line. And these workbooks look like a pretty massive undertaking, so i can very much understand not having the time to get everything ironed out in a big hurry. I'll be ready to go, whenever we fire back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugboat Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 22 hours ago, BowserBroncos said: @ny92mike we all wait until everything is right no problem. I think you should update the rosters if that's won't give you more work for the sake of reality. Like we all know where Kareem Hunt, Robert Alfrod, Spencer Long and Joe Flacco are now and they shouldn't go elsewhere in here since we are going to start a few weeks from now. We can all revisit the trades we already talking about later. Yeah. If it is postponed that long, i'd be interested in going with a later roster freeze date. With some fairly significant names already moving around in the real world, i'm liable to get myself confused with who is where, after a bit of a break. But i certainly wouldn't want to make any more work out of it. I'm totally cool with keeping the roster freeze as is too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted February 20, 2019 Author Share Posted February 20, 2019 What do you guys think about the following guidelines for restructure and extensions? Restructuring a player’s contract takes the entire base salary (minus Vet. Min.) for the current year and evenly distributes the amount over the length of the contract as signing bonus, not to exceed 5 years. Player Criteria for Restructure The player must be original to the team's roster. Contract Length must be greater than 1 Player’s experience must be greater than or equal to 5. The player cannot have any base guarantees assigned to the original contract. Extending a player’s contract allows you to increase the length of the contract to a max of 6 years, (providing the players expected contract length is 5 years) in addition to changing the base salary amounts and applying additional signing bonuses. When working out the terms of the new contract, the team must meet or exceed the Player’s expected APY, as well as Signing Bonus values and cannot exceed the players max contract length by more than one year. Player Criteria for Extension The player must be original to the roster or added through trade. The player’s original contract length cannot be greater than 2. The player’s expected contract length (CL) must be greater than 1. The player’s experience must be equal to or greater than 5. The player's current cap number multiplied by 75%, cannot be greater then the player's expected APY. This is to insure that the contract extension isn't becoming a salary cut. Base Guarantees from the original contract must carry over into the new contract. The wording is pretty rough, but basically the only thing that has really changed is the players original salary no longer needs to fall within the 10th highest salaries. Thoughts on making restrictions based on the teams current salary cap situation? So if a franchise has over x million is funds they can't use these methods of freeing up cap space until they get below x million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainpd Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 1 hour ago, ny92mike said: What do you guys think about the following guidelines for restructure and extensions? Restructuring a player’s contract takes the entire base salary (minus Vet. Min.) for the current year and evenly distributes the amount over the length of the contract as signing bonus, not to exceed 5 years. Player Criteria for Restructure The player must be original to the team's roster. Contract Length must be greater than 1 Player’s experience must be greater than or equal to 5. The player cannot have any base guarantees assigned to the original contract. Extending a player’s contract allows you to increase the length of the contract to a max of 6 years, (providing the players expected contract length is 5 years) in addition to changing the base salary amounts and applying additional signing bonuses. When working out the terms of the new contract, the team must meet or exceed the Player’s expected APY, as well as Signing Bonus values and cannot exceed the players max contract length by more than one year. Player Criteria for Extension The player must be original to the roster or added through trade. The player’s original contract length cannot be greater than 2. The player’s expected contract length (CL) must be greater than 1. The player’s experience must be equal to or greater than 5. The player's current cap number multiplied by 75%, cannot be greater then the player's expected APY. This is to insure that the contract extension isn't becoming a salary cut. Base Guarantees from the original contract must carry over into the new contract. The wording is pretty rough, but basically the only thing that has really changed is the players original salary no longer needs to fall within the 10th highest salaries. Thoughts on making restrictions based on the teams current salary cap situation? So if a franchise has over x million is funds they can't use these methods of freeing up cap space until they get below x million? The only question I would ask is regarding ‘the players experience must be equal or greater than 5’ Does this mean you can’t extend a player on their rookie contract unless they were a first round pick in the last year of their deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringinDaPain Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 7 hours ago, mountainpd said: The only question I would ask is regarding ‘the players experience must be equal or greater than 5’ Does this mean you can’t extend a player on their rookie contract unless they were a first round pick in the last year of their deal? Agree with @mountainpd on this question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BowserBroncos Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 I like the guidelines. I have the same question as @mountainpd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 Looks good to me @ny92mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EaglesPeteC Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted February 20, 2019 Author Share Posted February 20, 2019 11 hours ago, mountainpd said: The only question I would ask is regarding ‘the players experience must be equal or greater than 5’ Does this mean you can’t extend a player on their rookie contract unless they were a first round pick in the last year of their deal? The idea was to prevent rookie contracts from being changed in the early years, I guess 4 would be the better number. We good with it being set at 4 years or more for extensions and 5 years or more for restructures? What about the last suggestion about the team needing to be under a certain amount before authorizing the restructure or extension? The limit you could restructure or extend would still be set to 3 max, but it would just prevent a team with like 80 million in funds from being able to do this early, they would need to wait until they got down to a lower number, or does this matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 26 minutes ago, ny92mike said: The idea was to prevent rookie contracts from being changed in the early years, I guess 4 would be the better number. We good with it being set at 4 years or more for extensions and 5 years or more for restructures? What about the last suggestion about the team needing to be under a certain amount before authorizing the restructure or extension? The limit you could restructure or extend would still be set to 3 max, but it would just prevent a team with like 80 million in funds from being able to do this early, they would need to wait until they got down to a lower number, or does this matter? I agree with the team needing to be less than a certain amount of cap space. Most teams do not restructure contracts unless they need the cap space and are doing so at the expense of future years space. Since TCMD is a 1 year event, their is less cost to doing restructures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cortes02 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 28 minutes ago, ny92mike said: What about the last suggestion about the team needing to be under a certain amount before authorizing the restructure or extension? The limit you could restructure or extend would still be set to 3 max, but it would just prevent a team with like 80 million in funds from being able to do this early, they would need to wait until they got down to a lower number, or does this matter? I'm good with everything else. I don't think a team needs to be under a certain cap number to be able to restructure. That's just my opinion. Peace!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedGold Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 58 minutes ago, ny92mike said: The idea was to prevent rookie contracts from being changed in the early years, I guess 4 would be the better number. We good with it being set at 4 years or more for extensions and 5 years or more for restructures? What about the last suggestion about the team needing to be under a certain amount before authorizing the restructure or extension? The limit you could restructure or extend would still be set to 3 max, but it would just prevent a team with like 80 million in funds from being able to do this early, they would need to wait until they got down to a lower number, or does this matter? Would this prevent me from extending Tyreek and Chris Jones? Both I would like to factor into my offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted February 20, 2019 Author Share Posted February 20, 2019 2 hours ago, samsel23 said: Would this prevent me from extending Tyreek and Chris Jones? Both I would like to factor into my offseason. It would for Hill, haven't looked at Jones. So, that isn't going to work. I was hoping that we could create a set of criteria so that we wouldn't need to review each restructure or extension to determine the likelihood a player would agree to the deal and not even sure I could find someone willing to do it. I know that I couldn't take on the additional responsibility. Rather than looking at the exp / accrued season number perhaps we look at when they'll be a free agent, because OTC uses accrued seasons and not experience the year always seem out of whack. If removing the criteria for 4 or more years of AS and change the rule to only if they are on the contract year, that they would accept an extension. Typically, not always, but teams don't offer extensions to players until they are on the last year of the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.