TCMD - Keeper League Discussion

[RTTRUTH]

16 hours ago, ny92mike said:

Do you guys have a preference for starting this keeper?  

Blank rosters or irl rosters?

Being a fan as bad as I hate what this Owner has done to the Giants, I've still got attachments to this roster.  I'm excited to see what these rookies do so I'm leaning toward starting this keeper out just like any other tcmd year.  Nonetheless, I'm open to starting with empty rosters to kick this off.  

I think the one benefit to using the irl rosters would be that I don't think we'd have a problem getting the 32 members signed up.  Who knows though, we've never done it so maybe it wouldn't matter.  

Let me know how you guys would rather start it off, we can work out the kinks regardless which one we use.

  

Neither option is really going to upset me. If all else is created equal I would vote for starting with blank rosters. It really just lets you put your own touch on the roster from day 1.

That said, if there’s a benefit of more members or simply an easier startup with IRL rosters that’s cool with me too. Andrew Luck is locked up a while then. And Mack. And Quenton. And Darius L! 

[ny92mike]

7 hours ago, RTTRUTH said:

Neither option is really going to upset me. If all else is created equal I would vote for starting with blank rosters. It really just lets you put your own touch on the roster from day 1.

That said, if there’s a benefit of more members or simply an easier startup with IRL rosters that’s cool with me too. Andrew Luck is locked up a while then. And Mack. And Quenton. And Darius L! 

I guess perhaps feeling out all the members associated with tcmd would be the right direction to figure this out, because that is really my only fear of starting with blank rosters.  If we think we'll drop our regulars by starting with blank rosters then the question for this is answered at least imo.

 

[ny92mike]

To add before I go hitting up everyone to voice their thoughts on the matter, I'd like to be able to present both versions.

I'll start by working on a board that contains all players for a fa style bidding system and it would be cool if the members that are here talking could help me with testing it out to see how it would work.  I'm not too worried about the kinks because we've got the bulk if not all of that worked out from previous versions, but I would like to see how things might play out and to make sure that the additions of knowing how many teams are bidding on a certain player and if that bid is within the top 5 highest bids.

This would give us a better idea of how many bids we need to create for each round.  It'll take a few days to a week to set this up.  I'll try to keep the workbooks public also expect me to be hitting you guys up with suggestions as I build it.

 

Edited May 7, 2019 by ny92mike

[squire12]

Anyone have thoughts on a hybrid type system for the inaugural player acquisition process?

Key items:  

• Players salary would be their NFL salary
• team salary cap space would be same as the NFL ($188.2M)
• the auction process total "bidding points" would be equivalent  to the NFL salary cap space 188.2 points

 

Player acquisition inaugural season

Hybrid process:

1. Teams have a total team salary cap that they need stay under when finished with the player acquisition process (2019 = $188.2M --- or whatever we deem the cap value to be)

   1. Players salary is what they have in the NFL

2. Owners can opt to keep up to 10 players (open for discussion on more or less)

   1. The players salary and contract is the same as their NFL salary and contract

   2. The total cap space for 2019 of the 10 kept players reduces the total “bidding points” the team has at the start of the FA auction (see below)

      1. Example:  GB keeps 10 players from the actual NFL roster and the total cap for those players is $40M

         1. $188.2 - $40 = $142.2M in remaining salary cap space

         2. 188.2 - 40 = 144.2 remaining bidding points

3. Remaining roster is filled with auction process similar to TCMD FA with rounds of blind bidding

   1. Bidding is done using “bidding points”

   2. Total bidding points is equal to the team salary cap in item #1 above (188.2)

      1. Minimum bid is 0.5 points

      2. Bidding can be increased in  0.1 increments

      3. Example:  GB bids 3.2 points in round 1 on Mason Crosby.  If they are the high bidding team, Mason Crosby is awarded to GB and the 3.2 is deducted from the 142.2 starting value

 

The idea behind this is to:

• allow teams to keep some players they feel would be core pieces to build around
• Potentially make the player acquisition process quicker with a head start on a group of players on the rosters
• with the NFL salary cap total and the "bidding points" being similar in total (just different scaling), it should help to set some similar values for players during the bidding process

[ny92mike]

2 hours ago, squire12 said:

Anyone have thoughts on a hybrid type system for the inaugural player acquisition process?

 

Appreciate you making suggestions.  

I'll need to look at the point system you listed, but after reading over it my first take is I don't think the point system does much outside of just saving us from adding some zero's at the end.  Maybe I'm missing something though. 

Giving the owners the ability to pick a few players from their roster is something I thought about before and ultimately thought some might night see it as being fair.  Playing a little devil's advocate here, the issue I see with this, is not all rosters are created equal, for example the Giants roster doesn't have a JJ Watt or even an Odell Beckham so I could potentially see some issues with that from some.  Oddly, I'd rather take the entire Giants roster than to cherry pick a small number to take, I guess it just seems more fair than if I know I've got to pick from a list that really doesn't have any established players on the roster vs a Rams team.

[squire12]

1 hour ago, ny92mike said:

Appreciate you making suggestions.  

I'll need to look at the point system you listed, but after reading over it my first take is I don't think the point system does much outside of just saving us from adding some zero's at the end.  Maybe I'm missing something though. 

Giving the owners the ability to pick a few players from their roster is something I thought about before and ultimately thought some might night see it as being fair.  Playing a little devil's advocate here, the issue I see with this, is not all rosters are created equal, for example the Giants roster doesn't have a JJ Watt or even an Odell Beckham so I could potentially see some issues with that from some.  Oddly, I'd rather take the entire Giants roster than to cherry pick a small number to take, I guess it just seems more fair than if I know I've got to pick from a list that really doesn't have any established players on the roster vs a Rams team.

it would be a way for teams to select several good value contracts.  Barkley, Engram type players.  Getting them for the cheap rookie contract they are vs having to bid on them with 31 other teams.  

[ny92mike]

15 minutes ago, squire12 said:

it would be a way for teams to select several good value contracts.  Barkley, Engram type players.  Getting them for the cheap rookie contract they are vs having to bid on them with 31 other teams.  

I just think 10 is a high number when a lot of teams like the Giants would be hard pressed to find 10 players worthy of keeping, wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the youngest team in the league at this point.  I might see it different if all of the youth they have on that roster works out.  Maybe I'm overthinking it but I'm not sure we'd all be able to agree to a number.  Some teams have loads of talent while others have far less.  

I take it that you'd prefer to start out with a somewhat empty roster vs starting the season out with the irl roster?  

I'm willing to go either route, just want to make certain whichever direction we go that we won't have any issues getting the members signed up for it.

 

  

 

[squire12]

4 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

I just think 10 is a high number when a lot of teams like the Giants would be hard pressed to find 10 players worthy of keeping, wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the youngest team in the league at this point.  I might see it different if all of the youth they have on that roster works out.  Maybe I'm overthinking it but I'm not sure we'd all be able to agree to a number.  Some teams have loads of talent while others have far less.  

I take it that you'd prefer to start out with a somewhat empty roster vs starting the season out with the irl roster?  

I'm willing to go either route, just want to make certain whichever direction we go that we won't have any issues getting the members signed up for it.

 

  

 

I would be fine with keeping a full roster or starting from 0.  I would be leery of a team that has some good value contracts.... rookie contract QB, OT, CB etc and those players get auctioned to a new team and then we have an issue with an owner not wanting to stay in for the long haul.  

THis is an attempt to bridge the gap from keeping full rosters to keeping nothing.  It would allow owners to select some players to keep that they feel are good value or are elite pieces that would likely go for more in a full 32 team auction.  We have a track record that players will get significantly over paid in a TCMD auction.  

 

I am not set on any number, just threw out 10 as an idea.  Could be less for sure. 

Barkley, Engram, Hernandez, Sterling Shepard, Wheeler, Tomlinson, BJ Hill, Carter, Peppers, Bethea

Not sure if those are the best 10, but that is a fair group to keep that are all on rookie contracts.  Gives you a good start and does not impact your overall salary cap commitment and would leave you with a good amount of "bidding points" as well.  

[ny92mike]

17 minutes ago, squire12 said:

I would be fine with keeping a full roster or starting from 0.  I would be leery of a team that has some good value contracts.... rookie contract QB, OT, CB etc and those players get auctioned to a new team and then we have an issue with an owner not wanting to stay in for the long haul.  

THis is an attempt to bridge the gap from keeping full rosters to keeping nothing.  It would allow owners to select some players to keep that they feel are good value or are elite pieces that would likely go for more in a full 32 team auction.  We have a track record that players will get significantly over paid in a TCMD auction.  

 

I am not set on any number, just threw out 10 as an idea.  Could be less for sure. 

Barkley, Engram, Hernandez, Sterling Shepard, Wheeler, Tomlinson, BJ Hill, Carter, Peppers, Bethea

Not sure if those are the best 10, but that is a fair group to keep that are all on rookie contracts.  Gives you a good start and does not impact your overall salary cap commitment and would leave you with a good amount of "bidding points" as well.  

So this idea of retaining players would only apply to players on rookie contracts?  

I don't think the list you posted is accurate but besides the point. 

[RTTRUTH]

On 2019-05-05 at 6:36 AM, EaglesPeteC said:

Honestly, @ny92mike I kinda think you should build it the way you envision it. We do a trial season and work out the kinks, discuss what is working and what we’d like to see change etc as we run the trial.

All this debate has me circling back to this ^^ statement.

I would say take the startup ideas (irl rosters, blank, and maybe hybrid), and ask your regulars with the TCMD stuff to simply privately vote on their favourite option. Then go with that.

Or trust your gut on what will get the largest number of quality participants to sign up. 

I am still good with whatever. 

[ny92mike]

23 minutes ago, RTTRUTH said:

All this debate has me circling back to this ^^ statement.

I would say take the startup ideas (irl rosters, blank, and maybe hybrid), and ask your regulars with the TCMD stuff to simply privately vote on their favourite option. Then go with that.

Or trust your gut on what will get the largest number of quality participants to sign up. 

I am still good with whatever. 

Right, I've got a pretty solid idea of how I see it playing out if we were to use the irl rosters to kick it off.  I am scratching the head a little on exactly how to structure the empty roster version, just feel that any version of an empty roster is going to turn some people off.

 

[squire12]

1 hour ago, ny92mike said:

So this idea of retaining players would only apply to players on rookie contracts?  

I don't think the list you posted is accurate but besides the point. 

Not rookies only.  But they would be the logical likely best value and cheapest contracts.  Certainly players that are outperforming their contracts are ideal. 

I just went with a group of upper tier depth chart players on cheap contracts.  

[ny92mike]

6 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Not rookies only.  But they would be the logical likely best value and cheapest contracts.  Certainly players that are outperforming their contracts are ideal. 

I just went with a group of upper tier depth chart players on cheap contracts.  

I get where you're going and I think something like this would work.  There really aren't too many proven players on the Giants roster, the bulk of this roster is getting paid rookie wages.  I think rather than putting a number on it, it might be better to do what we've done in the past with practice squad where we just let the team determine how many of their players that they wanna keep and send the rest to free agency.  

I think it would be more difficult for us to put a number on it, believe it'd work better if we let the owners decide who they wanna keep or remove.  Would something like this work for you?

[ny92mike]

I also believe that this version wouldn't disrupt the bulk from signing up because the season one roster build wouldn't be too draining.

[squire12]

16 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

I get where you're going and I think something like this would work.  There really aren't too many proven players on the Giants roster, the bulk of this roster is getting paid rookie wages.  I think rather than putting a number on it, it might be better to do what we've done in the past with practice squad where we just let the team determine how many of their players that they wanna keep and send the rest to free agency.  

I think it would be more difficult for us to put a number on it, believe it'd work better if we let the owners decide who they wanna keep or remove.  Would something like this work for you?

That would be fine.  Allowing teams to keep good players, good contracts in various forms. 

Would you limit how many FA bids teams would have based on how many players they retain?  

Or just use the cap space they have allow teams to bid as they deem necessary based on cap space?