JetsandI Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 1 hour ago, squire12 said: with so many teams being in a tight spot, it might be hard to get that to happen The cap had to be set at some point well before the actual cap number is set. the best info at the time the decision was made was used. lamenting about it now likely doesn't solve anything. If it would have been set at 175, it might have been pretty hard to get people to take some teams. If it is decided to change to 175m, I want Sparky151 to be banned from this mock.🤬 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT14 Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 How set is the FA numbers outside of years? Or what are you still working on Mike? I ask because Kenny Golladay's demands must be wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EaglesPeteC Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 20 hours ago, ny92mike said: Not the same without you Pete @EaglesPeteC Wish things would've turned out different. You know valentines is just around the corner. I’ll be around checking on things and helping @T-rade 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-rade Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 Prince Tega Wanohgo isnt om the Eagles anymore. Chiefs snagged him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 4 hours ago, squire12 said: with so many teams being in a tight spot, it might be hard to get that to happen The cap had to be set at some point well before the actual cap number is set. the best info at the time the decision was made was used. lamenting about it now likely doesn't solve anything. If it would have been set at 175, it might have been pretty hard to get people to take some teams. 175 was the no matter what minimum. Things weren't quite as bad as feared so the actual number is at 180, potentially subject to change. TCMD hasn't started yet and we don't cut over from real life until after the Superbowl. So we should use the same number as the NFL is using as of the cutover date. It's no different from not knowing the final draft order or who has retired or withdrawn from the draft or signed a contract extension. Teams will be signing guys to future contracts, etc. TCMD should start with things as they are as of the cutover. If the league and union negotiate a much higher cap by then, no problemo. But if we're working with a considerably different number, then it weakens the simulation aspect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsandI Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 7 minutes ago, T-rade said: Prince Tega Wanohgo isnt om the Eagles anymore. Chiefs snagged him Mike said that he won't focus on cleaning up players until next week. He has primary issue to focus on right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinneasGage Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 18 minutes ago, sparky151 said: Things weren't quite as bad as feared so the actual number is at 180, potentially subject to change. TCMD hasn't started yet and we don't cut over from real life until after the Superbowl. So we should use the same number as the NFL is using as of the cutover date. i agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsandI Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 @ny92mike @squire12 In trade block, I playfully put 3 players on the list. 2 of them have positive numbers (exact cap savings) and one of them has negative number (exact dead money). While both demonstrate correctly, I concern for formula work. If that is one of formula problems you guys are working on then never mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainpd Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 8 minutes ago, FinneasGage said: i agree Firstly I am easy on the decision. Things to consider include, in this mock teams are limited on number of restructures etc for two reasons if I remember correctly, one is the amount of work required to be done by Mike for the updating of the spreadsheets but in particular to stop teams with positive cap positions restructuring players unnecessarily creating cap space for this year with no knock on effect. Irl there is a lot more flexibility and I think you will see an abundance of restructures this year for teams to get under cap and still have a seat at the free agency table. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted January 20, 2021 Author Share Posted January 20, 2021 30 minutes ago, sparky151 said: 175 was the no matter what minimum. Things weren't quite as bad as feared so the actual number is at 180, potentially subject to change. TCMD hasn't started yet and we don't cut over from real life until after the Superbowl. So we should use the same number as the NFL is using as of the cutover date. It's no different from not knowing the final draft order or who has retired or withdrawn from the draft or signed a contract extension. Teams will be signing guys to future contracts, etc. TCMD should start with things as they are as of the cutover. If the league and union negotiate a much higher cap by then, no problemo. But if we're working with a considerably different number, then it weakens the simulation aspect. If I waited to do all of this after the super bowl it would be a week after that before we could start. During that week 20 other things would have changed. I'm not a robot. Changing anything to all of these workbooks takes a solid day. I posted all of this salary cap stuff a week ago in the discussion thread. We finalized those numbers already. Changing values now would require changing the tag values as well it would also require reducing the need to reduce the apy values. What you are asking isn't something that takes a few minutes but hours and hours of my time. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted January 20, 2021 Author Share Posted January 20, 2021 I will admit that I fired the workbooks out too early and will do a better job of that in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted January 20, 2021 Author Share Posted January 20, 2021 4 minutes ago, ny92mike said: If I waited to do all of this after the super bowl it would be a week after that before we could start. During that week 20 other things would have changed. I'm not a robot. Changing anything to all of these workbooks takes a solid day. I posted all of this salary cap stuff a week ago in the discussion thread. We finalized those numbers already. Changing values now would require changing the tag values as well it would also require reducing the need to reduce the apy values. What you are asking isn't something that takes a few minutes but hours and hours of my time. Jesus freaking auto correct on my phone. Ignore the grammar please. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsandI Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 8 minutes ago, ny92mike said: If I waited to do all of this after the super bowl it would be a week after that before we could start. During that week 20 other things would have changed. I'm not a robot. Changing anything to all of these workbooks takes a solid day. I posted all of this salary cap stuff a week ago in the discussion thread. We finalized those numbers already. Changing values now would require changing the tag values as well it would also require reducing the need to reduce the apy values. What you are asking isn't something that takes a few minutes but hours and hours of my time. No freaking way for me to wait for you re-do the TCMD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsandI Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 Just curious. I saw roster in FA workbook. Will I have two separate workbooks for real? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted January 20, 2021 Author Share Posted January 20, 2021 1 minute ago, JetsandI said: No freaking way for me to wait for you re-do the TCMD. I won't be doing that. In years past I was pretty quick at doing this stuff and might have considered it. Now, too old and slow to even consider redoing all of these workbooks again unless it was absolutely necessary. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.