Total Control GM Mock Draft Suggestions / Feedback

[DoleINGout]

On 7/9/2021 at 7:18 PM, ny92mike said:

Mentioned this before but include an allotment for extensions similar to how we do restructures.  These type of contracts seem to be getting out of hand.

I think 100% yes but clarification is needed what this means

[DoleINGout]

On 7/9/2021 at 7:18 PM, ny92mike said:

It looks like we are all in agreement that we should have 3 bidding rounds per week (Mon/Wed/Fri), correct?

Yes and no.

Yes it will be nice for engagement. No though because it will move quickly. Perhaps twice a week?

[DoleINGout]

On 7/9/2021 at 7:18 PM, ny92mike said:

I'd like to create a section for teams looking to trade up in the draft to post their offer, that is collected so that the OTC team can quickly look at what trade down options are available to them while OTC without it taking too much time.

This is fantastic in theory. In application might be too much work to manage?

[DoleINGout]

On 7/9/2021 at 7:18 PM, ny92mike said:

I'm also looking to create an additional bid slot to be used if a bidding team.

1. @pwny mentioned this earlier.
2. My suggestion was the following;
   1. If the 3 ufa and fixed resign bids don't land you at least 2 players then the 4th ufa bid is included would be the only rule we'd need to create.  No "what ifs" the rules would remain as is and the only way this new rule gets implemented is if you are awarded 2 or less.  This 4th bid goes in and would still have to beat out any other bid on him.

 

yes

[ny92mike]

1 hour ago, DoleINGout said:

I think 100% yes but clarification is needed what this means

First, thanks for providing the feedback.

 

So in previous mocks, we allow teams to restructure contracts to free up cap space.  Each team is allowed to restructure no more than 4 players, but teams starting the off season with less cap are allowed to convert more money into signing bonus.  Essentially, helping teams out a little more with the cap.  It's worked out pretty well in the past.  

Basically looking to do the same set up for extensions.  

The main reason for doing it this way is to assist the teams with little to no cap space enjoy the mock.  When teams are strapped for cash starting out it's difficult to fill those management roles.  

I'll get a rough draft of the guidelines for this section and post in a few days.

1 hour ago, DoleINGout said:

Yes and no.

Yes it will be nice for engagement. No though because it will move quickly. Perhaps twice a week?

By design, this mock is meant to run a bit faster, because we would run more than one of these per season.  Last year, we changed it up a bit and I just felt that it got bogged down. 

1 hour ago, DoleINGout said:

This is fantastic in theory. In application might be too much work to manage?

The idea would be to have it set up similar to how I built the trade block, where it basically manages itself.  However, I haven't built it yet so I can't say 100% how difficult or easy it would be to manage.

[KingOfNewYork]

The under 50 rule is tough because sometimes you have to get under 50 to open up cap space.

[ny92mike]

Hate to admit it but I did find a formula error with the top 51 calculation.  

 

[ny92mike]

@LuckyNumber11 @whodatOL @Ghostnote @KingOfNewYork @BringinDaPain @Forge @sparky151 @cortes02 @JWingate @BowserBroncos @winitall @squire12 @jch1911 @Counselor @samsel23 @Trojan @carrolljcmc @EaglesPeteC @FinneasGage @DoleINGout @JetsandI @ny92mike @bcb1213 @T-rade @Cbrunn @Justone2 @mountainpd @Daniel @MikeT14 @drfrey13 @Deadpulse @YogiBiz @SerenityNow

Note:  If you wish to be removed from the above list of tags, let me know.

This segment of questions pertains to the Free Agency

1. After each round of FA Bidding, the APY values are decreased by X percentage. With declining talent decreasing an additional 10%.  Any adjustments needed from last year?
   1. Last year % values per round number.
      1. FA BIDDING ROUND 01    100%
         FA BIDDING ROUND 02    90%
         FA BIDDING ROUND 03    80%
         FA BIDDING ROUND 04    70%
         FA BIDDING ROUND 05    50%
         FA BIDDING ROUND 06    30%
         FA BIDDING ROUND 07    20%
         FA BIDDING ROUND 08    0% (Vet Min)
         FA BIDDING ROUND 09    0% (Vet Min)
         FA BIDDING ROUND 10    0% (Vet Min)
         FA BIDDING ROUND 11    0% (Vet Min)
         FA BIDDING ROUND 12    0% (Vet Min)
2. We normally do 12 rounds of bidding.  Any adjustments needed for next season?
3. Rather than using multiple workbooks for the various FA listings, i.e. (UFA, ERFA, etc.).  My plan is to just house them all in one workbook.
4. Waiver Wire.
   1. Fixed order based on the draft order.
   2. Waiver Wire claims match the player's contract.
5. Tender Offer Sheet
   1. I'm looking for suggestions on how to design this to make it a bit more inviting.  We don't see much activity with this event and it takes about 5 days from start to finish.
      1. In previous years, I've always selected the highest contract offer if more than one team were bidding on the same RFA.  This year, I'm looking to give the current owner the choice to select which offer they will match.
      2. Should we change the draft pick compensation to a draft pick value range, rather than using the draft pick round numbers.
         1. Asking members to hand over two first round picks just doesn't really work in my opinion for these mocks.  Perhaps just for the required 2 first rounders for the non-exclusive tag.  The 2nd and 1st round comps for RFA tenders isn't too steep, but not opposed to applying the draft pick values to these as well.
            1. Suggestion to replace the 2 first round pick requirement would be to put the draft pick value at 1700.  Which is the value of the 5th overall pick. 

Edited July 14, 2021 by ny92mike

[ny92mike]

On 7/11/2021 at 6:28 PM, KingOfNewYork said:

The under 50 rule is tough because sometimes you have to get under 50 to open up cap space.

Understand where you're coming from, just looking for something to limit the unnecessary cuts.  We get this every year, where a member cuts their roster down to mid 40's, accumulate a ton of dead money and then can't afford to sign 53 players.

I guess I'm fine leaving it as is, just hate seeing new members kill their cap with dead money early on and struggle to sign any talent.  It's usually only one or two guys that do this, so it really isn't an issue. 

   

[Scoundrel]

7 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

@LuckyNumber11 @whodatOL @Ghostnote @KingOfNewYork @BringinDaPain @Forge @sparky151 @cortes02 @JWingate @BowserBroncos @winitall @squire12 @jch1911 @Counselor @pwny @samsel23 @Trojan @carrolljcmc @EaglesPeteC @FinneasGage @DoleINGout @JetsandI @ny92mike @bcb1213 @T-rade @Cbrunn @Justone2 @mountainpd @Daniel @MikeT14 @drfrey13 @Deadpulse @YogiBiz @SerenityNow

Note:  If you wish to be removed from the above list of tags, let me know.

This segment of questions pertains to the Free Agency

1. After each round of FA Bidding, the APY values are decreased by X percentage. With declining talent decreasing an additional 10%.  Any adjustments needed from last year? No
   1. Last year % values per round number.
      1. FA BIDDING ROUND 01    100%
         FA BIDDING ROUND 02    90%
         FA BIDDING ROUND 03    80%
         FA BIDDING ROUND 04    70%
         FA BIDDING ROUND 05    50%
         FA BIDDING ROUND 06    30%
         FA BIDDING ROUND 07    20%
         FA BIDDING ROUND 08    0% (Vet Min)
         FA BIDDING ROUND 09    0% (Vet Min)
         FA BIDDING ROUND 10    0% (Vet Min)
         FA BIDDING ROUND 11    0% (Vet Min)
         FA BIDDING ROUND 12    0% (Vet Min)
2. We normally do 12 rounds of bidding.  Any adjustments needed for next season? No
3. Rather than using multiple workbooks for the various FA listings, i.e. (UFA, ERFA, etc.).  My plan is to just house them all in one workbook. Sounds good
4. Waiver Wire.
   1. Fixed order based on the draft order.
   2. Waiver Wire claims match the player's contract.
   3. Makes sense
5. Tender Offer Sheet
   1. I'm looking for suggestions on how to design this to make it a bit more inviting.  We don't see much activity with this event and it takes about 5 days from start to finish.
      1. In previous years, I've always selected the highest contract offer if more than one team were bidding on the same RFA.  This year, I'm looking to give the current owner the choice to select which offer they will match.
      2. Should we change the draft pick compensation to a draft pick value range, rather than using the draft pick round numbers.
         1. Asking members to hand over two first round picks just doesn't really work in my opinion for these mocks.  Perhaps just for the required 2 first rounders for the non-exclusive tag.  The 2nd and 1st round comps for RFA tenders isn't too steep, but not opposed to applying the draft pick values to these as well. But isn’t this in line with the actual NFL?
            1. Suggestion to replace the 2 first round pick requirement would be to put the draft pick value at 1700.  Which is the value of the 5th overall pick. So they can match it with a various number of picks as long as it equals 1700? Can they use future picks as well? Which would count as the last pick on that round for point value. That would be a fun change.

 

[pwny]

17 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

Note:  If you wish to be removed from the above list of tags, let me know.

Yes please 

[ny92mike]

2 minutes ago, Scoundrel said:

Should we change the draft pick compensation to a draft pick value range, rather than using the draft pick round numbers.

1. Asking members to hand over two first round picks just doesn't really work in my opinion for these mocks.  Perhaps just for the required 2 first rounders for the non-exclusive tag.  The 2nd and 1st round comps for RFA tenders isn't too steep, but not opposed to applying the draft pick values to these as well.

   Quote

   But isn’t this in line with the actual NFL?

   Yes.  The main reason for the suggested changes is because it takes up several days of the mock draft and we rarely see any transactions taking place.  Last year, I believe we had two players that didn't match and received original compensation.  The NFL doesn't see a lot of action with this segment either, but as much work and time it takes to manage this event, it just sucks that it doesn't get any more attention than what it does.

   1. Suggestion to replace the 2 first round pick requirement would be to put the draft pick value at 1700.  Which is the value of the 5th overall pick.

      Quote

      So they can match it with a various number of picks as long as it equals 1700?

      Correct.  Could include some minor adjustments to the rule where if the team includes a first rounder that equals 1700 or better that they would need to include a late rounder to make it official.  Otherwise any number of picks that equal 1700 would work.

      Can they use future picks as well? Which would count as the last pick on that round for point value. That would be a fun change.

      I hadn't considered future picks for the 1700 proposed rule, I suppose this is what most teams do to meet the two first round comp in the NFL.  I'm just one of those members that don't value future picks in these mock drafts which is why I suggested this 1700 proposed rule.

      I just think that altering the required compensation might give this event more attention.

       

 

[ny92mike]

8 minutes ago, pwny said:

Yes please 

Hate to see you go.

[KingOfNewYork]

On 7/13/2021 at 9:42 PM, ny92mike said:

Understand where you're coming from, just looking for something to limit the unnecessary cuts.  We get this every year, where a member cuts their roster down to mid 40's, accumulate a ton of dead money and then can't afford to sign 53 players.

I guess I'm fine leaving it as is, just hate seeing new members kill their cap with dead money early on and struggle to sign any talent.  It's usually only one or two guys that do this, so it really isn't an issue. 

   

We could have set dates where the roster must meet a minimum. 

[ny92mike]

10 hours ago, KingOfNewYork said:

We could have set dates where the roster must meet a minimum. 

I'm good with that too.  Really just looking for anything to help out the new guys from killing their cap by released players that accumulate a lot of dead money, that ultimately hurts them down the stretch.

Even if it's just sending them out a notification message letting them know that they are acquiring too much dead money.

Something I wish I could have told Dave, Giant's GM a few years back...haha.  Just now seeing the daylight from all of what I call poor transactions that were more damaging to our current and future cap.