Total Control GM Mock Draft Suggestions / Feedback

[JetsandI]

Too many notifications to follow up.  Please temporarily refrain my name from any further tagging.   Thanks.

[JetsandI]

1) Bidding system

I have no problem with no backup bid for top target. However, I do want no highlight for bid validation in first 3 rounds, meaning we bid on players complete blindly.  Both Resigning and UFA. After that, highlighting is welcome for budget strategy on middling FA.

 

2) No less than 50 roster

Since Sparky and Mike "whined" about my cutting off campers to complete the team I may suggest that you set up new group for qualified campers and a hard salary pool for that. That group can't be cut or released or traded at all until after a draft.  That way less than 50 roster without camper group is contestable (playable?) during FA period. If a team accidentally ends up less than 50 roster during maxing out team salary cap then they need no worry about that because they already have campers aboard to fill those spots out.  Yes, we could close TCMD out with few open spots on roster as you don't need to police team's roster.

Camper Hard Salary Cap should cover 1/2 of the group to be counting against team salary cap. Be mind, not every campers will have same salary so you need to set up the price for that group no matter what player's cap is in real life and freeze it. Players to be qualified will be based on your rule, logically.

Camper Group can become editable after draft is concluded as signing UDFA could fill out or replace spots (90 max roster).  Replacing one of Campers won't affect the team salary cap

Team Salary Cap consist of

1. Active Roster (Full count)

2. Dead Money (Full count)

3. Rookie Pool (Full count of your rule)

4. Camper Group.  (Half count ish)

 

3. Up to 7 year contract

I think it should be for qb only. 6 year max should be all right for non qb players.  Because of a fixated rate, 7 years on non qb players are too rich to make sense, IMO.

 

4. Voidable years

TCMD won't allow this practice with new FA, correct?   Anyway, on different side, I want to know if you treat FA with voidable years as a UFA. If so, extension is out of question. End of discussion.  Only way to avoid taking full dead money of voidable years hit in first year is to re-sign him. And it happens to be in UFA period.   Exercising franchise tag won't change that until an extension is successful.

 

5. Restructure allotment

If we actually manage 3 year with hard salary cap then there should be no limit on restructure at all. However, because you are afraid that there is very good chance that members will muck up in math and quit abruptly,  limiting 2 restructure prior to draft may be good idea. During the draft, one restructure can be done as many times as members can adjust until one of 3 years is maxed out.

 

6. Fixing Doc.😝

 

 

I don't know whether or not they are already in play or not but I just put up some opinions here.

[JetsandI]

@ny92mike 

I know you have plenty of time to figure out some functions for waiver wire but if you couldn't resolve WW issue by TCMD's open day then I can volunteer for taking care of it manually in my own thread.  Remember what I did with UDFA? I can do the similar way for WW.

However, no way in HELL will I monitor WW everyday.  Say 48 hours from Tuesdays 12pm to Thursdays 12pm.  Feed in on Mondays. Outputs between Thursdays-Sundays during frozen period for updating rosters.

 

Just a thought for a backup plan before I forget to mention that.

 

Ciao!

[ny92mike]

On 8/13/2021 at 11:45 AM, JetsandI said:

1) Bidding system

I have no problem with no backup bid for top target. However, I do want no highlight for bid validation in first 3 rounds, meaning we bid on players complete blindly.  Both Resigning and UFA. After that, highlighting is welcome for budget strategy on middling FA.

This is how I originally operated it.  There were no notifications on which players were being bid on.  We made the decision to show if a player had an offer a few years back and the majority preferred it that way.  

I'm thinking we need to conduct a vote on items such as this, because now is the time to work this stuff out while I'm building these workbooks.

On 8/13/2021 at 11:45 AM, JetsandI said:

2) No less than 50 roster

Since Sparky and Mike "whined" about my cutting off campers to complete the team I may suggest that you set up new group for qualified campers and a hard salary pool for that. That group can't be cut or released or traded at all until after a draft.  That way less than 50 roster without camper group is contestable (playable?) during FA period. If a team accidentally ends up less than 50 roster during maxing out team salary cap then they need no worry about that because they already have campers aboard to fill those spots out.  Yes, we could close TCMD out with few open spots on roster as you don't need to police team's roster.

Camper Hard Salary Cap should cover 1/2 of the group to be counting against team salary cap. Be mind, not every campers will have same salary so you need to set up the price for that group no matter what player's cap is in real life and freeze it. Players to be qualified will be based on your rule, logically.

Camper Group can become editable after draft is concluded as signing UDFA could fill out or replace spots (90 max roster).  Replacing one of Campers won't affect the team salary cap

Team Salary Cap consist of

1. Active Roster (Full count)

2. Dead Money (Full count)

3. Rookie Pool (Full count of your rule)

4. Camper Group.  (Half count ish)

I don't recall the situation but just remember you had some cap concerns early in the mock.  Not really sure about the need for a "camper group", my only issue with adhering to some kind of roster count limitation is for two reasons.  Some of the new guys tend to release all of their depth to make room for potential Free Agents when if they just left them on the roster it wouldn't be hurting the cap at all.  The other issue is just keeping the concept of "keeping it real".  During the offseason, teams are allowed a 90 man roster under the top 51 rule.  

 

On 8/13/2021 at 11:45 AM, JetsandI said:

3. Up to 7 year contract

I think it should be for qb only. 6 year max should be all right for non qb players.  Because of a fixated rate, 7 years on non qb players are too rich to make sense, IMO.

Include this in the vote.  I'll work on list of things to be voted on, so if you think of any additional stuff let me know.

I personally don't care either way on this, but I can see why a lot of the guys prefer it to be max 5 years because of the signing bonuses.  

On 8/13/2021 at 11:45 AM, JetsandI said:

4. Voidable years

TCMD won't allow this practice with new FA, correct?   Anyway, on different side, I want to know if you treat FA with voidable years as a UFA. If so, extension is out of question. End of discussion.  Only way to avoid taking full dead money of voidable years hit in first year is to re-sign him. And it happens to be in UFA period.   Exercising franchise tag won't change that until an extension is successful.

I've always allowed teams the option to extend a players contract if listed as voidable in the UFA listing.  Again, would prefer to vote on this if we are wanting it removed.  This usually only applied to a handful of players, so it was never an issue to my knowledge.  

On 8/13/2021 at 11:45 AM, JetsandI said:

5. Restructure allotment

If we actually manage 3 year with hard salary cap then there should be no limit on restructure at all. However, because you are afraid that there is very good chance that members will muck up in math and quit abruptly,  limiting 2 restructure prior to draft may be good idea. During the draft, one restructure can be done as many times as members can adjust until one of 3 years is maxed out.

You have to keep in mind that it is typically just myself that is managing these workbooks.  Some of these limitations are put in place so that I'm not overloaded, but I also create limitations to these types of transactions to mirror the nfl.  While the NFL doesn't have rules against how many times they are allowed to do this, but franchises know that doing too much of this will damage the future cap, it also shows poor management skills if you are continually having to restructure contracts.

On 8/13/2021 at 11:45 AM, JetsandI said:

6. Fixing Doc.😝

I don't know whether or not they are already in play or not but I just put up some opinions here.

Yes...haha.  Slowly working on them.

Would go a lot faster if we could finalize some of these alterations.  If I get a chance I'll work on a list of things to vote on.

 

[JetsandI]

Ah.. different members.   I guess you have to set up the annual pre-TCMD ballot. 🤨

 

 

[ny92mike]

33 minutes ago, JetsandI said:

Ah.. different members.   I guess you have to set up the annual pre-TCMD ballot. 🤨

Just difficult to get everyone to discuss this stuff this time of year.  By the time the bulk of the group is ready to talk mock draft, it's too late to work anything in as the workbooks and guidelines are already set up.

Building these workbooks from blanks is taking some time, amaze myself at how much crap I put into these and even more surprised that they actually work, for the most part...haha

 

 

     

[JetsandI]

4 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

Just difficult to get everyone to discuss this stuff this time of year.  By the time the bulk of the group is ready to talk mock draft, it's too late to work anything in as the workbooks and guidelines are already set up.

Building these workbooks from blanks is taking some time, amaze myself at how much crap I put into these and even more surprised that they actually work, for the most part...haha

 

 

     

Yeah... I don't think I will ever be able to complete workbooks by myself.

 

Unfortunately, a lot of members are pure end users. Maybe high level committee consisting of Pete, Squire, DP and you can vote on certain stuffs before us.

[ny92mike]

Alright, so I've had some time to think about this backup bid and it just isn't working.  Listening to members that have been with me since the beginning tcmd aren't fans of it and while it sounds like a cool concept on the surface, but when you start getting into the process of sorting it out to determine highest bidding team, it creates too many issues.  Complicating it too much.

That said.

How do you all feel about using this additional bid slot as a second "resign" bid slot.  So we would have the 3 UFA/resign bid slots, 2 fixed resign bid slots and 4 reserve bid slots.

Could make some adjustments to this additional bid slot, that could be used as a UFA/Resign after the 4th round of FA bidding.  

 

 

[sparky151]

When a player voids his contract, he becomes a free agent. Same thing when a team terminates a contract. So they should go into the free agent pool (or pass through waivers if not tenured enough).

 

Regarding the extra re-sign bid, I'm in favor of leaving it out and continuing as is.

[JetsandI]

On 9/8/2021 at 11:40 AM, sparky151 said:

When a player voids his contract, he becomes a free agent. Same thing when a team terminates a contract. So they should go into the free agent pool (or pass through waivers if not tenured enough).

 

 

OTC won't remove players with voidable contracts from teams until around the new league year starts (3/16). Because of that, Mike downloads and feeds players data into TCMD with those supposed to be FA players on their team rosters in late February or early March.  I think that is why Mike rather to give GM first dab to extend or cut those certain players than manually changing/cleaning rosters by himself.

Mind you, I didn't track OTC's daily activity so I guess the possibility of still having players on teams.

Until Mike has a way to manipulate the date when he downloads players' data I won't object to that.

Edited September 11, 2021 by JetsandI

[ny92mike]

On 9/8/2021 at 10:40 AM, sparky151 said:

When a player voids his contract, he becomes a free agent. Same thing when a team terminates a contract. So they should go into the free agent pool (or pass through waivers if not tenured enough).

 

Regarding the extra re-sign bid, I'm in favor of leaving it out and continuing as is.

A few years back, Drew Brees was listed as having a voided contract, and resigned.  These contracts while listed as voided, haven't technically been voided.  Most of these types of contracts the team resigns them before free agency starts.  The way it's set up in the mock is teams have the option to either void or extend their contract.  Extending their contract isn't cheap.  I just hate pushing these guys into the open market when they'll most likely extend their contract with their team.  

It's usually a small list of about 5 guys that fall under this.  This year I'm seeing several but again it's really early in the season so I expect many of these guys to get contract extensions before the season ends or shortly after.  

Regarding the extra bid, I'll keep asking around to get more opinions on this but appreciate your input as always.

Thanks for getting back with me.

[sparky151]

The voided contracts in question are the ones voided by the player. Teams void (technically they terminate) contracts all the time, ie they cut someone.

 

Players agree to longer term deals to spread their signing bonus over more seasons to reduce their cap number. They do this because the team gives them the ability to void the contract to escape the extra years. When they do this, as with Brees, they become free agents. They may or may not be looking for a change of scenery but they are free agents and should be treated as such. If a team can't afford to lose the player, tag him. Or bid high to re-sign him, Or spend your money on another player at the position. 

[ny92mike]

46 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

The voided contracts in question are the ones voided by the player. Teams void (technically they terminate) contracts all the time, ie they cut someone.

Players agree to longer term deals to spread their signing bonus over more seasons to reduce their cap number. They do this because the team gives them the ability to void the contract to escape the extra years. When they do this, as with Brees, they become free agents. They may or may not be looking for a change of scenery but they are free agents and should be treated as such. If a team can't afford to lose the player, tag him. Or bid high to re-sign him, Or spend your money on another player at the position. 

Alright man you sold me and you're right, these players are technically FA until they provided an extension, I'm not arguing this.  For me, I just wanted to provide the original team a chance to retain these types to avoid accumulating dead money for not being able to extend the contract and not treating these player types as free agents.

Partly why I've allowed teams the ability to extend these contracts is because these types of contracts if not extended can create several million in dead money.  I basically just wanted to give the original team a leg up.

Using Ben's contract as an example, if the Steelers don't win out on the bid they not only are losing out on their franchise quarterback but also are hit with over 10 million in dead money.  I understand that these guys are free agents, but when it creates that much dead money again, I just hate the idea of a team losing money for not bidding high enough, that said I believe the original team needs to have some sort of advantage in the bidding if in fact these team's are forced to compete for these players in the open market.           

Year	Age	Base Salary	Prorated Bonus		Cap Number	Cap %		Dead Money & Cap Savings Cut (pre-June 1)Cut (post-June 1)Trade (pre-June 1)Trade (post-June 1)RestructureExtension
2021	39	$1,075,000	$24,835,000		$25,910,000	13.9%		$35,175,000	($9,265,000)
2022	40	Void	$2,585,000		$10,340,000	5.0%		$10,340,000	$0
2023	41	Void	$2,585,000		$0	0.0%		$7,755,000	($7,755,000)
2024	42	Void	$2,585,000		$0	0.0%		$5,170,000	($5,170,000)
2025	43	Void	$2,585,000		$0	--		$2,585,000	($2,585,000)

So I'm fine with these voided years being free agents for all to bid on I just want to provide the original team with some sort of advantage.  Whether that's including the dead money into the adjusted bid amount that's used to sort highest bid. 

Any suggestions?

 

[JetsandI]

37 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

Alright man you sold me and you're right, these players are technically FA until they provided an extension, I'm not arguing this.  For me, I just wanted to provide the original team a chance to retain these types to avoid accumulating dead money for not being able to extend the contract and not treating these player types as free agents.

Partly why I've allowed teams the ability to extend these contracts is because these types of contracts if not extended can create several million in dead money.  I basically just wanted to give the original team a leg up.

Using Ben's contract as an example, if the Steelers don't win out on the bid they not only are losing out on their franchise quarterback but also are hit with over 10 million in dead money.  I understand that these guys are free agents, but when it creates that much dead money again, I just hate the idea of a team losing money for not bidding high enough, that said I believe the original team needs to have some sort of advantage in the bidding if in fact these team's are forced to compete for these players in the open market.           

Year	Age	Base Salary	Prorated Bonus		Cap Number	Cap %		Dead Money & Cap Savings Cut (pre-June 1)Cut (post-June 1)Trade (pre-June 1)Trade (post-June 1)RestructureExtension
2021	39	$1,075,000	$24,835,000		$25,910,000	13.9%		$35,175,000	($9,265,000)
2022	40	Void	$2,585,000		$10,340,000	5.0%		$10,340,000	$0
2023	41	Void	$2,585,000		$0	0.0%		$7,755,000	($7,755,000)
2024	42	Void	$2,585,000		$0	0.0%		$5,170,000	($5,170,000)
2025	43	Void	$2,585,000		$0	--		$2,585,000	($2,585,000)

So I'm fine with these voided years being free agents for all to bid on I just want to provide the original team with some sort of advantage.  Whether that's including the dead money into the adjusted bid amount that's used to sort highest bid. 

Any suggestions?

 

 

If you want to clean up 32 team rosters manually then I suggest you to use the trigger list in OTC. It should save your time looking for voidable contracts.

Players will be removed from OTC roster on time (dates whenever they signed the contracts which are later than TCMD kickoff date).

[ny92mike]

@sparky151

Appreciate you taking the time to discuss.

If you've got the time I've got another item pertaining to the free agent bid slots.  You mentioned keeping the bid numbers as is which is the 3 UFA/Resign and the one fixed Resign bid.

Limiting the UFA bidding slots to 3 does prevent a single team from cleaning out the talent from the FA pool, so I get the reluctance to want to change these values.  The data shows that these bid numbers work well in terms of the number of players signed each round. 

FA Bidding Round	Total # of Contracts Submitted	# of Outbids per Rnd	UFA	Resign	Reserve	Total # Signed	Avg. Signed per Team
FA BIDDING ROUND 01	122	42	50	27	3	80	2.5
FA BIDDING ROUND 02	103	35	45	20	3	68	2.1
FA BIDDING ROUND 03	98	18	60	16	4	80	2.5
FA BIDDING ROUND 04	81	14	50	16	1	67	2.1
FA BIDDING ROUND 05	69	14	39	11	5	55	1.7
FA BIDDING ROUND 06	58	12	34	12	0	46	1.4
FA BIDDING ROUND 07	65	14	27	9	15	51	1.6
FA BIDDING ROUND 08	47	12	27	8	0	35	1.1
FA BIDDING ROUND 09	22	2	18	2	0	20	0.6
FA BIDDING ROUND 10	17	3	14	0	0	14	0.4
FA BIDDING ROUND 11	16	2	12	2	0	14	0.4
FA BIDDING ROUND 12	10	2	7	1	0	8	0.3
Total:	708	170	383	124	31	538	16.8
Rnd 1-3 Avg. Signed	107.7	31.7	51.7	21.0	3.3	76.0	2.4
Rnd 4-6 Avg. Signed	69.3	13.3	41.0	13.0	2.0	56.0	1.8
Rnd 7-9 Avg. Signed	44.7	9.3	24.0	6.3	5.0	35.3	1.1
Rnd 10-12 Avg. Signed	14.3	2.3	11.0	1.0	0.0	12.0	0.4

I guess because I'm rebuilding the workbooks from scratch and I don't want to do this again anytime soon because of the time involved in doing so, I just don't want to regret not adding the additional bid slot after these are built.  That said, I can still create the bid slot and simply hide it until we find a use for it or a system that would allow us to create the backup bid without it damaging the system.    

My question is do you see anything within the above data, that would justify adding an additional bid at any point with the 12 FA bidding rounds.  

What I'm seeing is that the first 4 to 5 rounds is where we are building our rosters, with the highest volume of contracts being created.  After that things start slowing down so perhaps after round 4, we could inject the additional bid slot to help fill our rosters with either new signings or resigns.