sparky151 Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 This piece has a lot of applicability in terms of how many restructures teams should get. Saints are likely hosed under the regular TC rules due to the way they do their contracts. https://overthecap.com/looking-at-salary-cap-flexibility-and-potential-scenarios-in-2024 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted December 31, 2023 Author Share Posted December 31, 2023 There were some issues with last years build that I'll work to get corrected. The extension formula mistakes made it impossible to put money in the wallet. I'll get that corrected. @sparky151 I'll look into the Saints issue but I want to say we allotted the Patriots or Tampa some freedoms early on that wasn't really needed. I'm also looking to add a score simulator to the tail end of this years mock to test it out for a potential new mock draft as my second mock draft. I'm excited to add this new version and hopefully adding a version of that to this mock will allow me to get the bugs worked out. I'm sure not everyone will want to mess with this so not a big deal if we can't get everyone involved in this. However, should be a fun project for those interested in sims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 The TC rules were fine for Tampa and New England last year. The real life Buccaneers didn't want to cut Brady in case he unretired. But for TC, it was easy enough to declare him a post June 1 cut and handle his cap hit. The issue with the Saints for 2024 is different. They probably should have done some cap clearing the year after Brees retired but didn't do nearly enough. They've been pushing cap hits into future years for a long time. TC limits how many restructures they can do so that won't work for them in TC at the scale they will need to use in real life. As Fitzgerald pointed out, the Saints can't solve their cap problem through roster cuts as they have so much dead money accumulated, their cap situation would be worse if they cut every player making more than minimum salary. They'll no doubt cut some underachievers in both TC and real life, but it won't substantially fix their cap issues. I'm in favor of the same rules applying to all teams but the Saints pose a challenge to that. I didn't like Tampa in effect getting free money last year and don't think every team should have unlimited restructures in TC unlike real life. If we did that, it would surely be abused in a 1 year simulation. But the Saints have systematically structured their roster to require a large number of annual restructures with void years added to spread the cap hit. It's catching up to them now as it's hard for them to get out of some bad contracts like Peat's, let alone prepare for life post-Ramczyk. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BowserBroncos Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 On 12/30/2023 at 3:19 PM, sparky151 said: Saints are likely hosed under the regular TC rules due to the way they do their contracts. Denver will be in bad place too, since they likely cut Russell Wilson IRL around the time TC happens 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 On 12/31/2023 at 1:43 PM, sparky151 said: The TC rules were fine for Tampa and New England last year. The real life Buccaneers didn't want to cut Brady in case he unretired. But for TC, it was easy enough to declare him a post June 1 cut and handle his cap hit. The issue with the Saints for 2024 is different. They probably should have done some cap clearing the year after Brees retired but didn't do nearly enough. They've been pushing cap hits into future years for a long time. TC limits how many restructures they can do so that won't work for them in TC at the scale they will need to use in real life. As Fitzgerald pointed out, the Saints can't solve their cap problem through roster cuts as they have so much dead money accumulated, their cap situation would be worse if they cut every player making more than minimum salary. They'll no doubt cut some underachievers in both TC and real life, but it won't substantially fix their cap issues. I'm in favor of the same rules applying to all teams but the Saints pose a challenge to that. I didn't like Tampa in effect getting free money last year and don't think every team should have unlimited restructures in TC unlike real life. If we did that, it would surely be abused in a 1 year simulation. But the Saints have systematically structured their roster to require a large number of annual restructures with void years added to spread the cap hit. It's catching up to them now as it's hard for them to get out of some bad contracts like Peat's, let alone prepare for life post-Ramczyk. I agree on a fundamental same rules / number of restructures for each team, but also would like to keep things closer to real life processes. Most NFL teams wont restructure a contract just because they can if they dont need to creste more cap space in order to make FA acquisitions. It gets hard to find people to run those teams that have no method to create cap space or become cap compliant if they are restricted in how many restructures they can do. Maybe if a team chooses to use an additional restructure above the base number all teams get, they have other restrictions placed on the use of something in exchange. -- Less UFA bid slots for x number of rounds? -- Limited use of those cap savings for x number of rounds? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted January 2 Author Share Posted January 2 4 hours ago, squire12 said: I agree on a fundamental same rules / number of restructures for each team, but also would like to keep things closer to real life processes. Most NFL teams wont restructure a contract just because they can if they dont need to creste more cap space in order to make FA acquisitions. It gets hard to find people to run those teams that have no method to create cap space or become cap compliant if they are restricted in how many restructures they can do. Maybe if a team chooses to use an additional restructure above the base number all teams get, they have other restrictions placed on the use of something in exchange. -- Less UFA bid slots for x number of rounds? -- Limited use of those cap savings for x number of rounds? Once I get the team roster sheets set up we can play around with the teams in question prior to the start. I do like the idea of reducing the number of bid slots or even limiting their action in the early rounds of FA should we have to allot more restructures than allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsandI Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 On 12/31/2023 at 2:43 PM, sparky151 said: The TC rules were fine for Tampa and New England last year. The real life Buccaneers didn't want to cut Brady in case he unretired. But for TC, it was easy enough to declare him a post June 1 cut and handle his cap hit. The issue with the Saints for 2024 is different. They probably should have done some cap clearing the year after Brees retired but didn't do nearly enough. They've been pushing cap hits into future years for a long time. TC limits how many restructures they can do so that won't work for them in TC at the scale they will need to use in real life. As Fitzgerald pointed out, the Saints can't solve their cap problem through roster cuts as they have so much dead money accumulated, their cap situation would be worse if they cut every player making more than minimum salary. They'll no doubt cut some underachievers in both TC and real life, but it won't substantially fix their cap issues. I'm in favor of the same rules applying to all teams but the Saints pose a challenge to that. I didn't like Tampa in effect getting free money last year and don't think every team should have unlimited restructures in TC unlike real life. If we did that, it would surely be abused in a 1 year simulation. But the Saints have systematically structured their roster to require a large number of annual restructures with void years added to spread the cap hit. It's catching up to them now as it's hard for them to get out of some bad contracts like Peat's, let alone prepare for life post-Ramczyk. It would be much easier if NFL's mandatory hard salary cap deadline was set in February instead of March. It would suck to be Saints GM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsandI Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 16 hours ago, squire12 said: I agree on a fundamental same rules / number of restructures for each team, but also would like to keep things closer to real life processes. Most NFL teams wont restructure a contract just because they can if they dont need to creste more cap space in order to make FA acquisitions. It gets hard to find people to run those teams that have no method to create cap space or become cap compliant if they are restricted in how many restructures they can do. Maybe if a team chooses to use an additional restructure above the base number all teams get, they have other restrictions placed on the use of something in exchange. -- Less UFA bid slots for x number of rounds? -- Limited use of those cap savings for x number of rounds? How about Limit restructures/extensions to teams with good salary cap situation included rookie salary pool. Adjust limitations on restructures and extensions to teams with difficult cap situation. That way, teams with better cap situation may not sign a bunch of early round free agents. I honestly don't want TCMD to take a control of FA action. Can afford them, go for it. Can't?, stay back and wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 4 hours ago, JetsandI said: How about Limit restructures/extensions to teams with good salary cap situation included rookie salary pool. Adjust limitations on restructures and extensions to teams with difficult cap situation. Where is the dividing line on "good cap situation/ bad cap situation"? 4 hours ago, JetsandI said: That way, teams with better cap situation may not sign a bunch of early round free agents. I honestly don't want TCMD to take a control of FA action. Can afford them, go for it. Can't?, stay back and wait. This is confusing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 22 hours ago, BowserBroncos said: Denver will be in bad place too, since they likely cut Russell Wilson IRL around the time TC happens The Broncos won't be in the bidding for Cousins but will no doubt declare Wilson a post-June 1 cut to spread the cap hit. Their bigger problem is finding his replacement. They may need to use their first round pick on a second tier QB like Penix, Nix, or McCarthy to have affordability at the position while working off the Wilson contract. 21 hours ago, squire12 said: I agree on a fundamental same rules / number of restructures for each team, but also would like to keep things closer to real life processes. Most NFL teams wont restructure a contract just because they can if they dont need to creste more cap space in order to make FA acquisitions. It gets hard to find people to run those teams that have no method to create cap space or become cap compliant if they are restricted in how many restructures they can do. Maybe if a team chooses to use an additional restructure above the base number all teams get, they have other restrictions placed on the use of something in exchange. -- Less UFA bid slots for x number of rounds? -- Limited use of those cap savings for x number of rounds? I like this concept. 5 hours ago, JetsandI said: It would be much easier if NFL's mandatory hard salary cap deadline was set in February instead of March. It would suck to be Saints GM. I'd like to be the Bengals GM again but if we don't find someone to take the Saints, I'll handle them as a 2nd team. 4 hours ago, JetsandI said: How about Limit restructures/extensions to teams with good salary cap situation included rookie salary pool. Adjust limitations on restructures and extensions to teams with difficult cap situation. That way, teams with better cap situation may not sign a bunch of early round free agents. I honestly don't want TCMD to take a control of FA action. Can afford them, go for it. Can't?, stay back and wait. Eh, I don't want the teams with less cap space to be boxed out of free agency. They will just be going for a different price point of players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BowserBroncos Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 9 hours ago, sparky151 said: The Broncos won't be in the bidding for Cousins but will no doubt declare Wilson a post-June 1 cut to spread the cap hit. Their bigger problem is finding his replacement. They may need to use their first round pick on a second tier QB like Penix, Nix, or McCarthy to have affordability at the position while working off the Wilson contract. Definitely a 1st round pick. Broncos don't have a 2nd round pick because of the Sean Payton trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsandI Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 On 1/2/2024 at 7:48 PM, squire12 said: Where is the dividing line on "good cap situation/ bad cap situation"? This is confusing After exploring the event, it still requires some man work to set up. I guess it is no good. Only thing I can think of for real is to increase Post June 1 designation to 4 or 5 for teams in red. That may cut some good numbers as well as participants can actually get involved in more events. Dunno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsandI Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 On 1/2/2024 at 8:18 PM, sparky151 said: The Broncos won't be in the bidding for Cousins but will no doubt declare Wilson a post-June 1 cut to spread the cap hit. Their bigger problem is finding his replacement. They may need to use their first round pick on a second tier QB like Penix, Nix, or McCarthy to have affordability at the position while working off the Wilson contract. I like this concept. I'd like to be the Bengals GM again but if we don't find someone to take the Saints, I'll handle them as a 2nd team. Eh, I don't want the teams with less cap space to be boxed out of free agency. They will just be going for a different price point of players. I mean adjusting limitations in positive ways to create some relief on cap space for teams in red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyNumber11 Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 Season's over, I'm ready! 😂 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 12 hours ago, JetsandI said: After exploring the event, it still requires some man work to set up. I guess it is no good. Only thing I can think of for real is to increase Post June 1 designation to 4 or 5 for teams in red. That may cut some good numbers as well as participants can actually get involved in more events. Dunno. 12 hours ago, JetsandI said: I mean adjusting limitations in positive ways to create some relief on cap space for teams in red. I think there needs to be a tradeoff of being able to use more restructures or post June 1st cuts means you have fewer UFA slots to use for the first few rounds of FA. what I suggested in the post below On 1/1/2024 at 10:14 PM, squire12 said: I agree on a fundamental same rules / number of restructures for each team, but also would like to keep things closer to real life processes. Most NFL teams wont restructure a contract just because they can if they dont need to creste more cap space in order to make FA acquisitions. It gets hard to find people to run those teams that have no method to create cap space or become cap compliant if they are restricted in how many restructures they can do. Maybe if a team chooses to use an additional restructure above the base number all teams get, they have other restrictions placed on the use of something in exchange. -- Less UFA bid slots for x number of rounds? -- Limited use of those cap savings for x number of rounds? 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.