Total Control GM Mock Draft Suggestions / Feedback

[ny92mike]

11 hours ago, sparky151 said:

 

I've just emailed the PFF contract predictions for their top 150 free agents.

I think OTC says their method is proprietary but that it's based on PFF data. 

Not sure there is a problem with players overvaluing themselves. Their price will drop over the bidding rounds so it's just a matter of being patient if you need a backup QB. Or find a better value sooner. 

I'm more concerned with unrealistically low valuations. Because of anchoring bias, sealed bidding is unlikely to produce what the player will get in real life. If Brian Burns was valued at 2 mil, everyone knows he'll get more than that. But if a half dozen teams are known to be bidding on him, a GM may well decide to use a bid in round 1 on someone else. So Burns may go for 15 mil per year due to lack of bidders. 

 

 

The values you plugged in is located in column N & O correct?  

[ny92mike]

I'll pull the data that sparky collected and get the player database APY values finished up tonight.  

Appreciate the help guys.

[sparky151]

10 hours ago, ny92mike said:

The values you plugged in is located in column N & O correct?  

Yes, column M is their predicted contract length, column N is their predicted average annual value and column O is their predicted guaranteed money. 

[ny92mike]

Ok I've got the APY values done.

Let's discuss signing bonus values.

In all my previous mocks I've used a percentage of the APY value to come up with a signing bonus amount.

Not sure if I used the same formula for past mocks but last years model we can't use it again.  Values are way too high if longer than one year.  Formula is taking the projected SB amount and multiplying it by the selected contract length.  

For example, Daniel Jones contract demands:

Contract Length:	6
Average Per Year (APY)	$34,198,500
Signing Bonus:	$21,640,000

However, if I make the CL meet those terms it changes his SB demands to $129,840,000.

It does need to increase depending on the length of the contract but not to that level.

His IRL contract structure:  40 mil APY / 20 mil SB APY

Daniel Jones

QB

Giants

$160,000,000

$40,000,000

$81,000,000

$20,250,000

50.6%

Thoughts on if the SB APY value should increase/ decrease based on the number of years they player is signed for, or if that value should change at all?

I believe this was a big reason it made it so difficult to extend players, either way need to get this resolved.

Anyway let me know what you guys think about this, I'll be back on later this evening to see what you all think.

My initial thoughts is to keep it the same regardless the CL.  I say this because the APY value is greatly increased for long term contracts which will increase the SB value.

If we need to see a working contract builder to see how these numbers would look on paper I can build something this evening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RTTRUTH]

Hi guys. Hope everyone had a good year/NFL season.

 

I'll be around all off-season discussing drafts and mocks. 

[ny92mike]

3 hours ago, RTTRUTH said:

Hi guys. Hope everyone had a good year/NFL season.

 

I'll be around all off-season discussing drafts and mocks. 

Glad to see ya.  You planning on managing a team this year?

[RTTRUTH]

13 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

Glad to see ya.  You planning on managing a team this year?

For sure man.

[ny92mike]

Anyone got a minute to look over this sample bidding concept?

trying to figure out if this will work or if it's too aggressive.

 

[jch1911]

1 minute ago, ny92mike said:

Anyone got a minute to look over this sample bidding concept?

trying to figure out if this will work or if it's too aggressive.

 

Hit me up

[ny92mike]

31 minutes ago, jch1911 said:

Hit me up

check out sheet45

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oLb8odIXaO5eS3wxvaZcSrr6nh-FcvVBSfrqPYTPLJc/edit?usp=sharing

I made a rough contract builder in that sheet.

Thanks

 

Sorry family just showed up for an unexpected dinner.  I'll hit you back up the minute they leave.

Thanks bro.

[sparky151]

9 hours ago, ny92mike said:

Ok I've got the APY values done.

Let's discuss signing bonus values.

In all my previous mocks I've used a percentage of the APY value to come up with a signing bonus amount.

Not sure if I used the same formula for past mocks but last years model we can't use it again.  Values are way too high if longer than one year.  Formula is taking the projected SB amount and multiplying it by the selected contract length.  

For example, Daniel Jones contract demands:

 

Contract Length:	6
Average Per Year (APY)	$34,198,500
Signing Bonus:	$21,640,000

However, if I make the CL meet those terms it changes his SB demands to $129,840,000.

It does need to increase depending on the length of the contract but not to that level.

His IRL contract structure:  40 mil APY / 20 mil SB APY

Daniel Jones

QB

Giants

$160,000,000

$40,000,000

$81,000,000

$20,250,000

50.6%

Thoughts on if the SB APY value should increase/ decrease based on the number of years they player is signed for, or if that value should change at all?

I believe this was a big reason it made it so difficult to extend players, either way need to get this resolved.

Anyway let me know what you guys think about this, I'll be back on later this evening to see what you all think.

My initial thoughts is to keep it the same regardless the CL.  I say this because the APY value is greatly increased for long term contracts which will increase the SB value.

If we need to see a working contract builder to see how these numbers would look on paper I can build something this evening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It looks like you have SB % of total contract value determined largely by position. That's fine. As you note, it should also depend on the contract length. How about setting a "par" value for contract length, say 3 years? Then each year above or below that value can mean +-5% or whatever to the % of total contract value for signing bonus? 

 

Will that work?

[ny92mike]

3 hours ago, sparky151 said:

It looks like you have SB % of total contract value determined largely by position. That's fine. As you note, it should also depend on the contract length. How about setting a "par" value for contract length, say 3 years? Then each year above or below that value can mean +-5% or whatever to the % of total contract value for signing bonus? 

 

Will that work?

Yeah I've used a percentage based on the OTC contract database.  Typically just take the average based on position.  

I was thinking something along those lines as well, but I keep thinking that we may not need to adjust it because the long term contracts the APY will be high enough that you'll need to offer a high signing bonus just to get the APY high enough to pass.  

I'm good with increasing it though but not sure about decreasing it.  If you look at some of the IRL contracts, talented players that sign a one year deal, a large percentage of the APY is fully guaranteed.

How about this, we have two SB percentages, the first being the average APY percentage and a second one that averages the percentage if greater than 10% (data posted below).  When building the contract, at the 5 yr mark it switches over to use the higher APY percentage?  Could include more SB columns if needed (>20%, >30%) for CL 6 & 7.

Maybe if set it up so that if the players proj. APY value is greater than the Trans value and you're only offering a one year deal it's a fixed 100%.

Position	Pos.	0%	10%	20%
QB	Quarterback	52.8%	62.2%	68.7%
RB	Running Back	33.6%	45.5%	56.7%
FB	Running Back	48.4%	48.4%	48.4%
TE	Tight End	32.5%	45.2%	56.9%
WR	Wide Receiver	41.4%	55.1%	64.0%
LT	Offensive Lineman	38.9%	48.9%	57.3%
LG	Offensive Lineman	38.3%	51.2%	62.2%
C	Offensive Lineman	40.6%	46.8%	51.4%
RG	Offensive Lineman	33.6%	48.0%	58.7%
RT	Offensive Lineman	39.3%	48.3%	59.5%
EDGE	Defensive End	48.1%	56.9%	66.4%
IDL	Defensive Tackle	43.3%	52.3%	61.6%
LB	Linebacker	32.9%	45.8%	56.7%
CB	Cornerback	35.9%	49.5%	59.5%
S	Safety	35.9%	50.7%	55.9%
K	Kicker	37.9%	43.3%	45.8%
P	Punter	30.9%	42.5%	45.4%
LS	Offensive Lineman	29.9%	36.4%	40.7%

Last, do we continue to have the SB apy decrease after each bidding round?  I don't think we need to change that but wanted your take on it.

So ready to get this section of the build completed.  Getting hung up on this but hopefully this is the last of it.  Ready to move on to the next section, the draftee database.  Which I'm also looking to make some changes.  This year I'm not linking the list of names to each of the team workbooks.  It prevented the ability to allow you all to have a draft board.

 

 

 

 

   

[ny92mike]

@RedGold

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aHEEJwBgMckD8JtbQLI4_P2kN9VPTDhKC06ulfTqLBY/edit?usp=sharing

Hey man,

Here is the link to the draftee database.  You've got editing rights.

Using drafttek again this year.  The site is still working on the last page (100 names) of their draft board.  Workbook should load once they release it.

If you could look it over to make sure that the data looks correct.  I'll wait until closer to the draft before uploading it to the tcmd draft board.  

Thanks you sir.

 

PS _ Good luck this evening.  Should be a solid game to watch.

Edited February 11 by ny92mike

[sparky151]

8 hours ago, ny92mike said:

Yeah I've used a percentage based on the OTC contract database.  Typically just take the average based on position.  

I was thinking something along those lines as well, but I keep thinking that we may not need to adjust it because the long term contracts the APY will be high enough that you'll need to offer a high signing bonus just to get the APY high enough to pass.  

I'm good with increasing it though but not sure about decreasing it.  If you look at some of the IRL contracts, talented players that sign a one year deal, a large percentage of the APY is fully guaranteed.

How about this, we have two SB percentages, the first being the average APY percentage and a second one that averages the percentage if greater than 10% (data posted below).  When building the contract, at the 5 yr mark it switches over to use the higher APY percentage?  Could include more SB columns if needed (>20%, >30%) for CL 6 & 7.

Maybe if set it up so that if the players proj. APY value is greater than the Trans value and you're only offering a one year deal it's a fixed 100%.

 

Position	Pos.	0%	10%	20%
QB	Quarterback	52.8%	62.2%	68.7%
RB	Running Back	33.6%	45.5%	56.7%
FB	Running Back	48.4%	48.4%	48.4%
TE	Tight End	32.5%	45.2%	56.9%
WR	Wide Receiver	41.4%	55.1%	64.0%
LT	Offensive Lineman	38.9%	48.9%	57.3%
LG	Offensive Lineman	38.3%	51.2%	62.2%
C	Offensive Lineman	40.6%	46.8%	51.4%
RG	Offensive Lineman	33.6%	48.0%	58.7%
RT	Offensive Lineman	39.3%	48.3%	59.5%
EDGE	Defensive End	48.1%	56.9%	66.4%
IDL	Defensive Tackle	43.3%	52.3%	61.6%
LB	Linebacker	32.9%	45.8%	56.7%
CB	Cornerback	35.9%	49.5%	59.5%
S	Safety	35.9%	50.7%	55.9%
K	Kicker	37.9%	43.3%	45.8%
P	Punter	30.9%	42.5%	45.4%
LS	Offensive Lineman	29.9%	36.4%	40.7%

Last, do we continue to have the SB apy decrease after each bidding round?  I don't think we need to change that but wanted your take on it.

So ready to get this section of the build completed.  Getting hung up on this but hopefully this is the last of it.  Ready to move on to the next section, the draftee database.  Which I'm also looking to make some changes.  This year I'm not linking the list of names to each of the team workbooks.  It prevented the ability to allow you all to have a draft board.

 

 

 

 

   

Signing bonus requirements should definitely drop over time. Last year I wanted to re-sign 4th string TE Mitchell Wilcox. His APY was down to vet min by round 3 or so but he still wanted something like $80K in signing bonus. Maybe I'm overly cheap but I wasn't going to pay that much to a guy who wouldn't make the initial 53 unless someone else got hurt. So I had to wait until about round 10 to re-sign him. 

[ny92mike]

Should have the rosters done by the end of this weekend.  Have to make some changes to the team workbooks for the change we made to APY values based on the length of the contract.  Other than that don't think there is much else that needs to get changed.

@MKnight82  I'll take you up on reviewing the math for errors.  Main focus should be extensions as that was a major issue last year.

Still don't have a start date yet but I should be able to provide one as soon as I feel good about the team workbooks.  I'll keep you all posted on where I'm at.

 

Thanks