mountainpd Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 15 hours ago, pwny said: I personally think the 4th/contingency bid should be tied to a player at a position [or similar e.g. EDGE, IDL, off ball LB, OL] you bid on that round. So that a situation like what you mentioned before with all the RBs in a certain tier don’t go all at once and you miss out on 3-4 of your targets solely because you missed the one you bid on. Personally, that’s been the worst part of the bidding process. We just missed out on one player at a position we really wanted to target, and watched all of the other guys we would have went after also go at the same round, and now we’re without that player. I don’t really much care about the number we miss out on, just missing someone and then watching a positional run hit alongside of that is rough. This could work. Only thing I disagree with is missing out on players as other have bid, at the moment we see which players have bids submitted so should adjust our bids accordingly. if we stop seeing the players who have been bid on this would work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted February 24, 2021 Author Share Posted February 24, 2021 12 hours ago, mountainpd said: This could work. Only thing I disagree with is missing out on players as other have bid, at the moment we see which players have bids submitted so should adjust our bids accordingly. if we stop seeing the players who have been bid on this would work. I'm not even certain how difficult this would be to set up. It creates a lot of what ifs that could be confusing to sort out. I'll play with it to see if it's even something I can figure out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 Suggestion. Have draft on weekend too 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted February 27, 2021 Author Share Posted February 27, 2021 22 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: Suggestion. Have draft on weekend too Noted... This is the first time we've done this. Some of the guys were pushing for no weekends. Happy to switch it back but can't do it this weekend on such short notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EaglesPeteC Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 Aaaaand now I have like 300k in cap room lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 The Adj Contract Offer Amount does not make any sense in the free agency workbooks. Having the roster and WO bonuses discounting at 120% makes no sense. There is no reason to give a bonus under the current structure because it is discounted so heavily. The way it is now no one should ever give roster or WO bonuses, all it does it lower the value of your bid. If you want to incentivize people to utilize these bonuses the discount rate needs to be lower than the 20% base salary discount rate. Under the current structure if I put $1,000,000 in Year 1 base salary, I'm given an ACOA of $833,334. If I put the same $1,000,000 in roster bonus it only adds $454,546. Also I think because you're using a rate above 100% it screws up the math in the NPV formula, because the base salary amount given to ACOA decreases every year (which is what its supposed to do, for instance if I put that same $1,000,000 in year 2 base salary it only adds $694,445 in ACOA value). But if you put $1,000,000 in Year 2 roster bonus it still adds the same $454,546, and it does this for every year. It should be decreasing every year. There's either an error in your formula or using a discount rate above 100% is screwing up the math. This also creates a weird effect where in Year 5, roster bonus money is actually worth more than base salary money. The easy fix is to change the discount rate for roster and WO bonuses to 10 or 15%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainpd Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 14 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: The Adj Contract Offer Amount does not make any sense in the free agency workbooks. Having the roster and WO bonuses discounting at 120% makes no sense. There is no reason to give a bonus under the current structure because it is discounted so heavily. The way it is now no one should ever give roster or WO bonuses, all it does it lower the value of your bid. If you want to incentivize people to utilize these bonuses the discount rate needs to be lower than the 20% base salary discount rate. Under the current structure if I put $1,000,000 in Year 1 base salary, I'm given an ACOA of $833,334. If I put the same $1,000,000 in roster bonus it only adds $454,546. Also I think because you're using a rate above 100% it screws up the math in the NPV formula, because the base salary amount given to ACOA decreases every year (which is what its supposed to do, for instance if I put that same $1,000,000 in year 2 base salary it only adds $694,445 in ACOA value). But if you put $1,000,000 in Year 2 roster bonus it still adds the same $454,546, and it does this for every year. It should be decreasing every year. There's either an error in your formula or using a discount rate above 100% is screwing up the math. This also creates a weird effect where in Year 5, roster bonus money is actually worth more than base salary money. The easy fix is to change the discount rate for roster and WO bonuses to 10 or 15%. I see what you mean, yes needs changing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 I think that was a correction from people's giving outlandish workout bonuses in previous years. I think both are honestly unnecessary and just makes this more complicated than it needs to be for our purposes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 6 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: I think that was a correction from people's giving outlandish workout bonuses in previous years. I think both are honestly unnecessary and just makes this more complicated than it needs to be for our purposes If he makes it the same 20% discount rate it wouldn’t matter where you put the money. That might be the best solution. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted February 28, 2021 Author Share Posted February 28, 2021 2 hours ago, MKnight82 said: The Adj Contract Offer Amount does not make any sense in the free agency workbooks. Having the roster and WO bonuses discounting at 120% makes no sense. There is no reason to give a bonus under the current structure because it is discounted so heavily. The way it is now no one should ever give roster or WO bonuses, all it does it lower the value of your bid. If you want to incentivize people to utilize these bonuses the discount rate needs to be lower than the 20% base salary discount rate. Under the current structure if I put $1,000,000 in Year 1 base salary, I'm given an ACOA of $833,334. If I put the same $1,000,000 in roster bonus it only adds $454,546. Also I think because you're using a rate above 100% it screws up the math in the NPV formula, because the base salary amount given to ACOA decreases every year (which is what its supposed to do, for instance if I put that same $1,000,000 in year 2 base salary it only adds $694,445 in ACOA value). But if you put $1,000,000 in Year 2 roster bonus it still adds the same $454,546, and it does this for every year. It should be decreasing every year. There's either an error in your formula or using a discount rate above 100% is screwing up the math. This also creates a weird effect where in Year 5, roster bonus money is actually worth more than base salary money. The easy fix is to change the discount rate for roster and WO bonuses to 10 or 15%. I know it's screwed up. I'm wanting to do away with these additional bonuses completely, just have it base and signing bonus. Weighting these the same value as signing bonus doesn't work because it's not fully guaranteed money like the signing bonus. Just a really hard thing to put weight on because these bonuses are basically a hybrid of the base and signing bonus. Removing them I think would help simplify the bidding too. There was a contract I think it was Nate Solder last year, where the GM was able to structure the contract in a weird way using the roster and workout bonuses that I just had to toss a quick patch on to devalue the roster and w/o bonuses. Unfortunately, it never got addressed this year like several other things. Hoping that this new build I'm working on can correct this and all the other issues we've seen this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted February 28, 2021 Author Share Posted February 28, 2021 47 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: I think that was a correction from people's giving outlandish workout bonuses in previous years. I think both are honestly unnecessary and just makes this more complicated than it needs to be for our purposes Correct and I agree with you on it not needing either of these bonuses. I'd love to be able to include base guarantees but like with these bonuses it's just difficult to weight the varies types of how many can be applied to contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 13 minutes ago, ny92mike said: I know it's screwed up. I'm wanting to do away with these additional bonuses completely, just have it base and signing bonus. Weighting these the same value as signing bonus doesn't work because it's not fully guaranteed money like the signing bonus. Just a really hard thing to put weight on because these bonuses are basically a hybrid of the base and signing bonus. Removing them I think would help simplify the bidding too. There was a contract I think it was Nate Solder last year, where the GM was able to structure the contract in a weird way using the roster and workout bonuses that I just had to toss a quick patch on to devalue the roster and w/o bonuses. Unfortunately, it never got addressed this year like several other things. Hoping that this new build I'm working on can correct this and all the other issues we've seen this year. Just make the bonus discount rate 20%, then it’s weighted the exact same as base salary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted February 28, 2021 Author Share Posted February 28, 2021 7 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: Just make the bonus discount rate 20%, then it’s weighted the exact same as base salary. I believe that's what it was before I tossed that patch on it. I'm hoping to just eliminate them just to simplify it. But I'll look at it again before tossing them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 18 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: Just make the bonus discount rate 20%, then it’s weighted the exact same as base salary. Why would a workout bonus be weighted the same as base salary. That's nuts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 24 minutes ago, ny92mike said: I believe that's what it was before I tossed that patch on it. I'm hoping to just eliminate them just to simplify it. But I'll look at it again before tossing them. Making them equal is the same thing as deleting it. 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.