TCMD '18 GM mock draft build (open discussion)

[ny92mike]

Last year we set the limit for restructures and extensions to 3 max.  The majority of teams didn't do more than 2 and the majority of the teams that did use the max didn't really need to.

I want teams to be able to free up money so that they enjoy the mock draft but at the same time I don't think it should be such a luxury that it kills it for everyone else. 

  

Thoughts?

 

edit:  IRL most teams don't restructure contracts.  Extensions are a big more common, typically done on tagged players or big name talent.  The suggestion above would put this option more in line with RL.  

Also, players that have guar. base salaries attached to their contract makes it difficult to restructure, so I'm thinking a restructure shouldn't be allowed to players with guar. base.

What do you think?

[Scoundrel]

46 minutes ago, ny92jefferis said:

Last year we set the limit for restructures and extensions to 3 max.  The majority of teams didn't do more than 2 and the majority of the teams that did use the max didn't really need to.

I want teams to be able to free up money so that they enjoy the mock draft but at the same time I don't think it should be such a luxury that it kills it for everyone else. 

  

Thoughts?

 

edit:  IRL most teams don't restructure contracts.  Extensions are a big more common, typically done on tagged players or big name talent.  The suggestion above would put this option more in line with RL.  

Also, players that have guar. base salaries attached to their contract makes it difficult to restructure, so I'm thinking a restructure shouldn't be allowed to players with guar. base.

What do you think?

Some of the restructures were on players who signed recent deals weren't they? Some guys being restructured were deals that would never happen and really were detrimental to the teams future but gms didn't care they wanted the best team here and now because it was a one season mock. I'm okay with allowing one. 

[ny92mike]

39 minutes ago, Counselor said:

Some of the restructures were on players who signed recent deals weren't they? Some guys being restructured were deals that would never happen and really were detrimental to the teams future but gms didn't care they wanted the best team here and now because it was a one season mock. I'm okay with allowing one. 

Here is what I could find from the last mock draft, not sure which players actually altered their contract IRL.  I know that I used restructures to boost my income however those changes didn't kill my future salary cap, but without those restructures I wouldn't have been as active in the free agency.  

The plan we had to use the future salary cap didn't work out too great last year, primarily because it was such a monster to manage.  This year, while it isn't going to be exact numbers the idea is to apply the APY amount to the future years of the contract, which will be used as a hard figure like the current year cap for signing players.  

I've got to get the 32 rosters created to get a better idea if this will work out or if we'll need to tweak the numbers to make it work.

Just about every mock I've encountered restructures and extensions are always an issue, primarily because we haven't been able to account for future cap numbers.  

TEAM	Restructured Players
ATL	1270 - Julio Jones
CIN	0038 - AJ Green - WR
DAL	2182 - Travis Frederick - C
DAL	2248 - Tyron Smith - LT
DAL	2249 - Tyrone Crawford - 43DT
DET	1580 - Marvin Jones - WR
HOU	0783 - Duane Brown - LT
HOU	1127 - JJ Watt - 34DE
IND	2218 - TY Hilton - WR
MIA	0236 - Byron Maxwell - CB
MIA	1677 - Mike Pouncey - C
NYG	0818 - Eli Manning - QB
NYG	1032 - Janoris Jenkins - CB
PHI	1447 Lane Johnson RT
PIT	0186 Ben Roethlisberger

TEAM	Extended Players
ATL	1606 - Matt Ryan - QB
CIN	2286 - Vontaze Burfict - 43OLB
CLE	1134 - Joe Haden - CB
DEN	2004 - Shane Ray - 34OLB
DET	1612 - Matthew Stafford - QB
KC	1068 - Jaye Howard - 34DE
LAC	2039 - Star Lotulelei - 43DT
NO	0983 - Jairus Byrd - S
NO	1371 - Kenny Vaccaro - S
NO	2137 - Thomas Morstead - P
PIT	0081 - Alterraun Verner - CB
TEN	1276 Jurrell Casey 34DE
TEN	1542 - Marcus Mariota - QB
TEN	2120 - Taylor Lewan - LT

TEAM	Tagged Extensions
CHI	0080 - Alshon Jeffery - WR
CIN	1393 - Kevin Zeitler - RG
HOU	0001 - A.J. Bouye - CB
KC	0827 - Eric Berry - S
NE	0761 - Donta Hightower - 43OLB
NYG	1054 - Jason Pierre-Paul - 43DE

 

[jch1911]

On 12/18/2017 at 11:13 AM, ny92jefferis said:

Last year we set the limit for restructures and extensions to 3 max.  The majority of teams didn't do more than 2 and the majority of the teams that did use the max didn't really need to.

I want teams to be able to free up money so that they enjoy the mock draft but at the same time I don't think it should be such a luxury that it kills it for everyone else. 

  

Thoughts?

 

edit:  IRL most teams don't restructure contracts.  Extensions are a big more common, typically done on tagged players or big name talent.  The suggestion above would put this option more in line with RL.  

Also, players that have guar. base salaries attached to their contract makes it difficult to restructure, so I'm thinking a restructure shouldn't be allowed to players with guar. base.

What do you think?

I don't think teams abused the system last year.

The 2018 cap penalty system helped with some of that.

Plus, as you stated, most teams wouldn't have cap space and that was part of the fun for some teams to be somewhat active in free agency.

Example for this year tho:

Deandre "Nuk" Hopkins just signed a big deal with the Texans.

Nuk is not going anywhere.

Texans might be encouraged to restructure his deal b/c (1) frees up big cap space & (2) Nuk will be with the team for awhile (only 25 & 1st year of 5 year extension).

That being said, his 2018 contract is guaranteed so he personally has little incentive to do a restructure, but (1) it allows the team to get better by signing key free agents & (2) it doesn't really harm him as well as adds a bit of guaranteed $$$ to his future years (esp. in 2022).

That contract structure screams that is was designed for the Texans to use it to free up cap space (esp. after 2019).

Would Nuk do a restructure in 2018? Probably, but he has little personal incentive to do so.

Plus IIRC according to TCMD rules, he wouldn't be allowed to restructure.

 

[ny92mike]

11 hours ago, jch1911 said:

I don't think teams abused the system last year.

The 2018 cap penalty system helped with some of that.

Plus, as you stated, most teams wouldn't have cap space and that was part of the fun for some teams to be somewhat active in free agency.

Example for this year tho:

Deandre "Nuk" Hopkins just signed a big deal with the Texans.

Nuk is not going anywhere.

Texans might be encouraged to restructure his deal b/c (1) frees up big cap space & (2) Nuk will be with the team for awhile (only 25 & 1st year of 5 year extension).

That being said, his 2018 contract is guaranteed so he personally has little incentive to do a restructure, but (1) it allows the team to get better by signing key free agents & (2) it doesn't really harm him as well as adds a bit of guaranteed $$$ to his future years (esp. in 2022).

That contract structure screams that is was designed for the Texans to use it to free up cap space (esp. after 2019).

Would Nuk do a restructure in 2018? Probably, but he has little personal incentive to do so.

Plus IIRC according to TCMD rules, he wouldn't be allowed to restructure.

 

Looking at his contract, it does appear structured so that the team could push base salary into prorated bonuses in the 2019 or after.  Not so much in 2018, simply because of the amount of base guarantees as you said it wouldn't benefit the player to do so.

 

 

 

 

[EaglesPeteC]

Should a restructure come with a justification like @jch1911 did above? Or is thst too subjective? 

[squire12]

14 minutes ago, EaglesPeteC said:

Should a restructure come with a justification like @jch1911 did above? Or is thst too subjective? 

I feel that opens too many issues with why 1 team gets to restructure vs another team not.  So , yes.  Too subjective.

The criteria are set the same for each team.  Some teams will have more based on thd nature of their NFL teams roster and contracts.

[jch1911]

2 hours ago, squire12 said:

I feel that opens too many issues with why 1 team gets to restructure vs another team not.  So , yes.  Too subjective.

The criteria are set the same for each team.  Some teams will have more based on thd nature of their NFL teams roster and contracts.

I agree.  @ny92jefferis Mike set a good set of criteria.

My point was IRL we may see Nuk restructure

But for TCMD he couldn't b/c IIRC players were not allowed to restructure in 1st year of a new deal.

I'm ok with the rules as set.  Some teams use and other teams don't, but nobody gets any incredible advantage

[ny92mike]

14 hours ago, EaglesPeteC said:

Should a restructure come with a justification like @jch1911 did above? Or is thst too subjective? 

I think it might make for a nice read as to why they would restructure or extend a player but I don't think it should have any impact at all on if the contract is approved or denied.

[ny92mike]

11 hours ago, jch1911 said:

I agree.  @ny92jefferis Mike set a good set of criteria.

My point was IRL we may see Nuk restructure

But for TCMD he couldn't b/c IIRC players were not allowed to restructure in 1st year of a new deal.

I'm ok with the rules as set.  Some teams use and other teams don't, but nobody gets any incredible advantage

I personally don't think Nuk or the team will see his contract restructured this year, primarily because of the base guarantees attached to it this year, but 2019 or beyond absolutely the contract has the ability to be restructured.  With that said, the longer the contract is the more money you can save in the first year of the restructure since the proration is spread across more years.

For example, if I were to restructure Eli Manning's contract I'd be pushing nearly 9.5 million from his base salary to SB prorated over the next two years.  Which saves me 4.7 million this year vs. Janoris Jenkins where I'm pushing a tad over 10 million from base salary to SB over 3 years, saving me 6.7 million this year.

Also, here is the template for the team roster workbook for this year.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17QqVEjCtkZ0VMxu2IsKfCjqD9pPd0yAuuPCLL65nhBk/edit?usp=sharing

Some additions include; a hyperlinks sheet which will provide links to League Office documents such as free agency, waiver wire, draft and the new trade block.  Also will have forum links, GM member links and official team rosters.

The current years roster will house a new column, which stats the cap hit for releasing a player (thanks @squire12) as well as the estimated amount needed to sign your rookies, this number will auto adjust depending on the number of draft pick trades made, there is also a cheesy place to "X" that will include this amount in your Top 51 available amount.

Let me know what you think, any additional ideas you have for this workbook you'll need to get to me soon as I plan to finalize this workbook the first week of the new year.

I'll be posting the other workbooks as early as today, they aren't quite finished but should give you a good idea what to expect in this years mock draft.  

Not sure about you guys but I'm getting excited.

[ny92mike]

Restructured Contract
Year	4-DIGIT ID	CONCATENATE	Name	Pos.	Exp.	Grade	Vet Min.	Base Salary	Base Guar.	Prorated Bonus	Roster Bonus	Workout Bonus	Cap Number
2018	0771	0771 - Janoris Jenkins - CB	Janoris Jenkins	CB	7	96.0%	$790,000	$790,000		$5,370,000	$-	$100,000	$6,260,000
2019	0771	0771 - Janoris Jenkins - CB	Janoris Jenkins	CB	7	96.0%	$930,000	$10,150,000		$5,370,000	$1,000,000	$100,000	$16,620,000
2020	0771	0771 - Janoris Jenkins - CB	Janoris Jenkins	CB	8	96.0%	$945,000	$10,150,000		$5,370,000	$1,000,000	$100,000	$16,620,000
2021													$0
2022													$0
2023													$0
								$21,090,000	$0	$16,110,000	$2,000,000	$300,000	$39,500,000
												APY:	$13,166,667

 

Just wanted to see what it would look like if I just copied and pasted directly from the workbook.

 

edit:  Not bad.

[ny92mike]

This next workbook is labeled the War Room / Draft Board doc 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R2MPasCnZohz88xmHfSoIjiSMnUI_O4bcuppMitwl4Y/edit?usp=sharing

I've removed most of the sheets for creating depth charts, team needs, etc, simply because we weren't using them.  As discussed, the census is that depth charts and the likes should be posted within the forum.  Hopefully the forum will allow us to continue to use more than just 3 threads to conduct our mock draft.  I had gotten permission in the old forum so hopefully that agreement carries over to the new. 

I don't think it should be an issue, if you look at the  Fantasy/Sim/GM Leagues , the BDL mock, has multiple thread count, btw those guys are putting out a solid mock if you're interested, I believe they still have one open slot, but note that it is a continuous mock that plays out most of the year.

Additions to the workbook include the hyperlink sheet as discussed in the team roster workbook.  The new "Team Trade Block" sheet which allows you to put both draft pick and applicable players on the block, this page is linked to the Trade Block, if it works as planned, it will provide a cool way to add players to the block as well as review who is on the block.  Which brings me to the next sheet.  The League Trade Block allows you to view all listed players on the block or by position or team.  This sheet isn't linked to any other team right now since those workbooks have not been created, but this should provide you a good idea of how this will work.

Next sheet is the "Trade Value Scale" here you'll be able to see how a potential trade might look with another team.  The left side is your team draft picks and a drop down list to include players.  The draft pick area will display the DPV, the cap number and if the team is looking to trade up or down.  Although the proj. value for players hasn't been included yet, it will provide an estimated value of the player in DPV terms.  Below all of this, you'll be able to see the teams trade block.  The right side contains the same information but you'll use the team drop down list to view the selected teams information.  Remember, none of these values determine the outcome of the trade but like before if we feel that a trade is damaging to the mock we reserve the right to veto any trade.  I don't think that we'd done this though in the past.

The next sheet is a linked copy of the draft board, in the past I had not done this but this will resolve the past issues when we've had to add a player to the draft and it wasn't updated to these private workbooks.  The "draft order copy" sheet is also linked to the master board and displays if the team has included the pick within the trade block.

The next few sheets are for creating personal big boards, either by position or overall.  This will allow you or your group to create various boards.  The "Big Board" sheet is created by completing the "overall big board" sheet and is strictly for viewing purposes only.  As players are drafted they'll be removed from the list.

The last sheet is a copy of the teams official roster.

Again, let me know if you'd like more information added asap and I'll see what I can do.

Thanks 

 

  

[ny92mike]

The final private workbook is the Free Agency Transaction doc.

 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RtcmJjcZzbss7Q2BugaiW-bUHu2DTR7NP3Pdtz_ZZ88/edit?usp=sharing

This workbook is the big one.  The first 5 sheets are simply links to the various free agency docs, simply so you aren't having to chase down those workbooks everytime you want to see a new name added to the list.

Additions to this workbook include; the RFA list now allows you to see if a team has made an offer sheet on a tendered player.  The offer sheet is also included in this workbook, rather than last year when we had to use a different workbook.  The current process does show the highest offer sheet made by a team, this allows teams to up their offer.  Let me know if you'd rather keep this particular set up or if you want to keep the highest offer hidden.  Just thought it would bring a different approach to tendered offer sheets, as I feel that this type of offer is more than likely more transparent than standard free agency bidding.  I'm fine with either approach, in keeping it open or blind.

The free agency bidding and reserve bidding sheets appearance have changed slightly, mainly to include base guarantees in the form of roster bonuses.  These roster bonuses do have some rules in the amounts that can be offered.  The first two years of the contract you are limited to applying no more than 200% of the base salary, the third year is 100% of the base salary and the fourth year no more than 50% of the base salary.

To determine the highest bid, the Net Present Value formula is applied to the base salary, roster bonus and signing bonuses.  Which allows more weight to be applied to guaranteed money versus non-guaranteed money.  It also, makes it more difficult to win a bid if you offer fewer years to the contract than the players preferred amount.

We still need to figure out some minor details on the resigning discount, last year it was 7%.  I was thinking about raising that percentage discount to between 8 to 10% only if one of the three UFA bids were used to resign a player, this would give more incentive and options to retain their own free agents.  For example: (using last years free agents) if I offered JPP a 3 year deal under the UFA terms (0% discount) his adjusted contract offer amount would be $ 37,891,089, the Reserve bid at 7% discount is $ 40,543,465 or if I change the UFA to Resign it increases it to 10% and the amount would be $ 41,680,197.  From UFA to Reserve the difference is -2,652,376 - from UFA to Resign the dif is  -3,789,108. 

For a player requiring far less money, UFA offer is   $ 4,891,089, Reserve offer  $ 5,233,465, UFA to Resign offer  $ 5,380,197   Differences from UFA to Reserve 7% - Difference are far less from UFA to Reserve -342,376, from UFA to Resign -489,108.

Again, need to finalize this rule so that I can move on to other things.  So lets get this debate started.

Thanks

 

 

 

 

 

 

[squire12]

@ny92jefferis  Things look really good.  

I think if it is not a lot of trouble, having the depth chart sheet in the workbooks might make it really easy for GM's to copy and paste it into the forum.  It would allow for a nice and consistent format for each team and GM.  If it it more work for you, then it is not necessary.

[ny92mike]

10 hours ago, squire12 said:

@ny92jefferis  Things look really good.  

I think if it is not a lot of trouble, having the depth chart sheet in the workbooks might make it really easy for GM's to copy and paste it into the forum.  It would allow for a nice and consistent format for each team and GM.  If it it more work for you, then it is not necessary.

Do you have a particular format in mind?