Total Control Mock Draft 2023 - Discussion

[sparky151]

1 hour ago, JetsandI said:

 

I don't think it is accurate. 

Voidable Years have nothing to do with an opportunity to get out of contract.   Voided contract by contractual design does.

 

Voidable years are a mechanic that doesn't extend player's UFA status.  That means whatever player and team are signed to a length of contract, the timing of becoming UFA remains intact.

 

Ask yourself why do both players and teams agree to deals with voidable years? The teams do it to spread cap hits over multiple seasons, ie avoid taking a full hit in the current year. Players do it to avoid long term commitments. Since both sides don't expect the contract to run it's full course, the out years typically have small base salaries. Players don't want to be held to those of course, so they get the right to cancel the deal after year 1 or 2 or whatever. 

 

Tampa got what they wanted from Brady and ran it back twice after that. The 35 mil cap hit from his dead money was expected and the 36.6 mil on their cap for 2023 at QB (with Trask included) isn't an especially big number in the league. Their problem is their QB is Trask at the moment. So they can't afford to sign Carr or trade for Rodgers. But they can sign a game manager type or trade for Jordan Love or Trey Lance or trade up a bit to draft Richardson or Leavis or whomever. They have options, let's see which ones they choose. 

[JetsandI]

@ny92mike

I can confirm that prorated number for signing bonus is out of whack as Forge has the problem.

 

[Forge]

2 minutes ago, JetsandI said:

@Forge

 

Yup.  You must get the cap under the control before doing extension work.

 

 

My issue looks like it was separate. It's the prorations and cap hits being off. I was over the cap still because technically I was given that the prorated error means my cap hit didn't go down. I added in restructures to other players but my prorated section of the Bosa section is still wrong. 

[JetsandI]

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

My issue looks like it was separate. It's the prorations and cap hits being off. I was over the cap still because technically I was given that the prorated error means my cap hit didn't go down. I added in restructures to other players but my prorated section of the Bosa section is still wrong. 

I restructured Dak's to get under the cap and contract extension didn't warning about exceeding the cap.  I undid the restructure and I got the warning.

Prorated bonus is another matter as I informed Mike.

[ny92mike]

9 minutes ago, Cbrunn said:

They're all cut trubisky, William Jackson , akhello Witherspoon 

I'm cool with all that though it was going to happen anyway , only one was Dotson that I wouldn't just cut

And Sutton is still on my roster , as much as I'd like to keep Sutton on a million dollar contact , he's a free agent 

 

You and I are the only ones with access.  I only flagged the ones with voided contracts.  I'd have to go back and look at who that was.

1277 - Jesse Davis - RT
0369 - Cameron Sutton - CB

I'd say undo the cuts if it isn't either one of those guys.

Starting to think sharing the official workbook might be a bad idea.  May need to lock down these columns again.  Revert back to using two workbooks in the future.

 

 

[JetsandI]

5 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

Ask yourself why do both players and teams agree to deals with voidable years? The teams do it to spread cap hits over multiple seasons, ie avoid taking a full hit in the current year. Players do it to avoid long term commitments. Since both sides don't expect the contract to run it's full course, the out years typically have small base salaries. Players don't want to be held to those of course, so they get the right to cancel the deal after year 1 or 2 or whatever. 

 

Tampa got what they wanted from Brady and ran it back twice after that. The 35 mil cap hit from his dead money was expected and the 36.6 mil on their cap for 2023 at QB (with Trask included) isn't an especially big number in the league. Their problem is their QB is Trask at the moment. So they can't afford to sign Carr or trade for Rodgers. But they can sign a game manager type or trade for Jordan Love or Trey Lance or trade up a bit to draft Richardson or Leavis or whomever. They have options, let's see which ones they choose. 

 

It doesn't require a player's agreement for voidable years because once his legal contract (base salary) is up, it becomes team's problem as the player gets that money upfront.

 

Brady's back to back base salaries converted into voidable years but his contract was 2 year length as his UFA status was set up for 2023 which remained unchanged today.

 

 

[Cbrunn]

6 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

You and I are the only ones with access.  I only flagged the ones with voided contracts.  I'd have to go back and look at who that was.

1277 - Jesse Davis - RT
0369 - Cameron Sutton - CB

I'd say undo the cuts if it isn't either one of those guys.

Starting to think sharing the official workbook might be a bad idea.  May need to lock down these columns again.  Revert back to using two workbooks in the future.

 

 

I see what's going on , they all moved to the bottom of the sheet in red, I just changed him back to activate and it auto updated 

It moves all the guys to the bottom and the user can just adjust them from there

My bad everything seems right , sorry about the confusion

[ny92mike]

42 minutes ago, Forge said:

Just a quirky worksheet error, I think...

but if you have negative space, the workbook looks like it won't allow me to do a contract extension even if it lowers the current year cap hit of said player? 

 

Nick Bosa's cap number for 2023 is 17.5 Million. I did an extension that drops his first year cap hit to 10 million. All of the contract requirements pass, but it just gives an alert that says "Contract exceeds available cap". I'm not sure if that causes an error for the work book or not  @ny92mike

Future years shouldn't be an issue. I'm not really sure what's going on because the proration amount is off? I have the signing bonus as 40 million, which should be 8/yr, however the worksheet shows the proration as 15 million? Do I have to do this in the restructure option since I want the new contract over the fifth year option? 

Ok... gonna have to wrap my head around this. 

It shows the 40m is for 8m for 5 years.  However, the base salary difference from the current contract and the new contract gets converted to prorated money.  

Where I see a mistake in the formula is it's including the base guarantee as well.  This I'll need to fix. 

Is this what you're seeing as well?

 

Converted Proration Values
Base Salary	$3,571,800
Base Guarantee	$3,571,800
Signing Bonus	$8,000,000
Other Bonus	$0
Total Converted Proration	$15,143,600

[ny92mike]

1 minute ago, ny92mike said:

Ok... gonna have to wrap my head around this. 

It shows the 40m is for 8m for 5 years.  However, the base salary difference from the current contract and the new contract gets converted to prorated money.  

Where I see a mistake in the formula is it's including the base guarantee as well.  This I'll need to fix. 

Is this what you're seeing as well?

 

 

Converted Proration Values
Base Salary	$3,571,800
Base Guarantee	$3,571,800
Signing Bonus	$8,000,000
Other Bonus	$0
Total Converted Proration	$15,143,600

To fix the issue I'm seeing, I just need to remove the proration of base guarantee from the calculation.

[ny92mike]

7 minutes ago, Cbrunn said:

I see what's going on , they all moved to the bottom of the sheet in red, I just changed him back to activate and it auto updated 

It moves all the guys to the bottom and the user can just adjust them from there

My bad everything seems right , sorry about the confusion

Glad we got it figured out.  One less issue to worry about...haha.

I'll reorder the list each time I make changes to the rosters.

[Forge]

5 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

Ok... gonna have to wrap my head around this. 

It shows the 40m is for 8m for 5 years.  However, the base salary difference from the current contract and the new contract gets converted to prorated money.  

Where I see a mistake in the formula is it's including the base guarantee as well.  This I'll need to fix. 

Is this what you're seeing as well?

 

 

Converted Proration Values
Base Salary	$3,571,800
Base Guarantee	$3,571,800
Signing Bonus	$8,000,000
Other Bonus	$0
Total Converted Proration	$15,143,600

Basically, yes. If it requires that the current year base / guarantee be wrapped into the new deal overtop of whatever contract I give him, than in Bosa's case the additional proration should be $3.572 and my first year cap hit should be 13.572. So it looks like it is basically double dipping that amount 

[ny92mike]

1 minute ago, Forge said:

Basically, yes. If it requires that the current year base / guarantee be wrapped into the new deal overtop of whatever contract I give him, than in Bosa's case the additional proration should be $3.572 and my first year cap hit should be 13.572. So it looks like it is basically double dipping that amount 

I've deleted the info in the base guar. cells and will do that with the other teams as well.

Aside from the error, this is how we've done it in the past, with the difference of the current contracts base salary and the new base salary getting converted to SB.

[Forge]

2 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

I've deleted the info in the base guar. cells and will do that with the other teams as well.

Aside from the error, this is how we've done it in the past, with the difference of the current contracts base salary and the new base salary getting converted to SB.

That's fine, doesn't really impact me much. I gave him a signing bonus a little over what was requested and didn't use a minimum salary on the first year, so it's not really going to impact me much. Maybe an extra million or something, so not a huge issue. 

[ny92mike]

1 minute ago, Forge said:

That's fine, doesn't really impact me much. I gave him a signing bonus a little over what was requested and didn't use a minimum salary on the first year, so it's not really going to impact me much. Maybe an extra million or something, so not a huge issue. 

Cool sorry about the confusion.  

I'll ask for feedback and suggestions for next year after this mock is over.  

I'd say that all the issues are fixed now, but I'd be lying.  This new workbook build has been a challenge to say the least.

Good thing is once they are worked out in this it won't be an issue in the future as I don't think I'll ever upgrade them again...haha.

What a freaking nightmare this has been not to mention embarrassing with all the formula errors.

[Forge]

Just now, ny92mike said:

Cool sorry about the confusion.  

I'll ask for feedback and suggestions for next year after this mock is over.  

I'd say that all the issues are fixed now, but I'd be lying.  This new workbook build has been a challenge to say the least.

Good thing is once they are worked out in this it won't be an issue in the future as I don't think I'll ever upgrade them again...haha.

What a freaking nightmare this has been not to mention embarrassing with all the formula errors.

All good...everything looks great now.