Jump to content

Total Control Mock Draft 2023 - Discussion


Deadpulse

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, MKnight82 said:

@ny92mike need you to check some formulas for me.  On the Contract Extension page, Cells F21 through F25 are always dividing by 5 instead of the selected contract length in cell F12.  Did you mean to do that or is that an error?  

=if(iserror(if(D16=true,IF(F12<=5,F16/F12,F16/5),"")),"",if(D16=true,IF(F12<=5,F16/F12,F16/5),""))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JetsandI said:

=if(iserror(if(D16=true,IF(F12<=5,F16/F12,F16/5),"")),"",if(D16=true,IF(F12<=5,F16/F12,F16/5),""))

Why is Cell F21 dividing F16 by the number of years, when cell F16 is the original base salary minus the new base salary? I don't understand why F16 is in there at all.  I thought that the new cap number should just be the new base salary + the prorated signing bonus plus any existing bonuses. The way it is calculating now is the difference between the original base salary - the new base salary plus new pro rated bonus plus old bonuses.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MKnight82 said:

Why is Cell F21 dividing F16 by the number of years, when cell F16 is the original base salary minus the new base salary? I don't understand why F16 is in there at all.  I thought that the new cap number should just be the new base salary + the prorated signing bonus plus any existing bonuses. The way it is calculating now is the difference between the original base salary - the new base salary plus new pro rated bonus plus old bonuses.  

You now see it?   I wonder if Forge didn't see it some time ago.

 

Rule is iffy but the goal is to not rip old contract out completely to avoid new money.  I believe there was a discussion about SB being greater than old 2023 total in new money for new contract but it was crushed.  We moved on.  Protecting players' welfare is one of top priority.

 

I cant copy and paste the rule but you can copy and paste in the guideline's search box to get there.

 

extension apy & bonus

 

 

This rule suggests that we can convert either of them if we want to but GTD is out of place so it is difficult to track for qualifying new conversion.   Right now, we simply include base salary of 2023, GTD or not for new conversion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ny92mike here's an example: 

In Washington workbook, I have Kendall Fuller as an example extension.  

His original Base Salary is $8,500,000, with an existing Pro-Rated Bonus of $3,125,000, Current Cap Number $11,625,000. All of that checks out and looks fine.  

 

I entered a new Base Salary of $3,500,000 (Year 1), with a new signing bonus of $30,000,000 over 3 years, or a prorated SB of $10,000,000 per year. On top of this his original pro-rated bonus was $3,125,000.  So shouldn't his number cap number be the new Year 1 BS ($3,500,000) + prorated new SB ($10,000,000) + old pro rated bonus ($3,125,000) = $16,625,000? 

 

The formula in the workbook doesn't use that math.  It takes the original base salary $8,500,000 - new base salary of $3,500,000 for a difference of $5,000,000.  It then divides that by 3 for an average of $1,666,667. It then takes the $30 mil new SB for $10 mil + that 3 year difference of base salary average of $1,666,667 + old pro rated bonus (3,125,000) = new prorated of $14,791,667.  Then it takes that weird number and adds the new base salary of $3,500,000 showing a cap number of $18,291,667.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JetsandI said:

You now see it?   I wonder if Forge didn't see it some time ago.

 

Rule is iffy but the goal is to not rip old contract out completely to avoid new money.  I believe there was a discussion about SB being greater than old 2023 total in new money for new contract but it was crushed.  We moved on.  Protecting players' welfare is one of top priority.

 

I cant copy and paste the rule but you can copy and paste in the guideline's search box to get there.

 

extension apy & bonus

 

 

This rule suggests that we can convert either of them if we want to but GTD is out of place so it is difficult to track for qualifying new conversion.   Right now, we simply include base salary of 2023, GTD or not for new conversion.

The issue isn't the bonus money its the base salary.  See math on my newer post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MKnight82 said:

@ny92mike here's an example: 

In Washington workbook, I have Kendall Fuller as an example extension.  

His original Base Salary is $8,500,000, with an existing Pro-Rated Bonus of $3,125,000, Current Cap Number $11,625,000. All of that checks out and looks fine.  

 

I entered a new Base Salary of $3,500,000 (Year 1), with a new signing bonus of $30,000,000 over 3 years, or a prorated SB of $10,000,000 per year. On top of this his original pro-rated bonus was $3,125,000.  So shouldn't his number cap number be the new Year 1 BS ($3,500,000) + prorated new SB ($10,000,000) + old pro rated bonus ($3,125,000) = $16,625,000? 

 

The formula in the workbook doesn't use that math.  It takes the original base salary $8,500,000 - new base salary of $3,500,000 for a difference of $5,000,000.  It then divides that by 3 for an average of $1,666,667. It then takes the $30 mil new SB for $10 mil + that 3 year difference of base salary average of $1,666,667 + old pro rated bonus (3,125,000) = new prorated of $14,791,667.  Then it takes that weird number and adds the new base salary of $3,500,000 showing a cap number of $18,291,667.

 

Year ACQ'D Status Pos. Sort Player Identifier Team 4 Digit ID Player Name Pos Age Exp Grade Vet. Min. Base Salary Base Guar. Prorated Non-prorated Cap Number
2023 Original ACT N 1539 - Kendall Fuller - CB WAS 1539 Kendall Fuller CB 28 7 89.9% $1,165,000 $8,500,000 $0 $3,125,000 $0 $11,625,000
2024                                  
                        Average: $8,500,000 $0 $3,125,000 $0 $11,625,000
Restructured Contract Details
                      Total: $8,500,000 $0 $3,125,000 $0 $11,625,000
Year ACQ'D Status Pos. Sort Player Identifier Team 4 Digit ID Player Name Pos Age Exp Grade Vet. Min. Base Salary Base Guar. Prorated Non-prorated Cap Number
2023 Ext ACT N 1539 - Kendall Fuller - CB WAS 1539 Kendall Fuller CB 28 7 89.9% $1,165,000 $3,500,000 $0 $14,791,667 $0 $18,291,667
2024 Ext ACT N 1539 - Kendall Fuller - CB WAS 1539 Kendall Fuller CB 29 8 89.9% $1,210,000 $4,500,000   $11,666,667   $16,166,667
2025 Ext ACT N 1539 - Kendall Fuller - CB WAS 1539 Kendall Fuller CB 30 9 89.9% $1,255,000 $5,500,000 $0 $11,666,667 $0 $17,166,667
2026                           $0   $0  
2027                           $0   $0  
2028                           $0   $0  
2029                           $0   $0  

 

 

2023 Base Salary $5,000,000
Bass Guarantee  
Signing Bonus  
Other Bonus  
Converted Proration Values
Base Salary $1,666,667
Base Guarantee $0
Signing Bonus $10,000,000
Other Bonus $0
   
Total Converted Proration $11,666,667
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MKnight82 said:

The issue isn't the bonus money its the base salary.  See math on my newer post. 

I understand.

As I explained before, if we are able to track GTD correctly then we can convert that, whatever it is BS or OB or WO.  We can't so we stick with one place which is base salary.

 

In real life, they can reduce base salary or sort of others.  Here in TCMD, we can't. That is because TCMD protects players' welfare.  Cut them if you don't want them for that given price.  Similar concept to contract extension.

Please don't put more stress on Mike.  Whatever rules allow us, we go along with that.   Artificiality or reality.

After TCMD is done, you better participate in feedback period with Mike to get it straight.

 

Edit.. Mike's google doc will never match OTC, bro. lol.    Sorry, Mike.

Edited by JetsandI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JetsandI said:

I understand.

As I explained before, if we are able to track GTD correctly then we can convert that, whatever it is BS or OB or WO.  We can't so we stick with one place which is base salary.

 

In real life, they can reduce base salary or sort of others.  Here in TCMD, we can't. That is because TCMD protects players' welfare.  Cut them if you don't want them for that given price.  Similar concept to contract extension.

Please don't put more stress on Mike.  Whatever rules allow us, we go along with that.   Artificiality or reality.

After TCMD is done, you better be participate in feedback period with Mike to get it straight.

 

Edit.. Mike's google doc will never match OTC, bro. lol.    Sorry, Mike.

Protect player welfare?  What does that even mean?  This is just accounting.  The player will receive the same amount regardless.  But when players sign extensions IRL almost every new contract allows teams to reduce the Year 1 cap number. That is just the shuffling of the accounting books.  

The way it is currently calculated with adding a prorated amount of the old base salary makes no sense to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MKnight82 said:

Protect player welfare?  What does that even mean?  This is just accounting.  The player will receive the same amount regardless.  But when players sign extensions IRL almost every new contract allows teams to reduce the Year 1 cap number. That is just the shuffling of the accounting books.  

The way it is currently calculated with adding a prorated amount of the old base salary makes no sense to me. 

 

Not my rule.   I just accept it and follow it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...