TCMD Discussion!!

[Trojan]

28 minutes ago, Trojan said:

Then if I'm reading it right the adjusted contract amount is simply the sum of 93% of the base salary, plus bonuses. That doesn't account for money up front being worth more than money that 100% won't be realized at the end. It's always been discussed that money up front and bonuses count more -- that formula is weighted towards total base salary (including and desiring  ballooning) unguaranteed final years to drastically influence the base salary portion of the calculation.

The issue with this is that it also doesn't divide by years of contract creating a difference in APY.  Longer andunsecured > shorter and superior.
If you offered Thomas Free Agent the following two contracts:

YEAR 1: 14,000,000   6,000,000 signing bonus
YEAR 2: 14,000,000 6,000,000 signing bonus
YEAR 3: 14,000,000 6,000,000 signing bonus
YEAR 4: 14,000,000 6,000,000 signing bonus
($71,420,958)

YEAR 1: 10,000,000   0 signing bonus
YEAR 2: 14,000,000 0 signing bonus
YEAR 3: 18,200,000 0 signing bonus
YEAR 4: 23,660,000 0 signing bonus
YEAR 5: 30,758,000   0 signing bonus

($76,410,688)

 

Thomas Free Agent select contract two. Contract one offers $24,000,000 signing bonus prorated throughout that contract two doesn't. It is also superior cash wise through the first 3 years of the deal.  (20 v. 10; 20 v. 14; 20 v. 18.2) and  superior total over the 4 years (80mil v. 65.86mil). It's that final fifth year that wins it, and these contracts aren't close. I think it's the lack of division in the formula that is an issue. It needs to have the base pay divided by the years of contract.  If there was division then contract two's APY is 19,323,600  whereas contract one is 14 base + 6 in bonuses so 20mil. Contract one wins even if bonus money = base pay (whereas in the formula base looks like its 7% less than bonus money).

[ny92mike]

Okay guys after some citizen cope and looking at some of the fake contracts created by @BringinDaPain and @DTMW78 .

There are basically two issues with how teams can create contracts.  

The first is that the base salary needs to have some sort of subsequent yearly percentage rule, similar to how the cap number currently has.

The second is the roster and wo bonuses carry to much weight.

Take a look at these examples.

Name	Pos.	Exp.	Grade	Vet. Min.	Base Salary	Base Guar.	Prorated	Roster Bonus	W/O Bonus	Cap Number
Nate Solder	LT	7	79.8%	$915,000	$6,000,000		$10,000,000			$16,000,000
Nate Solder	LT	8	79.8%	$930,000	$1,500,000		$10,000,000	$10,000,000		$21,500,000
Nate Solder	LT	9	79.8%	$945,000	$1,500,000		$10,000,000	$10,000,000		$21,500,000
Nate Solder	LT	10	79.8%	$1,060,000	$1,500,000		$10,000,000	$10,000,000		$21,500,000
Nate Solder	LT	11	79.8%	$1,075,000	$1,500,000		$10,000,000	$12,000,000		$23,500,000
										$0
										$0
				Pass	$12,000,000		$50,000,000	$42,000,000	$0	$104,000,000

 

APY 20,800,000

Roster & Workout Bonus NPV

Contract Value Appraisal Adjustment
Base Salary NPV % Rate	7.0%
Base Salary NPV	$ 10,355,904
Roster & Workout Bonus % NPV	9.0%
Roster & Workout Bonus NPV	$ 33,814,049
Signing Bonus - NPV Rate	0.0%
Signing Bonus - NPV	$ 50,000,000
Combined Net Value Present Value	$ 94,169,953
Resign Discount %.	0.0%
Adj. Contract Offer Amount:	$ 94,169,953

The above contract passes.

If I increase the Roster & Workout Bonus NPV from 9% to 120% it changes the Adj contract offer amount.

 

Contract Value Appraisal Adjustment
Base Salary NPV % Rate	7.0%
Base Salary NPV	$ 10,355,904
Roster & Workout Bonus % NPV	120.0%
Roster & Workout Bonus NPV	$ 8,062,974
Signing Bonus - NPV Rate	0.0%
Signing Bonus - NPV	$ 50,000,000
Combined Net Value Present Value	$ 68,418,877
Resign Discount %.	0.0%
Adj. Contract Offer Amount:	$ 68,418,877

    

It still allows teams to create these contracts, but drastically reduces the value of those roster and wo bonuses, where using them would only be something to gain a slight edge over close deals, "IN THEORY".

Name	Pos.	Exp.	Grade	Vet. Min.	Base Salary	Base Guar.	Prorated	Roster Bonus	W/O Bonus	Cap Number
Nate Solder	LT	7	79.8%	$915,000	$6,000,000		$10,000,000			$16,000,000
Nate Solder	LT	8	79.8%	$930,000	$5,000,000		$10,000,000			$15,000,000
Nate Solder	LT	9	79.8%	$945,000	$5,000,000		$10,000,000			$15,000,000
Nate Solder	LT	10	79.8%	$1,060,000	$5,000,000		$10,000,000			$15,000,000
Nate Solder	LT	11	79.8%	$1,075,000	$5,000,000		$10,000,000			$15,000,000
										$0
										$0
				Pass	$26,000,000		$50,000,000	$0	$0	$76,000,000

APY Amount:

$15,200,000

Nate Solder'(s) Preferred Contract Terms
Contract Length:	5
Average Per Year (APY)	$11,054,754
Signing Bonus:	$15,477,314
Contract Value Appraisal Adjustment
Base Salary NPV % Rate	7.0%
Base Salary NPV	$ 21,435,567
Roster & Workout Bonus % NPV	120.0%
Roster & Workout Bonus NPV	$ -
Signing Bonus - NPV Rate	0.0%
Signing Bonus - NPV	$ 50,000,000
Combined Net Value Present Value	$ 71,435,567
Resign Discount %.	0.0%
Adj. Contract Offer Amount:	$ 71,435,567

Let me know what you guys think.  For me this quick fix would save me hours of time if all I needed to do was just devalue the roster and workout bonuses.  But I'm sure there are other loopholes that I'm likely missing.

 

[ny92mike]

38 minutes ago, EaglesPeteC said:

We are not trying to overhaul the system. We are looking for the quickest and easiest fix

Right, just a quick fix to get the show rolling again until we can really address the issue, after the mock draft is over.

[squire12]

^^^^ @ny92jefferis   It still does not alter the ability to increase the base salary high enough that in the latter years of the deal the player is likely not to see them.  Once the balance of the SB is lower than a base salary ( plus other money within the contract), the player is a potential cap casuality.  

[squire12]

5 minutes ago, ny92jefferis said:

The first is that the base salary needs to have some sort of subsequent yearly percentage rule, similar to how the cap number currently has.

I disagree with this.   There are plenty of examples IRL where the base salary jumps up really significantly.  This is the recent Davante Adams contract.  Note the increase in base salary in the last 2 years.  BUT the potential out is what really determines the value of the contract that the player is likely to see.

				BONUS BREAKDOWN			CAP DETAILS		CASH DETAILS
YEAR		AGE	BASE SALARY	SIGNING	ROSTER	WORKOUT	CAP HIT	DEAD CAP	YEARLY CASH
2017		24	$956,373	$3,895,164	-	$5,590	$4,857,127	$31,295,164	$18,961,963($18,961,963)
2018		25	$1,000,000	$3,600,000	$5,437,500	$500,000	$10,537,500	$25,960,000	$6,937,500($25,899,463)
2019		26	$2,500,000	$3,600,000	$4,000,000	$500,000	$10,600,000	$17,300,000	$7,000,000($32,899,463)
POTENTIAL OUT: 2020, 3 YR, $32,899,463; $7,200,000 DEAD CAP
2020		27	$12,000,000	$3,600,000	$500,000	$500,000	$16,600,000	$7,200,000	$13,000,000($45,899,463)
2021		28	$12,000,000	$3,600,000	$500,000	$500,000	$16,600,000	$3,600,000	$13,000,000($58,899,463)

 

 

[Forge]

1 minute ago, squire12 said:

^^^^ @ny92jefferis   It still does not alter the ability to increase the base salary high enough that in the latter years of the deal the player is likely not to see them.  Once the balance of the SB is lower than a base salary ( plus other money within the contract), the player is a potential cap casuality.  

Right, but that's going to require an overhaul on the system, an entirely new formula, etc. Just not going to happen this far into the game. We also would need to figure out who to add something like that into a black and white formula (I don't know enough about excel to know how easily / difficult that would be). 

[mountainpd]

For the remainder of this mock I would just remove the roster and Work out bonus.

Don't think that would be a major issue for many people

[DTMW78]

1 minute ago, mountainpd said:

For the remainder of this mock I would just remove the roster and Work out bonus.

Don't think that would be a major issue for many people

or put a limit on them.

 

[squire12]

1 minute ago, Forge said:

Right, but that's going to require an overhaul on the system, an entirely new formula, etc. Just not going to happen this far into the game. We also would need to figure out who to add something like that into a black and white formula (I don't know enough about excel to know how easily / difficult that would be). 

Why are we going through the process to change something mid mock?  Why should other teams that have cap space not be allowed to structure contracts in a similar manner.

 

[PurpleMugen]

3 minutes ago, mountainpd said:

For the remainder of this mock I would just remove the roster and Work out bonus.

Don't think that would be a major issue for many people

I literally did exactly this for both of my winning contracts in round 1 lol. No roster bonuses, no workout bonuses.

[ny92mike]

2 minutes ago, squire12 said:

I disagree with this.   There are plenty of examples IRL where the base salary jumps up really significantly.  This is the recent Davante Adams contract.  Note the increase in base salary in the last 2 years.  BUT the potential out is what really determines the value of the contract that the player is likely to see.

				BONUS BREAKDOWN			CAP DETAILS		CASH DETAILS
YEAR		AGE	BASE SALARY	SIGNING	ROSTER	WORKOUT	CAP HIT	DEAD CAP	YEARLY CASH
2017		24	$956,373	$3,895,164	-	$5,590	$4,857,127	$31,295,164	$18,961,963($18,961,963)
2018		25	$1,000,000	$3,600,000	$5,437,500	$500,000	$10,537,500	$25,960,000	$6,937,500($25,899,463)
2019		26	$2,500,000	$3,600,000	$4,000,000	$500,000	$10,600,000	$17,300,000	$7,000,000($32,899,463)
POTENTIAL OUT: 2020, 3 YR, $32,899,463; $7,200,000 DEAD CAP
2020		27	$12,000,000	$3,600,000	$500,000	$500,000	$16,600,000	$7,200,000	$13,000,000($45,899,463)
2021		28	$12,000,000	$3,600,000	$500,000	$500,000	$16,600,000	$3,600,000	$13,000,000($58,899,463)

 

 

I said similar, not exact.  

It would need it's own set of rules.

Like Forge said, I can't turn this mock draft off to work out a complete new system, as much as it needs it.  Its gotta be something quick just to get us moving again.

We can discuss this in more detail after the mock draft.  

[squire12]

3 minutes ago, mountainpd said:

For the remainder of this mock I would just remove the roster and Work out bonus.

Don't think that would be a major issue for many people

You can create the same back loaded deal by removing the roster and workout bonus and just having it all as base salary.  If you load up the base high enough in the beginning, once you get past the first year for cap space purposes, the rest of the years do not put enough restrictions on the structuring of the contracts.  

[Forge]

So just to put it out there plain and simple regarding the Denver situation - we will not be rescinding the contract offer on McCarron. This isn't the first time this has happened, and in this structure, it won't be the last. It is the risk of blind bidding. We will look at potential avenues of curtailing this in the future mocks, however there is nothing that will be done here as it creates far too much of a dangerous precedent. Thanks for understanding guys (particularly you @BowserBroncos). It's a lot of work to put this stuff together, and we are certainly always trying to make it better, and that's why we will do the feedback and recommendations for future years mocks when this is all done 

(cross posted this in "inside the locker" and FAQS) 

[ny92mike]

Can we agree or not on adjusting the NPV percentage to a much higher number for roster and w/o bonuses?

 

[squire12]

1 minute ago, ny92jefferis said:

I said similar, not exact.  

It would need it's own set of rules.

Like Forge said, I can't turn this mock draft off to work out a complete new system, as much as it needs it.  Its gotta be something quick just to get us moving again.

We can discuss this in more detail after the mock draft.  

Why does it need to be adjusted now?   It is only fair to allow things to stay as is and if other teams want to structure contracts in a similar way, they should be able to do so.  

If you want to get closer to real and fair, then going back and redoing UFA round 1 with a fix is better than allowing a few teams to work the system in round 1 and then restricting the rest of the teams for the remainder.