EaglesPeteC Posted February 20, 2018 Author Share Posted February 20, 2018 The system limits how much your base salary can be raised from year to year, so yes you can back load but not to the crazy amount that we saw in RD1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainpd Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 5 minutes ago, squire12 said: 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. yes but people would still have to have a high base which inpacts this mock. No system is perfect unless every contract is reviewed which is impossible on this scale. I think we need to remember these are limited transactions in the grand scheme and we will improve for next year with more reviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, squire12 said: 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. Because it's a complete abuse of the system, and quite frankly, it's going to take the fun out of it. Then everyone starts to feel like they have to structure their deals this way and we have it being done en masse, and nobody here really wants contracts like these mucking with the mock when the intention was never to allow contracts like this - he found a loophole, that's all. Just because this loophole wasn't found initially doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed after the fact once it is found. Me and Mike were the two people who lost out on Solder and Fuller - we would have been awarded them had he not made these contracts, so thus far, we are actually the only two affected. Nobody else had desires to create contracts like this (otherwise they would have). Nobody is losing anything here. This isn't some great tragedy or injustice to all the other participants. . We honor those contracts because again, rescinding FA offers is not something we want to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, EaglesPeteC said: The system limits how much your base salary can be raised from year to year, so yes you can back load but not to the crazy amount that we saw in RD1 Sure you can Jeff Janis WR 4 63.3% $790,000 $6,000,000 $2,000,000 $8,000,000 Cap within Limits Low High Jeff Janis WR 5 63.3% $805,000 $8,800,000 $2,000,000 $10,800,000 YES $ 4,800,000 $ 11,200,000 Jeff Janis WR 6 63.3% $820,000 $12,000,000 $2,000,000 $14,000,000 YES $ 7,560,000 $ 14,040,000 Jeff Janis WR 7 63.3% $960,000 $16,000,000 $2,000,000 $18,000,000 YES $ 9,800,000 $ 18,200,000 Jeff Janis WR 8 63.3% $975,000 $21,000,000 $2,000,000 $23,000,000 YES $ 12,600,000 $ 23,400,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 Just now, squire12 said: 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. So you want the ability to exploit a loophole found by someone else for the remainder of the mock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 1 minute ago, Forge said: Because it's a complete abuse of the system, and quite frankly, it's going to take the fun out of it. Then everyone starts to feel like they have to structure their deals this way and we have it being done en masse, and nobody here really wants contracts like these mucking with the mock when the intention was never to allow contracts like this - he found a loophole, that's all. Just because this loophole wasn't found initially doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed after the fact once it is found. Me and Mike were the two people who lost out on Solder and Fuller - we would have been awarded them had he not made these contracts, so thus far, we are actually the only two affected. Nobody else had desires to create contracts like this (otherwise they would have). Nobody is losing anything here. This isn't some great tragedy or injustice to all the other participants. . We honor those contracts because again, rescinding FA offers is not something we want to do. You are missing the actual loophole is the NPV. Look at the contract above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 Just now, ny92jefferis said: So you want the ability to exploit a loophole found by someone else for the remainder of the mock. No. I don't, but if others do, why should they be limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 1 minute ago, squire12 said: Sure you can Jeff Janis WR 4 63.3% $790,000 $6,000,000 $2,000,000 $8,000,000 Cap within Limits Low High Jeff Janis WR 5 63.3% $805,000 $8,800,000 $2,000,000 $10,800,000 YES $ 4,800,000 $ 11,200,000 Jeff Janis WR 6 63.3% $820,000 $12,000,000 $2,000,000 $14,000,000 YES $ 7,560,000 $ 14,040,000 Jeff Janis WR 7 63.3% $960,000 $16,000,000 $2,000,000 $18,000,000 YES $ 9,800,000 $ 18,200,000 Jeff Janis WR 8 63.3% $975,000 $21,000,000 $2,000,000 $23,000,000 YES $ 12,600,000 $ 23,400,000 Now front load that same APY and see who wins the bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 100 percent is easiest fix i'm telling you because we can't trust people not to do the stupid thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragafootball Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 I am in favor of moving forward as is and limiting the W/O and Roster Bonuses from her on now. Looking into that Solder deal... how does that get approved? No excuse and completely unrealistic. I have to agree on that. But we learn and move forward. Personally I am playing this as a simulation, my goal is to make this a close to realistic as possible. We don't actually win anything here so it is all in the spirit of good fun. I will continue to behave as realistic as possible no matter what "loopholes" are exposed and I hope everyone will as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 1 minute ago, squire12 said: No. I don't, but if others do, why should they be limited. You're the only one arguing for it to be left in at this point so far as I can tell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainpd Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 1 minute ago, Forge said: Because it's a complete abuse of the system, and quite frankly, it's going to take the fun out of it. Then everyone starts to feel like they have to structure their deals this way and we have it being done en masse, and nobody here really wants contracts like these mucking with the mock when the intention was never to allow contracts like this - he found a loophole, that's all. Just because this loophole wasn't found initially doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed after the fact once it is found. Me and Mike were the two people who lost out on Solder and Fuller - we would have been awarded them had he not made these contracts, so thus far, we are actually the only two affected. Nobody else had desires to create contracts like this (otherwise they would have). Nobody is losing anything here. This isn't some great tragedy or injustice to all the other participants. . We honor those contracts because again, rescinding FA offers is not something we want to do. You are correct if it is not changed people will do this even if they don't really want to for the remainder of the mock to ensure they get players for fear of missing out. I also suspect some people will try everything in their power to find another way to manipulate the system, Although I hope that's not the case. I will be home from work in about an hour and I can try a number of contracts out if you like to see what I can break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 Just now, squire12 said: No. I don't, but if others do, why should they be limited. The quick fix doesn't prevent you from making the same type of contract. It just reduces the roster and w/o values when comparing them to other contracts. Why are you fighting us on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragafootball Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, squire12 said: You are missing the actual loophole is the NPV. Look at the contract above. We could exclude those that abuse the loopholes from here on from future Mocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 i'd also consider firing based upon "gaming the system" clause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.