TCMD - Suggestions and Feedback

[ny92mike]

I've created this thread so that any issues we've had with this mock can be documented while it's still fresh on our minds.

Please post any suggestions or feedback you have so that I can provide you guys a better mock next year.

The information you provide here will be discussed in greater detail after the mock draft is over.

 

Topics for Discussion

I’ve collected all of your suggestions and feedback and put them along with concerns and suggestions of my own.

NickChowaniec – It'd be awesome to find a happy medium solution to signing players at the same position in one round of bidding (referring to the Denver scenario that happened in the first FA round). Under the FA Bidding tab in our workbooks, maybe we have a bid that could function as an "if and only if" bid, and you'd only get one. Not sure what to call it exactly. Could build it in a way so there’s a drop down of the contracts you currently have offered to players for that round, you select the player you have as priority 1 at that position.  Using the Denver example, you offer Cousins a contract the way you normally would, and at the bottom of the list is a priority bid, you'd pick Cousins/Bid 1 as the preferred signing. If you were to win Cousins, that "if and only if" bid on McCarron would immediately void/cancel.  I'm sure there's a better solution, I just tried to think of something quick to get my point across.  I know the ideal solution would be people using their heads and not bidding on two QBs when you only want/need one, but it's happened every time we've done this I believe. I don't see it stopping lol. It can significantly change the way the draft/offseason plays out when a guy like McCarron becomes available to a QB needy team (there's always a bunch).

Concerns

1.  Primary concern for this and any other changes we look at is, can I create a formula to make it work.  That would be automated so that I’m not overloaded, whatever changes we look to make need to bear in mind that it can’t generate additional work aside from setting up the formulas. 

                   a.  I’ll have to see what’s possible and that it doesn’t create issues with sorting out the winning bids.

2.  I still feel that if you’re offering a contract to two individuals and that you are really only wanting to retain one of them, that the contracts should be close in value if not equal in value.  Meaning, if you’re trying to land a starting quarterback, that your offers should be similar in value. 

                  a.  This typically doesn’t happen that much but it does happen each year.  I did it last year with Blount and L. Murray when I was looking for a starting running back.  Ended up landing both, which one                         of them would have been enough, but I was desperate for a starting back and knew the risk when bidding on both of them.  However, the contract offers were very similar in value.

 

Trade Block workbook seems to be working out fairly well, which I’ll likely attempt to clean up and expand to include a way to search for players on rosters that aren’t on the trade block, that you’re interested in by offering a pick or player and the team will be able to see privately if someone is offering what pick or player.  I’ll also look to house it within another one of your private workbooks and spanky151 suggested. I originally had it housed in the draft board but it took so long to load, that I figured you’d think it was broken.

Contract structure for free agents

This will take some time and a whole lot of testing to resolve the massive overbidding that took place on a few contracts.  Whatever we figure out with this, know that the idea isn’t to prevent you from bidding what you want but only to find ways to restrict a team from breaking the bank in doing so.

Creating a twitter feed using google docs will be revisited again.

 Submitting a sales pitch to be included with your contract offers?  Not really sure how we could value these in a rush to get the fa awards out, so something to think about.

Reducing the APY values or increasing the percentage discount rate after each round of bidding from 10 to say 15%.

Coming up with a better plan for restructure and extensions.

Reducing and/or changing the number of years a player is seeking.  Perhaps have it based off the players APY value as well as his age.

Making the signing bonus a requirement for free agents?

[EaglesPeteC]

I think the biggest thing you/we need to decide about the future of the mock is what the long term vision of the mock is.

 

Is it your goal to make it:
 

A) a mock with mass appeal that can perhaps grow forum wide and replace FFMD 

or

B) a very detailed mock for a smaller hard core group who want it to be as realistic and lifelike as possible.

or 

C) One of each

 

IMO those are two very different directions, and you've dabbled in ideas for both. As you listen to ideas and suggestions and we give you ideas and suggestions, it will be very helpful to know what that vision is completely so we are all on the same page.

 

Just an idea for you to think about before we start opening the floor to mass suggestions.

[PurpleMugen]

I can say I cast my vote for Option B wholeheartedly.

I love the idea of a group of us sticking it through each time to produce a realistic mock, trying best to simulate what it might actually be like in the office of the GM. The more realistic it is, the more fun it is for me; those with a lot of resources have more leeway to spend freely, those who do not have to be more wily (which is enjoyable) & all of us keeping an actual eye on the future of our teams roster- and cap space-wise. I also like us as a small group getting together each time because we'll develop our own kind of camaraderie that will make the experience increasingly fun the more times we run it.

[ny92mike]

5 minutes ago, EaglesPeteC said:

I think the biggest thing you/we need to decide about the future of the mock is what the long term vision of the mock is.

 

Is it your goal to make it:
 

A) a mock with mass appeal that can perhaps grow forum wide and replace FFMD 

or

B) a very detailed mock for a smaller hard core group who want it to be as realistic and lifelike as possible.

or 

C) One of each

 

IMO those are two very different directions, and you've dabbled in ideas for both. As you listen to ideas and suggestions and we give you ideas and suggestions, it will be very helpful to know what that vision is completely so we are all on the same page.

 

Just an idea for you to think about before we start opening the floor to mass suggestions.

Most likely C) One of each 

Whether or not FFMD puts out another mock draft or not, is on them but I'd like to provide a version of TCMD to be ran as a forum wide mock draft.  What exactly that is I'm not 100% sure yet, this really all depends on the amount of help I get.

For me the most important mock is the design currently taking place.  Right now, I'd rather focus on the individual mock draft as my primary mock, the expansion to a forum wide mock was mainly because ffmd hasn't been available to the forum and the individual mock houses only 32 members and with this growing each year it leaves others out in the cold.  Thankfully, most of our members are running it already as a forum wide mock draft with many of the GM's having war rooms.  

[Nick]

It'd be awesome to find a happy medium solution to signing players at the same position in one round of bidding. (Referring to the Denver scenario that happened in the first FA round). Under the FA Bidding tab in our workbooks, maybe we have a bid that could function as an "if and only if" bid, and you'd only get one. Not sure what to call it exactly. Could build it in a way so theres a drop down of the contracts you currently have offered to players for that round, you select the player you have as priority 1 at that position.

Using the Denver example, you offer Cousins a contract the way you normally would, and at the bottom of the list is a priority bid, you'd pick Cousins/Bid 1 as the preferred signing. If you were to win Cousins, that "if and only if" bid on McCarron would immediately void/cancel. 

I'm sure there's a better solution, I just tried to think of something quick to get my point across. 

I know the ideal solution would be people using their heads and not bidding on two QBs when you only want/need one, but it's happened every time we've done this I believe. I don't see it stopping lol. It can significantly change the way the draft/offseason plays out when I guy like McCarron becomes available to a QB needy team (there's always a bunch).

[D82]

I know I'd signed up in the past for this but never followed through, mostly because it just seemed like a lot to keep track of and a lot of reading...but honestly, I've really enjoyed it thus far.

I'd love to see this take over for FFMD and yet maintain a sense of realism.

[ny92mike]

2 minutes ago, Desperado82 said:

I know I'd signed up in the past for this but never followed through, mostly because it just seemed like a lot to keep track of and a lot of reading...but honestly, I've really enjoyed it thus far.

I'd love to see this take over for FFMD and yet maintain a sense of realism.

Several of us have had discussions with this version taking over ffmd's system and it really never goes anywhere, it just leads to everyone tossing up their hands and walking off from the discussion because neither side is willing to compromise.

The other issue is that without the mod badge, @EaglesPeteC  and myself feel like our opinions in making changes down the line wouldn't carry the same weight as the mods.  We also feel that we've put enough into this mock draft each year, that we should be rewarded.  Heck right now this sub forum doesn't even have a mod assigned to it and you've got two members that basically live in the GM Mock Draft sub forum.

Maybe you could discuss it with your peers.

[D82]

I'd be happy to act as a liaison if need be.

[ny92mike]

18 minutes ago, NickChowaniec said:

It'd be awesome to find a happy medium solution to signing players at the same position in one round of bidding. (Referring to the Denver scenario that happened in the first FA round). Under the FA Bidding tab in our workbooks, maybe we have a bid that could function as an "if and only if" bid, and you'd only get one. Not sure what to call it exactly. Could build it in a way so theres a drop down of the contracts you currently have offered to players for that round, you select the player you have as priority 1 at that position.

Using the Denver example, you offer Cousins a contract the way you normally would, and at the bottom of the list is a priority bid, you'd pick Cousins/Bid 1 as the preferred signing. If you were to win Cousins, that "if and only if" bid on McCarron would immediately void/cancel. 

I'm sure there's a better solution, I just tried to think of something quick to get my point across. 

I know the ideal solution would be people using their heads and not bidding on two QBs when you only want/need one, but it's happened every time we've done this I believe. I don't see it stopping lol. It can significantly change the way the draft/offseason plays out when I guy like McCarron becomes available to a QB needy team (there's always a bunch).

Definitely something to discuss in greater detail.

I toyed around with the formulas awhile back and I think we could get it to work, but at the same time sorting it could be an issue, it would just need to be something I would have to work on after this mock is over.

Spit balling with you, but perhaps make one of the reserve bids act as a "if and only if" bid that you're suggesting, this way at least if you're going to do it, that it takes a little away from making that decision to make more than one offer at the same position.

 

[ny92mike]

2 minutes ago, Desperado82 said:

I'd be happy to act as a liaison if need be.

That would be awesome.

 

[Nick]

9 minutes ago, ny92jefferis said:

Definitely something to discuss in greater detail.

I toyed around with the formulas awhile back and I think we could get it to work, but at the same time sorting it could be an issue, it would just need to be something I would have to work on after this mock is over.

Spit balling with you, but perhaps make one of the reserve bids act as a "if and only if" bid that you're suggesting, this way at least if you're going to do it, that it takes a little away from making that decision to make more than one offer at the same position.

 

I like that. When the time comes, let me know what I can do to help. 

[ny92mike]

1 minute ago, NickChowaniec said:

I like that. When the time comes, let me know what I can do to help. 

For sure man.

 

[ny92mike]

Would love to get feedback on the trade block workbooks.

I know that when I use them, it makes it so much easier than having to scout the forum to see who is looking to trade, that's great.  However, not everyone is keeping their blocks up to date, so we can fix that by just filtering out the players that have already been traded or released, without the need for the GM to even need to update their block unless they are wanting to add to the list, or change what they are seeking in trade.

I'd also like to run this by you guys, if we could come up with a list of values that you're seeking in return, we could generate another drop down list that would allow you to filter by the other team's needs.  Just a thought, for the future of this mock.

 

[mountainpd]

2 minutes ago, ny92jefferis said:

Would love to get feedback on the trade block workbooks.

I know that when I use them, it makes it so much easier than having to scout the forum to see who is looking to trade, that's great.  However, not everyone is keeping their blocks up to date, so we can fix that by just filtering out the players that have already been traded or released, without the need for the GM to even need to update their block unless they are wanting to add to the list, or change what they are seeking in trade.

I'd also like to run this by you guys, if we could come up with a list of values that you're seeking in return, we could generate another drop down list that would allow you to filter by the other team's needs.  Just a thought, for the future of this mock.

 

Sounds perfect. Certainly the removal of players that have been released and or traded.

[squire12]

I like the trade block.  I like the positions of need for other teams as that would help to potential facilitate finding trade partners.  

It might be helpful if it was housed within the official roster workbook vs it own entity.  I do realize that it gets slower processing and loading when more info is within each workbook, so a balance needs to be struck there.