TCMD - Suggestions and Feedback

[ny92mike]

4 minutes ago, squire12 said:

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.

I could probably work it into the team rosters, will have to see because I'm looking to revamp that workbook as well, because I know its a pain for you guys to keep those matched up with the official team rosters, but speed wise having it housed in the team roster workbook would be fine.

[sparky151]

It makes sense to let a team make a bid conditional on another bid not succeeding.

 

I think we still have a problem with the Solder/Fuller contracts. It's because we start fresh each year but Houston in the 2019 version won't be crippled with those deals. The NFL management council (which along with the NFLPA) has to approve contacts probably wouldn't approve them simply because of the effects on other teams due to the radical inflation of the tag numbers at the O-line and CB positions. The NFLPA would challenge the final year of each deal as bad faith offers. 

 

We also have a couple of teams operating with considerably more cap space in this mock than they would have in real life with similar decisions.

 

I'm definitely an option B guy in the question asked earlier. I'd like to see veteran minimum benefit contracts (which count on the cap at less than the actual pay) included. 

[bcb1213]

i think the devaluation of the RB position IRL is pretty real.  The other lack of any RB's getting signed from their APY is a pretty clear indication to me that maybe we should look into reducing that number for the RB postion next year

[ny92mike]

2 hours ago, bcb1213 said:

i think the devaluation of the RB position IRL is pretty real.  The other lack of any RB's getting signed from their APY is a pretty clear indication to me that maybe we should look into reducing that number for the RB postion next year

I do agree with you that RB's are being devalued but aside from a couple guys the fa pool doesn't have any big names this year.

 

[squire12]

Just now, ny92jefferis said:

2 hours ago, bcb1213 said:

i think the devaluation of the RB position IRL is pretty real.  The other lack of any RB's getting signed from their APY is a pretty clear indication to me that maybe we should look into reducing that number for the RB postion next year

I do agree with you that RB's are being devalued but aside from a couple guys the fa pool doesn't have any big names this year.

I think the 10% reduction in price each round allows teams the ability to be patient and wait for APY to drop or teams to over spend for things.   

Choices are good IMO.

[ny92mike]

Topic

1. Creating a backup bid for the "if I'm awarded both players at one position but only need the one".

Scenero Issues that could be problematic.

Example:  Denver bids on two quarterbacks, one a proven starter in Kirk Cousins, the other a potential starter in AJ McCarron.  Both are miles apart in what they are seeking in contract terms. 

This potential rule change, seems to me like a way of guaranteeing you land a player at the position of need rather than a situation in that if you're awarded both of them that you can send one back.

What about including a rule, that the second player at that position would need to be given similar compensation?  Meaning, that the contract you offer McCarron would need to be within 10% of the average per year APY that you offered Cousins.

Thoughts? 

 

 

 

 

[ny92mike]

On 2/22/2018 at 7:35 PM, sparky151 said:

I think we still have a problem with the Solder/Fuller contracts. It's because we start fresh each year but Houston in the 2019 version won't be crippled with those deals. The NFL management council (which along with the NFLPA) has to approve contacts probably wouldn't approve them simply because of the effects on other teams due to the radical inflation of the tag numbers at the O-line and CB positions. The NFLPA would challenge the final year of each deal as bad faith offers. 

I agree the Solder and Fuller contracts would never have happened irl.  I don't want to get into the business of acting as the NFL council, NFLPA or the players agent.  Would rather find solutions within a formula to deter these types of contracts without restricting the amount a team can offer.

I think that using the APY amount for the future years of the contract would have done a lot, if the teams were aware of it.  One of those rules that got overlooked by many of the GM's.

Using the APY rule for future years in conjunction with some other rules.  Some teams have millions in cap in 2019 but its primarily due to the fact that they either don't have much talent on the roster that year, or have a reduced number of players heading into the next year.  Finding some math, that accounts for this would help.

Teams are currently restricted from bidding more on a single contract than what they have to in cap space, but my original plan was to prevent teams from offering more in future cap than what they have for the total of all of their bids.  We didn't do this because some bids you aren't guaranteed to land, but having this would limit teams from targeting multi expensive targets in a single round of bidding.  Potentially leaving more meat on the bones for later rounds.  

 

[PurpleMugen]

1 hour ago, ny92jefferis said:

I agree the Solder and Fuller contracts would never have happened irl.  I don't want to get into the business of acting as the NFL council, NFLPA or the players agent.  Would rather find solutions within a formula to deter these types of contracts without restricting the amount a team can offer.

I think that using the APY amount for the future years of the contract would have done a lot, if the teams were aware of it.  One of those rules that got overlooked by many of the GM's.

Using the APY rule for future years in conjunction with some other rules.  Some teams have millions in cap in 2019 but its primarily due to the fact that they either don't have much talent on the roster that year, or have a reduced number of players heading into the next year.  Finding some math, that accounts for this would help.

Teams are currently restricted from bidding more on a single contract than what they have to in cap space, but my original plan was to prevent teams from offering more in future cap than what they have for the total of all of their bids.  We didn't do this because some bids you aren't guaranteed to land, but having this would limit teams from targeting multi expensive targets in a single round of bidding.  Potentially leaving more meat on the bones for later rounds.  

 

I like that idea. It forces GMs to be more judicious about making big offers, they have less say in the matter that way since they are limited by that future cap number. 

[JetsandI]

You should set the penalty for a lack of activity in depth chart.  Like shave down team cap room. heh.   I returned from the Olympics fever and found Jets' empty depth chart.  Not cool.

 

Is that right Jefferis and EaglesPC have run this GM mock equally? If so, you may need one more like them.  3 grandchiefs are good for 3 years. One per.

2017 - Jefferis

2018 - EaglesPC

2019 - Mr. X.

 

Each runs everything for that year such as worksheet, salary cap and any other importance. For future salary cap, they should be tightened up because not all current players will be under those seasons.  Whenever FA signings and trades are made, they have to meet all three seasons' criteria before they become legit.  Maybe too much for participants to play wisely and responsibly but they get idea how hard NFL GMs handle business with bad or overrated players.

 

[sparky151]

6 hours ago, ny92jefferis said:

Topic

1. Creating a backup bid for the "if I'm awarded both players at one position but only need the one".

Scenero Issues that could be problematic.

Example:  Denver bids on two quarterbacks, one a proven starter in Kirk Cousins, the other a potential starter in AJ McCarron.  Both are miles apart in what they are seeking in contract terms. 

This potential rule change, seems to me like a way of guaranteeing you land a player at the position of need rather than a situation in that if you're awarded both of them that you can send one back.

What about including a rule, that the second player at that position would need to be given similar compensation?  Meaning, that the contract you offer McCarron would need to be within 10% of the average per year APY that you offered Cousins.

Thoughts? 

 

 

 

 

I don't think we need to straitjacket the bids. Using 1 of 3 bids has an opportunity cost. I'd suggest something like Denver bid 1 is Cousins, bid 2 is conditionally on McCarron but only active if they don't sign Cousins, bid 3 is for whomever they went after. In this case McCarron might be the one hosed if he only got backup money from another team. But in real life the Broncos would know to pull their second QB offer.

[sparky151]

5 hours ago, ny92jefferis said:

I agree the Solder and Fuller contracts would never have happened irl.  I don't want to get into the business of acting as the NFL council, NFLPA or the players agent.  Would rather find solutions within a formula to deter these types of contracts without restricting the amount a team can offer.

I think that using the APY amount for the future years of the contract would have done a lot, if the teams were aware of it.  One of those rules that got overlooked by many of the GM's.

Using the APY rule for future years in conjunction with some other rules.  Some teams have millions in cap in 2019 but its primarily due to the fact that they either don't have much talent on the roster that year, or have a reduced number of players heading into the next year.  Finding some math, that accounts for this would help.

Teams are currently restricted from bidding more on a single contract than what they have to in cap space, but my original plan was to prevent teams from offering more in future cap than what they have for the total of all of their bids.  We didn't do this because some bids you aren't guaranteed to land, but having this would limit teams from targeting multi expensive targets in a single round of bidding.  Potentially leaving more meat on the bones for later rounds.  

 

The simplest solution would be to make all contracts 1 year. That's unrealistic but we could easily increase the discount rate. NFL careers are pretty short and lots of long term contracts don't get completed. If we're only going to track cap space for the current year plus next year, we should discount future payouts. Something like 0% discount for guaranteed money in current year. 5% for current year salary. 20% for unguaranteed money in year 2, 30% in year 3, etc. 

 

Also in real life the longer the deal, the more signing bonus required and the bigger the % of the total value that should be paid in signing bonus. On a deal of 5 or more years, the signing bonus should be something like a third of the overall value.  I'd also note that older players should be eligible for multi-year deals. They like the increased signing bonus and won't have to repay it if they are cut.

[PurpleMugen]

I definitely wouldn't want to make all contracts 1 year. Deciding who I want to lock in for a few or many years versus who I want to bring in on more of a trial basis is or as a temporary contributor is part of the fun for me as a GM. I think it would be more prudent to have everyone go in with the mindset that no GM in real life is making moves for the upcoming season. This mentality that you have to have a bombastic offseason in a single mock is what sucks the fun out of it for others. Every mock I ever participate in, I approach under the notion that I have to strike a balance between making my team an immediate force and keeping them in good condition for the foreseeable future, not one without the other. If I adopted the "nothing matters past this year" outlook, I feel like I'd probably have next to zero fun with it.

[Trojan]

I still think my Twitter like doc idea was good that you made a sample for.
Getting quick reactions anonymously from players and viewers would have been a look element imo.

The ITL thing makes large posts where Twitter-like-anonymous doc essentially is 15 seconds of think. I've sent rumors in that don't get published, and easily would have had there been a Twitter. ITL is great, but creating is-it-real-or-not hype is harder in that format. Some things you don't want to communicate if it's you or not that's leaking it and a doc solves that. A Twitter like feed isn't going to replace ITL either, they fill different roles I think.

I don't know if it would be a good idea or not, but having trades be PM and then post/accept change into PM then a thread to offer higher bids for X hours could be an improvement (but also maybe not). Would be harder to criticize a GM with a "you could have got more" type thing if such a stall for public better offers thing existed. The logistics of PMing each GM is the issue that this solves and leads to less disappointment for all parties (outside of a team intending to fleece another team or dead set on a guy that they cant really offer enough for).

[SerenityNow]

First of all, I wanted to say thank you @ny92jefferis and the rest of the brain trust for putting together such a great mock year in and year out. I know that it's greatly appreciated by everyone that is involved. I've helped out with the Titans mocks for the past few years and always really have a blast with the process, and that's all thanks to you guys and all the work that you continue to put in to make this the best mock that it can be.

I don't know how much this has been discussed in the past with this mock, but one thing I remember really enjoying with FFMD was putting together an individual sales pitch for each FA that our team wanted.  I thought that added a lot to the mock simply because the FAs were deciding between a multitude of factors on whether or not to sign with a given team and not just who was offering the most money.  Money was still a huge factor of course, but scheme fit, location, and our overall vision for the player's role on our team all played a part as well much like in real life. I know that would add a whole extra layer to the mock that you might understandably not want to touch with getting members to serve as "representatives" for individual players and decide what the best team fit would be. among other things.  That's just something I remember loving about FFMD, so I wanted to get your thoughts on potentially bringing that concept or an element of it to TCMD.

[Nick]

4 hours ago, SerenityNow said:

First of all, I wanted to say thank you @ny92jefferis and the rest of the brain trust for putting together such a great mock year in and year out. I know that it's greatly appreciated by everyone that is involved. I've helped out with the Titans mocks for the past few years and always really have a blast with the process, and that's all thanks to you guys and all the work that you continue to put in to make this the best mock that it can be.

I don't know how much this has been discussed in the past with this mock, but one thing I remember really enjoying with FFMD was putting together an individual sales pitch for each FA that our team wanted.  I thought that added a lot to the mock simply because the FAs were deciding between a multitude of factors on whether or not to sign with a given team and not just who was offering the most money.  Money was still a huge factor of course, but scheme fit, location, and our overall vision for the player's role on our team all played a part as well much like in real life. I know that would add a whole extra layer to the mock that you might understandably not want to touch with getting members to serve as "representatives" for individual players and decide what the best team fit would be. among other things.  That's just something I remember loving about FFMD, so I wanted to get your thoughts on potentially bringing that concept or an element of it to TCMD.

I really enjoyed this too. It adds another layer, but it's also entertaining. I really enjoyed reading others and creating some over the years.