TCMD - Suggestions and Feedback

[mountainpd]

20 minutes ago, NickChowaniec said:

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.

 

5 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 enjoyed this too but it does create arguments and make it difficult to judge unless you are not GMing a team. This would add an awful lot of work for the people running the mock and delay the decision announcement somewhat even if you only did this for the first two rounds.

i don’t like the old ffmd process of pulling out the supposed elite players from the pack. I like the fact you gamble on big bids v bargain pickups.

i also do not like the idea of changing the bidding process I think the current system is magic, if you bid on two players the same position then it’s a gamble you make and you are then stuck with the player. If you are concerned you may win both you have to choose who may be free for the next rounds,

the reserve bidding is also good as it is in my opinion.

[ny92mike]

6 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.

You're welcome.  Glad to do it.

On the "pitch", it was the one thing that I enjoyed about ffmd but after talking to the mods about it, come to find out it really wasn't even used on free agents to determine where the players landed for a couple reasons.  The didn't have the time to sort through them and teams that offered more in terms of money would complain about losing a player based on a better pitch.  I don't blame them because it does create a feeling of unfairness if the team offering more loses out.

For me to allow 70+ free agents to get signed in the first few rounds, it has to be based on highest offer wins otherwise it would take forever to sort through all of the pitches.  

However, we do enjoy reading your thoughts on why you targeted the players you did in free agency, in the Talking Shop thread.

 

  

 

[ny92mike]

Let me get your take on the free agency blind bidding.

So as you all know that you're bidding blind, on not only the UFA but also when trying to resign players using the reserve bidding.

A couple ideas that I've been thinking about over the last few mocks that might help.

1. Reserve contract offers
   1. What do you guys think about being notified if one of your teams free agents is given an offer by another team?
      1. Wouldn't need to disclose the amount or the team or how many teams but just that another team has a pending offer on the player.
2. What if you knew if the offer you created was within the top 3 highest bids within the UFA?
   1. You wouldn't know the team, amounts or how many offers are being made, so it would say you're top 3 even if you were the only team bidding.

 

Or if you think of something else that would help you without giving away the other teams bidding information.

[mountainpd]

22 minutes ago, ny92jefferis said:

Let me get your take on the free agency blind bidding.

So as you all know that you're bidding blind, on not only the UFA but also when trying to resign players using the reserve bidding.

A couple ideas that I've been thinking about over the last few mocks that might help.

1. Reserve contract offers
   1. What do you guys think about being notified if one of your teams free agents is given an offer by another team?
      1. Wouldn't need to disclose the amount or the team or how many teams but just that another team has a pending offer on the player.
2. What if you knew if the offer you created was within the top 3 highest bids within the UFA?
   1. You wouldn't know the team, amounts or how many offers are being made, so it would say you're top 3 even if you were the only team bidding.

 

Or if you think of something else that would help you without giving away the other teams bidding information.

For me I wouldn’t change it. We currently have the ability to not only resign players from our rosters but have reserve bids. The reserve bids should be set and amended each round to enable us to retain our players at what we think is a fair price. 

If teams really want to resign their own players they have the opportunity and if I am correct also have a hometown discount.

I think if people know one of their players is bid on they wouldn’t use this feature and I believe this is a really useful feature and secondly I do not feel people would bother trying to resign their own players as hard as they will let other teams set the market just to match.

i like the gamble. I like the fact that the more active the free agency market is the more interest and suspense the mock generates, especially leading up to the announcement.

I like the fact one team cannot sign all the free agents and the weighing up of who I think others will bid on.

 

slightly off topic I know but the only thing I would change is the extending of franchise players. This being automatic means teams can franchise all their best players knowing they can extend them. If I recall this correctly the first year cap can been significantly reduced as long as the apy matches? Please correct me if I have misunderstood. I have not yet thought as an alternative for this but this is the only thing which doesn’t feel right.

[ny92mike]

5 minutes ago, mountainpd said:

For me I wouldn’t change it. We currently have the ability to not only resign players from our rosters but have reserve bids. The reserve bids should be set and amended each round to enable us to retain our players at what we think is a fair price. 

If teams really want to resign their own players they have the opportunity and if I am correct also have a hometown discount.

I think if people know one of their players is bid on they wouldn’t use this feature and I believe this is a really useful feature and secondly I do not feel people would bother trying to resign their own players as hard as they will let other teams set the market just to match.

i like the gamble. I like the fact that the more active the free agency market is the more interest and suspense the mock generates, especially leading up to the announcement.

I like the fact one team cannot sign all the free agents and the weighing up of who I think others will bid on.

 

slightly off topic I know but the only thing I would change is the extending of franchise players. This being automatic means teams can franchise all their best players knowing they can extend them. If I recall this correctly the first year cap can been significantly reduced as long as the apy matches? Please correct me if I have misunderstood. I have not yet thought as an alternative for this but this is the only thing which doesn’t feel right.

Knowing if you're within the top 3 could take some of the excitement out of the announcement but I don't think that knowing if another team has targeted one of your players would damage that concern.  Definitely something to discuss in further detail after the mock draft is over.

In reference to the extending tagged players, is that it happens so often irl and really is the real purpose of the tag is to buy the team a little more time to lock up a long term deal.  I wouldn't be opposed to stretching out the team being able to extend the contract until a later date, so that they carry the full amount of the tag a little longer.

[mountainpd]

4 minutes ago, ny92jefferis said:

Knowing if you're within the top 3 could take some of the excitement out of the announcement but I don't think that knowing if another team has targeted one of your players would damage that concern.  Definitely something to discuss in further detail after the mock draft is over.

In reference to the extending tagged players, is that it happens so often irl and really is the real purpose of the tag is to buy the team a little more time to lock up a long term deal.  I wouldn't be opposed to stretching out the team being able to extend the contract until a later date, so that they carry the full amount of the tag a little longer.

You may be right it feels like it’s 50/50 split on those who sign long term deals but I haven’t done any research to back up my perception.

[sparky151]

13 hours ago, PurpleMugen said:

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.

 

I agree with this. I wasn't suggesting that we limit contracts to one year (although that would fix the short termism problem among GMs). 

 

My suggestion is to significantly increase the discount rate used in evaluating proposed contracts.

[sparky151]

10 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 think the absence of sales pitches is a positive for TCMD. The pitches just became excuses for the mods to send players where they wanted instead of to the team offering the most money. In real life players go where they are most valued, ie who offers them the most. We shouldn't let the exceptions swallow the rule.

[sparky151]

3 hours ago, ny92jefferis said:

Let me get your take on the free agency blind bidding.

So as you all know that you're bidding blind, on not only the UFA but also when trying to resign players using the reserve bidding.

A couple ideas that I've been thinking about over the last few mocks that might help.

1. Reserve contract offers
   1. What do you guys think about being notified if one of your teams free agents is given an offer by another team?
      1. Wouldn't need to disclose the amount or the team or how many teams but just that another team has a pending offer on the player.
2. What if you knew if the offer you created was within the top 3 highest bids within the UFA?
   1. You wouldn't know the team, amounts or how many offers are being made, so it would say you're top 3 even if you were the only team bidding.

 

Or if you think of something else that would help you without giving away the other teams bidding information.

I like it as is, completely blind to other team's offers.  It's also less work for you.

[EaglesPeteC]

I think shortening the years in FA is pretty essential. Watch IRL as deals get signed this offseason in UFA. Ill be shocked if anyone signs a 5 or 6 year deal besides maybe Cousins. Some highly sought after guys will get 4 but the majority will get 1-3. Way more players and teams opt for 1 year deals now too. 

Good players coming off injury or down seasons are often opting for 1 year deals to hit the market again rather than commiting long term deals undervalue. Look at Alshon and Poe last year. 

This will help curtail the Houston situation but maybe allowing teams to do a little more reasonable backloading.  I think more 1 year deals on decent players will make teams use more current year than future cap

[DTMW78]

I would leave things as they are in terms of F.A.

You set your price in the reserve sheet and hope it will be enough, plus you get the discount.

I would add salary guarantees if at all possible, as they play a big part in NFL contracts.

The rest for me works fine as it is.

[ny92mike]

3 hours ago, sparky151 said:

I like it as is, completely blind to other team's offers.  It's also less work for you.

This would be automated, I wouldn't need to do anything once the formulas are set up.  I'm fine either way, I just know that some members wanted the chance to bid on their own players before fa hit, which I didn't agree with, but figured this could be a solution.  The wouldn't know who, or how much but that someone was bidding on their player, which would likely cause them to increase their offer.

[sparky151]

2 hours ago, DTMW78 said:

I would leave things as they are in terms of F.A.

You set your price in the reserve sheet and hope it will be enough, plus you get the discount.

I would add salary guarantees if at all possible, as they play a big part in NFL contracts.

The rest for me works fine as it is.

I agree that guarantees are important in real life contracts. 

 

But in the mock, they'll just lead to gamesmanship by GMs as they guarantee money in years we aren't tracking for cap puposes.

[EaglesPeteC]

34 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

I agree that guarantees are important in real life contracts. 

 

But in the mock, they'll just lead to gamesmanship by GMs as they guarantee money in years we aren't tracking for cap puposes.

Shortening the years will help in the gamesmenship aspect

[ny92mike]

1 minute ago, EaglesPeteC said:

Shortening the years will help in the gamesmenship aspect

Really just keeping everything at 5 years or less.  The prorated bonus is spread over a max of 5 years.  The only players that really are signed for longer deals are super stars.