2013 Forum Draft: Discussion

[codizzle]

[quote name='Mr. Irrelevant' timestamp='1360442903' post='1352044']
So, what is the date that the draft starts?
[/quote]
Right now... Make ur pick

[Mt. Crushmore]

[quote name='gabefergy' timestamp='1360450826' post='1352216']
I'll get around to it. The board is very much under maintenance. I tried to import the list but it is a formatting disaster, so I am using Truth's old board and updating it 1 by 1. I'll get the trades that have happened in there as well. It might take some time but I'll get it done in the next couple days.
[/quote]

Sounds good, I loled at the big heading you have on it.

[JO_75]

The Jacksonville Jaguars are now closed for business. We do have free agents in mind that we are targeting that will improve this football team. We also are hoping to keep some of our own players as well.

[The Oakland Cathedral]

[quote name='JO_75' timestamp='1360452382' post='1352252']
The Jacksonville Jaguars are now closed for business. We do have free agents in mind that we are targeting that will improve this football team. We also are hoping to keep some of our own players as well.
[/quote]So MJD is completely off the table?

[GrimCoconut]

I am going to be MIA for a bit. Low battery and I am out. Message me and I will return when back in the office. Thanks.

[JO_75]

[quote name='Miami Hurricane' timestamp='1360452509' post='1352259']
So MJD is completely off the table?
[/quote]

Not exactly, I mean he is but again I'm going to have to get a huge offer for me to trade him.

[The Oakland Cathedral]

Ok just makin sure there is still a chance.

[SecretAgentMan]

FINE! I ADMIT IT

My plan all along was to trade up for Leon Sandcastle

[arnie_uk]

Dubs is your draft part correct? I thought we were working of 5.5 not 8?

[Mt. Crushmore]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1360461236' post='1352413']
Dubs is your draft part correct? I thought we were working of 5.5 not 8?
[/quote]

It is 5.5 he must not have changed it from the original.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='Mt. Crushmore' timestamp='1360461436' post='1352416']


It is 5.5 he must not have changed it from the original.
[/quote]thought so, apart from that I think everything is pretty much covered updated and east to understand, but again, I was involved last year and in setting up the rules, we really need someone new to comment

[The Oakland Cathedral]

For our cap room based on Spotrac do we use the top 51 contracts? or do we use the one including rollover?

[gabefergy]

[quote name='Miami Hurricane' timestamp='1360463816' post='1352449']
For our cap room based on Spotrac do we use the top 51 contracts? or do we use the one including rollover?
[/quote]
Use the first one

[The Oakland Cathedral]

[quote name='gabefergy' timestamp='1360464141' post='1352455']
Use the first one
[/quote]Ok thanks.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='gabefergy' timestamp='1360464141' post='1352455']

Use the first one
[/quote]we are using the rollover figure? The bottom one

[gabefergy]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1360465746' post='1352485']
we are using the rollover figure? The bottom one
[/quote]
No, we are not.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='gabefergy' timestamp='1360466115' post='1352492']

No, we are not.
[/quote]thats what was agreed iirc, dubs even has it in the rules.

Why wouldn't we be? It's a real life thing, teams rollover cap money, why wouldn't we?

[JO_75]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1360466242' post='1352495']
thats what was agreed iirc, dubs even has it in the rules.

Why wouldn't we be? It's a real life thing, teams rollover cap money, why wouldn't we?
[/quote]

Problem is every team has a different amount of money they can roll over. The Eagles have up to $23 Million in roll over money that they can use. Others have less than a million, others have more. Everyone would be on equal playing fields for the mock with a mock-wide cap of 127 stars(including the draft picks) instead of teams being so different.

[gabefergy]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1360466242' post='1352495']
thats what was agreed iirc, dubs even has it in the rules.

Why wouldn't we be? It's a real life thing, teams rollover cap money, why wouldn't we?
[/quote]

He doesnt have it in the rules that I read. We didnt use rollover last year, and we had multiple ppl say we werent going to this year either.

And why would we? It has nothing to do with the current state of what a team has towards the cap, it's just based on how cheap the organization the past year. It varies widely team to team and doesnt really add anything to the process except giving a few teams even more of an advantage in free agency.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='gabefergy' timestamp='1360466540' post='1352498']


He doesnt have it in the rules that I read. We didnt use rollover last year, and we had multiple ppl say we werent going to this year either.

And why would we? It has nothing to do with the current state of what a team has towards the cap, it's just based on how cheap the organization the past year. It varies widely team to team and doesnt really add anything to the process except giving a few teams even more of an advantage in free agency.
[/quote]check his rules, he says add up base salaries and bonus subtract rollover for your starting point.

So you say this, "Just because it is rare doesnt mean it shouldn't be an option. If some team wants to give up a pick for a certain player so be it. All we need to do is have a day for tenders, a day for offers, and a day for matching/declining. "About something you want, yet something else that's realistic is a no no? Either we are all in here or we aren't, we have even introduced the veto system which you were a big proponent off to keep this realistic, so why shouldn't this be in?

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='JO_75' timestamp='1360466480' post='1352497']


Problem is every team has a different amount of money they can roll over. The Eagles have up to $23 Million in roll over money that they can use. Others have less than a million, others have more. Everyone would be on equal playing fields for the mock with a mock-wide cap of 127 stars(including the draft picks) instead of teams being so different.
[/quote]thought this was supposed to be realistic, teams aren't on level playing fields in real life because hey can carry over what they want

[gabefergy]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1360466766' post='1352501']
check his rules, he says add up base salaries and bonus subtract rollover for your starting point.

So you say this, "Just because it is rare doesnt mean it shouldn't be an option. If some team wants to give up a pick for a certain player so be it. All we need to do is have a day for tenders, a day for offers, and a day for matching/declining. "About something you want, yet something else that's realistic is a no no? Either we are all in here or we aren't, we have even introduced the veto system which you were a big proponent off to keep this realistic, so why shouldn't this be in?
[/quote]

It's a completely different situation. If you can't see that well, you are just being difficult. I am not sure what he means by subtracting rollover, I thought he meant subtract from the cap number that was initially posted on the ESPN site but I guess this needs clarifying.

We can put this up to a vote if you want, but based on previous precedent and overall fairness I dont see why rollover should be included. If it was the same for every team, I'm all for it, but the fact is it is basically a favor to teams in the CBA that is meant to be kind of a holdover until the new TV contracts kick in. Most teams probably won't use more than a few million of the rollover anyway because it only counts for one season and in real life players arent being handed 1 year contracts for upwards of 10M dollars. I think you can see how it would affect a 1 year mock offseason much more drastically than teams that are handing out long-term contracts in real life.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='gabefergy' timestamp='1360467469' post='1352512']


It's a completely different situation. If you can't see that well, you are just being difficult. I am not sure what he means by subtracting rollover, I thought he meant subtract from the cap number that was initially posted on the ESPN site but I guess this needs clarifying.

We can put this up to a vote if you want, but based on previous precedent and overall fairness I dont see why rollover should be included. If it was the same for every team, I'm all for it, but the fact is it is basically a favor to teams in the CBA that is meant to be kind of a holdover until the new TV contracts kick in. Most teams probably won't use more than a few million of the rollover anyway because it only counts for one season and in real life players arent being handed 1 year contracts for upwards of 10M dollars. I think you can see how it would affect a 1 year mock offseason much more drastically than teams that are handing out long-term contracts in real life.
[/quote]i understand that, but the fact is its a real life option, and we are all for being realistic, I've provided a quote from yourself saying as much. We are vetoing trades that would never happen, RFA, erfa, franchise tags, free agency, draft, udfa a cap, dead money issues etc etc.

Everything else is included so why shouldn't this be? Either we are doing this realistic or we aren't.

Regards subtracting rollover he means if your total base and bonuses equal 120 mil and your rollover is 20, you subtract that leaving your starting point 100mil. Instead of adding on 20 mil to the 127 we are working with, same difference.

[arnie_uk]

It should be at least brought in this year and if it doesn't work don't do it next year.

[gabefergy]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1360467740' post='1352516']
i understand that, but the fact is its a real life option, and we are all for being realistic, I've provided a quote from yourself saying as much. We are vetoing trades that would never happen, RFA, erfa, franchise tags, free agency, draft, udfa a cap, dead money issues etc etc.

Everything else is included so why shouldn't this be? Either we are doing this realistic or we aren't.

Regards subtracting rollover he means if your total base and bonuses equal 120 mil and your rollover is 20, you subtract that leaving your starting point 100mil. Instead of adding on 20 mil to the 127 we are working with, same difference.
[/quote]

We arent being realistic. Stop with that. Realism was thrown out the window when two teams traded half their draft for the other teams entire offense.

There is nothing realistic about a bidding system where the highest wins the FA.

I see what you mean about the rollover, but we need to clarify this. Vote or whatever, but we didnt use rollover before so why are we changing now?

I mean we are already giving teams an extra 6 stars just for the draft. Why do we need to do more?

[stm85]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1360467740' post='1352516']
i understand that, but the fact is its a real life option, and we are all for being realistic, I've provided a quote from yourself saying as much. We are vetoing trades that would never happen, RFA, erfa, franchise tags, free agency, draft, udfa a cap, dead money issues etc etc.

Everything else is included so why shouldn't this be? Either we are doing this realistic or we aren't.

Regards subtracting rollover he means if your total base and bonuses equal 120 mil and your rollover is 20, you subtract that leaving your starting point 100mil. Instead of adding on 20 mil to the 127 we are working with, same difference.
[/quote]

This. The Espn page we used to pick our teams from had the rollover so we should use it. I certainly wouldn't have picked KC if I though I would only have 1.5 stars to work with. It's completely unfair to change now.

[gabefergy]

[quote name='stm85' timestamp='1360468121' post='1352524']
This. The Espn page we used to pick our teams from had the rollover so we should use it. I certainly wouldn't have picked KC if I though I would only have 1.5 stars to work with. It's completely unfair to change now.
[/quote]
I made the point early on that the ESPN page was not accurate.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='gabefergy' timestamp='1360467944' post='1352520']


We arent being realistic. Stop with that. Realism was thrown out the window when two teams traded half their draft for the other teams entire offense.

There is nothing realistic about a bidding system where the highest wins the FA.

I see what you mean about the rollover, but we need to clarify this. Vote or whatever, but we didnt use rollover before so why are we changing now?

I mean we are already giving teams an extra 6 stars just for the draft. Why do we need to do more?
[/quote]we didn't use RFA bidding last year, so why this year?

Regards that trade there is a veto going for it, it's 5 to 2 or something ATM, if you want to veto, veto and then if there's more nos than yes' it's blocked that's what was agree.

Well then yea, propose a vote, that's the way everything that people disagree on should be done.

[gabefergy]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1360468217' post='1352527']
we didn't use RFA bidding last year, so why this year?

Regards that trade there is a veto going for it, it's 5 to 2 or something ATM, if you want to veto, veto and then if there's more nos than yes' it's blocked that's what was agree.

Well then yea, propose a vote, that's the way everything that people disagree on should be done.
[/quote]
Because we did this whole thing on the fly last year, and didnt take time to implement it. It doesnt change anything.

Allright. I will. Until then it's in limbo.

[gabefergy]

We need to make a thread to start vote system.