FanGM

After I run the last game of the year (DFFL Bowl) tonight, I'll go through some of the posted messages this year for off-season rules discussion topics brought up. If you have something to suggest or discuss, you can reply here and we'll start to make up a list of topics to address. Have a feeling it won't be too lengthy of discussions this year (but depending upon what comes up) and then we'll try to get the new year finances ready, make some roster data updates, and gear up for free agency later this month.

Some of the biggest things on my list aren't necessarily rules discussion topics, but...
- More efficient results generation ahead (whether that's through new services/tools/helpers/etc). Sorry for when things get busy on my end, but will work to minimize those effects ahead.
- Finishing up rules documentation incorporating any discussed changes this off-season, will make a big effort there this summer especially if looking at trying to add new players possibly.
- May see a mobile-oriented design adjustments this summer as more people access via different devises.
- Need to finish setup for system to run games itself and ease some of that manual process for me, and also allowing us to expand to new leagues and get more players involved.
- Continue game simulation results polishing.
- Add some additional tools/views that have come up previously in terms of archived information, team publishing enhancements, player information, etc.

For rules discussions, some more involved topics that we started last year may need another look to see if we can grasp them and if they fit into our game, such as guaranteed money in real contracts (beyond signing bonus) and ensuring our financial elements are realistic as intended (examining borrowing/carry-over rules again). We probably want to check in on any free agency complaints to see if any improvements possible before we jump in again soon. If we get an influx of new players and new league, we may want to have a stronger trade review process to ensure fairness.

I'm thinking we may look at adding an extra contract restructuring that would only become available once the regular season started as a way for teams to create extra room or get under their cap if injuries hit during the year, and allow me more options to fix cap issues when they come up. As the season goes along, it becomes almost impossible to free up cap space as those players start earning most of their salary already and cutting them only adds costs for replacing them on the roster.

I like the initiative on people posting GM of the Year feedback/votes in the various leagues. I think there should be a vote on that, but maybe also look into some kind of point system and ranking that would create another element of competition for GMs who may not have Bowl contenders but are doing a great job rebuilding and seeing them formally rewarded and winning on a different scoreboard.

Just some ideas off the top of my head at this moment. Share yours too and we'll get into some of these topics soon. Your participation and feedback help make these leagues and this experience more enjoyable as we always look to improve. Thanks!

You will probably see this in the forums, but we need to do something to fix the minimum bid requirements in free agency. I don't remember what the minimum salary increase is, but teams this year would better an existing bid with no signing bonus by adding a $1000 signing bonus or roster bonus. This is cheap and unrealistic. It also unfairly drags out the bidding process. A home team can use this to tie up competitor bids while they have the advantage of unlimited bids.

I think we need minimum bids for salary, signing bonus, and roster bonus, and make sure the minimum bid increase for each is significant enough to make sense. The other thing to consider is some sort of system which ensures any new bid is atleast X% higher in total cap charge per year. I'm not sure if this is fair or not, but it would protect against a small minimum bonus being used to outbid a larger contract offer. This is a pure hypothetical, but if a team offers a guy 1 year at $5million salary with no SB, I don't think 1 year for $5million with a $50k signing bonus is a significant increase (assuming we set a minimum signing bonus at $50k). If we made a 5% increase rule, to beat out a 1 year, $5mil offer, a team would have to make one of the following offers:
1 year at $5mil and $250k signing bonus (or roster bonus or SB/rb combination)
1 or more years at $5.25 mil
2 years at $5mil with $500k signing bonus
I think these kind of steps seem reasonable, especially considering that $500k is less than 0.5% of the 2014 cap.

Depending on how complicated you want to get, a player could accept any bid with a $5.25mil cap hit over the initial deal:
2 years at $4mil with $2.5mil SB

I might argue that player would prefer that later deal with the guaranteed signing bonus, but this might be more controversial waters.

Here is an interesting test case to keep an eye on. We've had discussion about if you should keep your bidding rights to an RFA if you don't offer him a tender. The Giants are not tendering Henry Hynoski because they think the tender level is too expensive, but they are still hoping to retain the player (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... y-hynoski/). Some have argued that a player not tendered would not want to return to that team. This is obviously just a single case, but it would show a counterpoint to that argument if Hynoski resigns with the Giants.

We do have minimums for each and even requirement for raises needing to be X amount higher, etc. but I would agree those should be re-visited before free agency. As well as tightening up some of the requirements for what constitutes a raise of the bid to ensure the cap value increases and teams aren't finding ways around the system in counter bids.

About a team not tendering a player or other such situations (like first rounders not having option picked up) and wanting to have team rights anyway, definitely areas to discuss. In that example, a franchise might not utilize their options to keep but that wouldn't mean they'd be disqualified of course from resigning the player on the market. They may not have quite as many advantages to keeping the player if they reject their options to keep, but if they thought those were too high and still wanted to sign they have that opportunity still on the market. Just like any team that cuts a player because they think is paid too much and still wants to try to resign at a lesser amount on the market. That's the way we renegotiate and force pay cuts here -- a team says player not worth that much money, lets them go, player sees if any other team disagrees and willing to pay more, and if not original team can resign for less on the market if player not in demand for higher salary. They may not have as many advantages to re-sign with unlimited bidding, but they can put in a winning bid to retain the player still. Some want unlimited bidding and more options to try to keep a player even if they reject the options provided, and it's something that can be discussed and see what most think. Certainly some are on both sides of that with valid points to each.

I'd like to see a discussion on GMs having the ability to roll over an LTC to the next year if not used. This would deter GMs from LTC a player at the end of the season simply so they did not loose the LTC and create a more realistic approach to signing extensions in our sim leagues.

I also agree that we should have higher increments for free agent bidding and am all for a trade review board.

This is my first year transitioning from season to off-season so I'm not sure how it quite works with practice squad players, but I think we should have the ability to sign players to futures contracts once the playoffs have ended and before the season rolls over.

I have been playing around with a point system to help figure GM of the year. Seems like I am missing something but I am not sure. Here is what I have come up with:

-Each win = 1pt
-W/L differential from previous year to current year =.5 points per each win (If team decreased in wins, then 0 points. No negative hit)
-Playoff Seeding: 1=3, 2=2.5, 3=2, 4=1.5, 5=1, 6=.5
-Division Seeding: 1=2, 2=1, 3=0, 4=0
-If team improves on playoff seed and or division seed, then take playoff and or division seed multiplied by 2.5
-If team regresses on playoff seed and or division seed, then take playoff and or division seed multiplied by 1.5 (Making playoffs in back to back years is still a job well done)
-If team maintains same playoff seed and or division seed, then take playoff and or division seed multiplied by 2
-If team was not a playoff contender in previous year, then there is no multiplier

Examples for 5 separate teams all within the same league

Team A:
Wins in 2012-2013 season: 1; Did not qualify for playoffs; Was not #1 or #2 seed in division
Wins in 2013-2014 season: 13; Won the #3 seed for playoffs; Was #1 in division
13+6(13-1=12x.5=6)=19+2(#3 playoff seed)=21+2(#1 division seed)=23 points for GM A
Team B:
Wins in 2012-2013 season: 11; #3 seed playoffs; #2 seed in division
Wins in 2013-2014 season: 14; #1 seed playoffs; #1 seed in division
14+1.5(14-11=3x.5=1.5)=15.5+7.5(#1 playoff seed=3x2.5=7.5)=23+5(#1 division seed=2x2.5=5)=28 points for GM B
Team C:
Wins in 2012-2013 season: 9; Won #6 seed in playoffs; Was #2 in division
Wins in 2013-2014 season: 14; Won #2 seed in playoffs; Was #1 in division
14+2.5(14-9=5x.5=2.5)=16.5+6.25(#2 playoff seed=2.5x2.5=6.25)=22.75+5(#1 division seed=2x2.5=5)=27.75 points for GM C
Team D:
Wins in 2012-2013 season: 16; Won #1 seed in playoffs; Was #1 in division
Wins in 2013-2015 season: 15; Won #1 seed in playoffs; Was #1 in division
15+0=15+6(#1 playoff seed=3x2=6)=21+6(#1 division seed=3x2=6)=27 points for GM D
Team E:
Wins in 2012-2013 season: 12; Won #2 seed in playoffs; Was #1 in division
Wins in 2013-2014 season: 13; Won #3 seed in playoffs; Was #1 in division
13+3(#3 playoff seed=2x1.5=3)=16+6(#1 division seed=3x2=6)=22 points for GM E

I don’t know if anyone would be in favor of this but it is something I have been playing with and thought I would share.

Knighty Knight wrote:This is my first year transitioning from season to off-season so I'm not sure how it quite works with practice squad players, but I think we should have the ability to sign players to futures contracts once the playoffs have ended and before the season rolls over.

Our version of a futures contract is applying team rights to existing practice squad players so you have the ability to essentially match any offer for them so long as you have cap space and willing to pay market price for them (with unlimited bidding toward keeping your practice squad players). That seemed like the most efficient way to provide some reward for having quality practice squad players and allowing team extra opportunities to keep them around next year even if no room currently on 53 man roster within existing system without over complicating things with so many different types of various contracts.

tino38 wrote:I have been playing around with a point system to help figure GM of the year

Thanks, good thoughts and definitely something open for discussion (and even if we include something like that).

As I've been thinking about it, this would be almost different from just wins and losses. Those are already on the scoreboard that matters most in team standings and playoff wins. We already reward teams as they try to prove themselves on the field via that scoreboard.

In my mind, this other thing might incorporate some of that also into the equation but would be more about who had a great draft with young contributors already starting to shine, who signed the best value free agents as it turned out, who made the best fair trades at the time that turned out great for them (not give the GM of the Year to someone who ripped off inexperienced new players), who contributed to the league positively, etc. A separate award different from just wins and losses that was more about the other games within the game (free agency, draft, trades) even if just on a rebuilding team that wasn't even making the playoffs but still had a GM making great decisions for future. With a little bit of performance and a little bit of league citizenship mixed into the overall picture of great GMs honored by each league every year. Rewarding the good behaviors and team building skills independent of whether or not they had a championship team this year and getting more GMs competing on that level proving themselves in ways beyond just what the game simulator says.

Really not a fan of the signing bonus of an added $1000 over and over again game.

Goodell wrote:

tino38 wrote:I have been playing around with a point system to help figure GM of the year

Thanks, good thoughts and definitely something open for discussion (and even if we include something like that).

As I've been thinking about it, this would be almost different from just wins and losses. Those are already on the scoreboard that matters most in team standings and playoff wins. We already reward teams as they try to prove themselves on the field via that scoreboard.

In my mind, this other thing might incorporate some of that also into the equation but would be more about who had a great draft with young contributors already starting to shine, who signed the best value free agents as it turned out, who made the best fair trades at the time that turned out great for them (not give the GM of the Year to someone who ripped off inexperienced new players), who contributed to the league positively, etc. A separate award different from just wins and losses that was more about the other games within the game (free agency, draft, trades) even if just on a rebuilding team that wasn't even making the playoffs but still had a GM making great decisions for future. With a little bit of performance and a little bit of league citizenship mixed into the overall picture of great GMs honored by each league every year. Rewarding the good behaviors and team building skills independent of whether or not they had a championship team this year and getting more GMs competing on that level proving themselves in ways beyond just what the game simulator says.

Makes a lot of sense, I follow what you are getting at. Very curious on how to gauge something like this.