Fantasy Empire 2015 - Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Blacky said:
I like that because it brings the cap into play
Click to expand...
Only problem is people will just cut a vet to keep a rookie on a new contract.

I'll do some calculations later tonight just to assess all this kind of stuff.

Bottom line tho...dagless' query is definitely do-able next season along the lines I proposed above, with a few tweaks here and there.

I definitely think the contract cap needs to come down a lot, and instead of the salary cap increasing I think it decreasing a few million is more feasible (pending tonight's calculations)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think the fact that rookies SHOULD be treated differently because they aren't guaranteed plays when drafted. It means you can draft a player using value (picks) whilst letting them sit and not eat your cap. You should be encouraged to make rookie picks worth something, so not getting penalised for taking risks is important without necessarily losing them as RFAs after only 3 years.
 
Dagless said:
I think the fact that rookies SHOULD be treated differently because they aren't guaranteed plays when drafted. It means you can draft a player using value (picks) whilst letting them sit and not eat your cap. You should be encouraged to make rookie picks worth something, so not getting penalised for taking risks is important without necessarily losing them as RFAs after only 3 years.
Click to expand...
We're not debating that anymore. Already agreed I'll have a system in place to offer wanted rookies coming off their rookie contract a new vet deal. THEN after that vet contract they can become rfas.

The more pertinent question is assessing what the salary cap should be.
 
Yep. The only thing that needs to be discussed now is the salary cap. In no way can it be reduced (!) with most teams already playing pretty close to it. The fact that we're going to have $15million+ added during the next offseason if we want to keep all our rookies, then we need to analyse and see if it needs to be slightly increased.
 
Shupe said:
Also I have no idea why we have a contract cap. What's the purpose of this? If you want to sign guys to 5 year deals, then you run the risks associated with that (Injury, retirement, potheads etc..)
Click to expand...
I agree with this. We had it originally because people wanted more player movement to occur and there being some risk to having everyone on five years. But with the new cap penalties multiplied by years remaining thing then that alone kills the urge to have a contract cap. Removing it would be one less headache for me.
 
Shupe said:
Yep. The only thing that needs to be discussed now is the salary cap. In no way can it be reduced (!) with most teams already playing pretty close to it. The fact that we're going to have $15million+ added during the next offseason if we want to keep all our rookies, then we need to analyse and see if it needs to be slightly increased.
Click to expand...

No way in the world should the cap be increased. If you have $15 million coming in, guess what you need to cut players or let others go at the end of their contracts to get there.

It's the whole point of the way this comp is setup.

Solution is simple. Plan ahead.
 
Shupe said:
Also I have no idea why we have a contract cap. What's the purpose of this? If you want to sign guys to 5 year deals, then you run the risks associated with that (Injury, retirement, potheads etc..)
Click to expand...

Nah I think you need it. someone could go nuts and offer ridiculous contracts, it blows up in their face, they leave the comp and no one wants to replace them because the team is farked for 4-5 years.

As for rookies, not sure if this is too hard but have another category for 3 year rookies. Say Sophmores or something stupid like that, but what happens is rookie comes off 3 year $500k a year contract and goes into sophmore category for 2 years at market price x 1/2. Effectively gives you a claim on drafted rookies for 5 years. After the sophmore year (5th year) they become RFAs. This eases the impact on the cap for years 4 & 5 and you have a better way to plan cap for years 6 and beyond.

Having 3 year rookie and then being able to lock em up for 5 more years with no other bid is too much, they'll be no good ( or lot less) experienced players becoming available.
 
Projected Cap Implications

There is no team in Empire with more rookies than me. So testing me is a good first example to assess the data.

Currently, I have about $45m cap space with all my rookies sitting on $500,000 contracts, with a 34 man roster (after the cuts of rfas i no longer want).

If all my rookies today were given new vet contracts, as tho last year their rookie contracts expired, and were finally recalculated with new salaries, the same 34 man roster would instead read...


GG

Carr - 3,714,000
Glennon - 1,856,000
---
Blue - 2,339,000
Mason - 2,988,000
Oliver - 2,849,400
White - 1,000,000
Williams - 2,976,200
Brown - 1,085,000
Bryant - 2,632,400
Carter - 1,000,000
Evans - 5,299,400
Williams - 3,088,000
Wilson - 1,000,000
Ebron - 1,512,000
Paul - 2,537,800
---
Parkey - 2,498,000
King - 1,649,400
---
Bromley - 1,000,000
Ellis - 1,000,000
Jones - 2,005,000
---
Curry - 1,283,000
Gholston - 1,977,000
Vernon - 1,584,000
---
Brown - 2,340,000
Houston - 4,273,000
Lynch - 1,715,400
Mack - 2,689,000
Newsome - 1,487,000
---
Benwikere - 1,483,000
Carrie - 2,576,000
Verner - 2,035,000
---
Griffin - 3,691,000
Ishmael - 2,997,000
Warren - 1,121,000

Total Spend $75,281,000
Cap Space $24,719,000
 
I think you have to do almost any other team where they actually have good players taking up cap space…

EDIT - So I just looked at the next four teams as they are listed and they are paying $94, $95, $82, $83 and $90 of the salary cap. The fact you are paying $45 is an absolute outlier, as nobody even comes close to such a figure.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Projected Cap Implications

Now let's look at a team like TheGreatBarryB, who after his rfa cuts would have a cap spend of $87,375,600. TGBB is a good second person to test because he has a lot of vets, expensive too, and the usual amount of rookies like most people have (bar gg).

If all HIS rookies today were given new vet contracts, as tho last year their rookie contracts expired, and were finally recalculated with new salaries, his 34 man roster would instead read...


TGBB

Bortles - 2,575,400
Henne - 3,089,200
Ryan - 7,182,000
---
Bell - 7,297,600
Foster - 5,656,400
McKinnon - 2,045,000
Baldwin - 3,223,000
Crabtree - 5,132,600
Hilton - 4,430,400
Jackson - 5,510,800
LaFell - 4,298,000
Wayne - 2,071,000
Ertz - 3,849,000
Kelce - 4,344,000
---
Suisham - 1,471,800
Martin - 2,309,800
---
Edwards - 3,016,000
Silga - 1,661,000
Suh - 3,614,000
---
Bennett - 2,440,000
Robison - 2,438,000
---
Bostic - 1,764,000
Bradham - 2,880,000
Williamson - 2,268,000
Willis - 2,629,000
Woodyard - 2,911,000
---
Alford - 1,718,000
Fuller - 2,986,000
Wright - 2,294,000
---
Demps - 2,629,000
Glichrist- 2,775,000
Graham - 2,602,000
Nelson - 3,420,000

Total Spend $108,531,000
Cap Space -$18,531,000

Assuming then the cap was still 90m, and he had to make some roster moves to get under the cap, what would he possibly do?

Possibly, he would cut Crabtree, who by now sucks and is no longer worth the 5m that he got when he had that big season two or three years ago. That would free up 5m. He would cut Henne, who is not a starter anywhere, saving another 3m. He'd get rid of Reggie Wayne, freeing up another 2m. Maybe he'd get rid of Patrick Willis who is now on the slide. Saving another 2.6m. And seeing as he also only has two DTs but four safeties, he could probably get rid of someone like reggie nelson saving another 3.4m.

Doing all that would mean his cap would now be...

Total spend $92,189,200
Cap Space -$2,189,200

So he's already cut his original 33 man roster by another 5 players to try to get under the cap. Still $2m over the cap, with a 28 man roster now, and unable to afford to sign a few players for depth at DT and DE. Remembering also the total roster size allowed is 36 anyway.
 
So what do we think about that? GG has a very rookie-filled roster, and even with all them getting the big bucks, he still has $25m cap space. Whilst TGBB, a good representative of other league owners, with a lot of vets and fewer rookies, would still be $2m over the cap and roster size down to 27, and still needing to cut more. Remember also that a lot of those players getting cut, and others he has to cut, have 2+ years on their contracts, so he'd incur more dead money on his cap, for that year. So he could be back around negative $5m-10m cap space.

TGBB over-filled with big-name (and aging vets), like a team going crazy in free agency signing big name players for top dollar, and hasn't gotten many rookies at all. Has not been building thru the draft, but playing this "empire" concept too much like "alpha" league where one can just stock-pile big name players at no cost. TGBB erring in his Empire GM'ing in that regard. His franchise is now in cap hell, and he'd have to make more cuts, get himself back in the black, and rebuild thru the draft over the next 1-2 years. Becoming a 'shittier' team due to over-burning the cap and having to pay penance now as he rebuilds thru the draft. He could also do a "Saints" and trade some of those big-name top-dollar players for draft picks (for his rebuild) and as trading a player incurs no cap penalty, then that would be a way for him to get out of cap hell like the Saints had to do this off-season.

In a way, that's tough luck to him playing empire like alpha, rather than like empire. At the same time tho, one could say the cap could be bumped up $5m max. To force owners such as TGBB to still make cuts and really focus on your salary cap more than what they have been.
 
Wait, what? You said TGBB was a good person to test because he has a roster like most, then say he's not playing it right and needs to suffer? I'm sorry GG, but you're the only one who is crazy enough to stockpile rookies and keep insane amounts of cap space.

This little exercise has proven to me that the cap needs to be increased during the next offseason, as I suspected. We need to find a number that will force franchises to still make tough decisions in cutting guys, but we still need to be able to maintain (close to) a 36 man roster. If he's at 27 and still over the cap, then we're not even close.
 
Shupe said:
Wait, what? You said TGBB was a good person to test because he has a roster like most, then say he's not playing it right and needs to suffer? I'm sorry GG, but you're the only one who is crazy enough to stockpile rookies and keep insane amounts of cap space.

This little exercise has proven to me that the cap needs to be increased during the next offseason, as I suspected. We need to find a number that will force franchises to still make tough decisions in cutting guys, but we still need to be able to maintain (close to) a 36 man roster. If he's at 27 and still over the cap, then we're not even close.
Click to expand...
Seriously, if you cant read and absorb what i wrote, then dont respond. I did not say what you said. You just read a few lines and replied back throwing a tanty. I am showing two extremes of the situation. A person who has been building thru the draft, respecting the cap. And a person who has been stock-piling big-name players like in Alpha league with no forethought to the cap. And just like in real life (NFL), teams who do that, trying to 'buy' a Lombardi, they eventually get into cap hell, which is definitely a thing worth keeping in Empire -- that sense of being careful of your cap, of some teams getting into cap hell, and having to find a way out of it. I said, that that's a legitimate situation in Empire -- one spectrum teams pinching pennies, or rebuilding thru the draft, staying under the cap by heaps...while some teams spending too much and running into trouble, having to fix their cap situation. You cannot eliminate that situation by increasing the cap to say $100m or $120m just to allow people to all comfortably exist under the cap. You still need a point where the cap PRESSES on you, forces you to get under it by making cuts and trades.

So I was CONCLUDING...that the cap needs to be increased, because it is too low for next season's big rookie contract thing....but it shouldnt be pushed too high that it's easy for everyone to exist under it whilst still hording heaps of top-dollar players. I'm thus attempting to actually FIND the right figure the cap should be at, rather than just throwing tanties like you and not actually TRYING TO THINK about the whole concept, the two different situations that exist in a salary cap league (those under by a lot, those over and needing to get under). There has to be a PRESSING POINT. That pressing point figure is what I'm trying to OBJECTIVELY and mathematically find.

So please refrain from adding to this discussion unless you can pull your head in and actually understand that.
 
GG said:
Seriously, if you cant read and absorb what i wrote, then dont respond. I did not say what you said. You just read a few lines and replied back throwing a tanty.
Click to expand...
I don't think I'm the one throwing a tantrum.
A person who has been building thru the draft, respecting the cap.
Click to expand...
You
And a person who has been stock-piling big-name players like in Alpha league with no forethought to the cap.
Click to expand...
Everyone else.
You cannot eliminate that situation by increasing the cap to say $100m or $120m just to allow people to all comfortably exist under the cap. You still need a point where the cap PRESSES on you, forces you to get under it by making cuts and trades.
Click to expand...
And what did I say? "We need to find a number that will force franchises to still make tough decisions in cutting guys, but we still need to be able to maintain (close to) a 36 man roster."
So I was CONCLUDING...that the cap needs to be increased, because it is too low for next season's big rookie contract thing….but it shouldnt be pushed too high that it's easy for everyone to exist under it whilst still hording heaps of top-dollar players. I'm thus attempting to actually FIND the right figure the cap should be at, rather than just throwing tanties like you and not actually TRYING TO THINK about the whole concept, the two different situations that exist in a salary cap league (those under by a lot, those over and needing to get under). There has to be a PRESSING POINT. That pressing point figure is what I'm trying to OBJECTIVELY and mathematically find.

So please refrain from adding to this discussion unless you can pull your head in and actually understand that.
Click to expand...
How did what I said differ to anything you just concluded? Leave all that other tanty wank out of it, you're the one who needs to pull his head in.
 
So i've done two teams tonight. Picking two best examples of one side (pinching pennies) and the other extreme (hording top-dollar players). To assess what kind of situation both owners would be in when that rookie-thing happens. Two polar opposites a good first example to test just for tonight.

Seeing as I have all year to analyze, then there's no rush tonight to do the other 14 teams. Especially too that it's already 10pm, i need to go cook dinner, and crash for work tomorrow. So I'll do the other 14 teams over the weekend. And post a summary, not the full list shown above. Showing just what EACH team's cap spend and cap space would be recalculating the rosters. Don't need to post the entire list in detail. Just the final cap numbers.

When I post all those figures, I'll have a better idea then what the salary cap for next season should be pushed up to. It could be just $5m, it could be $7m, it could be $10m. I don't know yet till I do all 16 teams, and analyze the MEDIAN, the curve where all teams sit, and what kind of roster cutting they might have to do to get under the cap.

Again, like I was showing with TGBB's example above, I was showing how it WAS NOT ideal that he had to cut down to a 27 man roster, given we're allowed 36, and he was STILL $2m+ over the cap and having to cut/trade more players. Was saying it's TOO MUCH roster gutting. A team in cap hell, should have to cop a few nasty cuts, but not where they're down to 24 man rosters and still sitting close to the cap, unable to sign Free Agents to fill their roster back to 36.

So unless any of you are MATHEMATICALLY and OBJECTIVELY discussing this like I am, please refrain from responding with abuse/criticism at me. I am not FIGHTING people here, I am attempting to discuss this mathematically WITH people....who understand what I'm doing here.
 
Shupe said:
I understand exactly what you're doing (as suggested by me) so I have no idea at why you took such offence to my post. Honestly, no idea.
Click to expand...
Well, you leaped in when I posted GG's list, and you just went for the throat saying stuff like "but gg is not a good example to show, his team is full of s**t rookies, etc"....I KNOW, i was still in the LONG process of doing the next person, the polar opposite. So you could've waited for me to post TGBB's one first before commenting, like i don't know what im doing, dont know how to mathematically analyze this whole topic. And even when I posted TGBB's thing, I was posting it like a hypothetical thing -- saying, ok imagine you were tgbb and then had to try to fix that cap situation, how would you do it, it's no good he has to cut too many, but at the same time an owner over-spending like he did has to pay penance, it's not alpha league. Etc etc. I was speaking hypothetically of his situation. Plus, as always with me, I am very thorough in my math, so i was never going to make a conclusion until i analyzed all 16 teams, looked at them all objectively, looked at what kind of cuts people had to make, looking for the right place where the cap should be, and the right place where that PRESSING existed.

Basically, i was 'offended' in that you did not appreciate or didnt understand 'me' or didn't trust me. Thinking im like fighting people here, and, like im some idiot. I am ******* genius, man :p no really.
 
To be honest though I haven't exactly been hawking my draft picks for expensive FAs. Crabtree and V Jax were drafted from first draft, no idea why Crabtree's salary is so high. Henne was also drafted...I think and Foster. Last year I traded my first 2 picks for Bell who is on $500k anyway and Hilton. So it's not like i've been chasing FAs everywhere. This year I bid on one player..and regretted soon after...luckily someone overbid.
 
TheGreatBarryB said:
Nah I think you need it. someone could go nuts and offer ridiculous contracts, it blows up in their face, they leave the comp and no one wants to replace them because the team is farked for 4-5 years.

As for rookies, not sure if this is too hard but have another category for 3 year rookies. Say Sophmores or something stupid like that, but what happens is rookie comes off 3 year $500k a year contract and goes into sophmore category for 2 years at market price x 1/2. Effectively gives you a claim on drafted rookies for 5 years. After the sophmore year (5th year) they become RFAs. This eases the impact on the cap for years 4 & 5 and you have a better way to plan cap for years 6 and beyond.

Having 3 year rookie and then being able to lock em up for 5 more years with no other bid is too much, they'll be no good ( or lot less) experienced players becoming available.
Click to expand...

What about sophmore idea?
 
TheGreatBarryB said:
What about sophmore idea?
Click to expand...
I dont think we need more complicated ideas. It's a good idea. But complicated. I actually want to simplify certain things a LITTLE. Like, getting rid of contract cap. I think the cap penalty x contract years is a function in itself that renders a contract cap pointless now. So tidying up the league a LITTLE like that is better. So, in regards to this whole topic anyway...the KISS path then is simple....all WANTED DRAFTED rookies can be re-signed to a vet contract, and THEN they become RFAs. That's something that needs to be brought in, and it can be as simple as just then working out the right cap number. That's all it requires. No need to create more types of contracts etc.

Basically just....franchise tags, extension tag (now only to a vet), undrafted rookies still become RFAs, unwanted drafted rookies become RFAs, just WANTED drafted rookies can all be re-signed....that's all fine and do-able, and the need to still ensure that player movement will occur with the new cap figure. When i figure out what the right median is -- the cap figure itself, and the NUMBER of roster cuts people have to make to get under it -- has to be a REASONABLE number of cuts, not unreasonable -- like your hypothetical situation ended up becoming. It was just too much.

Could even get rid of the extension tag as well. Something to think about.

So, agree with arakaan we need a 'cap hell' type situation existing, agree with shupe the cap needs to be increased, just trying to find the right numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Exe Gesis
Fantasy 2024 - Empire League - Discussion
2 3
Replies
72
Views
2K
LennyHayes77
LennyHayes77
Exe Gesis
Fantasy 2023 - EMPIRE League - Discussion
47 48 49 50 51
Replies
1K
Views
36K
A11dAtP0w3R
A11dAtP0w3R
Exe Gesis
Fantasy 2024 - Syndicate League - Discussion
Replies
9
Views
372
Exe Gesis
Exe Gesis
Exe Gesis
Fantasy 2024 - Omega League - Discussion
Replies
7
Views
336
manureid
manureid
Exe Gesis
Fantasy 2024 - Alpha League - Discussion
Replies
10
Views
369
manureid
manureid
Exe Gesis
Fantasy Syndicate League - 2024 - Discussion
Replies
14
Views
506
Exe Gesis
Exe Gesis
Exe Gesis
Other UFL (United Football League) - Discussion
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
2K
Exe Gesis
Exe Gesis

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top