TroyHeisman's Mock GM Rules Thread

[troyheisman10]

Just a few of the basic rules...

-All salary information will be taken from Rotoworld. This way we have a uniform source of information. In cases that Rotoworld does not have any info, we can use an outside source.

-You will be in charge of keeping your cap number. It will be monitored, but please keep track of it on your roster page.

-Trades will become official once both GMs post a confirmation in the trades thread.

-Whenever you cut or trade a player, you will save 90% of their base salary.

-Any player making less than 500,000 will not result in cap savings.

-You will be allowed one restructure. The player you restructure must be in the last two years of their contract and you will save 50% of their base salary.

-Free Agency will be run in an auction style. Each bid must be an increase of at least 10% of the previous bid. Once a player has a bid that has not been increased in 24 hours will then be awarded to the team with the highest bid. You may not have more than 5 leading bids at any one time.

-More to come.

[eaglesnut]

-Free Agency will be run in an auction style. Each bid must be an increase of at least 100K. Once a player has a bid that has not been increased in 24 hours will then be awarded to the team with the highest bid. You may not have more than 5 leading bids at any one time.

This has been done as a percentage in the past (5 or 10 depending on the year). Personally I don't think a 100K increase will work very well.

Example
Eagles bid 4.2 on monday, 4.4 on tuesday, 4.6 on wednesday, 4.8 on thursday... (leaving .1 for the counteroffer in between)

That is really slow moving. Not sure if you were trying to get around the percentages or what, but, FWIW, I always thought FA worked well with the percentage increase.

[Ellis269]

This has been done as a percentage in the past (5 or 10 depending on the year). Personally I don't think a 100K increase will work very well.

Example
Eagles bid 4.2 on monday, 4.4 on tuesday, 4.6 on wednesday, 4.8 on thursday... (leaving .1 for the counteroffer in between)

That is really slow moving. Not sure if you were trying to get around the percentages or what, but, FWIW, I always thought FA worked well with the percentage increase.

I agree. Pretty much the exact same thing that I told him too. I personally liked the 10% increase better, simply because it's easier to not make a mistake with the numbers and it increases the bid in a significant way for those who are really interested in acquiring the player.

[Underdog]

Yeah, I agree with that. The bidding on the big dollar guys especially will take forever going 100K at a time.

[troyheisman10]

That's fine. I forgot that's how we did it.

[puddycat]

Can we have the 5 offer minimum not apply to matching offers for RFA/ERFA for your own team(s)? We've already made tenders.

[troyheisman10]

Yeah, the five minimum rule will only apply to free agents you are attempting to sign from other teams.

[Underdog]

Just to confirm - we are using Clayton's numbers as the starting points for our caps, correct?

[troyheisman10]

Yes, that is correct.

[eaglesnut]

.............

[Underdog]

So there's no limit on the number of players that can be cut, correct?

Will there be trading of franchise tagged players allowed?

P.S. I still don't like that match rule, fwiw (which isn't much lol)...and I say that as someone who potentially stands to benefit from it. Not that I don't understand the logic behind, I just think the potential headaches it creates outweigh any potential realism added. JMO, like I said I'll gladly abide by it because it greatly improves the odds I'll be able to keep 2 of my 3 big FA's.

[Wyndham]

I agree completely on the match front, if it means what I guess it means. And like you, I'm GM of a team with 2 big-ticket FAs, so...

[Underdog]

I just went back and re-read the "match" thread from last year...I knew it had caused a problem, just couldn't remember exactly what it was. I would point to the suggestion I made in that thread at the time (post #33) because I actually think it's the most reasonable amendment to the rule if you're going to keep it in place - that the original teams have to have placed a bid on the player in question in the 24 hours preceding the winning bid in order to gain the option to match.

[Ellis269]

I just went back and re-read the "match" thread from last year...I knew it had caused a problem, just couldn't remember exactly what it was. I would point to the suggestion I made in that thread at the time (post #33) because I actually think it's the most reasonable amendment to the rule if you're going to keep it in place - that the original teams have to have placed a bid on the player in question in the 24 hours preceding the winning bid in order to gain the option to match.

Having read back through that thread, I agree with Underdog that there's probably a little more that needs to go into that rule to keep it from being anti-competitive. I think that there were a lot of good suggestions put forth last year to make it more of a decision to use it. Making it so that the original team has to place a bid within 24 hours of the winning bid makes it so that they can't just lowball and match, which I think is a good idea. I think that there should be a hard 12 hour match time so that the team that is losing out on the player can focus efforts on another player instead. Also, from a purely competitive standpoint, I still like my suggestion that any team that matches a contract should be forced to limit themselves to 3 offers out after that point. That might be incentive enough to avoid using it unless it's absolutely necessary.

Last year, I benefited (by keeping Wells and Meyers), but lost out on numerous players as well. It's tough to set the market and then have another team swoop in and take the player, but the reality is that it does happen. I think that there needs to be some sort of impact for any team that wants to use that device. Obviously I'll go with whatever you decide to do, but I think that you should consider making some minor tweaks to the rule based on last year's experiences.

[troyheisman10]

To be honest, I would almost rather just get rid of it. I do remember the problems last year, and I'm not sure there is a great way to do it. I would rather not mess with it.