Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Robb4242

2014 Imd Game

1,284 posts in this topic

Im in but I have a suggestion regarding FA.

Either:

A. Limit the cash given to each team

OR

B. Limit the FA to 3 per team.

It gets out of hand every year I've done it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im in but I have a suggestion regarding FA.

Either:

A. Limit the cash given to each team

OR

B. Limit the FA to 3 per team.

It gets out of hand every year I've done it.

i like the 3 per team idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like the 3 per team idea

Sucks for the raiders then. All that cap and no way to spend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im in but I have a suggestion regarding FA.

Either:

A. Limit the cash given to each team

OR

B. Limit the FA to 3 per team.

It gets out of hand every year I've done it.to

3 additions may be too restrictive but I like the idea of limiting the number of FAs. It's less involved than trying to figure out a minimum bid for players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 additions may be too restrictive but I like the idea of limiting the number of FAs. It's less involved than trying to figure out a minimum bid for players.

I think 3 is probably too restrictive as well. Does 5 sound like a better number? IRL teams don't usually sign all that many FAs, at least not that many that will contribute significantly.

Another idea, not sure if I like it & have not thought it completely out, but I'll just throw it out there anyway. I could slot the FAs. Don't hold me to these numbers, it's just to get the point across. I could rank the FAs 1-96. Of those top 96, a team may sign only 1 of the top 16 FAs (could change to 2 of the top 32 if you guys like that better) and no more than 3 of the top 96.

That means half the teams would get a top 16 FA & everybody would have 3 of the top 96. The issue comes in when there are teams that don't participate in FA, so these limits would apply only to the weekly rounds. In the final round when we have all of the unsigned FAs for everybody to bid on the limits are off the table. However, with max participation all of the top 96 should be gone by that last week.

There are a couple of ways to eliminate the placeholder bid as well. If I rank the top 96 FAs I could set a minimum contract value in different areas. Say 1-16 have to have a minimum 1st year cap hit of $5 million 17-64 minimum of $2.5 million, and 65-96 a minimum of $1 million. Or, another option would to just institute a "insulting bid" rule. Let's say you offered Tom Brady a $250,000 deal because nobody else bid on him (or a placeholder bid). Brady would consider that insulting and not discuss signing with your team again, even if that were his only bid. I don't really like that option but I could make it work. IMO it's too subjective for what would be insulting and I'm the only one to make that determination, so it could get ugly if somebody thinks a $2 million offer to Brady as a placeholder is ok but I thought it was too low & "insulting".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 3 is probably too restrictive as well. Does 5 sound like a better number? IRL teams don't usually sign all that many FAs, at least not that many that will contribute significantly.

Another idea, not sure if I like it & have not thought it completely out, but I'll just throw it out there anyway. I could slot the FAs. Don't hold me to these numbers, it's just to get the point across. I could rank the FAs 1-96. Of those top 96, a team may sign only 1 of the top 16 FAs (could change to 2 of the top 32 if you guys like that better) and no more than 3 of the top 96.

That means half the teams would get a top 16 FA & everybody would have 3 of the top 96. The issue comes in when there are teams that don't participate in FA, so these limits would apply only to the weekly rounds. In the final round when we have all of the unsigned FAs for everybody to bid on the limits are off the table. However, with max participation all of the top 96 should be gone by that last week.

There are a couple of ways to eliminate the placeholder bid as well. If I rank the top 96 FAs I could set a minimum contract value in different areas. Say 1-16 have to have a minimum 1st year cap hit of $5 million 17-64 minimum of $2.5 million, and 65-96 a minimum of $1 million. Or, another option would to just institute a "insulting bid" rule. Let's say you offered Tom Brady a $250,000 deal because nobody else bid on him (or a placeholder bid). Brady would consider that insulting and not discuss signing with your team again, even if that were his only bid. I don't really like that option but I could make it work. IMO it's too subjective for what would be insulting and I'm the only one to make that determination, so it could get ugly if somebody thinks a $2 million offer to Brady as a placeholder is ok but I thought it was too low & "insulting".

how about making it mandatory that ALL 32 teams bid on FA and at least sign some minimum number?

if a team GM is failing to participate/submit reasonable Tags and bids on at least the most obvious FA on his own team then that team is given to a GM that will. If a GM just absolutely won't even do that (Franchise Tag and bid on one other FA with a bid so large no one would compete) then they forfeit their GM spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then we wouldn't have enough to play. Some only want to do the draft.

then simply require that they state their intent to skip the FA portion when they become a GM... and the IMD Commissioner can place the appropriate Franchise Tag on that teams roster and at least one FA bid on a player on that teams roster so things at least aren't ridiculously unrealistic and one team gets gutted via IMD FA.

Just my thoughts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then simply require that they state their intent to skip the FA portion when they become a GM... and the IMD Commissioner can place the appropriate Franchise Tag on that teams roster and at least one FA bid on a player on that teams roster so things at least aren't ridiculously unrealistic and one team gets gutted via IMD FA.

Just my thoughts...

Oh I like that. That's definitely a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AS THE OFFICIAL GM OF THE NEW ORLEANS SAINTS

Drew Brees is officially on the trading block for a first round draft pick

Please PM me with any reasonable offers.

BREAKING NEWS!!!!

ALSO ON THE BLOCK

Mark Ingram

Pierre Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll also throw my name into the mix as teams willing to field offers for their first round pick.

Just know that my pick is the only one guaranteed to get you the player you want. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in if it's not to late

You are, unfortunately. Sign ups ended last week. All teams have been claimed and Free Agency starts Feb. 10th I believe.

I actually was looking over the sign ups to see if you claimed a team and was disappointed when you hadn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are, unfortunately. Sign ups ended last week. All teams have been claimed and Free Agency starts Feb. 10th I believe.

I actually was looking over the sign ups to see if you claimed a team and was disappointed when you hadn't.

I been waiting for the IMD thread for 2 months never made the front page. Was going PM Rob last week but figured I'd wait til Super Bowl was over then I saw a poster talking bout his IDM team so I came here looking. If ANYONE doesn't want their team I'll gladly take over. Wanted the Falcons this year since. Seeing how I rebuilt the Seahawks last off season and they won the Super Bowl, I was gonna try my luck again. Hopefully Falcons GM doesn't wanna play anymore or maybe I can CO-GM like Scottie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in if it's not to late

there's always some teams who are inactive (like the ravens last year who let joe flacco walk for like $750k) so maybe you'll be able to co-GM with someone that doesn't want to do FA and team up for the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's always some teams who are inactive (like the ravens last year who let joe flacco walk for like $750k) so maybe you'll be able to co-GM with someone that doesn't want to do FA and team up for the draft.

Sounds good to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasn't been created yet.

Okay thanks.Also, something was mentioned on player releases, has this been approved yet?Just so I can look over my options & be ready.Thanks in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay thanks.Also, something was mentioned on player releases, has this been approved yet?Just so I can look over my options & be ready.Thanks in advance

No problem. Yeah I believe we can release players. I would guess we will be a be able to release somewhere around 3 since more than that would be too hard to keep track of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites