GroupThink - Little Rock Rollers, 1996 offseason

[QuikSand]

Incidentally, WR Kenny McAlister has a 4yr, $48m offer on the table from Providence. He's the only one of ours who is beig pursued... meaning DT Sinard is still sitting out there. Sinard is looking for prtty big money - $83m over five years - but that might wane a bit if he continues to be unpursued.

My inclination is to wait it out, hope he doesn't jump immediately at a new offer, and try to get him later in the process (assuming we do not get Ramsey).

[QuikSand]

Week two:

Wheeling is glad to announce the signing of DT Clifton Ramsey, to a 5 year, $133.8 million deal. He joins the Dealers in his 5th pro year, after playing for the rival Little Rock Rollers for his first four years, and amassing 140 tackls and 18 sacks over that time.

[QuikSand]

Any thoughts on Sinard?

I will eb away for a while, but we have options here. We can wait him out and try to get him chaeply (my thoughts above), we can make a real offer now and lock him uplong term, or we can try to get him for a one (or two?) year deal, instead.

I'm open to anything... I'll let you all stew on it a while.

[Bee]

I say sign him now long term. We can't afford to take a chance on losing him IMO.

[primelord]

To be honest Quik I am fine with leaving it to your gut feeling. If you think we can wait him out a bit and drive the price down then that is fine with me, especially if it means we can then resign one of our wideouts.

But as Bee said I don't think the defense can really afford to lose both DT's so if we think we might lose him then I say we need to lock him up now. I also would prefer to make it a long term deal if possible. It's just nice knowing that part od the defense is going to be solid over the next few years.

[cthomer5000]

I say throw prime a bone and lock him up to a long-term deal. If we can drive his price down and still sign him for 3+ years, then do that. You're pretty good a feeling this stuff out Quik.


EDIT: so what does this mean to our WR/TE situation? Is there a consensus on who we'll try to retain there?

[wade moore]

Personally, I'd rather Dresow/Mcalister as we can do that for not much more money than Morrell alone.. It stinks to lose Morrell, but I think that's what we have to do money wise.. it seems silly to get one impact guy when we can get two..

[Bee]

Can we afford both the TE and McAlister?

[QuikSand]

Hmmm... McAlister is a tough one. Recall, guys - Morrell is a restricted free agent, meaning we can wait until week 20 when his demands wil have dropped, and re-sign him.

McAlister, as I mentioed above, already has an offer on the table, for over $12m per year. So suggesting that we need to stick with McAlister because he's cheaper begs the question, I think. He's not cheaper. At best, the two are about the same price.

I have decided to do my best to listen to your preferences, and put in a cheap offer for McAlister - 3yrs, $32m (with a voidable year in the third season). That costs us $10.7m this year - a bit less than his offer, but he at least listens to it, so we're in the running. That's the best implementation of your input I can muster - try to get McAlister cheaply.

[QuikSand]

Okay, it's week four - and DT Karl Sinard finally got an offer. Six years, $109 million from Mazatlan (they are payign him in pesos, too). So, we need to decide what to do there. I really don't see how we can afford both McAlister and Sinard, but I'll put in a multi-year offer for Sinard, and hope to lock him up. It's going to be pricey, guys.

Our offer to Sinard: 4yrs, $56m ($12m this year), with a voidable year incentive (100 tackles) he cannot likely reach.

[QuikSand]

WR Kenny McAlister has accepted an offer from Providence, and he has signed with them for a new four-year deal.

Interestingly enough, WR Shaun Blaine is also mulling over a big new contract in the open market - from Wheeling. The Dealers could end up putting a number of familiar faces on the field against us, it seems.

[QuikSand]

We're into week five, and there are now three other teams making offers to DT Karl Sinard. I think this is a moment of truth here - they are all bidding well beyond our level. If we want this guy, we probably need to really decide that he's worth the BIG investment - and shell out top dollar, like $16m per year.

So far, in our team's history, offering huge long term deals has not worked out very well for us - we have ended up with lots of dead cap commitments due to injuries and busts.

I like Sinard, but I don't think we want to take spending $75m or so lightly. Any more input?

(I'm about to drive home... will get to this again in maybe an hour or so... and we'll go forward from here. This has actually been pretty fun... maybe the way to do the FA process is incrementally liek this every year?)

[wade moore]

So far, in our team's history, offering huge long term deals has not worked out very well for us - we have ended up with lots of dead cap commitments due to injuries and busts.

I like Sinard, but I don't think we want to take spending $75m or so lightly. Any more input?

I agree we have had bad luck, but I don't think that should be 100% our determining factor.. more to the question, is he WORTH the money? Can he make a big enough impact for the money? I know I'm biased, but.. for instance.. Cog has a HUGE affect on our team for the money he will make.. our team can make or break on his skills.. Does Sinard have that ability? At the DT spot, can he make or break or break our defense? My argument is no, he doesn't make or break the defense.. and for that money, I think you'd better be able to do so...

Basically, my opinion is he's not worth it.. I haven't looked, but it would seem we could get 2 or maybe 3 solid contributors from FA/Draft worth that money who would help the team as a whole more... But, at the same time, I recognize the need for defense over one of my costly receivers.. so, I will not argue if we decide to go with Sinard.. QS, i agree with your decision on McAlister.. I was thinking of their original asking price, not the long-term situation...

An another note.. I think I would rather have Dresow than Morrell.. We have good receivers, and the potential for other solid receivers in the draft (can't remember his name, but the guy who can return imparticular).. However, a TE like Dresow is special and costs quite a bit less.. I know QS, atleast in his heart of hearts, will agree on this ..

(I'm about to drive home... will get to this again in maybe an hour or so... and we'll go forward from here. This has actually been pretty fun... maybe the way to do the FA process is incrementally liek this every year?)

Same here.. I think this year in particular was better because of the decisions to be made, the people we had to wait on, etc.. but I think we'll have that more often now... Plus I have been able to sneak on at breaks (hopefully I can in the future), etc.. but yes, I would love to do it this way if it maintains momentum..

[primelord]

Well I am not certain I can say he is worth the money, but I will say our defense will probably be very poor next season if we don't bring Sinard back. So take that for what it is worth.

Now we can hope we get lucky. Sinards loyalty ratings suggest we could land him for less than other teams, but I don't really have any sense of how much less.

Next year our secondary should be very good. Our corners seem to be developing very nicely and we have nice depth at safety. But I don't have a lot of confidence in our LB's and our DLine without Sinard would be very suspect.

[QuikSand]

Okay, I have decided to try to split the difference. I have upped our offer to Sinard to 3yrs, $50 million - right in the hunt with the big offers he has on the table (including one from Wheeling!) but not so much that it would tie us up forever if we get him. Seems fair - now I can simply hope that it's enough.

[QuikSand]

In week five, we manage to sign DE Austin and T Lofton, completing our "lesser" pursuits all in our favor. DT Sinard is the last guy left out there, still weighing six different offers.

[QuikSand]

And in week six, it's done. Sinard accepts... with Mazatlan. Their $109 million comtract offer was just too much to overcome. We actually were there with them in $/yr, but a six year deal at that rate was too much for him to turn down.

Our DT situation just got bleaker, gang. Now we'll have to decide what the hell we're going to do there, as we build this team for the season.

And, what are we going to do with our cap room? Sign WR Morrell and also keep two strong tight ends?

[QuikSand]

One thing I now feel strongly about - we must re-sign DT Howard Johnston. He only wants $4.5 for two seasons, and he probably is a starter for us again this year. In 1994, he gave us an unremarkable but serviceable season: 46+22 tackles, 3 sacks, 8 hurries, and a 3.1 PRPct. He's not awful - and considering our options now, he's practically a necessity.

[cthomer5000]

are these two guys still on the market?

DT Marshall Castillo? I know Prime wasn't a huge fan of him the last time he was here, but we could always cut him if he doesn't make the squad.

RG Cornell Thomas? he's really played quite well in the last 26 games. Could be worth a shot.

[QuikSand]

DT Howard Johnston accepts our offer, anad is re-signed for two years.

I also took a quick liberty, and pulled off a minor trade. Our newly expendable LT Irving Armstrong fetched some legit interest - and I got Tulsa's early 3rd round pick for him. Pretty nice pickup, since we will have holes to fill this year and money to spend. It's capital.

[QuikSand]

corey, our rules have us only making new offers to outside players at the outset of the FA period. We cannot go looking for bargains now that we're into the later weeks.

It's among the rules that have kept this somewhat challenging, I think. This is the first year things have gone this badly in free agency, though.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by QuikSand
corey, our rules have us only making new offers to outside players at the outset of the FA period. We cannot go looking for bargains now that we're into the later weeks.

It's among the rules that have kept this somewhat challenging, I think. This is the first year things have gone this badly in free agency, though.

ahh, yes. I can never keep all aspects of our house rules in my head at one time....

What is Morell's asking price at this point?

[QuikSand]

Ahh... by the way, I just checked the transactions log, because I missed what happened to "The Ox" in free agency. (He was not franchised by Norfolk, in our official game)

Anyone care to take a guess? You got it - he will be dealing for Wheeling, baby. I can't wait to play these guys!

[QuikSand]

Morrell is asking for $93m over five years at this point. Ouch. I suspect we can get him for about $12m per in the end, if we so desire.

[cthomer5000]

I really think keeping Morell makes much more sense then Dresow. Juan Hatcher's popularity means he'll be here until displaced by someone the fans find more interesting, and Dresow will simple never unseat him (and lord how his popularity has plummeted!)


What is Dresow worth, a 3rd rounder maybe?

[cthomer5000]

by the way, Quick, can you post whichever files contain the city/team names? I still have the standard team names, making it sometimes hard to follow along...

[QuikSand]

Okay, I am to the last week of the FA period. I have re-signed TE Hatcher (3yrs, $8m), G trent Ballard (2 yrs, minsal), and P Marco Messina (2yrs, minsal).

That leaves us with 41 players, 7 more coming in the draft, and over $21 million in cap room after we pay for our rookies. I don't know what to do here.

Morrell will only accept a long term deal - I can get it to $12m per year for five years - with $12m up front. That seems to be the best we can do with him.

Given our current situation, I say we go for it, and sign Morrell. We'll be committed to the passing offense, we'll still come in under budget this year, and then we'll have to figure something out for the defensive line.

Anyone else on this?

[QuikSand]

corey, if you get the "Original File" posted at the top of this thread and unzipp that into your directory, that will give you the right city/team names. You will then need to reload the latest game files, to get your game back current, unless you selectively overwrite with the first file. (I don't recall which file exactly contains the data you need, but it's in the original file)

[cthomer5000]

It's really the only option I see. I think Morell is a long-term solution (he could pass Wayne Hill in popularity this year), so it makes sense to keep him. We're going to have to try to make DL a priority in the draft.

[QuikSand]

I am just assuming that despite our DT woes, nobody favors making an effort to re-sign Howard Hammond. (my fault on that one, I had high hopes)

[QuikSand]

I would say that we now must get DT Bert Ellis in this draft. I don't knnow if we'd have to move all the way up to pick #5 to be sure we get him, but if we let the draft go by without a pretty sure thing pass-rushing DT, we'll be in serious trouble. By my reckoning, Ellis is the beginning and the end of that list.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by QuikSand
corey, if you get the "Original File" posted at the top of this thread and unzipp that into your directory, that will give you the right city/team names. You will then need to reload the latest game files, to get your game back current, unless you selectively overwrite with the first file. (I don't recall which file exactly contains the data you need, but it's in the original file)

still hasn't work for the team names... sigh.

[cthomer5000]

Ok, I played around to figure out which file controls the team names. It's one of two. When you get the chance can you post these small files from the universe directory?


frfoot.fni
frfoot.fgr


EDIT: correct file name spelling, and highlight the one file that controls the team names.

[QuikSand]

Here are the files you seek, cthomer.

[wade moore]

I have a weird idea that I'm not sure how our rules apply on or how people feel about it...

What if we offered a trade with draft picks for someone like... DT Jim Mitchell of Bermuda.. I don't know if we could weasel it into our rules, because we might have to package a player in with picks in order to pull the deal off..But mitchell has a somewhat long contract, at low money, and very good skills..

Otherwise, I think you're right.. Ellis is what we're left with.. Norman Burns doesn't seem TOO bad, but it's down hill from there... We could grab someone like DE Chris Parker and strengthen the outside if Ellis is not available..

As for Morrell, let's go for it since we have room.. a part of me would love to just have some empty cap space, keeping us a little more open next year.. if you look, we have a large chunk of guys who need a new contract...

[QuikSand]

Yes, I'm rather inclined to leave some cap room - next year, we are going to need it.

The other thing I'm comfortable with is waiting at least through 10-15 picks before we do anything about DT Bert Ellis. As much as I like him and thnk he's the guy we need, he also doesn't fit the bill for a really early CPU pick - which is comforting. While we might even see him at #22, I think it would make sense to watch the DT position and perhaps move up when we think he might be on deck - hopefully somewhere around pick 10 or 15, again.

(He is listed as the #3 DT on the "board" for what that's worth)

[QuikSand]

Okay, the draft starts off:

1. Kitty Hawk - Agin, Junior, QB, Columbia
2. Tijuana - Davison, Bennie, T, Brigham Young

I had completely put aside the RB that we really liked here, assuming that he was going to go with the very top pick. Now that he remains on the board, I will renew the opportunity that we might want to move up and try to get him.

Earlier, I was able to move up to #5 byu offering just #22 and #23... I'd have to imagine that getting up to #3 wouldn't be all that much more expensive. We make a "feeling out" offer, and it appears that Texarkana is willing to do this deal:

- - -

Our first round picks this year at #23 and #30
Our second round picks this year and next year

for

the #3 pick in this draft

- - -

That would, obviously, leave us with the #22 pick also - and a little capital to still try to move up if we felt like we had to lock up DT Ellis. I think there is a roadmapo right here, to get two outstanding players at need ppsitions out of this draft - but doing so comes at a pretty steep price.

Ball is in your court, gang.

[wade moore]

Here is what we need to look at I think...

1) Can we definately still get Ellis.. if so, what will we likely have to give up?

2) What are we really giving up here? what does 2 first rounders this year, a second this year, and a second this year mean? Is that 4 starters we're giving up, or a starter and three role players? Even myself who would love to have this RB wonders if this is too big of a price to pay.. at the same time, do we think.. "hey, if we have Cog and this RB, we are unstoppable." That could be the case.. This guy is even better than The Ox, and we know what he did for us... But, can he and Cog be dominating if the team around him is dissolved too much? I think we're fine on offense, so I think we can afford whatever we may be missing out on on that side of the ball... prime.. how do you feel on your side? Do you feel that we can grab a super stud RB and a stud DT here, and be fine without getting any more players until the third round?

[QuikSand]

I look at this year's draft, and openly wonder where we'd be using ouur three late first round picks. We need a guy at DL, but there's not much to like. If we sat back and drafted at 22,23, and 30 - what do we get from that? I don't know... but this doesn't look like a great draft to me.

I do, however, see RB Jamal Lucas as the real thing. Even if he never developed at all, he's an all-pro caliber back on day one. And given our woes at that position, he would be a standout addition - we would all agree there.

So, wade, I agree - it's a matter of "what are we giving up there?" Can't tell about next year's pick, of course, but my sense is... it isn't as much as we get if we pull the trigger and make the deal.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by wade moore
1) Can we definately still get Ellis.. if so, what will we likely have to give up?

My thinking there is that we sit with pick #22, and if both DTs ahead of him on the board go, then we offer up picks next year to move from 22 to whatever spot we need, in order to get him right then. Can't say, but at worst we'd give up maybe a couple middle round picks to do this, I'd guess.

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
My thinking there is that we sit with pick #22, and if both DTs ahead of him on the board go, then we offer up picks next year to move from 22 to whatever spot we need, in order to get him right then. Can't say, but at worst we'd give up maybe a couple middle round picks to do this, I'd guess.

I agree. I think we move up and get the stud RB and then see if the DT falls to us. If the first 2 go early, we move up and get him.

I'm not sure how many players we have on the roster right now, but it kinda looks like we might end up with quite a few URFA this season since we're using a lot of our picks to move up and get players we like (nothing wrong with doing this, just an observation).

[primelord]

I say go ahead and make the deal to move up and get the RB. Our defense was weak last year, but I am hoping some of that was due to so many young players being on the field. Since we have Johnston back under contract if we trade up to get Ellis after the first two DT's are taken in front of him then I think we look pretty good on defense (not as good as if we had Sinard and then drafted Ellis ).

Lucas looks like he might be a once a decade type of back. He is someone we shouldn't pass up on.

[wade moore]

So it looks like a concensus.. I get a dream running back..

Now I have to figure out how the hell to gameplan for a superstar RB AND a superstar QB without wasting talent.. great..thanks guys *mock despair*...

But seriously.. I'm going to have to sit down and completely revamp our offense.. I have been adjusting and tweaking our original plan and I think I need to sit down and just start from scratch with the players we have, especially with th enew duel threat we have -- I need to move away from concentrating on one half of the offense... So, expect me to take a little bit longer on the game plan than normal.. I probably take saturday morning and knock it out in a couple of hours..

[cthomer5000]

get Lucas!

[primelord]

I am planning on making some tweaks to our defense this year too. We are going to 100% man coverage. Just kidding. Harden and Wellman both have very good pass rushign skills for LB's so I think I am going to blitz them a lot more this season. The heavy focus will be on Harden. I am hoping that pressure will make up for some of the lack of push we will probably see from the DLine this year.

[wade moore]

It will be nice to see this team transition... I know we have all said this several times, but I have enjoyed this project immensely -- much more than I even expected.. I think it has greatly increased my enjoyment of the game, and to be honest I hope it lasts a LONG time (which is why I fear the 2002 issue if the bug is not fixed)... I think this has developed into working much like a real NFL team, rather than what we do individually.. sure we still seem to have an advantage, but the decisions are much harder and there's no guarantee for the SB...

Anyway.. I want to see how the team develops, particuraly as it has grown from the original team and vision that we had, on both offense and defense... prime and I both had a vision that has had to be changed based on the hard decisions that we are forced to make..


Btw, A, if you're reading this, I love that you are reading this.. I wish more people did honestly.. it makes it that much more fun when we have people following it..

[QuikSand]

Okay - we swing the deal with Texarkana, get Herschel Walker...oops, Jamal Lucas... and now we're waiting to see where we can grab DT Ellis.

Here is a draft update:

1. Kitty Hawk - Agin, Junior, QB, Columbia
2. Tijuana - Davison, Bennie, T, Brigham Young

3. Little Rock - Lucas, Jamal, RB, Concord State

4. Nashua - Buchanan, Eddie, T, Florida
5. Tulsa - Malone, Cornell, RB, Ohio State
6. Norfolk - McWilliams, Stephen, CB, Georgia
7. Ypsilanti - Allen, Daniel, WR, Miss. Valley St.
8. Cheyenne - Banuelos, Pete, DE, North Carolina
9. Memphis - James, O.J., G, Southern Methodist
10. Puget Sound - Parker, Cris, DE, South Florida
11. Bermuda - Woods, Brad, WR, Colby
12. Ocean City - Marchant, Britt, QB, Panhandle State
13. Pensacola - Coles, Dana, T, Arizona
14. Lake Erie - Ross, Bart, G, North Carolina State
15. Manhattan - Major, Bryce, CB, Louisville

With 15 picks off the table, the DT position still hasn't been touched. My gut instinct is to let it ride, and I think we'll get our guy at #22. But I wanted to post this, and see if there is dissent on that slightly higher-risk strategy.

We coudl trade up right now, get pick #16, and have our man. That would be the safer thing to do. I have not yet assesed the cost of doing so.

[primelord]

I say let it it ride until atleast the top DT comes off the board.

[Bee]

I agree with prime. Let it ride, as soon as the #1 DT goes off I say we trade up at that point.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by wade moore
I think it has greatly increased my enjoyment of the game, and to be honest I hope it lasts a LONG time (which is why I fear the 2002 issue if the bug is not fixed)...

well, it won't be the end of the world. The worst case scenario is having to import a TCY draft class for one season.