|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 28, 2017 10:56:37 GMT -5
No one has posted theirs yet, but R-Waivers are open. Here are the hi-lites:
1. You can only list 10 players a week.
2. R-Waivers lasts 4 weeks.
3. Only players with guaranteed contracts this season need to be placed on waivers. So V, CE, and any XXX-6th that you've used this season. Anyone not getting paid doesn't need to be put on R-Waivers to be traded.
4. Players with an NTC cannot be placed on Waivers/R-Waivers. To place an NTC player on R/non-R Waivers you need to buy out the contract.
5. Deadline to list your players is midnight Monday (we can give a little leeway since it's Week 1)
6. Deadline to claim is Tuesday night at midnight.
7. Deadline to work a deal is Thursday at midnight like usual.
8. You do not need to have roster space/cap room at the time to claim a player. If you win the claim, you can work that out by waiving someone, or trading a player back to the other team, etc. Same with cash. If the Team of Origin just lets the player go to you without compensation, and that puts you over salary/roster caps, then you have until the deadline to find a way to get under.
I still believe we need a major overhaul of the R-Waiver system here. Also included in that overhaul could be raising the $5MM buffer or eliminating a limit altogether at this point of the season so competitive teams can have the room to make a run. How about we use this thread to spitball ideas? I'd love to have something in place for next season. Every time we use this broken system each year, I die a little inside.
And I don't care if you're Tracy who has been in this league longer than me, or David who is our newest owner. We all have a say. So I'd like to hear from some of you newer owners with new ideas too. Get fresh takes on old problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 28, 2017 11:01:04 GMT -5
I'm all for just eliminating R-Waivers altogether and just moving the trade deadline to Week 22. It's the simplest fix, but the least exciting. And I could see using Week 18 as a time when we raise the $5MM buffer significantly. Maybe to as much as 20-30 million? If I get the chance I will try to run some numbers later to give examples of salary cap overages and how it would look at the end of the year.
|
|
|
|
Post by LA Angels GM on Aug 28, 2017 12:20:52 GMT -5
I'm good with getting rid of R-waivers.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Aug 28, 2017 13:34:16 GMT -5
No one has posted theirs yet, but R-Waivers are open. Here are the hi-lites: 4. Players with an NTC cannot be placed on Waivers/R-Waivers. To place an NTC player on R/non-R Waivers you need to buy out the contract. Is this right? I thought if we put a player with a NTC up for waivers and they get claimed we just can't get anything back in trade. We either let them go or keep them. Maybe I'm getting my leagues mixed up. I know it is that way in the other one, I just thought it was that way in both. Suggestions: 1. If above #4 is correct, allow NTC's to be put on R-Waivers. If claimed owner only has two choices: pull player back or let go w/o compensation. 2. Drop buffer for rest of season when we hit R-Waivers. No limit on going over salary cap! ****Actually I would be for this for the whole season with the exception of week 1. I think there needs to be a limit for the starting week but after that if an owner wants to go over let him. DMBO is that way and we've never had an issue with it. One GM went way over one time going for it and then left the league. All the players were in the last year though so it left a team with a short roster and a lot of work to do in the offseason but not a cap issue. 3. If the buffer is removed, allow a team to put as many players as they want on R-Waivers right off the bat. This removes the limit of what 25 man roster players can be traded. Only issue I see is that we aren't automated so it has to have someone keep an eye on it. But, it definitely would open up more players for waiver trades for the entire month. |
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 28, 2017 14:38:08 GMT -5
4. Players with an NTC cannot be placed on Waivers/R-Waivers. To place an NTC player on R/non-R Waivers you need to buy out the contract. Is this right? I thought if we put a player with a NTC up for waivers and they get claimed we just can't get anything back in trade. We either let them go or keep them. Maybe I'm getting my leagues mixed up. I know it is that way in the other one, I just thought it was that way in both. Suggestions: 1. If above #4 is correct, allow NTC's to be put on R-Waivers. If claimed owner only has two choices: pull player back or let go w/o compensation. That was a rule change after last season. We've had NTC players being waived and then claimed by another team as part of a handshake agreement to get the original owner out from under the contract. It was a circumvention of the rules. The original proposal was for not waiving NTC players at all, but it was changed to allow them to be waived, but they had to be bought out. Unfortunately, this is one of those rules that had to be put in place because teams were taking advantage of there not being a specific rule. |
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 29, 2017 15:40:52 GMT -5
Here are some samples of different cap numbers. Remember, at the end of the season we go through and take your weekly over/under. We do that for all 26 weeks and then average it out. Using that number, Travis determines your rollover cash into the next year, or how much of the following year's cash you'd used. Black numbers are positive, red numbers are negative. I tried to list several different ideas, and amounts. Including the last two as a team that started in the hole, and then was able to dump contracts and get out (either straight trade without covering salary if we increase the buffer or R-Waivers and collecting no compensation).  |
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 30, 2017 11:43:02 GMT -5
Another issue that was brought up to me, via email by an owner is the idea what one owner with a bad record can come in and basically block all trades from happening by claiming all the players, rendering the entire process moot and ruining the fun for everyone. This is also something that would need to be addressed with a rule change.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Aug 30, 2017 13:24:11 GMT -5
Does it need to be addressed though? The same thing can happen in real-life. Them getting stuck with a few big contracts will hurt them in the long run. I feel like this and the rule change last year to block NTC players is too much. I wasn't the one claiming the guys but I didn't have a problem with it. If they want to eat the contract, let them.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxtim on Aug 31, 2017 4:47:15 GMT -5
Does it need to be addressed though? The same thing can happen in real-life. Them getting stuck with a few big contracts will hurt them in the long run. I feel like this and the rule change last year to block NTC players is too much. I wasn't the one claiming the guys but I didn't have a problem with it. If they want to eat the contract, let them. Co-signed. |
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Aug 31, 2017 8:07:18 GMT -5
We have been moving gradually away from hand-holding GMs as we've gotten more dedicated GMs in the league. I personally think R-Waivers are garbage, but if they're going to exist at least let them be as flexible as possible for each GM to use them the way they want. Taking on questionable contracts is certainly part of that. Blocking teams at the risk of getting saddled with a financial liability is certainly part of that.
I'm not sure I've really heard a reason to keep R-Waivers around. Is there actually a problem with just having an extended trade deadline so that we don't have to go thru the motions of this process? Are we actually afraid of giving good team too much freedom down the stretch?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 31, 2017 10:28:03 GMT -5
Does it need to be addressed though? The same thing can happen in real-life. Them getting stuck with a few big contracts will hurt them in the long run. I feel like this and the rule change last year to block NTC players is too much. I wasn't the one claiming the guys but I didn't have a problem with it. If they want to eat the contract, let them. The issue that was mentioned is that one team can go through and basically block another team from making any trades at all. Sure, there is a competitive aspect, but there is also a gamesmanship aspect and the idea that teams with no intention of trading for a player, or with the cap room to be able to accept the players should they just be let go, can block another team from making any deals at all. If Baltimore had gone through and claimed every single one of your desirable players, preventing you from trading any of them, but had no intention of trying to acquire any of them, would you feel different? I know some leagues have a 2 Contested Claims rule where if you win two contested claims, you move to the back of the waiver claim priority list for the week. This prevents one team from just running rampant and claiming everyone. But honestly, I think the simplest fix with the least amount of work for everyone would just be to move the Trade Deadline to Week 22, and increase the buffer after Week 18. That would allow teams to be able to wait longer to see if their team will be competitive, and also if they sell off, maybe they won't have to cover salary and can get some extra rollover money the following year, which would be an added bonus to having a fire sale. But that's just my preference. I'd like to hear other ideas too. |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxtim on Sept 1, 2017 5:41:05 GMT -5
The more I see this idea expanded the more I like the idea of just extending the deadline and increasing the trade buffer. Look at what the Astros just did adding Cameron Maybin and Justin Verlander. I think this would create a lot more player movement of bigger name (and salary) players from the non-contenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockiesgm on Sept 1, 2017 7:18:05 GMT -5
If the current revocable waivers process was a human being, it would be wishing that Dr. Kevorkian was still alive.
This process is ridiculous and needs to be done away with. At this point, simply eliminating it would make the world a better place to live in. With that said, I'm supporting Joe's idea to expand the trade deadline. It's a fix that will be easy for the committee to implement and we as a league will hopefully see better results with trading later in the season.
In other words...this shit be broked as a mother fucker.
|
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Sept 3, 2017 10:30:44 GMT -5
I think this can be scaled back without total elimination.
Reduce the number of players to 5 per week.
Each claiming team can only make one player claim against another team each season. This would reduce the blocking effect just for the sake of it and open up the players clearing waivers.
Add a 5th round to the draft of only supplemental picks. Any player claimed can be traded just to obtain a pick. In this way the trading team gets something that does not cost the acquiring team anything. This might open up some trading for teams that want to make a psuh but don't have a smaller chip to give up for a small window. This would have to be limited to waiver eligible players to eliminate loopholes in the waiver eligibility. This new round could also be opened up to FA losses in the offseason, but that is for another discussion. This round could be open or restricted to either existing prospects or just amateurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Sept 5, 2017 19:51:56 GMT -5
I think the idea of revocable waivers, but the unwillingness over the years to fix it makes me not even participate anymore. The deadlines are too tight, and I think being able to waive basically your entire roster is kind of dumb. I have given ideas on multiple occasions in the past, and there was not much interest in changing them.
With that being said, I wouldn't just expand the trade deadline. Although that's an easy fix, participation would continue to be low, since we're so far behind the real-life MLB season.
I would keep R-Waivers to hopefully re-ignite a bit of interest, but I would majorly overhaul them.
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Sept 12, 2018 14:18:58 GMT -5
When will we find out who won the right to negotiate on waived players?
|
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Sept 12, 2018 14:59:01 GMT -5
We are a small enough league with limited assets so I propose we just eliminate this revocable waiver period. We should just push the trade deadline to the September 1 timeframe which is the limit for post season roster eligibility. Have 1 trade deadline with no waiver deadline deals. I see no need for revocable waivers nor 2 deadlines. Just keep the (sim week of) Sept 1 date fixed for post season rosters.
I think we know the contenders from pretenders early enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Sept 12, 2018 17:43:09 GMT -5
Hayes should have them posted tonight. Due to the extra work it takes more time. To make up for this, we're going to move the trade deadline to Friday night instead of Thursday so teams still have two full days to negotiate.
|
|
Whitesox
AAA
I'm just here for the free kool-aid
Posts: 773
|
Post by Whitesox on Sept 12, 2018 19:59:38 GMT -5
We are a small enough league with limited assets so I propose we just eliminate this revocable waiver period. We should just push the trade deadline to the September 1 timeframe which is the limit for post season roster eligibility. Have 1 trade deadline with no waiver deadline deals. I see no need for revocable waivers nor 2 deadlines. Just keep the (sim week of) Sept 1 date fixed for post season rosters. I think we know the contenders from pretenders early enough. I agree. I havent really participated in revocable waivers in a few years. Mostly because I think its just a waste of time, there is rarely a trade during this period, and its all just a big cock tease (unless you claim one of Seans players, in which case he is likely to just give him to you). |
|
