|
Post by Pirates GM on Jul 30, 2016 22:39:36 GMT -5
During the season, and after the trade deadline, teams may place a player on Revocable Waivers. Each week, for five weeks, teams play place up to 10 players on Revocable Waivers. Teams must list their Revocable Waiver players on the message board by midnight EST on Mpnday of that week. Teams have until midnight EST Tuesday to claim waived players.
I was hoping we could tackle this prior to reaching revocable waivers this year, instead of waiting until the offseason. We all know the league goes close to dead after the Trade Deadline, and aside from the few teams in contention, we don't hear from most GMs again until offseason rosters in November. Revocable waivers have a chance to spark some interest in late August, but I feel like the current way they're done minimizes any excitement or effectiveness.
1. 10 players/week for 5 weeks basically allows a team to waive every single player on their roster if they wanted. So there is no strategy there.
2. Due to no strategy or waiver limits, participating GMs are waiving players they clearly aren't going to trade, just in hopes of trying to slide them through unclaimed to keep open slim trade opportunities until playoffs. But because lists are filled with so many players unlikely to be moved, it adds a lot of noise and waste to the process. GMs get frustrated claiming players that are almost immediately deemed untradeable, so some stop trying.
3. The random 24-hour claim window from Monday-Tuesday is very little time. Given how long the season is and how much down time there is, only having 1 day to post players and claim other players is prohibitively fast, especially if GMs aren't checking the board that frequently.
4. With the process drawn out over 5 weeks, most GMs- even those that participated at the beginning of the process- aren't even checking in by the end of it.
I think all of these factors contribute to the low participation and few trades that actually go through. I would suggest all of the following changes, but am open to any other ideas that might improve the GM participation and results.
1. Limit waivers to 5 players/week for 3 weeks. XXX players on the reserve roster can be traded at any time as long as they haven't accrued service, so this would still allow you to trade 60% of your active roster. GMs would be more likely to waive guys they were sincerely interested in moving. There wouldn't be a flood of names, and the names that were there would have a better chance of having actual trade discussions. And with a shorter time period, more GMs might stick with it.
2. Expand the claiming window to the following:
Monday-Wednesday- teams post claims Thursday-Friday- teams claim players Saturday-Monday- teams have to have a trade agreed to by Midnight Monday, when the next week of waivers becomes official
This expands both the claiming and trade talk windows, so GMs don't miss the entire process if they didn't happen to log into the board on Monday or Tuesday.
So I hope we can try something different this year. If we make the right changes, I think it could increase GM activity at a time when it otherwise starts to tail off pretty dramatically. Thanks.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jul 31, 2016 1:47:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 2, 2016 13:32:10 GMT -5
I am doing a GoT re-watch right now and had just got to the episode that the above meme was taken from. So you posting on the board was the perfect time to pull it out.
Anyways, to a serious reply:
I really don't think those proposed changes would change things. The people who are active are active, and those who aren't, aren't. I don't think changing the revocable waiver rules will change that. I could go through and put together a graph that shows which weeks each team has sent in an MP file and you'd see that some teams, even good ones, just don't send in MP files on a consistent basis. I am pretty sure almost every fantasy and simulation league has similar issues, where over time people just stop updating their line-ups. They just want to set it and go.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Aug 6, 2016 6:19:40 GMT -5
You could be right, Joe. But I also don't think that means we stop trying. It would be nice to do some tweaks even for the few GMs that do participate, such as extending the claim/trade talk period.
I can't tell you how many times I've logged into the board during this time, but because I didn't log in every day, I missed a posting or a claiming date.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 9, 2016 13:39:02 GMT -5
I am starting to believe that an actual total overhaul is what's needed. Something drastic like just completely removing Revocable Waivers and extending the normal deadline to the end of August, or putting in a unique system like we did when we eliminated Comp Picks and created the Winter Draft. If anyone has any out-of-the-box suggestions, I'm all ears.
|
|
|
Post by LA Angels GM on Aug 9, 2016 16:08:16 GMT -5
Rule V draft!
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Aug 9, 2016 17:45:29 GMT -5
I am starting to believe that an actual total overhaul is what's needed. Something drastic like just completely removing Revocable Waivers and extending the normal deadline to the end of August, or putting in a unique system like we did when we eliminated Comp Picks and created the Winter Draft. If anyone has any out-of-the-box suggestions, I'm all ears. Removing comp picks and creating the Winter Draft was one of the best ideas in the history of the league. I'm not opposed to John's idea of a Rule V. However, I remember the last time it was brought up, people got jacked, in particular, GMs that draft reallllly young guys that need to be stashed on their reserve for years and years. I think it would be easy to get around. 30-man reserve roster *20 of those spots are "protected" regardless of what players you want to have in them *The remaining 10 spots are "unprotected", but players can only be claimed from them if... A) a player is on a V contract B) a XXX-6th player has been in the league for at least 5 seasons It would clear up some dead space on rosters by at least getting guys moved around. All you would need to do is add a new column to the spreadsheet, showing when the guys were drafted into the league, or first signed as free agents. JIm
|
|
Whitesox
AAA
I'm just here for the free kool-aid
Posts: 773
|
Post by Whitesox on Aug 9, 2016 18:28:56 GMT -5
I am starting to believe that an actual total overhaul is what's needed. Something drastic like just completely removing Revocable Waivers and extending the normal deadline to the end of August, or putting in a unique system like we did when we eliminated Comp Picks and created the Winter Draft. If anyone has any out-of-the-box suggestions, I'm all ears. Removing comp picks and creating the Winter Draft was one of the best ideas in the history of the league. I'm not opposed to John's idea of a Rule V. However, I remember the last time it was brought up, people got jacked, in particular, GMs that draft reallllly young guys that need to be stashed on their reserve for years and years. I think it would be easy to get around. 30-man reserve roster *20 of those spots are "protected" regardless of what players you want to have in them *The remaining 10 spots are "unprotected", but players can only be claimed from them if... A) a player is on a V contract B) a XXX-6th player has been in the league for at least 5 seasons It would clear up some dead space on rosters by at least getting guys moved around. All you would need to do is add a new column to the spreadsheet, showing when the guys were drafted into the league, or first signed as free agents. JIm Im kinda curious about how a rule V draft would work. Im open to the idea for sure. I think drafting guys who arent currently in the league, but are in draft-fa limbo would be interesting, instead of plucking guys off other teams reserves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 19:14:57 GMT -5
Not sure what Rule V has to do with Revocable Waivers, but anyway, maybe something like -
Three weeks of Revocable Waivers
Teams can put 4 guys on Revocable Waivers each week.
Teams can claim only 2 guys each week.
You don't need to have the cap room available to claim someone.
If you claim someone and the team lets him go to you for nothing, the salary will only be assessed up to the $5m over cap limit this year, the rest hits your following year cap. If you're at the $5m limit already, the entire salary hits next year.
Waivers are Friday thru Monday, claims are Tuesday, trades on claims Wednesday and Thursday.
|
|
|
Post by LA Angels GM on Aug 9, 2016 20:05:15 GMT -5
Not sure what Rule V has to do with Revocable Waivers, but anyway, maybe something like The Man asked for something out of the box, so I gave him something out of the box.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Aug 9, 2016 21:01:53 GMT -5
I would be up for both simplifying revocable waivers, and adding a Rule V draft.
Simpler is better.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Aug 10, 2016 8:13:41 GMT -5
I would only support a Rule 5 Draft if we implement a 40 man roster and options. Otherwise, you're just making shit up.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 10, 2016 11:05:29 GMT -5
I would only support a Rule 5 Draft if we implement a 40 man roster and options. Otherwise, you're just making shit up. I don't foresee that happening. Ever. The NSBL seems to be comprised mostly of owners just getting their feet wet with simulation or that don't want the complexities of a high maintenance league. Those of us who do want that have found our ways to other leagues like the BNSL or MLBSA, etc. It's like having a girlfriend that is high maintenance and loves going out and partying. It's fun but not an every day thing. So on those days you want to be lazy, you can just kick back at home with the wife on the couch and watch Netflix.
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Aug 10, 2016 11:28:09 GMT -5
Not sure what Rule V has to do with Revocable Waivers, but anyway, maybe something like - You don't need to have the cap room available to claim someone. If you claim someone and the team lets him go to you for nothing, the salary will only be assessed up to the $5m over cap limit this year, the rest hits your following year cap. If you're at the $5m limit already, the entire salary hits next year. I'm good with the rest of the suggestion. These are the two points I disagree with. If we are going to allow something like this then there isn't a point of having the $5 over cap limit anyway. I don't have a problem with leagues that let you go over and then any overage (how ever much) carry over to next year but as long as we have the $5 overage I think this doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Aug 10, 2016 15:41:53 GMT -5
I would only support a Rule 5 Draft if we implement a 40 man roster and options. Otherwise, you're just making shit up. I don't foresee that happening. Ever. The NSBL seems to be comprised mostly of owners just getting their feet wet with simulation or that don't want the complexities of a high maintenance league. Those of us who do want that have found our ways to other leagues like the BNSL or MLBSA, etc. It's like having a girlfriend that is high maintenance and loves going out and partying. It's fun but not an every day thing. So on those days you want to be lazy, you can just kick back at home with the wife on the couch and watch Netflix. And that's fine. I just don't see how a Rule 5 Draft would fit in without it. A 40 man roster and options are prerequisite.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Aug 10, 2016 16:25:57 GMT -5
I think you could get around it. Once a player is drafted, they have 5 years to get to your MLB roster.
If they don't get there within 5 years, you can move them into one of 20 "protected" spots on your reserve roster. If they aren't in the 20 spots, they can be drafted by another team.
A Rule V is separate from revocable waivers, but I would be fine with exploring both. If we did it right, it could spark some interest at a time when the league otherwise goes dormant for all but the contending teams.
JIm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 19:39:02 GMT -5
Not sure what Rule V has to do with Revocable Waivers, but anyway, maybe something like - You don't need to have the cap room available to claim someone. If you claim someone and the team lets him go to you for nothing, the salary will only be assessed up to the $5m over cap limit this year, the rest hits your following year cap. If you're at the $5m limit already, the entire salary hits next year. I'm good with the rest of the suggestion. These are the two points I disagree with. If we are going to allow something like this then there isn't a point of having the $5 over cap limit anyway. I don't have a problem with leagues that let you go over and then any overage (how ever much) carry over to next year but as long as we have the $5 overage I think this doesn't work. Needing to have cap room means virtually everyone passes through, making the trade deadline meaningless. There will likely be less trades with this, but it will probably create more true trade deadline activity. The $5m over-cap is there mostly to limit what a team does in the offseason. Once the season hits, over 90% of trades made include cash to cover that years salary. I don't see any real reason to enforce this in mid-August for the waiver claim process. Limiting teams to a small number of claims will ensure that players still get through.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 10, 2016 22:33:30 GMT -5
I think you could get around it. Once a player is drafted, they have 5 years to get to your MLB roster. If they don't get there within 5 years, you can move them into one of 20 "protected" spots on your reserve roster. If they aren't in the 20 spots, they can be drafted by another team. A Rule V is separate from revocable waivers, but I would be fine with exploring both. If we did it right, it could spark some interest at a time when the league otherwise goes dormant for all but the contending teams. JIm So as long as you have 15 or more players who've been drafted in the last five years you never have to leave anyone unprotected, because you need only protect the guys who've been around. I think a draft based more on age than service time is better. Because service time forces owners to change their drafting techniques. Being hamstrung on running my team and acquiring talent the way you want doesn't make this league better, it makes it worse and you lose some of the fun. If Sean, Connor, and I want to draft HS seniors who are going to college and won't be in the minors for three more years, this deincentivizes us from doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 10, 2016 22:36:08 GMT -5
Not sure what Rule V has to do with Revocable Waivers, but anyway, maybe something like - Three weeks of Revocable Waivers Teams can put 4 guys on Revocable Waivers each week. Teams can claim only 2 guys each week. You don't need to have the cap room available to claim someone. If you claim someone and the team lets him go to you for nothing, the salary will only be assessed up to the $5m over cap limit this year, the rest hits your following year cap. If you're at the $5m limit already, the entire salary hits next year. Waivers are Friday thru Monday, claims are Tuesday, trades on claims Wednesday and Thursday. What is to stop a team from going all in one year and acquiring $100MM in contracts that have to roll over to the next year, then the following year having only a $20MM cap number but $200MM in guaranteed contracts? That is why the buffer is in place, as a check and balance to keep owners from hurting their team.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Aug 11, 2016 16:02:44 GMT -5
So as long as you have 15 or more players who've been drafted in the last five years you never have to leave anyone unprotected, because you need only protect the guys who've been around. I agree with you here, and that would have to be addressed. But so does drafting by age, even if it doesn't affect you personally. That suggestion just prejudices players at the opposite end of the spectrum. Why not keep it simple: After 5 years of being drafted, a player is Rule V eligible, unless placed in 1 of 5 protected spots on a team's reserve roster. JIm
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Aug 11, 2016 18:51:30 GMT -5
If we're going to totally revamp, then 40-man + waivers + Rule V could be in play.
If we're just looking to change up revocable waivers, then most of the suggestions here are fine by me, especially lengthening the claiming window as Jim suggested.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2016 22:03:13 GMT -5
Not sure what Rule V has to do with Revocable Waivers, but anyway, maybe something like - Three weeks of Revocable Waivers Teams can put 4 guys on Revocable Waivers each week. Teams can claim only 2 guys each week. You don't need to have the cap room available to claim someone. If you claim someone and the team lets him go to you for nothing, the salary will only be assessed up to the $5m over cap limit this year, the rest hits your following year cap. If you're at the $5m limit already, the entire salary hits next year. Waivers are Friday thru Monday, claims are Tuesday, trades on claims Wednesday and Thursday. What is to stop a team from going all in one year and acquiring $100MM in contracts that have to roll over to the next year, then the following year having only a $20MM cap number but $200MM in guaranteed contracts? That is why the buffer is in place, as a check and balance to keep owners from hurting their team. The $5m over cap situation only comes into play when a team claims a guy and the waiving team lets him go for nothing. I don't think that has happened in the 6 years I've been in the league. In the case of trades, I would guess the cash would be worked out in trades, just like over 90% of in season trades happen now. Allowing a team to go over cap only for claiming waived players wouldn't have much of an effect on future payroll, as 99% of the time, the claimed player will either be pulled back or he will be traded with the cash covered. But guys who have no business passing through waivers routinely do in this league because most of the time (this year excluded due to massive cap increases last year) teams don't have the cap room to claim anybody. I don't see the harm in allowing a team who is $2m under their cap claim a guy who makes $10m, AND if they win the claim AND the waiving team lets him go for nothing, then allowing them to float that money over to next season. It would still be prorated for just those remaining 6 or 7 weeks in August and September, correct? So it's not like it's an entire season of being $8m over the cap.
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Aug 13, 2016 9:24:51 GMT -5
I'm good with the rest of the suggestion. These are the two points I disagree with. If we are going to allow something like this then there isn't a point of having the $5 over cap limit anyway. I don't have a problem with leagues that let you go over and then any overage (how ever much) carry over to next year but as long as we have the $5 overage I think this doesn't work. Needing to have cap room means virtually everyone passes through, making the trade deadline meaningless. There will likely be less trades with this, but it will probably create more true trade deadline activity. The $5m over-cap is there mostly to limit what a team does in the offseason. Once the season hits, over 90% of trades made include cash to cover that years salary. I don't see any real reason to enforce this in mid-August for the waiver claim process. Limiting teams to a small number of claims will ensure that players still get through. The $5M over-cap is only in season. A team has to be at or below their cap when rosters lock to start the season but nothing says you can't go over in February. You just have to have a way (trades/cuts) to get back to it before rosters lock. I could see enforcing the $5M limit in the off-season needing to be done as well though (If it has been enforced the last couple of season I've just not noticed since I stepped down from the committee).
Knowing that teams have to be at/under cap when rosters lock to start the season, I would like to see the $5M buffer disappear completely. If a team goes over in-season through trades then let them borrow from next year. In all the years of DMBO doing it there has only been one team that did this and then left the team the next year. The new owner taking over took a couple of seasons to get things straightened out but they have been as competitive as any other team since then. It takes the executive committee monitoring a team that goes over and checking with them to see if they have a plan when they notice their cap going well over their limit.
Sorry if that came across as disagreeing. I actually agree with your premise. I just think the $5M buffer needs to go to make it work.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Aug 13, 2016 9:33:25 GMT -5
I think it's okay to remove the buffer, with the provision that the Committee can eliminate a team's debt in the event of a GM change.
Because I think the one thing people are worried about- even if not directly stated- isn't a team carrying 8-figures of debt into the offseason, it's a team carrying that much debt into the offseason, then having the GM split because his/her team is in a bad situation, then trying to attract a new GM to a team in a crappy financial bind.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Aug 13, 2016 10:02:04 GMT -5
I think it's okay to remove the buffer, with the provision that the Committee can eliminate a team's debt in the event of a GM change. Because I think the one thing people are worried about- even if not directly stated- isn't a team carrying 8-figures of debt into the offseason, it's a team carrying that much debt into the offseason, then having the GM split because his/her team is in a bad situation, then trying to attract a new GM to a team in a crappy financial bind. JIm Completely valid and what the committee would have to watch out for.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 13, 2016 12:15:36 GMT -5
I think it's okay to remove the buffer, with the provision that the Committee can eliminate a team's debt in the event of a GM change. Because I think the one thing people are worried about- even if not directly stated- isn't a team carrying 8-figures of debt into the offseason, it's a team carrying that much debt into the offseason, then having the GM split because his/her team is in a bad situation, then trying to attract a new GM to a team in a crappy financial bind. JIm You are exactly correct. That is the worry. First time this year you've been correct about anything.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 13, 2016 12:28:18 GMT -5
I am torn on keeping the $5MM buffer, completely getting rid of it, or changing it. Most teams use it, but not always to make a trade. They use it for depth early in the season. They sign enough guaranteed contracts to push them right to the cap limit, and then start the season with those guaranteed contracts active. But then after Week 1, they demote a few guys and call up several XXX-3rd year guys, who are better, and this pushes them over the cap. Then they keep the guaranteed contracts on the reserves until needed.
Maybe instead of getting rid of the buffer, we just allow it to be in effect for Week 1? And then starting in Week 2, we can do away with that buffer and remove any limit, but knowing that if you go high over, you could be screwing yourself for the following season. I think with Hayes, myself, Rich, and other owners in the league keeping an eye on teams, we should be able to monitor anyone who goes extremely over their cap.
I am going to email Travis and ask him to pipe in on this too. I don't foresee this being a big issue in the offseason cap calculations, but I want to get his insight as well, plus any of you others that helped him develop the new system.
|
|
|
Post by LA Angels GM on Aug 13, 2016 14:16:59 GMT -5
Maybe instead of getting rid of the buffer, we just allow it to be in effect for Week 1? And then starting in Week 2, we can do away with that buffer and remove any limit, but knowing that if you go high over, you could be screwing yourself for the following season. I think with Hayes, myself, Rich, and other owners in the league keeping an eye on teams, we should be able to monitor anyone who goes extremely over their cap. So what consitute "extremely over"? Is it a completely arbitrary number now, known only to the committee? Or will it be $10MM for team A, but only $8MM for team B? What happens if a team gets to that arbitrary number? Yeah, they get penalized for next season, but what about the current season? Is the trade getting revoked? I don't know, I just see turning it into the Wild Wild West a bad idea. In real life it works because those owners have implications. They have to pay the luxury tax out of their own pocket and pay those salaries for many years. Here? Well, let's hypothetically say that next year will hypothetically be my last year (it's not; I'm speaking in hypotheticals). After the season begins, I make a ton of trades to amass an All-Star roster and roll my way to the World Series. I quit. What happens to the new owner? The debt gets erased? So now not only does the new owner have no debt, but he has a higher payroll because of all the playoff bonuses and such. Not to mention that he could still have some of those players he acquired, but I guess the debt got erased? I'm not a fan of doing away with the buffer for in-season trades or acquisitions. I foresee it opening up a Pandora's box. I do think we should be able to claim guys who would put us over the buffer, though. It could create some more excitement and participation. If you win the claim and the team just lets the player go to you, well, it will hurt you in future seasons. But if the team wants to work out a trade, you have to get under the buffer before the trade goes through.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2016 15:24:47 GMT -5
To be honest, I don't think we should get rid of the buffer. My only thought regarding the buffer was allow teams to go over it for Revocable Waivers claims only, so about three or four weeks in August and then that accounts for less than 33% of the season being over the buffer.
Can anybody actually recall someone letting a player go for nothing that was claimed on Revocable Waivers?
|
|
Whitesox
AAA
I'm just here for the free kool-aid
Posts: 773
|
Post by Whitesox on Aug 13, 2016 15:48:10 GMT -5
I agree, I dont think the buffer should be eliminated. The only way I could see getting rid of it work would be to imply a luxury tax. However much someone went over the 5M buffer they would have to pay twice as much next year against their cap.
|
|