|
Post by raysgm on Aug 13, 2016 16:08:03 GMT -5
Can anybody actually recall someone letting a player go for nothing that was claimed on Revocable Waivers? In a pair of minor moves I once claimed David Ross from CHW and he was allowed to leave. Similarly, I let STL have David Hernandez last season during waivers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2016 18:15:34 GMT -5
Can anybody actually recall someone letting a player go for nothing that was claimed on Revocable Waivers? I let Jair Jurrgens go fo nothing when he was claimed. It has happened in other instances as well. It isn't common, but it is not unheard of either. Maybe something like every other year.
|
|
|
Post by sanfran on Aug 14, 2016 11:59:52 GMT -5
So next step. Take it out of theory and look at your roster. A Rule 5 this year would be players drafted in 2012 or earlier. Who on your roster is eligible? OR who has the most? I wasn't drafting super young, but in my draft history only: Hecchavarria, Krol, Lamb and Owings are still on my roster and under 3rd year. I wouldn't hesitate to put 3 of those guys on my active roster - mainly because it's thin.
Maybe look at a couple of rosters for guys who draft younger players. Who will this really affect.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Aug 14, 2016 12:26:41 GMT -5
This is a great question, Travis. Unfortunately, the 2010-2012 drafts are missing from the league page, because I think there was a server crash that wiped them out.
Looking over my roster, I believe the following players would be eligible:
XXX C Ryan Lavarnway (not drafted by me, but a while ago) 2nd 3B Mike Olt
And that would be it. To me, this is exactly the type of guy that should be in a Rule V draft. They probably aren't going to play with my team, but their YOS are low, and they are still in professional baseball, so if another team wants to roll the dice, then they can.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 14, 2016 14:11:50 GMT -5
This is a great question, Travis. Unfortunately, the 2010-2012 drafts are missing from the league page, because I think there was a server crash that wiped them out. What are you talking about? The only missing draft is the first one in 2005.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 14, 2016 14:38:48 GMT -5
What if we did something like this (when I list Week #, I mean the Friday of that week at midnight EST, unless it's a trade which would still be Thursday at midnight like it is now):
- No cap during offseason (there isn't anyways) - $5MM buffer in effect for Week 1 through Week 18. The idea of why it was implemented isn't being used much anyways, might as well allow it in Week 1. - Regular trade deadline is Week 18 every season. This would be easier to deal with than having to figure it out each year. - After week 18, we do Revocable waivers and remove any buffer limit. Teams may list all their Revocable Waiver players instead of spreading it out. - Teams must list their players in Week 18, even though they can still trade them normally that week. Allows a greater time period for others to see them. - Claims cannot be listed until after Week 18 locks. Then the deadline to claim is Week 19. - Teams have until Week 22 to make a deal if they claim a player. No more 1 week window. They have until the end of Revocable Waivers. - No NTC players can be placed on Revocable Waivers, thus closing that loophole. We'll call it the "Connor Rule". (We may need to extend this to any player with a NTC cannot be waived or maybe if they are waived, the original team must continue to cover 100% of the first year's salary even if they are claimed by another team). - Anyone not on your active or reserve roster with a guaranteed contract by Week 22 is ineligible for the playoffs. - Week 26 ends the regular season.
This is just spit balling to see what it may look like. Things can be amended.
And if we do a Rule V draft, what if we use similar free agent criteria? Run the Rule V starting in Week 2, and any reserve players without guaranteed contracts that meet free agent qualifications (Age 26+ with 5 in the minors or 2 in the majors) are eligible.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Aug 14, 2016 18:55:51 GMT -5
What are you talking about? The only missing draft is the first one in 2005. Okay. All of the other ones were in descending order, so I didn't think they were there. No big deal. JIm
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Aug 14, 2016 19:02:30 GMT -5
What if we did something like this (when I list Week #, I mean the Friday of that week at midnight EST, unless it's a trade which would still be Thursday at midnight like it is now): - No cap during offseason (there isn't anyways) - $5MM buffer in effect for Week 1 through Week 18. The idea of why it was implemented isn't being used much anyways, might as well allow it in Week 1. - Regular trade deadline is Week 18 every season. This would be easier to deal with than having to figure it out each year. - After week 18, we do Revocable waivers and remove any buffer limit. Teams may list all their Revocable Waiver players instead of spreading it out. - Teams must list their players in Week 18, even though they can still trade them normally that week. Allows a greater time period for others to see them. - Claims cannot be listed until after Week 18 locks. Then the deadline to claim is Week 19. - Teams have until Week 22 to make a deal if they claim a player. No more 1 week window. They have until the end of Revocable Waivers. - No NTC players can be placed on Revocable Waivers, thus closing that loophole. We'll call it the "Connor Rule". (We may need to extend this to any player with a NTC cannot be waived or maybe if they are waived, the original team must continue to cover 100% of the first year's salary even if they are claimed by another team). - Anyone not on your active or reserve roster with a guaranteed contract by Week 22 is ineligible for the playoffs. - Week 26 ends the regular season. This is just spit balling to see what it may look like. Things can be amended. And if we do a Rule V draft, what if we use similar free agent criteria? Run the Rule V starting in Week 2, and any reserve players without guaranteed contracts that meet free agent qualifications (Age 26+ with 5 in the minors or 2 in the majors) are eligible. This is really good. I like every single one of these ideas, with 2 exceptions: 1. I'm cool with listing all revocable waiver players in Week 18, but I think it would be good to set a maximum limit of players that could be waived. Otherwise, teams are going to try to waive 30-40 players all at once, and it will just be ridiculous. I think 15 is a fair number. It adds some strategy, because you can't waive every single player, and more importantly, it forces teams to only waive players they may actually be serious about trading. It eliminates teams waiving their aces and cleanup hitters in the 0.00001% chance that some miraculous trade materializes. 2. I'm not at all a fan of the Rule V suggestion of age 26+. If we are allowed to draft guys up to age 25, that means guys we drafted only the previous year would already be Rule V eligible. Going by age alone really hammers guys like me, who like to draft older grinders. In real life, a Rule V is present for guys that just keep lingering in a team's minor league system. It forces teams to either move them up, or risk losing them. Now maybe we can up the years-in-the-league amount to protect GMs like you that like to draft very young guys, but there has to be some compromise other than just going by a strict age. All the rest of the suggestions are really good, JIm
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 14, 2016 19:14:51 GMT -5
This is really good. I like every single one of these ideas, with 2 exceptions: 1. I'm cool with listing all revocable waiver players in Week 18, but I think it would be good to set a maximum limit of players that could be waived. Otherwise, teams are going to try to waive 30-40 players all at once, and it will just be ridiculous. I think 15 is a fair number. It adds some strategy, because you can't waive every single player, and more importantly, it forces teams to only waive players they may actually be serious about trading. It eliminates teams waiving their aces and cleanup hitters in the 0.00001% chance that some miraculous trade materializes. 2. I'm not at all a fan of the Rule V suggestion of age 26+. If we are allowed to draft guys up to age 25, that means guys we drafted only the previous year would already be Rule V eligible. Going by age alone really hammers guys like me, who like to draft older grinders. In real life, a Rule V is present for guys that just keep lingering in a team's minor league system. It forces teams to either move them up, or risk losing them. Now maybe we can up the years-in-the-league amount to protect GMs like you that like to draft very young guys, but there has to be some compromise other than just going by a strict age. All the rest of the suggestions are really good, JIm Good point on #2, I literally just sorta added it in cause it came to me while I was typing the other stuff. We could also have a "must've been drafted 3 or more years before the current year" rule. So for example, next season in Week 2 when it starts, no one that was drafted in 2014 or since is eligible. And if you do have one of those guys and you want to protect them, you just have to make them active for Week 1 and then they're protected. We could also add in a "college years count towards minor league time" stipulation only for this draft. So if I draft a kid like Jared Horn who I know is going to college, his three years in college are on the clock. I still have until he's 26 to use him, but it helps ease the "5 years in the minors" part that could benefit me while hurting someone who drafts like you. Basically, starts everyone who isn't an IFA when they're 18. Or shit, make it simple.... 26 years old or older and can't have been drafted in the last three years. There. Simple. As for your first point, we can always do 2 weeks of waivers with 15 players each. List some in Week 18 that need to be claimed by Week 19, and list some in Week 19 that need to be claimed by Week 20. There's several ways to go with it. Like I said I was just spit balling out some ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 14, 2016 19:17:31 GMT -5
Oh, we can even add in MLI players to be Rule V eligible. So if you sign a guy to an MLI for depth, and don't guarantee his contract by the start of the season, someone else can draft him as a 1 year vet in the Rule V Draft. For all other XXX-3rd year guys, you inherit their service time clock.
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Aug 17, 2016 0:34:32 GMT -5
I've been reading over this thread most of the day trying to formulate my thoughts. There's a lot being talked about outside of just changing revocable waivers. So I'll throw out some of my initial thoughts while continuing to process the rest of this discussion.
1 - $5M Buffer - This was put into place early in the league to prevent teams from further unbalancing the uneven cap #s. If we had a flat cap for all teams similar to the NFL, there would be no need for a buffer because borrowing from year to year would be it's own check and balance system. If you borrowed too much, you couldn't compete in the open market because all teams would have an opportunity be on equal footing each year. It's a lot easier for high payroll teams to borrow from their cap than our version of "small market" teams. It could very easily get out of hand. I'm scared that someone is just willing to bury themselves for a small chance to get ahead. This is a game. I don't know how each person in this league views games. I do know from working in the gaming industry that there are people who will gamble wildly when there is nothing to lose. Removing the buffer is not a bad thing. We've stopped holding hands in a lot of areas and things are no better or worse than they were when the committee was more involved. If someone breaks the system and ruins it for the rest of us, I'm going to be the first one to start typing expletives onto this message board about it.
2 - Rule V Draft - I still don't like the idea of this. If the committee hammers out an actual set of rules for the Rule V, I could better form an opinion. It seems fine as an offseason project to keep GMs interested, but we all know that some guys just auto-pilot when things aren't going well. I did it for like 3 years. If Rule V is viable and balanced, then I'll be in favor it. If we just want a Rule V so we can say we have one, then I'm in favor of just skipping it.
3 - Revocable Waivers - I hate Revocable Waivers. I often don't participate. It's too much time and effort for very little return. It needs to be simplified or replaced with a better system. I'm not sure exactly why there is such a thing as a trade deadline which also means I have no understanding why there is a revocable waiver process that exists to circumvent that deadline. It all seems stupid to me. Kind of like why MLB can't figure out that both leagues should use the same DH rule? Why can't figure this out? It's not even 2 separate leagues any more! WTF!... but seriously, revocable waivers are stupid and should probably just be abolished.
That's all for now.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Aug 17, 2016 12:01:13 GMT -5
I've been reading over this thread most of the day trying to formulate my thoughts. There's a lot being talked about outside of just changing revocable waivers. So I'll throw out some of my initial thoughts while continuing to process the rest of this discussion. 1 - $5M Buffer - This was put into place early in the league to prevent teams from further unbalancing the uneven cap #s. If we had a flat cap for all teams similar to the NFL, there would be no need for a buffer because borrowing from year to year would be it's own check and balance system. If you borrowed too much, you couldn't compete in the open market because all teams would have an opportunity be on equal footing each year. It's a lot easier for high payroll teams to borrow from their cap than our version of "small market" teams. It could very easily get out of hand. I'm scared that someone is just willing to bury themselves for a small chance to get ahead. This is a game. I don't know how each person in this league views games. I do know from working in the gaming industry that there are people who will gamble wildly when there is nothing to lose. Removing the buffer is not a bad thing. We've stopped holding hands in a lot of areas and things are no better or worse than they were when the committee was more involved. If someone breaks the system and ruins it for the rest of us, I'm going to be the first one to start typing expletives onto this message board about it. 2 - Rule V Draft - I still don't like the idea of this. If the committee hammers out an actual set of rules for the Rule V, I could better form an opinion. It seems fine as an offseason project to keep GMs interested, but we all know that some guys just auto-pilot when things aren't going well. I did it for like 3 years. If Rule V is viable and balanced, then I'll be in favor it. If we just want a Rule V so we can say we have one, then I'm in favor of just skipping it. 3 - Revocable Waivers - I hate Revocable Waivers. I often don't participate. It's too much time and effort for very little return. It needs to be simplified or replaced with a better system. I'm not sure exactly why there is such a thing as a trade deadline which also means I have no understanding why there is a revocable waiver process that exists to circumvent that deadline. It all seems stupid to me. Kind of like why MLB can't figure out that both leagues should use the same DH rule? Why can't figure this out? It's not even 2 separate leagues any more! WTF!... but seriously, revocable waivers are stupid and should probably just be abolished. That's all for now. Well crap. If I knew I was just going to get a long-winded version of "everything sucks" I would've just asked Zim to give feedback instead. At least he would've done it in 30 words or less and save me 60 second of my day.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Aug 17, 2016 13:42:49 GMT -5
That's how a male friend crushes another male friend. Right there.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Aug 18, 2016 1:52:36 GMT -5
I've been reading over this thread most of the day trying to formulate my thoughts. There's a lot being talked about outside of just changing revocable waivers. So I'll throw out some of my initial thoughts while continuing to process the rest of this discussion. 1 - $5M Buffer - This was put into place early in the league to prevent teams from further unbalancing the uneven cap #s. If we had a flat cap for all teams similar to the NFL, there would be no need for a buffer because borrowing from year to year would be it's own check and balance system. If you borrowed too much, you couldn't compete in the open market because all teams would have an opportunity be on equal footing each year. It's a lot easier for high payroll teams to borrow from their cap than our version of "small market" teams. It could very easily get out of hand. I'm scared that someone is just willing to bury themselves for a small chance to get ahead. This is a game. I don't know how each person in this league views games. I do know from working in the gaming industry that there are people who will gamble wildly when there is nothing to lose. Removing the buffer is not a bad thing. We've stopped holding hands in a lot of areas and things are no better or worse than they were when the committee was more involved. If someone breaks the system and ruins it for the rest of us, I'm going to be the first one to start typing expletives onto this message board about it. 2 - Rule V Draft - I still don't like the idea of this. If the committee hammers out an actual set of rules for the Rule V, I could better form an opinion. It seems fine as an offseason project to keep GMs interested, but we all know that some guys just auto-pilot when things aren't going well. I did it for like 3 years. If Rule V is viable and balanced, then I'll be in favor it. If we just want a Rule V so we can say we have one, then I'm in favor of just skipping it. 3 - Revocable Waivers - I hate Revocable Waivers. I often don't participate. It's too much time and effort for very little return. It needs to be simplified or replaced with a better system. I'm not sure exactly why there is such a thing as a trade deadline which also means I have no understanding why there is a revocable waiver process that exists to circumvent that deadline. It all seems stupid to me. Kind of like why MLB can't figure out that both leagues should use the same DH rule? Why can't figure this out? It's not even 2 separate leagues any more! WTF!... but seriously, revocable waivers are stupid and should probably just be abolished. That's all for now. Well crap. If I knew I was just going to get a long-winded version of "everything sucks" I would've just asked Zim to give feedback instead. At least he would've done it in 30 words or less and save me 60 second of my day. Here are solutions to "everything sucks." 1 - $5M Buffer - Limited by our moving cap, our best option is to increase the baseline buffer to $10M during the first half of the season. After the "All Star Break," we can increase it to $20M to allow for teams to make trades and participate in whatever version of waivers we end up on. This mitigates potential damage done to teams in subsequent seasons while giving teams looking to make a push access to more resources. 2 - Rule V Draft - I have very little understanding as to why teams would want this. We have a limited # of roster slots to allocate to players that we deem worthy of our time. Giving up any of these players seems counter intuitive to the way our roster system works. I believe the real solution to the Rule V question is to not implement a Rule V Draft of any type. I'd be willing to revise this opinion if the committee presents me with a working model with set rules. 3 - Revocable Waivers - I still hold to the opinion that revocable waivers are silly. Just extend the trade deadline. Extend it right up until the last 2 weeks of the season. I don't see any reason for us to have to jump thru hoops to trade players after the deadline when all we really want to do is trade players. We can replicate the "claimed for nothing" thing by having teams list players available for $250k. We'll called the "bargain bin." Teams can list players they're willing to sell for $250k that can be "claimed" based on waiver priority. Team list players for 2 weeks followed by 2 weeks of claims. At the end of that month, trades are executed that send players and money around the league. Sorry to be such a negative nelly. I just think that adding complexity to this version of simulation baseball isn't in our league's best interest. I also think we should go to a 30/30 roster system where we have 30 active players and 30 reserve players. I think we should just make the decision to run the DH in both leagues as I believe that MLB will end up in the same spot eventually. I think we should restrict the trading of 1st round picks and add a 5th round to the summer draft. I know it isn't even remotely possible yet I believe that our league should function with a salary cap # that applies to ALL teams instead of the moving cap we currently use. And more than anything else, I think the MLB and NSBL version of revocable waivers is stupid. Knife Hugs, Bitches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2016 2:59:51 GMT -5
I'm not a proponent of changing the buffer for anything except the waiver claim process. You can go over the buffer to make a claim, and it only hits your cap if you win the claim and the waiving team lets you have him. If a player is claimed but traded, the buffer is still in effect.
For example, Team A is $3M under the cap, but he claims John Smith from Team B, who makes $15M. The claim is allowed. If Team B allows Team A to have him for nothing, Team A is now $12M over the cap, as allowed by the Waiver Process. However, if Team B doesn't just want to give him away, they can work out a deal with Team A. In this case, the $5M buffer is still in place, so at least $7M in cash must go to Team A in the deal.
Some other thoughts -
This week has been crazy and a really fun deadline. Maybe we can replicate it in another few weeks.
1. Two week of waivers. Put up to 12 players on waivers. At end of the two weeks, a list is put together that has all waived players in a single list.
2. One week of waiver claims. Each team can claim up to 8 players. This should be done in secret, so some strategy is involved and a second place team doesn't just see a first place team claim someone and block him. Maybe use the free agency email for this. At end of the week, the list of who won claims and who passed through is posted. Letting teams only claim 8 players will ensure there are some that make it through.
3. One week of trading frenzy. I think having only one week that comes four weeks after last trading period will create a market that is ripe for deals. It will also put more pressure on teams to make deals at non-waiver deadline in the future because it won't be for another month or so that you can make a deal. This will also be the time that players are pulled back or let go for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Aug 18, 2016 5:33:28 GMT -5
Yes. This. If you are short on time this morning and can't read all of these posts, skip over Sean's and read Mike's. Sean's post is pure giraffe penis. JIm
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Oct 31, 2016 13:17:35 GMT -5
Anyone else have anything to add or any new suggestions or ideas here? I'd like to bring this topic to the rest of the committee and I'd like to have multiple options to present so we can get this broken system fixed or replaced.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2016 15:46:13 GMT -5
1. Two week of waivers. Put up to 12 players on waivers. At end of the two weeks, a list is put together that has all waived players in a single list.
2. One week of waiver claims. Each team can claim up to 8 players. This should be done in secret, so some strategy is involved and a second place team doesn't just see a first place team claim someone and block him. Maybe use the free agency email for this. At end of the week, the list of who won claims and who passed through is posted. Letting teams only claim 8 players will ensure there are some that make it through.
3. One week of trading frenzy. I think having only one week that comes four weeks after last trading period will create a market that is ripe for deals. It will also put more pressure on teams to make deals at non-waiver deadline in the future because it won't be for another month or so that you can make a deal. This will also be the time that players are pulled back or let go for nothing.
I also stick by my thoughts on allowing to go over buffer for waiver claims. If a trade is made, can't go over buffer. Only time the over-the-buffer rule comes into play is if team A allows their player claimed by team B to go for no return.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Oct 31, 2016 16:33:45 GMT -5
I like most of Mike's ideas, but don't totally understand 2 weeks of waivers, but only 1 week of claims. Can GMs not claim guys the first week, Mike?
JIm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 0:00:27 GMT -5
I like most of Mike's ideas, but don't totally understand 2 weeks of waivers, but only 1 week of claims. Can GMs not claim guys the first week, Mike? JIm You have two weeks to waive your 12 players. So if you want to hold off to see how you are doing in the sim, you can. Then everyone's list is compiled and posted to the site on Monday of week 3. You send your 8 claims to an email inbox by Thursday or Friday or whenever. This is a secret claim process, and you only have 8 claims as opposed to you limit of 12 players waived so it has to be strategic who you claim. This will also ensure some players do go thru unclaimed. Then on Monday (or Sunday night) of week 4, the list of claimed players is posted, as well as a list of players that passed through. Monday-Thursday will be trading carnage the likes of what we saw at the deadline this year.
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Nov 1, 2016 10:38:42 GMT -5
Why only 12 players? I feel that if we cut it down to one week of claims that an owner should have the option of listing any/all players that have a guaranteed contract at that point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 12:09:14 GMT -5
Why only 12 players? I feel that if we cut it down to one week of claims that an owner should have the option of listing any/all players that have a guaranteed contract at that point. So people have to actually make decisions instead of just saying, I want to waive everyone with a guaranteed contract. Do we really need to see 800-900 players placed on waivers? That's what we'd get if that happened, every team has roughly 30 players with a guaranteed contract by August.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 1, 2016 21:25:43 GMT -5
I think Mike's idea makes it a more strategic decision. Otherwise, everyone is getting waived, and there's no real point in having a trade deadline.
All I ask is that this e-mail claims inbox be in a secret location. Like a double-agent dead drop.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Nov 1, 2016 21:58:10 GMT -5
Why only 12 players? I feel that if we cut it down to one week of claims that an owner should have the option of listing any/all players that have a guaranteed contract at that point. So people have to actually make decisions instead of just saying, I want to waive everyone with a guaranteed contract. Do we really need to see 800-900 players placed on waivers? That's what we'd get if that happened, every team has roughly 30 players with a guaranteed contract by August. Everyone can waive up to 10 players per week now which adds up to 40 per team (if they had that many that met requirement) and we don't get 800-900 that are placed on waivers. Some teams just aren't going to do it. Could this change under the new method, most definitely. I understand the idea behind it of forcing strategic thinking in who you are going to place on waivers and such, I guess I'm just not a fan of it and against changing it at this point. Just as important to me is the allowing teams to go over hard cap idea. I don't think it should be changed for just the revocable waivers period. I feel a team should either be allowed to go over at any point once the season begins or not at all.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 1, 2016 22:15:53 GMT -5
I just don't get the point of waiving all 40 players on your team. It pretty much nullifies the Trade Deadline, and honestly, even the most active teams at this point may trade like 2 players tops.
I initially suggested a change, because I think this could be a time to re-energize GMs that have lost interest in the latter part of the season, if the rules governing it made for a little more strategy and fun.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 2, 2016 0:19:37 GMT -5
Just to touch on a few of the ideas that have been mentioned. I will start with Tracy's about the buffer. I personally am in favor of enacting the buffer for Week 1, instead of making it start in Week 2. But I think we should keep it for a set number of weeks at the $5MM it's currently at.
Then, with two weeks left in regular trading period, I'd like to see it removed or raised (I also want to start scheduling everything by week # instead of calendar month. So we have the trade deadline be like Week 18, and then the deadline to have someone on your roster to use for the post-season be Week 22. Each season is 26 weeks long) at maybe the Week 16 mark. That gives two weeks of regular trading with no cap. Or maybe raise the buffer to $20MM. Then, depending on what we do with the waiver process, maybe raise the buffer again.
I must say I am not a big fan of Michael's plan. For one, I don't think it's going to increase the activity level of the league like Jim thinks. The people who are active in Week 1 are typically the same ones who are active in Week 20. Very little changes. I can do a chart to show which owners sent in an MP each week like I did last season if you'd like to see. Frankly, some owners only do drafts and free agency, maybe make a couple trades at the deadline, but then that's it. But I think Michael's plan is going to cause too much confusion. I'd rather find a way to simplify it, not make it harder for the non-active owner to participate. Also, I am not in favor of any system that is going to add to any committee member's workload. By the second half of the season, I am tired and don't want extra tasks. Keeping the spreadsheet updated through the draft is a PITA. I do enough just trying to figure out everyone's MP and roster moves each week since half the league still doesn't note it in the email they attach it to, or they only do half the moves before sending in an MP and I have to try to figure out which players were waived/signed/traded before it will load. Asking another committee member to do all these waiver priority lists when 95% of the players won't even be traded sounds like crap.
This past season's trading frenzy I think had more to do with the extra roster space that we didn't have before. Teams are now able to carry more players, thus they have more they can trade away and more they can trade for. As I noted last year when we were discussing the increased roster, at the time there was like 1 team that could do a 3 for 1 deal without waiving players. This year there were more. With larger rosters, trading away 5 guys at the deadline to acquire 2 pitchers doesn't kill your reserves like it used to. Before that would be 20-25% of your reserve roster to do that. Now it's only 1/6th, and will continue to be a smaller portion of it each year.
I do like the strategy aspect of Michael's idea, and I love that ideas are coming out. But I would really prefer a simplified system instead of a more complicated one. And if we do go to a system where waiver requests must be sent in, I think we should lower the number of players that can be placed on R.W. so there are less names for a committee member to wade through.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 10:11:56 GMT -5
I figured it was simple and more people would participate.
You have 2 weeks (week 19 & 20) to submit all of your players waived (12 should be a good limit, but 15 could work too). During this time, no work is needed by anyone other than GMs sending their players to an email address.
At the end of the two weeks, a list is compiled of everyone who was waived, and posted to the board.
The next week (week 21), anyone wanting a claim sends one email with up to 8 names (or maybe 10 names if the limit to waive is higher). A bunch of these names will be duplicated throughout the league, so there will be some tracking needed at this point. After its done, a list is posted to the board with who won each waiver claim, and another list of everyone passed through.
Week 22 is for trading those claimed and unclaimed players. Thursday of Week 22 is the deadline for playoff rosters.
I'm not sure its too complicated. I do think it creates a pretty good market for trading at week 22, as it's four weeks after the trading deadline.
I think the deadline was a bit crazy this year once it was extended a week due to where July 31st fell on the schedule and how MLB extended it to Aug 2, giving us another week. There were very little deals done before the extension was announced, it was a weak deadline in terms of activity, but a flurry after the extension. I think it was a ton of fun for the league, and I think a process that delays the waiver deals to one week at the end creates a market similar to what we saw this year at the deadline.
|
|
|
Post by Texas GM on Nov 2, 2016 13:34:52 GMT -5
IMO, being able to get as many players through waivers as we do now gives us the components to get deals done between two teams. Limiting it to 10 will simply make it harder to match up the pieces it takes to get a trade deadline deal done.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 2, 2016 21:45:29 GMT -5
I disagree, Mark. Your XXX-3rd players don't have to pass through waivers if they haven't been on the active roster during the season. And in most trades at that time of year, one team is trading a veteran rental for a grouping of younger players and prospects.
If we're going to still allow 40 players to be waived, you might as well just extend the Trade Deadline and save the trouble. I think there's enough good ideas in this thread that we should be able to come up with some cool compromise.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 3, 2016 0:59:45 GMT -5
If we're going to still allow 40 players to be waived, you might as well just extend the Trade Deadline and save the trouble. I think there's enough good ideas in this thread that we should be able to come up with some cool compromise. Maybe that's the solution. By allowing the worst teams to have claiming priority, they're basically cyber squatters. They have these rights but are usually in no position to make a trade for a player, because they don't need them (to help them limp to 500?) or don't want to part with prospects and ruin their rebuild. So basically revocable waivers makes it so usually only the worst teams can trade for the best players. That's one of the reasons deals rarely get done. If Tracy puts Kershaw on the R-Waivers List, only like 3 teams can claim him due to his contract, so that right there limits him, but if one of those three does claim Kershaw, but has no intention of trading for him, then there is 0% chance Kershaw gets moved. With an open market, maybe he does? Maybe the answer is to just move to trade deadline to Week 22, and do away with R-Waivers completely. After Week 18, either increase or remove the buffer completely, and then when teams are more sure of their fate (i.e. not going to contend) they will be more willing to deal. This means less work for the committee, and less confusion for owners.
|
|