|
Post by sjrand on Nov 18, 2006 14:05:00 GMT -5
Lets get some discussion about what type of system people would like to see.
I'm going to kick it off with a few givens:
- There will be suitable compensation for every successful waivers claim
- There will be a per team limit on successful claims allowed per season
- There will be a per team limit on the number of claims allowed per sim period
- Teams will be allowed to protect one or two pitchers since BBM has no pitching equivalent to a bench
- Teams at the 45 man roster limit will not be allowed to make a claim
The idea for having waivers in TMBL is to discourage farming out veterans, or leaving rookies at peak in the minors, to get a lower contract demand. It's also to move players unusable by one team onto another team that needs them.
What we're not looking to do is create a free for all supplemental draft from other team's rosters. I've been in leagues where one team would claim ten to fifteen players at a time. That isn't going to happen here.
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Nov 18, 2006 15:08:28 GMT -5
way too complicated lol. its actually pretty hard to do it the easy way since we are in 2k4. the easy way was players 90+ overall were first round picks, 85-90 2nd round, 78-84 3rd, but 2k4 does not haver overall/peak grades.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Nov 19, 2006 22:59:58 GMT -5
Since this is mainly to discourage "farming" of top players, I don't think that the compensation need be too big. Should be just money and not draft picks. Just the threat of losing a top guy should force the behavior we want.
Claimed player should be at peak.
Claimed player must not be considered rookie by game.
Claimed player must have three full pro seasons at any level.
Team with worse record has priority on claims. It should not be first-come first-served.
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Nov 19, 2006 23:31:50 GMT -5
i know this is going to be met with a "Duh", but make sure Injured players can be sent down and back up in the event we have a 15+ game injury.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Nov 22, 2006 10:35:31 GMT -5
Claimed player should be at peak. Claimed player must not be considered rookie by game. Claimed player must have three full pro seasons at any level. I agree with you on two out of three. I don't think rookie status should be a reason for exclusion if the player is at peak and has three seasons in the league, pro or triple A. Some teams could leave a player in his prime in triple A indefinitely. Some players will never see any pro time because they're not quite good enough for the team they're on, but could be at least a bench player or long man on most other teams. i know this is going to be met with a "Duh", but make sure Injured players can be sent down and back up in the event we have a 15+ game injury. Yeah, you get your "duh". Except it won't take a 15+ day injury. We only sim 15 days at a time, so 5 is probably enough. Or maybe 7.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Nov 22, 2006 13:38:04 GMT -5
I don't think rookie status should be a reason for exclusion if the player is at peak and has three seasons in the league, pro or triple A. Some teams could leave a player in his prime in triple A indefinitely. Yes, you're right. I withdraw that comment.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 25, 2006 14:58:29 GMT -5
An idea that is already used in other leagues is any player making $1M or more per season and is in the minors can be claimed off of waivers. The only exception is a player sent down due to an injury. Works well and very simple, no compensations, no limits or no protected lists.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Nov 27, 2006 11:22:20 GMT -5
That doesn't solve the problem we ran into with Philly in this league though, where guys who had played in the majors and were allstars were sent back to the minors making only 300K in their walk year to lower their demands.
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Nov 27, 2006 13:26:55 GMT -5
so add "or any player in his walk year demanding more than 1mil"
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 27, 2006 22:47:07 GMT -5
......or like what has been said before many times, make any draftees contract expire at the same time they reach their peak.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyboy on Dec 8, 2006 12:18:51 GMT -5
Why we are not using the MLC waiver claim rules: <<- A player may be claimed on waivers if ALL of the following are true: He is 26 or older. - He is not injured or just off being injured. -He has reached his peak. -He is in the minors. -He has been in the league (minors or majors) for three full years ... The original team may block the waiver claim by notifying the commissioner and the claiming team(s) that the player is being moved to the major league roster. If a waiver claim is blocked in this way, the player must remain on the major league roster for the rest of the regular season. The team obtaining the waiver player must give $400,000 ($0.4M) to the team losing the player. The waiver player MUST remain on the major league roster of his new team for the remainder of the current regular season unless he becomes injured for more than 10 games. If injured, he must be recalled to the majors after recuperation is complete. If the new owner wishes to send the waiver players to the minors and no injury is involved, the player must be offered back to the original owner at no cost. If the original owner does not want the player back, the player may return to the minor leagues where he will be subject to the waiver rule once again. If a player claimed on waivers is then traded during that same season, he must remain on the major league roster of the team receiving him in trade for the rest of the regular season. Waivers claims may start after the first sim of the season, and they end at the conclusion of the regular league schedule>>.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Dec 8, 2006 15:10:41 GMT -5
Sounds good to me except I don't think we should have the "26-or-older" exclusion.
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Dec 8, 2006 15:59:13 GMT -5
change 26 or older to peaked players. Otherwise i agree it sounds pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Dec 8, 2006 16:49:49 GMT -5
It was already like that in the proposition:
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Dec 8, 2006 17:15:02 GMT -5
26 or older is an arbitrary number that means nothing in TMBL. Actually, it didn't mean anything in MLC either, somebody just thought it seemed like a nice age I guess.
Players won't need to have reached peak if they have sufficient experience. For example, I could play Stargell four more seasons then send him to AAA and he'd be exempt from a claim because he still hasn't hit peak. That would be silly since he'd have six pro seasons by that point. And Stargell is far from the only player that could happen with.
I also don't go with that bit about a team winning a claim then, if it wants to farm the guy all it has to do is offer the player back to the original team, and if that team doesn't want him he can go to the minors. If a team wins a player and sends him down, he loses the player and we just need to find out which other team will take him. IOW: He has to clear waivers again.
I have some more specific thoughts that I'll be posting in the next few days.
And again, there will be a limit on the number of total claims made per team per sim period, and the number of successful claim allowed per season. I also think the cutoff will be around the same time as the new trade deadline, so that teams can get some experience for their rookies without being harried by claims. Within the limits of our anti-tanking rules of course.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Dec 8, 2006 23:14:58 GMT -5
Please keep it simple.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Dec 9, 2006 10:08:40 GMT -5
In my opinion we have two separate a distinct problems that unfortunately require some sort of regulation.
Problem #1: Hoarding of major league level talent in the minor leagues in order to better draft standing and overall quality of future lineups.
A simple look at the rosters will show that 30% of the "1965 predicted" homerun leaders are currently on minor league rosters. Similarly 30% of the predicted RBI leaders are also in the minor leagues. 40% of the batting avg (including the predicted winner) are in the minor leagues. 6 of the to 11 projected pitchers in "wins" are in the minors, and finally, of the top 10 leaders in ERA half are in the minors. With the exception of a handful of these players, they are all under contract for quite some time and have little or no time on a major league roster. Generally speaking, the teams these players are on are teams that are not doing so well, and it is my opinion that they would be doing better if players of this caliber were on there major league roster.
One should think about this, these are just samples of the top 10 in each category. That is a huge number of quality players sitting in the minors for no legitimate reason. Most of these players should be starters on a major league roster, that is unless someone better is standing in the way. A rule 5 draft/waiver system should be implemented to stop this from happening. In my opinion any player in the minor leagues that falls into the top 10 predicted in certain categories IE. homeruns, avg, rbi's, wins, saves, era could become vulnerable in a rule 5 draft and/or waiver system. Compensation, of course would have to be made to the team losing the player. Also, any team acquiring a player in this manner must place them on their major league roster for the remainder of the season, with the exception of injury.
Problem #2: Players in their final year of their contract being sent to the minors so they ask less in negotiations.
Simple fix. Any player in their final season of a contract that meets a minimum number of major league games of experience that is sent to the minors for any reason other than injury, is eligible to be claimed off waivers. Compensation could vary, based on the quality of the player. A simple way of doing this is to compensate based on that players $ amount request for a 1 year contract. I think compensation is important and a small nominal amount isn't enough.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Dec 9, 2006 11:58:29 GMT -5
Maybe, but how many of these players haven't started their peak yet?
A hitter can be predicted for a ton of homerun, but if his predicted average isn't too good, he's better off in the minors to continue progressing. Unless, of course, he played in the majors before, was extremely dominant and now is wasting his time in the minor leagues...
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Dec 9, 2006 12:02:23 GMT -5
Peak or no peak, if the player is that good, the player should be evaluated by comparing to his peers at this particular time, not by what he "will be", but what "he is now". Bogg Powell doesn't hit his peak for 3 more years, yet hit 50 home runs last season.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Dec 9, 2006 12:07:42 GMT -5
In my opinion any player in the minor leagues that falls into the top 10 predicted in certain categories IE. homeruns, avg, rbi's, wins, saves, era could become vulnerable in a rule 5 draft and/or waiver system. Unfortunately, it isn't as clear cut as it seems to be. Rookies are notorious for starting off badly. For example, I've been trying to get Hubbs into my lineup ever since I got him. Until very recently, almost every test I did had him doing very badly on the pro club. I'm taking a big chance with Hubbs right now since he's at around 50/50 odds for a good season. In my tests, he's hit .340, but he's also hit .210. With Petrocelli, one of those top ten in both projected and actual AAA performance, put him into the lineup and, in a good season he hits around .240 with 1 homer every 11 or 12 games. In one off season, his projected 61 homer peak falls to 41. In pro baseball, real players get better by playing and getting coached on the side if they have trouble. In BBM a player either does well or he doesn't, there are no coaches, no batting or pitching practice. A hitter can't lean to use a different bat, different grip, or change his swing. A pitcher can't learn a new offspeed pitch or to throw for the corners. If he doesn't do well he probably never will because he can't learn anything. In BBM, every sub-par season for a pre-peak player lowers his projected peak. I've seen projected (and actual) superstars become 300k free agents. Simple fix. Any player in their final season of a contract that meets a minimum number of major league games of experience that is sent to the minors for any reason other than injury, is eligible to be claimed off waivers. This is a certainty, and not only for walk-year players. Sorry, but I don't think waivers should be simple. It should take real work from the scouts (the owners) to decide which players are worth claiming. MLC and 21C both have or had fairly simple waivers, resulting in teams claiming more than a dozen players at a time every sim, and several other teams piling on in claims made by teams not in the bottom 3 to trump their claims. Then one season passes, and almost all of those players are right back in AAA. That's not going to happen here. MLB waivers is far from simple, with the 40 man active roster and multiple option years. Most dedicated fans couldn't even begin to explain the rule 5 draft anymore than they could explain the infield fly rule. We won't be anywhere near that bad, but we won't be MLC either.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Dec 9, 2006 12:15:09 GMT -5
I agree with you that playing players before their peak is started can help a team. I do that with a bunch of my players. But I know that some owners who keep those stars in the minors do it because they judge they're not ready yet: it can be because of their contact ability, or because of their defense. Sometimes, the team really wants to make sure the rookie is "ready" to start even if there is lesser talent at the same position as a starter with the club. Other times, the team has a pretty solid player starting and therefore can be more patient with the rookie player.
I just don't think that we can force the hand of owners to play everyone just because they are predicted for 39 HR or something. Some of the owners are extremely patient with rookies, and some rush them to the majors. Which ones are right?
SS Alex George doesn't hit his peak for another two years but he's already past 1500 hits for his career. It would have been a waste to leave him in the minors for so long. But I'm sure some owners wouldn't have started him when he was 18. The same goes for Boog Powell: everyone knew what he could do one day, but he was a starter at 19 and perhaps could have used some time in the minors. But then again, what would that have changed and who knows about it?
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Dec 9, 2006 12:33:01 GMT -5
Why not just reduce the roster size down to 40? Gives you less room to hide players.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Dec 9, 2006 14:14:56 GMT -5
Why not just reduce the roster size down to 40? Gives you less room to hide players. Because sometimes diligence and league activity should pay off. I set a bonus cap for articles so that owners who are prolific don't end up making tens of millions every season and gaining a large advantage over others that can't or won't write. But with waivers, there's nothing wrong with taking an attitude of if you snooze, you lose. Just like with trading, drafting, and free agency: Owners either explore their options or they lose out.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Dec 9, 2006 14:50:29 GMT -5
Have you got any feedback from the minority who voted against waivers? Are we going to lose any owners once this is implemented?
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Dec 9, 2006 17:05:16 GMT -5
I don't see what a players "peak" has to do with anything. A lot of players at their "peak" aren't worth a darn and many players are good enough to start way before their "peak". No less then five of the Pirates starting 8 position players are before their peak and wouldn't be covered by any waiver system that requires them to be at peak should I decide to send them to the minors.2 of the 6 bullpen pitchers are not at peak either. Using "peak" as a barometer as to a players value is like comparing apples to oranges. Everyones "peak" performance is unique to each individual player.
|
|