|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Jan 18, 2010 17:10:16 GMT -5
Have we ever given thought to using a waiver system in the league? My other league uses a simplified waiver system. Here is the link to the waiver rules in outahere: forum.outaheresports.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5539The basic idea is that if you want to release a guy, he needs to clear waivers first. Second, if you want to dump a guy for nothing, a waiver claim is basically a trade for nothing in return. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by sj on Jan 18, 2010 18:06:17 GMT -5
Have we ever given thought to using a waiver system in the league? My other league uses a simplified waiver system. Here is the link to the waiver rules in outahere: forum.outaheresports.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5539The basic idea is that if you want to release a guy, he needs to clear waivers first. Second, if you want to dump a guy for nothing, a waiver claim is basically a trade for nothing in return. Thoughts? I'm not thrilled with that form of waivers. What I'd like to see is an alternate system like we used to use in other leagues: If a player is in the minors, not injured or just off an injury, and at peak, he can be claimed by other teams in reverse order of winning percentage for a set fee if successful. A claim can be blocked by the owning team promoting him to the majors for the remainder of the season. If a team gets the player, they also have to keep him in the majors the rest of the season or offer him back to the team they got him from. Personally, I'd limit it to 3 or 5 total claims per team per season, so we don't have people claiming everybody in sight. That's just claims, not necessarily successful ones. We have several teams with guys at peak sitting in the minors right now. Granted, some only just hit peak. I wouldn't hold my breath though. It takes a bit of work to verify waivers eligibility (it's amazing how many people claim players not eligible, even in a system this simple), then to transfer successful claims to the new teams and then download the new .team files. One thing it would do is wake a few owners up. See Terry's analysis of the Yankees in his latest article as an example.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 18, 2010 19:09:04 GMT -5
I agree with Rand. I've been in a league with a waiver system like he described, and it was rather successful.
I like this even more now that the trading's decrease has kept up. TMBL has never been so quiet. It feels like half the league is sleeping. Forcing the owners to work with a waivers system is a smart way of getting back some interest and action. Otherwise, let's hire a cleaning lady: there are spiderwebs all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Jan 18, 2010 19:58:11 GMT -5
I'd be okay with a waiver system like Rand mentioned even though I don't think it does as much as one would think to encourage the less-active owners to take more interest.
The teams who have terrible major league rosters and who could actually use some of the guys in other teams' minor leagues also tend to have less-active owners who won't put forth the effort to take advantage of the waiver system.
And there's an added disincentive. Some owners, when they've determined that they have no shot at a playoff spot, basically throw in the towel. They may not actively try to lose, but they don't try very hard to win more games, either, and won't be too interested in picking up a guy from another team who might help them get from 65 wins to 67. Not talking about anybody in particular here, just talking from experience.
Nonetheless, it makes owners think a bit about signing too many veterans just to be that third-string catcher or just-in-case reliever.
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Jan 18, 2010 20:29:30 GMT -5
The teams who have terrible major league rosters and who could actually use some of the guys in other teams' minor leagues also tend to have less-active owners who won't put forth the effort to take advantage of the waiver system.
Well, coming from a team with lots of needs, I've tried to even go after those bench guys, or peaked minor leaguers and had a tough time getting anything. Most of you know how active I've been recently trying to get a couple of needs on my roster filled. That being said, in outahere we use a rule V system (just reduced our roster size to 38 man from 40 man) as a way of keeping teams from stockpiling too much talent, and the waiver system is basically a way of getting rid of unwanted contracts.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 18, 2010 21:37:46 GMT -5
Personally I'm against any waiver system. Some owners like myself just do not have the time to scour everyones roster looking for possible waiver claims.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Jan 18, 2010 22:44:57 GMT -5
id say it would take too much extra time if you had to do this throughout the whole season...why not have a 40 man rule v draft like the MLB after FA and before the season starts. It could help some teams fill a couple gaps, and wouldnt be too time consuming with having to mess with .team files every week and the research that would go into each weeks sim of what teams guys i might want.
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Jan 18, 2010 23:07:14 GMT -5
there really is no time taken in the other waiver system discussed by Rand and Terry. If you are not looking for guys, you don't make claims. All you have to do is look out for your own team to make sure you don't lose anything of value for nothing
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Jan 19, 2010 14:39:56 GMT -5
yeah but then maybe a division team snatches up a good guy....i lost out...there is a lot of time involved in rand and terrys plan...
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 19, 2010 14:44:27 GMT -5
It's no different than when you or other owners look up for players to trade for, players that have never been put on the block, and then you start discussing and making offers on them. If you have time to look for such players to make offers on, then don't say time is an argument against a waiver system.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 19, 2010 14:49:29 GMT -5
yeah but then maybe a division team snatches up a good guy....i lost out...there is a lot of time involved in rand and terrys plan... Sure, a division team can make a claim and snatch up a good guy, like you said. But have you really lost out? First of all, it doesn't mean that because they made the claim, that they'll get the player: he can be recalled. And even if they get the player, what have you lost out? If the team that made the claim is behind you in the Standings, you lost out nothing: even if you had also made the claim at the same time, it's the team with the worst W-L record that would have gotten the player instead. The trading decrease that I noticed during the offseason hasn't gone away. Using a waivers system would be a great way of putting back some action into the league. Some much-needed action.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Jan 19, 2010 15:45:45 GMT -5
The teams who have terrible major league rosters and who could actually use some of the guys in other teams' minor leagues also tend to have less-active owners who won't put forth the effort to take advantage of the waiver system. You're right, unfortunately. And there's an added disincentive. Some owners, when they've determined that they have no shot at a playoff spot, basically throw in the towel. They may not actively try to lose, but they don't try very hard to win more games, either, Yeah, this happens in every league that's been around long enough to have a handful of teams that always win. Personally I'm against any waiver system. Some owners like myself just do not have the time to scour everyones roster looking for possible waiver claims. The #1 most common complaint about this type of system. It also doesn't help that some players at peak still have different overall/peak ratings, but using find player and displaying both roster position and debut date helps find candidates a lot faster. If an owner has time to evaluate FAs and trade offers, he has time to do this. If he doesn't... People also piggyback on claims made by other owners. The player goes to the team with the lowest Wpct that makes a claim, not first come first served. All you have to do is look out for your own team to make sure you don't lose anything of value for nothing Yep. A claim would have to be emailed to the owner with a Cc to the commissioner, and be posted on the boards. The owner of the team the player is on gets 48 hours to promote him or let him go. One possible problem is that an owner could say he was promoting the guy, then post a .team file with him still in the minors, but anyone can download file attachments. It doesn't have to be just the commissioner checking this, any of us can. For Scott, I'd propose that starting this type of waivers system takes the place of having player buy downs. IOW: We do this, we get rid of that. We don't have to have buy downs. I like the accounting help, but they do confuse things a bit and take a lot of time to do. If we also got rid of points and just made it a straight 150M cash cap, that'd eliminate a lot more work - and tighten earnings a bit. Just a couple of suggestions about how to do it without adding too much work to the commissioner's office. Using a waivers system would be a great way of putting back some action into the league. Some much-needed action. I'd like to do this waivers system, but don't count on it revitalizing the league. Too many super teams. Too many perpetual rebuilding teams. Too many barely active owners who'll remain barely active no matter what we do.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Jan 19, 2010 16:05:29 GMT -5
so lets say the indians find a guy they want to claim and they post it on the boards...ill have 24 hours to put in a claim too...(this is assuming i have the lesser record of the teams)??
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 19, 2010 16:38:52 GMT -5
so lets say the indians find a guy they want to claim and they post it on the boards...ill have 24 hours to put in a claim too...(this is assuming i have the lesser record of the teams)?? I'm not certain that it wouldn't be 48 hours instead of 24, but this is only details for the moment. If the Indians claimed a player, it doesn't mean it would be a player that you needed, or would have room for. But if you would like to claim the player anyway, you'd need to make sure you'd have a need for him - he couldn't be sent to the minors, or else he would need to be offered back to the team from which he was originally claimed. Rand's suggestion of limiting total claims per team per season is good. It would avoid having teams abuse of this system, whether by claiming players just to claim players (I know these guys, and we have some of them with us) or by trying to block any claim that other teams do.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Jan 19, 2010 16:39:20 GMT -5
so lets say the indians find a guy they want to claim and they post it on the boards...ill have 24 hours to put in a claim too...(this is assuming i have the lesser record of the teams)?? I expect the minimum would be 48 hours, that's been the usual time I've seen in leagues with this. Or Scott and Mosko could decide to make it longer, say 72 hours since that's sort of the time between sims. If I were doing it, I'd limit the waivers season to May 1 through August 31. limiting total claims per team per season is good. It would avoid having teams abuse of this system, whether by claiming players just to claim players I don't think they're with us here, but we had some nightmare owners in MLC 1. They'd post waivers claim lists with 8 to 12 players on them. We'd have to enforce a one player per thread rule, just like in FA bidding. Otherwise, we would get people claiming multiple players per thread, and making all of us crazy. Probably would also need a volunteer to track claims by player and team. Normally, I would volunteer, but I've been kicking around the idea of creating a new league for elite owners, BIO, and I'll have to decide if I'm going to do it or not.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Jan 19, 2010 17:15:09 GMT -5
at first i was against... but if there was a vote i would go ahead and vote for it how it sounds right now
|
|
|
Post by OriolesGM on Jan 19, 2010 18:18:32 GMT -5
After reading all your comments, I would also be in favor of a waiver system. However, we would need to take steps to ensure the Commish does not become bogged down with all the extra workload. Someone mentioned an assistant just for keeping track of claims, this is a good idea, as long as there are clear-cut policies & procedures in place.
|
|
|
Post by Yankees on Jan 19, 2010 18:50:14 GMT -5
Yes! Yes! Waiver relief
Yes! Yes! Rooster limits. More free agents it would be great!
|
|
|
Post by boffer on Jan 19, 2010 20:10:15 GMT -5
Waiver system, I will agree to such system.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyboy on Jan 19, 2010 20:29:13 GMT -5
I agree that the waiver would be a good addition to the league.
I also agree with Rand about getting rid of the cash/point system by getting a cash cap at 150M. If amount of cash in the league is increased by the conversion of all the points previously allowed, mogul will adjust the income and solve a part of our extra cash problem.I didn't test it with the 2k10 version but I know that it was like that in the previous ones.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Jan 20, 2010 10:02:00 GMT -5
I agree with getting rid of points too..maybe that deserves its own thread?
with this waiver system, would it be just guys that are at peak in the minors or would it be a true 40 man roster?
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 20, 2010 10:26:53 GMT -5
I agree with getting rid of points too..maybe that deserves its own thread? with this waiver system, would it be just guys that are at peak in the minors or would it be a true 40 man roster? It depends of the system. Paul's suggestion is more like a 40 man roster, whereas Rand's idea would only concern guys in the minors that are in peak.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Jan 20, 2010 12:41:00 GMT -5
or would it be a true 40 man roster? Going to a 40 man roster would be a big change, probably hurt rebuilding teams more than the contenders, and add a lot of work to a league where half the owners complain about not having enough time, or just barely run their teams. The at peak and in the minors system is simpler, and participation would be mostly optional. Mostly. For our 27 season old league, the better way to help avoid having already very good teams stockpiling farm talent would be to end DP trading, because that's where the problem starts. An owner loads his team with amateurs, keeps the best and trades the rest, plus old post-peak veterans, for more DPs and/or other prospects, then rinse and repeat annually as owners of mediocre or bad teams trade away their DPs again to get the players that could have been on their team if they'd kept their DPs in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Jan 20, 2010 13:24:27 GMT -5
As for eliminating the trading of draft picks, perhaps we could consider some form of limit to the number of picks that you can acquire in any one year. My other league places a limit on the number of 1st and 2nd round picks that any one team can acquire. There have been many ideas that have come up in this discussion that are worthy of discussion.
Getting back to the waiver system. I like the idea of being able to go out and grab some peaked guy sitting in AAA instead of going out and spending huge $$ on overpriced FA's on short term deals (as I have had to do the last couple of seasons) And from the sounds of it, it is a low maintenance system in that it is an ongoing option not a once per year event.
|
|
|
Post by marmol on Jan 20, 2010 19:46:33 GMT -5
I would be in favor for helping out rebuilding teams with a waiver system. Hopefully it will add some activity. As far as limiting draft picks, I am not so sure. If teams trade their picks, and do not pay attention to whom they are trading them to, its not the leagues duty to tell them about it... I think the waiver system will keep the mid-level guys moving around enough, although I wonder how much. My question is will the people claimed off waivers really make a difference? Will a relief pitcher who is (78) peaked in the minors really take a rebuilding team to the next level? I think perhaps the really good teams are good enough where the mediocre teams will not gain much. Maybe I am missing it, but can an owner place players on Waivers (i.e. put Vets in the minors)? Will there be a waiver wire for this? Are we trying to steer away from this? Limiting DP trading would need to be a different discussion all together.
|
|