|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Jan 20, 2010 20:02:38 GMT -5
also if i cut a major leaguer....that is due 5 million for the next 4 years...if someone claims him, they pick up the bill correct?
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Jan 20, 2010 20:12:13 GMT -5
I don't think the waiver plan would be too difficult. Not sure it would have a dramatic impact on the league, but it's probably worth a shot.
I an dead set against a 40 man roster. I just started a rebuild last season, while I don't expect a long term rebuild, I have piled a lot of young players and would be dissapointed to say the least if I had to give them away. Maybe, if this made into a rule, we should have at least 3 seasons before it is enacted to give teams time to adjust.
I'm also against limiting trading draft picks. I thought the idea to encourage trades?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 20, 2010 20:58:58 GMT -5
also if i cut a major leaguer....that is due 5 million for the next 4 years...if someone claims him, they pick up the bill correct? I haven't read much of this discussion and won't until this weekend at the earliest, but this point needs to be addressed immediately. If we do something like seems to have been proposed here, we are going to have to make sure this assertion by Brad is taken care of. You already take advantage of the fact that I dropped the trading of free agents in their first year because it was penalizing all other owners at the expense of people like yourself who sign guys to huge contracts and then find somebody to bite on them in a trade. In no way am I going to allow you to sign guys at whatever price you want so that you can figure out you can't trade them away and then put them on waivers to be claimed by another team and cost you nothing. That is absolutely not going to happen here. As far as how we are going to get around that, you will have to wait until I post something more on this topic this weekend if I am not working around the clock and have my normal computer back.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 20, 2010 22:04:45 GMT -5
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... This is where I have to disagree, in the sense that because the league didn't tell them for such a long time, it has lead to the current state of TMBL being a league where a handful of teams have been dominant for a very long period of time, and will remain so dominant for a very long period of time. Some teams hand out their picks so blindy and so easily that, yes, it has become a problem. It impacts the league. The teams that dominated in 1968 or 1971 still dominate today, and will continue to do so for a great number of years. Worst: the teams that were last in 1968 or 1971 are still last today - and one or two exceptions simply doesn't change this fact. It's not as if we don't have anything else to trade. Pretty much every team's minors is loaded with players, and if any team doesn't trade its picks, it adds 6 more players every year. Do that for a number of years, and things will even out faster than if we do nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Jan 21, 2010 8:04:56 GMT -5
I don't think that picking up a few players on waivers will ever be enough to move teams up to the next level of performance. There will never be any real impact players left open to waivers.
Where it may be a benefit, though, is in allowing a team with some obvious holes in the lineup to pick up a couple of usable veterans to provide a temporary fix, perhaps allowing the team to keep a promising rookie in the minors to develop for another year rather than bringing him up too early.
I see several very promising players with 74/95 ratings or thereabouts in the majors now. They may do okay now, but would probably benefit from at least one more year in the minors. The availability of decent waiver players might just allow that to happen, allowing the owner a third choice beyond either playing the not-ready rookie or using a truly awful free agent player.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Jan 21, 2010 17:45:03 GMT -5
My question is will the people claimed off waivers really make a difference? Probably not to immediate Wpct, but it'll allow low talent, low income, teams to get some help without battling it out in the FA market, where even good teams pay lots of money for low ranked players to sit on their bench. 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? There's no reason an owner couldn't post that he's willing to let a guy go. I think a waiver wire is a good idea, but someone will have to man up and agree to do it for us. Maybe doing it would qualify for article bonus money? also if i cut a major leaguer....that is due 5 million for the next 4 years...if someone claims him, they pick up the bill correct? Other than what Scott brought up, why not? We used to farm out guys we couldn't trade all the time, hoping some team would claim them and get their salary off our payrolls. I don't think the waiver plan would be too difficult. Not sure it would have a dramatic impact on the league, but it's probably worth a shot. No, not dramatic. Mostly fill in types and benchers. But Lance Parrish, who hit peak on June 15, wouldn't still be sitting in AAA right now. In no way am I going to allow (FA's to be signed) and then put them on waivers to be claimed by another team and cost you nothing. That is absolutely not going to happen here. I'd suggest, don't allow first year FAs to be traded or claimed on waivers. And/or limit the number of FAs that a single team can sign during the main FA bidding period. I don't think that picking up a few players on waivers will ever be enough to move teams up to the next level of performance. There will never be any real impact players left open to waivers. Where it may be a benefit, though, is in allowing a team with some obvious holes in the lineup to pick up a couple of usable veterans to provide a temporary fix, perhaps allowing the team to keep a promising rookie in the minors to develop for another year rather than bringing him up too early. You speak truth.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 23, 2010 17:40:06 GMT -5
If we were too do such a system, this is how I would implement it:
Players Eligible to be Claimed
Any player who has reached his peak (age, not rating) and is in a team's minor leagues.
Exceptions
-The player is currently injured
-The player has just come off of injury within the last sim
Claim Priority
If a player is claimed by multiple teams, the priority will be determined on the prior season's winning percentage. (reverse order)
Blocking of Claim
Any owner who has a player on his / her team claimed by another owner may block the claim by simply promoting that player to the major leagues. The player must remain in the major leagues for the rest of that season.
If the player returns to the minor leagues in the same season and this is not because of one of the exceptions mentioned above, the next claim on that player cannot be blocked a second time by the owner.
Waiver Penalities
If a player is claimed on waivers during the same season in which he was signed as a free agent, and the current owner does not block the waiver claim, he / she will be fined 50% of the remaining contract amount.
If an owner wins a player on waivers and then proceeds to lose that player to waivers during the same season, he / she will be fined 50% of the remaining contract amount.
Waiver Claim Timing and Limitations
Each team in TMBL will be limited to 3 waiver "wins" in any given season. Once you have won 3 players on waivers, you are done until the following season.
The waiver period will run from May 1st to August 31st during each season.
Making a Claim
To make a claim, an owner must e-mail the owner of the team the claim is being made from. The commish MUST be copied on this e-mail. The waiver wire "guru" (to be discussed below) MUST also be copied on this e-mail.
In addition to the e-mail, the owner making the claim MUST also post the claim on the "Waiver Wire" board. The claim should look like the following example:
The Reds claim 3B Bill Madlock of the Expos
At this time, a 48 hour clock will start. During that 48 hours, any team in TMBL can also submit a claim (obviously, if you know someone with a lower win % than you in the prior season has made a claim, then you don't need too).
Also, during the 48 hour period, the owner of the player being claimed can come in at any time and say the player will be moved to the majors for the next sim. After the next sim, if that player is still sitting in the minors, he will be sent to the winning claim team without hesitation. No ifs ands or buts about it. (This is how we are going to get around the whole .Team file issue as some are e-mailed and some are on the boards).
Does that cover everything?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 23, 2010 17:47:36 GMT -5
Now, in order to have a system as mentioned above, someone is going to have to set up and enforce all the rules mentioned above.
This person will also be in charge of keeping track of how many "wins" each team has as well as which players have been claimed already and who won them.
This person also has to keep track of the two penalty situations mentioned above.
I am not going to do it, so if we are going to use this type of situation, someone else needs to take the lead role. You will be copied on all e-mails and will be responsible for making sure everything runs smoothly with the system.
Anyone can feel free to offer their help. If there are multiple people willing to do this, I will pick the person who I best think can do the job.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Jan 23, 2010 18:30:22 GMT -5
Exceptions-The player is currently injured -The player has just come off of injury within the last sim Maybe add: The player just reached peak during the last sim? Variable birthdays now.
|
|
|
Post by marmol on Jan 23, 2010 21:38:26 GMT -5
Will it be acceptable for owners to post that they are placing a player on Waivers? I can't think why that wouldn't be okay... Might add to more people checking rosters and such, do the due diligence and check people out. To me it seems like a good addition to just having people randomly email owners about people in their minors. If an owner wants to try and dump a contract, have at it sort of thing... The flip-side would be there will be teams taking these bad contracts when perhaps its a pretty bad move.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 23, 2010 21:57:26 GMT -5
I think both Rand's and Joe's ideas are good. Both will be added.
We can create a seperate sub-board on the Waiver Wire board so that people can post available players for waiver claims.
|
|
|
Post by OriolesGM on Jan 23, 2010 23:50:33 GMT -5
Regarding veteran players, it should be like the MLB procedure of designating a player for assignment. If he "passes through" waivers, he would then have to be sent to the Minors or released.
By some of the comments I've read it seems people are confusing the waiver system with the more straightforward trading of players. Which brings up another point... there should also be some kind of protected roster (i.e. the MLB's 40-man roster). Otherwise teams will be worried that any player at peak could be claimed by another team. At times it is necessary to hold a guy back in the minors for a short time, without having to worry about him being claimed.
|
|
|
Post by boffer on Jan 25, 2010 0:51:54 GMT -5
This waiver system looks good. But for pitching roster, I think a team should be allowed to keep 1 pitcher in peak in the minors. I always have one in case of a severe injury to one of my pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Jan 25, 2010 14:40:25 GMT -5
you can keep as many as you want - they won't be released or anything, but someone can claim any of them. I don't know what kind of market there will be for a 77 overall guy sitting in AAA, I'm pretty sure that most of have one of those guys anyway.
|
|
|
Post by stros on Jan 25, 2010 21:21:38 GMT -5
well, maybe the next version will have some sort of contract limits on guys that never get promoted, like 6 years for high school and 4 for college
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Jan 25, 2010 23:55:26 GMT -5
Well, in Outahere we established rules for 1st time contract extensions to try to increase the contracts given out to "star" players. We have a rule that any player coming up for his 1st contract can be given a max of a 4 year deal. You can send a guy to Arbitration as many times as you can, but there are no 6 or 7 year deals for 1st time ARB eligible players. This creates really big contract demands for that 2nd contract that usually comes in the middle of a player's peak rating (we use a closed file, so guys can't see the peak start and peak end info, but most guys sim ahead and generally know when players will begin to decline.
|
|