|
Post by sj on Aug 5, 2010 13:26:03 GMT -5
I only thought of this because of the Hurst claim.
This is a 26 year old pitcher, predicted 2.95 ERA. 15-8 3.50 last season, struggling so far this season.
So. I go slightly insane and offer him to another team for 1M cash.
I post it on the boards.
How many minutes pass before a trade challenge is issued?
But with waivers it's okay?
How about if OAK put Jim Rice in the minors? The guy that couldn't be traded for some decent, but not spectacular, prospects a couple of seasons ago because he's an impact player?
A 1M waivers claim gets him?
Isn't that a little odd?
I couldn't trade Dwayne Murphy for a couple of lesser prospects and a handful of cash, but if I farm him out for having an off year a team can have him for 1M off of waivers?
|
|
|
Post by OriolesGM on Aug 5, 2010 13:47:27 GMT -5
When did we start paying $1M for a waiver claim? Did I miss something?
|
|
|
Post by sj on Aug 5, 2010 13:49:00 GMT -5
Or 400k, whatever the amount is. I don't pay attention because I'm maxed on cash, and when I found a couple of guys in the minors that I wanted I made trade offers for them.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Aug 5, 2010 14:00:33 GMT -5
I remember other leagues offering money to the team losing a player to the waivers, but I don't think we do...
|
|
|
Post by sj on Aug 5, 2010 14:27:17 GMT -5
I think people are missing the point here.
Let's pretend that, a couple of seasons ago, instead of OAK and DET trying to make a trade for Jim Rice, Zeke had demoted Rice to the minors and a team claimed Rice on waivers, and Zeke didn't block it.
Does that team get Rice?
The same impact player that couldn't be traded to DET because the committee decided it wasn't a good deal for OAK?
How about if Zeke had put Rice on the waivers wire, the list of players that an owner says can be claimed without him trying to block it?
How good a deal is it to have a player go to another team for nothing in return at all?
We have a major hole in the system here.
Either the rule allowing trades to be challenged should be removed, or teams making waivers claims need to send appropriate compensation to the other team. It doesn't make sense that a trade can be canceled because it's lopsided, but the same players that are too good to be traded can be taken away on waivers.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Aug 5, 2010 14:43:33 GMT -5
A compensation would work fine. It doesn't require to go in Team Editor to adjust the cash, since it can be included in the "trade" when sending the player that was won over the waivers to the other team.
Maybe there's even a way to set up "levels" of compensation, say less cash for players rated 70 or lower, a little more for players rated 71-80, more for 81-90, and then quite more for 90+ players. Or simply one amount.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Aug 5, 2010 14:55:13 GMT -5
Not cash. Draft picks or players.
Detroit offered a few players for Rice that had a chance to become decent contributors to that team, but the trade challenge committee decided they weren't good enough to get Rice.
What amount of cash would have been enough for the Tigers to make a trade for Rice in 1982?
We can't have one set of criteria for making trades, and a different set for making waivers claims. Both involve transfer of a player or players from one team to another team, and both effect the short or long term ability of the teams to compete.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Aug 5, 2010 15:03:48 GMT -5
Guys like Rice shouldn't be in the minors free to be claimed to begin with. I can understand that some teams could want to get rid of a player whose contract they no longer desire, but usually that's a player whose contract almost no team will be willing to take on. Guys like Rice, Dawson, Eddie Murray, Dale Murphy, name 'em, don't belong in the minors other than because they were injured for some time.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Aug 5, 2010 15:38:06 GMT -5
A different, and more valid, arguement around waivers .. is why are some teams like the A's (i know they have new ownership now) did not take advantage of waivers. Just two seasons ago the A's had like a 65ovr SS when there were half a dozen 70 type SS's in AAA ready to claim.. I think this is part of what's bugging some people. The Mets are doing a great job using the waiver system. Keep it up! But you're right: why are some other teams not using this? Your argument about the A's couldn't be more true. And the same could be said about some other teams as well. Asides from the Mets, the 2 teams making the most claims are the Tigers and Twins. Good for them that they do, really. It proves they're active, and bless them for that. But at the same time, it's a bit unusual. They're contenders, they're top teams, they have little holes and it's great to see them try to patch these holes. How about the team that are made up of holes, then? But I do not think the problem is the waiver system. Maybe a compensation could prove useful, but it's not what's going to wake up a few dormant teams. I do wish more teams tried as hard as the Mets are.
|
|
|
Post by OriolesGM on Aug 5, 2010 16:27:37 GMT -5
Before I make my point, I agree with the other owners that said "high impact" veterans shouldn't and probably would never be shipped to the minors (other than for re-hab). That being said, I think another point that's missing from this discussion is that the claimed player retains his current contract-- it doesn't revert to the league minimum salary. So, in the hypothetical case of Jim Rice, the team that acquired him would be on the hook for $8M x the 5+ years still remaining on his contract. That huge decrease in payroll could be seen as a benefit in itself to his former team.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Aug 5, 2010 16:58:02 GMT -5
There actually are reasons to send a player down. Ever try to bench a pitcher? Can't do it. You can bench a hitter, but that also doesn't mean the AI won't stick him back into the lineup. Sometimes inertia is real and can be broken. I think I managed it with another player, but time will tell.
Still, because something shouldn't be done doesn't mean it can't or won't be done. Where would Lance Parrish be playing right now if we'd had waivers a few seasons ago?
We need something to cover the event, unlikely as you might feel it is, where a high quality player gets farmed or put on waivers.
If I were running Oakland a while back, and got my attempt to get my income into the black vetoed by the trade committee, I wouldn't hesitate to put Rice on the waiver wire. There's no rule against it, he's not helping me, he's costing me too much money, so bye bye.
This could also be a wonderful way for an owner to donate talent to a friend. Farm the guy, if your friend gets the best claim let him go. If the friend is in last overall, put him on the wire.
Half the rules we have in this league are based on owner abuse of the system. If we didn't have to worry about people exploiting the system, our rules would fit in ten lines of text. The rest is prevent people getting around them.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Aug 5, 2010 17:00:28 GMT -5
I'm glad the Mets claim player or the rich get better... I got two guys That's should be claimed... Pete Filson and ron johnson. They could help a team out...
PS rand did make a good point. Eventually a team will be dormant a top prospect will peak handsome team will claim him. Maybe if theplayermakes less then 5 million a year we can veto the waiver
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Aug 5, 2010 18:20:56 GMT -5
Rand,
I tend to agree that in the very rare instance that someone like Jim Rice gets put on waivers, we need to have a rule to cover it.
However, I think that could also be covered in my powers as commish. There is not a chance in hell that I am going to allow someone like Jim Rice to float away on waivers. The same goes for a dormat team that doesn't bring a star prospect up and doesn't care / know that a waiver claim was placed for them.
Now, that is pretty subjective, but maybe because of that, we use the same trade committee for waivers. I would be shocked if this committee would ever be needed, but we could have it just to cover ourselves in case an owner(s) try to exploit the system. The committee would simply have a vote and make a decision as to whether that quality of a player, such as Jim Rice, should be allowed to move.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyboy on Aug 5, 2010 18:33:43 GMT -5
If a great player get claimed and win by the waiver, logically one of the worst team will get him, so that's good isn't?
If a lot of team owners are in sleeping mode, what more we can do? At least the active owners of bad teams will benefit of that. So did we really need to take action to prevent that? Personnally, I dont think so...unless that we can prove a collusion case.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Aug 5, 2010 19:18:33 GMT -5
If a great player get claimed and win by the waiver, logically one of the worst team will get him, so that's good isn't? The chances are that the "great" player we are hypothetically talking about would already be on a bad team do exist. A great player who's in the minors because there's just too much talent on that team, that's one thing. But a great player who's in the minors because his owner just doesn't care or pays attention, it's something else, and allowing teams to get that player because we tolerate that sort of lazy behavior isn't good to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Aug 6, 2010 12:49:24 GMT -5
People also need to remember that, no matter what we call the guys running a team, the league owns those teams. Player-owners come and go, sometimes after doing everything they can to destroy the team they were supposed to be playing, but when they leave the team still exists in TMBL - they don't take the team with them, we don't replace the team they leave with a new expansion team.
So far, Scott's answer makes the most sense: He can use his commissioner powers to veto a waiver claim or send it to the trade review committee.
The only thing left would be to identify what types of players would qualify for special handling. That could be covered by the player class system that Terry mentioned a few posts back.
I think the system overall could be handled more like FA compensation used in RL MLB. You get a player of a certain class from another team, you give something back to the team you got him from. Examples: Class A, 1st round DP. B, 2nd or 3rd rounder. C, 4th rounder or free.
Just because a team has too many at-peak players right now doesn't mean they'll have enough next season, or that they'll be able to afford replacing players lost by using the FA market.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Aug 6, 2010 15:10:56 GMT -5
To me, this seems like a whole lot of typing b/c the STL owner put his 93 ovr SP in AAA.. :shrug: That would be because you're taking a limited "how does this effect me" view, and I'm used to thinking about the league as a whole since I used to run it. As I said in my first post, it only occurred to me because Hurst had a claim placed on him, I usually don't pay attention to claims on other players. But if I'd noticed a claim placed on a player that I know is highly ranked the result would have been the same. You and I, we can come or go, but the teams never leave the league. If a trade for a high rated player can be called bad and vetoed because it's bad, then how much worse is it to have that same player claimed on waivers? As to the question you asked the first time you posted, then deleted, this train of thought: Why would I feel any differently about your team passing me in the standings than I do about every other team passing me in the standings every season? Whomever I happen to lose to in any given season, I'm still a loser.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Aug 6, 2010 15:11:52 GMT -5
In real life teams get compensation for the loss of FA's...Teams that send players out of options down to AAA get placed on waivers or irrevocably waivers and get no compensation for that player if claimed. They CAN pull that player off waivers and try to trade that player to the team that put in claim thus showing interest in that particuliar player.
We havent had one bad case of this yet...Let's see if Jim Rice or any marginal star player with a good contract gets claimed...I'm sure owners will bitch and complain to Scott or whoever is commish at that time, and the commish will do whats right and block that claim. The commish will then discuss with that owner and figure out if he needs help with the concepts of the BBM engine, or if he is absent from TMBL and needs to be replaced with a competent, and active owner.
Maybe I should start a thread saying my Closer got hurt for a month, and its unfair and unlucky. Next time im going have a 99 overall star player get hurt and my season is done. I should get compensation for that player.
Also if Hurst has no trade value in the open market who says hes a stud. Maybe the market is so overwhelmed with quality pitchers no one really wants to trade for a good starting pitcher. Thus he might be a 93 overall, but really I would say hes the 1000 best positional value player in TMBL. While Doug Frobel is only a 83 overall, but I would say hes 999 best positional value (kills lefty pitching, and can crush some homers against southpaws). I have no clue if that's how i would rank those two guys, but if there was a fantasy draft with all the players I know my draft would go like this:
first 3 rounds: SS, C, 2B Next 6 rounds: Corner infielders, all 3 OF positions, hell maybe another ss for future trading Then i would take my first starting pitcher...
Would anyone right now trade a 90 starting pitcher for a 90 OF given the same age, salary, peak start and end, and no extremes like horrible command for the pitchers and the hitter having crappy power
|
|
|
Post by sj on Aug 6, 2010 16:30:18 GMT -5
Which, to an acute observer, might possibly explain why I keep using Rice, and once Parrish, for my examples.
We also don't have options. Demote, or fail to promote, a player at peak once and he's eligible to be claimed.
We don't have FA compensation partly because teams holding their contracts have 100% exclusive negotiating rights with their players up until the day the owner posts that he's not going to re-sign them, and even then he is not excluded from bidding on the players now sitting in the FA pool.
Once an owner does re-sign a player, he also has the option of lowering that player's salary by the amount the owner won in a playoffs contest, which would probably not be allowed by a real life player.
We don't do reality here. Most leagues don't. Contrasting one aspect of league based unreality to real life baseball while ignoring all the other unrealistic aspects of league play is somewhat futile.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Aug 6, 2010 17:16:34 GMT -5
People also need to remember that, no matter what we call the guys running a team, the league owns those teams. Player-owners come and go, sometimes after doing everything they can to destroy the team they were supposed to be playing, but when they leave the team still exists in TMBL - they don't take the team with them, we don't replace the team they leave with a new expansion team. So far, Scott's answer makes the most sense: He can use his commissioner powers to veto a waiver claim or send it to the trade review committee. The only thing left would be to identify what types of players would qualify for special handling. That could be covered by the player class system that Terry mentioned a few posts back. I think the system overall could be handled more like FA compensation used in RL MLB. You get a player of a certain class from another team, you give something back to the team you got him from. Examples: Class A, 1st round DP. B, 2nd or 3rd rounder. C, 4th rounder or free. Just because a team has too many at-peak players right now doesn't mean they'll have enough next season, or that they'll be able to afford replacing players lost by using the FA market. Your the one that brought up real life, so i went with it...
|
|
|
Post by johnnyboy on Aug 6, 2010 23:00:24 GMT -5
Seriously, if we brought a compensation for the waiver players win, I can tell you right away that will be the end of the waiver.
Personnally I just can't afford to send a 93 overall pitcher in AAA, if you can is certainly because your team is better than mine so the waiver system still help weaker teams than yours
|
|
|
Post by sj on Aug 7, 2010 13:00:22 GMT -5
Sorry, but I'm going totally off-topic now. Scott already said what we needed to know, so I don't think it makes a difference anymore. Your the one that brought up real life, so i went with it... That's out of context and a a comparison point for sake of example, but whatever. Seriously, if we brought a compensation for the waiver players win, I can tell you right away that will be the end of the waiver. That would make me cry. Especially when I look at the prime users of the waivers system, which we implemented to help distribute talent to lesser teams. Division leading or contending teams making claims against the bottom third teams in the league. Exactly the opposite of what I had in mind when I strongly favored starting to do this. DET claims from Houston. MON claims from HOU. DET claims from TEX. MIN claims from NYY. MON claims from SDP. Yeah, we really need to make sure this system is preserved in its present form. It's vital to the league that the Twins and Tigers get to claim players from the bottom dwelling Rangers, Astros, and Yankees. Personnally I just can't afford to send a 93 overall pitcher in AAA, if you can is certainly because your team is better than mine so the waiver system still help weaker teams than yours When I sent him down to break the negative momentum he had a 4.79 ERA with 6 wins and 11 losses on the team that was originally predicted as favored to take the NL East. His last 10 game log performance was 5.16 and 2-7. Sometimes breaking momentum works, sometimes it doesn't, but work or not it took a pitcher with a 2 to 1 loss ratio out of my rotation for a sim and gave me a chance to test others. If BBM had a way for me to sit out the guy I'd have done that. It doesn't. I'm not a manager, I'm a GM/owner. The AI manager does what it wants once the sim starts. But that's a strategy discussion, and opinions vary.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Aug 7, 2010 13:13:11 GMT -5
The Expos can hardly be considered a top team anymore. We may have less holes than some bottom teams. But I'm not ready to blame the Twins and Tigers for being active. They're not the problem, and they're not even part of the problem. If the teams we expected would need the waiver system the most aren't using it at all, it certainly isn't the fault of the teams they'll never catch up to.
The Expos claim from HOU was to try and wake up a team that had acquired two players on April 15 that were still sleeping in the minors at least two sims later, if not more. The Expos claim from SD was on 3B Edgar Martinez, who started the year in the minors. Obviously not a case of breaking the momentum. I don't have the luxury of having an Edgar Martinez to sit in the minors or on the bench.
In some cases, the players are there waiting to be claimed. I agree that I would like to see the crappiest teams around make those claims instead of the top teams, but it's not really happening (except for the Mets who are indeed using the waiver system wisely). I guess it proves one thing: the crappy teams are often crappy for a reason, which is the same reason the top teams are so good. Owner involvement does make a tremendous difference...
|
|
|
Post by sj on Aug 7, 2010 13:57:55 GMT -5
The Expos can hardly be considered a top team anymore. The Expos are 5 moves away from being back in contention, but they're 5 difficult moves and that's not really your point anyway. I fully understand why you made some of the claims you made, but thinking about it logically, and as you and I have discussed privately, wouldn't it be better for the league to just get rid of owners who can't be bothered to pay attention, even if it meant the team had a caretaker for a season or three? Not necessarily losing teams, sometimes letting a team lose makes the best sense strategically in our type of league (I don't mean tanking), but owners who barely pay attention other than to make bad draft picks once a season.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Aug 7, 2010 17:29:27 GMT -5
Most of my claims this season were to get the other team to bring that player up. In most cases, NYM put in a claim on a guy that i claimed. So with me doing the homework, im helping out a lower tier team.
Trust me, I should never claim a player right now...if i can put him on my MLB roster a lower team could use that player.
We took away a lethargic owner, maybe that will wake up the 5 or so owners who arent that active.
Also if we kicked out another owner there's some teams that just cant compete for the next 5 years. For example, the Royals have NO shot at a division title for a while. There is no way with the Indians, and Brew Crew in the division. The white sox have some really good young pieces. A new owner is going take over that team, and be happy with having bonds for a year or two, then realize he's in a stacked division. I think that happened with the last White Sox owner. He was pretty active, and made some really good moves, but he had no real shot at winning a division title.
|
|