Waivers

[Deleted]

I like it!

[Atlanta Braves]

I like this idea!

[Boston Red Sox]

I like the placing on waivers idea, but I don't think you should be able to take it back. Done is done, or don't do it. What it appears to do is save you a 50% penalty if someone else takes up the contract. If no one does, you pay the price, and someone could win him at auction as we do know. I am in favor of this.

[Deleted]

Aug 23, 2016 11:52:03 GMT Boston Red Sox said:

I like the placing on waivers idea, but I don't think you should be able to take it back. Done is done, or don't do it. What it appears to do is save you a 50% penalty if someone else takes up the contract. If no one does, you pay the price, and someone could win him at auction as we do know. I am in favor of this.

That is a good idea as well.  So I guess we could see what people would rather have...

a) If nobody claims them you have a choice to keep the player after the 48 hours.

b) If nobody claims them you have to drop the player and pay the 50% penalty.

[Honorary Member]

I have 2nd thoughts:

1) This seems like a substitute to "End-Around" the penalty, in certain cases, i.e. A team has every intention of ridding themselves of a player, and uses this as a way to avoid the "Penalty", if they can...
2) This is actually a better option than using the "Trade Block"...Just throw a player's name out there, and see who has interest. You can always pull back the waiver...

I dunno, needs work...

[Deleted]

Aug 23, 2016 22:14:16 GMT Honorary Member said:

I have 2nd thoughts:

1) This seems like a substitute to "End-Around" the penalty, in certain cases, i.e. A team has every intention of ridding themselves of a player, and uses this as a way to avoid the "Penalty", if they can...
2) This is actually a better option than using the "Trade Block"...Just throw a player's name out there, and see who has interest. You can always pull back the waiver...

I dunno, needs work...

Well if we set it up that you can not pull back the waiver once you place them on waivers and you will pay the penalty after the 48 hours if nobody claims them than that will fix that problem and not make it like the "Trading Block".  

And yes this will be a way to rid yourself of a player and not have to pay a penalty.  But only if another team is willing to take on the contract as is.  We could also do longer than 48 hours for the waiver time.  But also, while you wait for the players to be on waivers, you can not add another player to replace him until he is either claimed or the waiver time expired.  So you might not want to do this route and just take the penalty right away if you need to drop someone to make a quick roster move.  

[Deleted]

Aug 24, 2016 13:32:58 GMT @bryanm1982 said:

Aug 23, 2016 22:14:16 GMT Honorary Member said:

I have 2nd thoughts:

1) This seems like a substitute to "End-Around" the penalty, in certain cases, i.e. A team has every intention of ridding themselves of a player, and uses this as a way to avoid the "Penalty", if they can...
2) This is actually a better option than using the "Trade Block"...Just throw a player's name out there, and see who has interest. You can always pull back the waiver...

I dunno, needs work...

Well if we set it up that you can not pull back the waiver once you place them on waivers and you will pay the penalty after the 48 hours if nobody claims them than that will fix that problem and not make it like the "Trading Block".  

And yes this will be a way to rid yourself of a player and not have to pay a penalty.  But only if another team is willing to take on the contract as is.  We could also do longer than 48 hours for the waiver time.  But also, while you wait for the players to be on waivers, you can not add another player to replace him until he is either claimed or the waiver time expired.  So you might not want to do this route and just take the penalty right away if you need to drop someone to make a quick roster move.  

It may just be me, but the way that Bryan just explained this, this seems kinda bulletproof. I like the idea. This allows you to be able to get rid of a player with no penalty by taking a chance at waivers. If the penalty doesn't bother you, you drop them right away.

[Deleted]

I just wanted to clean this up and let you see where we are so far on this.  


I have a rule suggestion for 2017. We could do MLB waiver wire. I know this was talked about in the past but I think if we tweek it just right it could make sense. If you want to drop a MLB player you can either drop them immediately like we do now. What the new idea is to add is you can choose to put that player on Waivers for 48 hours. Other teams can place a waiver wire for that player if they choose. We would have a waiver order like we do with the MiLB. Teams would place the waiver on that player. If you win that player through waivers you get the contract as is. The original player's owner will not have to pay a penalty for losing that player.  Once you place the player on waivers, you can not pull them back.  If no team places a claim, that player will be dropped and you will pay a 50% penalty.  If you want to drop a player and immediately add a player to replace them, you can still drop the player immediately and pay the 50% penalty. 

[Deleted]

Aug 24, 2016 16:54:58 GMT @bryanm1982 said:

I just wanted to clean this up and let you see where we are so far on this.  


I have a rule suggestion for 2017. We could do MLB waiver wire. I know this was talked about in the past but I think if we tweek it just right it could make sense. If you want to drop a MLB player you can either drop them immediately like we do now. What the new idea is to add is you can choose to put that player on Waivers for 48 hours. Other teams can place a waiver wire for that player if they choose. We would have a waiver order like we do with the MiLB. Teams would place the waiver on that player. If you win that player through waivers you get the contract as is. The original player's owner will not have to pay a penalty for losing that player.  Once you place the player on waivers, you can not pull them back.  If no team places a claim, that player will be dropped and you will pay a 50% penalty.  If you want to drop a player and immediately add a player to replace them, you can still drop the player immediately and pay the 50% penalty. 

I'm not sure if I agree with allowing the owner to decide whether to place him on waivers or not, this could lead to someone not placing a player on waivers because he knows that the guy with the highest priority will select him and he doesn't want that owner to have him.
So lets say Brian is on top of the priority list and on top of the league standings in June, and I wanted to drop a player who's out for 2 months (because I don't have roster space). I'd then decide I don't want to give Brian a chance to have that player so easily so I release him directly and a FA auction ensues which will make that player's contract become more expensive and Brian couldn't afford it.

It wouldn't make a lot of sense to me if something like that were to happen, also because players with decent contracts would be getting released outright so other owners would have to pay more to get him. I'd say that all player drops must go to the wire.


 

[Deleted]

Aug 24, 2016 17:06:18 GMT @jorgeaam said:

Aug 24, 2016 16:54:58 GMT @bryanm1982 said:

I just wanted to clean this up and let you see where we are so far on this.  


I have a rule suggestion for 2017. We could do MLB waiver wire. I know this was talked about in the past but I think if we tweek it just right it could make sense. If you want to drop a MLB player you can either drop them immediately like we do now. What the new idea is to add is you can choose to put that player on Waivers for 48 hours. Other teams can place a waiver wire for that player if they choose. We would have a waiver order like we do with the MiLB. Teams would place the waiver on that player. If you win that player through waivers you get the contract as is. The original player's owner will not have to pay a penalty for losing that player.  Once you place the player on waivers, you can not pull them back.  If no team places a claim, that player will be dropped and you will pay a 50% penalty.  If you want to drop a player and immediately add a player to replace them, you can still drop the player immediately and pay the 50% penalty. 

I'm not sure if I agree with allowing the owner to decide whether to place him on waivers or not, this could lead to someone not placing a player on waivers because he knows that the guy with the highest priority will select him and he doesn't want that owner to have him.
So lets say Brian is on top of the priority list and on top of the league standings in June, and I wanted to drop a player who's out for 2 months (because I don't have roster space). I'd then decide I don't want to give Brian a chance to have that player so easily so I release him directly and a FA auction ensues which will make that player's contract become more expensive and Brian couldn't afford it.

It wouldn't make a lot of sense to me if something like that were to happen, also because players with decent contracts would be getting released outright so other owners would have to pay more to get him. I'd say that all player drops must go to the wire.


 

Hate to say it, Bryan, but he does bring up an excellent point that we haven't thought of yet. It only makes sense to make all drops waivers and let them go 48 hours(or less, maybe 24) before they become a penalty.

[Deleted]

Yeah that is a good point and a valid reason to look into. And that is the exact reason why I thought it would be nice to pull the waiver player back if you think its more competitive for your team to not allow one certain team to claim that player. But then it might turn into personal reasons why you wouldn't want another team to have your player. So let me get this straight..the Dodgers suggestion is to...

Have every single player be dropped through the 48 hour waiver wire. If the player is claimed we will go by waiver order. If the player is not claimed, they are released to free agency and team has to pay the 50% penalty.

[Deleted]

Yes, that's exactly my suggestion

Whatever tweak we make, I still like the wire idea a lot, someone would've probably wanted to claim my 21 M per year James Shields

[Deleted]

I do not honestly see a very bad contract being claimed like a Jose Reyes. That would probably have to be voted on to see if we want to have a choice or just make everybody be on waivers. The only draw back would be time. Say you want a to bid on a player in auction and you have no room for that player. The auction would be over with by the time the waiver wire ended for you to make room. You might have someone just willing to drop that $500,000 player and take the $250,000 penalty so they can make room right away.

[Deleted]

Yeah I know, it was a joke

I'd say that since waiving a player implies that you'll be free of that player one way or another, we can at least assume a 50% salary cap opening if you drop a player, the other 50% would be depending on the wire, so the auction bidding could happen like that

[Arizona Diamondbacks]

maybe we could tweake the money .... say if u drop a player outright u pay 75% of his salary , but if u put him to waivers and he is claimed u r off the hook , but if not claimed u only pay 50% of salary

this gives u the option if u need space right away u can drop right away but the penalty is steeper , if u just want to dump a guy u can waiver him and maybe someone takes him off ur hands , but if not u sve 25% versus just a straight drop??

just a thought