Waiver rule might need some tweaking-RC needed

[rcankosy]

Why don't we do it like they do in real life.  Players exposed to waiver can be pulled back and KEPT if the two teams can't agree on compensation.  Only players that clear waivers entirely are free agents.  Nobody should be bidding on Jackson, because the team that works out a trade for him should inherit his contract.

[rcankosy]

Nope... just the one player.

Again, I believe that in real life ALL of the players involved in post-trade deadline trades MUST be exposed to waivers unless they have not passed rookie eligibility thresholds.  Don't we want to mimic that process?

[Colby]

Why don't we do it like they do in real life.  Players exposed to waiver can be pulled back and KEPT if the two teams can't agree on compensation.  Only players that clear waivers entirely are free agents.  Nobody should be bidding on Jackson, because the team that works out a trade for him should inherit his contract.

Let's go with our current rules instead of boiling the ocean here.  Players can be pulled back from waivers.

[rcankosy]

4) A decision on the player must be made within 72 hours of the claim.  If, within such a time frame, an agreement wasn't posted by both parties NOR was the waive canceled by the waiving team, then the player is considered to moved to the claiming team in exchange for nothing. 

If a trade is not consummated, does the team making the claim INHERIT the old contract?

[Colby]

4) A decision on the player must be made within 72 hours of the claim.  If, within such a time frame, an agreement wasn't posted by both parties NOR was the waive canceled by the waiving team, then the player is considered to moved to the claiming team in exchange for nothing. 

If a trade is not consummated, does the team making the claim INHERIT the old contract?

Correct... there is no old contract though... the contract remains the same.  The player was not released.  The waiving team should cancel the waiver if they cannot come to a deal.

[rcankosy]

The whole reason why over-paid players clear waivers in real life is because teams claiming them know that they have to pick up the bad contract if the waiving team does not pull the player back.  I would assume that we would do the same thing here, but the rules don't mention that aspect which is the key to waivers in the first place.

[rcankosy]

So the A's would be on the hook for the EXISTING contract if the Reds don't pull Jackson back off waivers or make a trade?  Are the A's aware of that fact?

[rcankosy]

The Reds should just ignore all of the A's trade offers, because they just dumped a bad contract on the A's.  What is their incentive to talk trade?  Mission accomplished imo.

[Colby]

So the A's would be on the hook for the EXISTING contract if the Reds don't pull Jackson back off waivers or make a trade?  Are the A's aware of that fact?

The A's should be aware of that. 

"player is considered to moved" changed to "player's contract is considered to moved"

The RC thought this was obvious a year ago.

[Colby]

The Reds should just ignore all of the A's trade offers, because they just dumped a bad contract on the A's.  What is their incentive to talk trade?  Mission accomplished imo.

Incentive is a return on the player, but if the goal is to cut cap then you are correct.  This is a great part of waivers in this league.