ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: Dan Wood on August 01, 2011, 08:50:38 AM
-
While readin our current waiver rule, I think we need to do away with the automatic drop when a player is put on waivers and not claimed because where is the upside for teams to put players on waivers? If they are going to be dropped anyway, just wait it out..I think we need an instant ruling on this.
-
While readin our current waiver rule, I think we need to do away with the automatic drop when a player is put on waivers and not claimed because where is the upside for teams to put players on waivers? If they are going to be dropped anyway, just wait it out..I think we need an instant ruling on this.
If I put a player on waivers and don't make a deal with a team that claimed the player then two things happen... player is dropped or is traded to another team. The winning team wants their claim to hold true to prevent other teams from getting the player.
-
While readin our current waiver rule, I think we need to do away with the automatic drop when a player is put on waivers and not claimed because where is the upside for teams to put players on waivers? If they are going to be dropped anyway, just wait it out..I think we need an instant ruling on this.
I see where you are coming from, but I see it as waivers allow a team(s) to have access to a guy without engaging (initially) in a bidding war. However, with the other team needing then to pass a player through to be traded for the original player on waivers, the "wait it out" approach is going to win out 99% of the time...I'd side with you on this, I think we need to take a look at waivers ASAP.
-
Colby why would anyone put a claim on a guy if they can get him cheaper. Most of the guys on waiver are probably going to have bad contracts. Just because i put a guy on waivers doesn't mean i want to drop him, it means i don't like his contract.
-
For instance, if Corey didn't jump the gun and put a claim on Luke Scott he could have gotten him for much cheaper than 12 mil a year since Daniel is forced to drop him since he put him on waivers. If no one claimed him, there is no way he reaches the heights of 12 mil annually.
-
Colby why would anyone put a claim on a guy if they can get him cheaper. Most of the guys on waiver are probably going to have bad contracts. Just because i put a guy on waivers doesn't mean i want to drop him, it means i don't like his contract.
It is a rule we put in place to prevent every player from going on waivers - which is what happens in MLB. We agreed upon these rules a year ago, so let's see how they play?
-
then put a cap on the amount of waivers each team has. No?
-
and i think the 3 bids on cojack show the loophole
-
Just so I understand it correctly, in order for a trade to go through, all players involved must have been exposed to waiver, is that right?
-
Just so I understand it correctly, in order for a trade to go through, all players involved must have been exposed to waiver, is that right?
Nope... just the one player.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I would check with the A's on that. He would have to clear $6.5m of cap room this year alone if there is no trade, and the Reds don't cancel the waiver.
-
Nope... just the one player.
So wait, so I can trade Howard/Stanton/Gould for Zobrist/Reyes as long as Gould is exposed on the waiver? That doesnt seem right...
-
So wait, so I can trade Howard/Stanton/Gould for Zobrist/Reyes as long as Gould is exposed on the waiver? That doesnt seem right...
Good point.
-
I would say that either the main pieces of a trade need to be exposed to waivers or all players need to be exposed.
-
I propose only those with major league experience have to be exposed to waivers in a trade.
-
Also if no trade is made, the team who makes the claim, does not inherit the player.... Thats not realistic at all.
-
Also if no trade is made, the team who makes the claim, does not inherit the player.... Thats not realistic at all.
RC needs to make a decision upon this. These rules were set a while ago without question.
-
So example. The mets put player A on waivers.
Dan Wood claims player A.
I try to trade him to the Reds. Dan says NO, i am not trading, because i can just have the player if we cant agree........ Why the heck would any team put a guy on waivers then?
-
Ben needs to chime in on this one. In MLB, nearly every player is put on waivers with most waivers pulled back. Every once in a while, a trade does happen.
-
If we cant agree and then I can remove my claim, that sounds way way more normal.
I read it as If we cant agree then the claiming team just gets the player.
As long as the claiming team can pull back if a deal cant be worked out then its all good
-
The claiming team does not have to pull back though...
-
Ok, but in noway does the claiming team get the player for free unless both sides agree to that. Or it wouldnt make sense.
-
Ok, but in noway does the claiming team get the player for free unless both sides agree to that. Or it wouldnt make sense.
It's not for free. The claiming team has to absorb the contract which is some cases was the sole reason why the player was put on waivers.
-
I'm posting the real-life rules as a comparison.
Any player under contract may be placed on waivers ("waived") at any time. After MLB's July 31 trade deadline and through to the end of the season, however, a team must place a player on waivers if that player is to be eligible to be traded. The National League (NL) was the first of the two major leagues to adopt this rule in 1917. Originally it was enforced after August 1.[3]
If a player is waived, any team may claim him. If more than one team claims the player from waivers, the team with the weakest record in the player's league gets preference. If no team in the player's league claims him, the claiming team with the weakest record in the other league gets preference. In the first month of the season, preference is determined using the previous year's standings.
If a team claims a player off waivers and has a viable claim as described above, his current team (the "waiving team") may choose one of the following options:
* arrange a trade with the claiming team for that player within two business days of the claim; or
* rescind the request and keep the player on its major league roster, effectively canceling the waiver; or
* do nothing and allow the claiming team to assume the player's existing contract, pay the waiving team a waiver fee, and place the player on its active major league roster.
If a player is claimed and the waiving team exercises its rescission option, the waiving team may not use the option again for that player in that season. If no team claims a player off waivers after three business days, the player has cleared waivers and may be assigned to a minor league team, traded (to any team), or released outright.
As you can see, there is a provision for the claiming team to get the player for "free" if they assume the player's existing contract.
-
Roy, I see and know that. But im saying the claiming team has to agree to absorb the contract if a deal cant be worked out. If they choose not to absorb it, then they can remove the claim.
Im making sure that is how it is.
-
Roy, I see and know that. But im saying the claiming team has to agree to absorb the contract if a deal cant be worked out. If they choose not to absorb it, then they can remove the claim.
Im making sure that is how it is.
That is part of the risk of claiming a player on waivers. There is a team every year that gets screwed by this. It is usually the Red Sox or Yankees trying to steal a claim from each other.
-
Only the team that originally placed the player on waivers can cancel the claim. As Colby said, that is the risk you take when you put a claim on a player. You will get stuck with the player AND his existing contract if a deal can't be worked out. That is certainly true in real life and appears to be that way in this league as well. There is no provision in our rules for the team claiming the player to "cancel" the claim if a deal can't be worked out.
-
Corey, I do think that the possibility of just letting a guy and his crappy contract go to another team is the whole point of waivers, so the rule should be fine as it is regarding that topic, because the waiver can cancel the waiver if the claimer does not agree to a trade. I think the conflicting issues are the topic regarding clearing waivers and trades and whether or not an unclaimed waiver can also be cancelled. The cap on waivers per team is also an interesting proposal.
-
Nice summary by Buster Olney on the topic today.
But now the work of August starts, and in all likelihood, many teams will begin passing players through waivers today, and more decision-making for general managers gets under way. Should they place a claim on a player in an effort to try to acquire him? Should they place a claim to block a rival team from getting a player -- as the Giants did with Cody Ross last August, when San Francisco believed the Padres might be looking for an outfielder? Or should they let a player pass by, unwilling to take the risk that they'll be stuck with his contract -- while knowing that player might wind up being moved to a rival team?
-
So to be clear, Daniel if you put a guy on waivers. I claim him, we cant agree, then am i stuck with the guy then?
-
Corey, I do think that the possibility of just letting a guy and his crappy contract go to another team is the whole point of waivers, so the rule should be fine as it is regarding that topic, because the waiver can cancel the waiver if the claimer does not agree to a trade. I think the conflicting issues are the topic regarding clearing waivers and trades and whether or not an unclaimed waiver can also be cancelled. The cap on waivers per team is also an interesting proposal.
:iatp:
Thank you everyone... let's just follow these rules and see how it goes.
-
Yes, that is why everyone should be careful when claiming a player I guess.
-
Nice to know i just f'up my team great.
-
I think since the rule was not clear for everyone maybe we should start all over? We could restart the clock on all waivers and null all current claims.
-
I think since the rule was not clear for everyone maybe we should start all over? We could restart the clock on all waivers and null all current claims.
:iatp:
-
There are some pretty deep repercussion, I am ok with a redo.
-
Corey, I do think that the possibility of just letting a guy and his crappy contract go to another team is the whole point of waivers, so the rule should be fine as it is regarding that topic, because the waiver can cancel the waiver if the claimer does not agree to a trade. I think the conflicting issues are the topic regarding clearing waivers and trades and whether or not an unclaimed waiver can also be cancelled. The cap on waivers per team is also an interesting proposal.
Players who have cleared waivers should go back to their original teams which would then have the options of trading them or releasing them.
-
There are some pretty deep repercussion, I am ok with a redo.
Only one waiver claim to pull back here... not a big problem. Many GMs were confused about the waiver rules.
-
Players who have cleared waivers should go back to their original teams which would then have the options of trading them or releasing them.
:iatp:
-
Only one waiver claim to pull back here... not a big problem. Many GMs were confused about the waiver rules.
Oak would not claim CJAX knowing this. I was confused as well.
-
Players who have cleared waivers should go back to their original teams which would then have the options of trading them or releasing them.
I thin the rule says that the team MUST either trade or release him. So the player can't be kept?
-
Is it a rule that If the Mets claim a player and then trade for him, that is not eligible to be put back on waivers.....
If not I think it should be....... opinions?
-
Is it a rule that If the Mets claim a player and then trade for him, that is not eligible to be put back on waivers.....
If not I think it should be....... opinions?
Good point. I don't think that is written in the rules, but was rather assumed.
-
Ok, just making sure.
-
:iatp:
-
Good point. I don't think that is written in the rules, but was rather assumed.
In real life, the team that waived him can not place him on waivers a 2nd time, but I don't see anything in the MLB rules (see below) that prevent the team that claimed him from doing so.
If a player is claimed and the waiving team exercises its rescission option, the waiving team may not use the option again for that player in that season.
-
can we please get a ruling on who is eligible to be traded?
Right now, there is nothing stopping a howard/stanton/gould deal for zobrist/reyes if only Gould is exposed to the waiver.
-
can we please get a ruling on who is eligible to be traded?
Right now, there is nothing stopping a howard/stanton/gould deal for zobrist/reyes if only Gould is exposed to the waiver.
What does MLB say? BTW, no chance that deal would happen thanks to waiver priorities.
-
What does MLB say? BTW, no chance that deal would happen thanks to waiver priorities.
From MLB rules.
After MLB's July 31 trade deadline and through to the end of the season, however, a team must place a player on waivers if that player is to be eligible to be traded.
-
So only cleared players are available...wow. there is never gona be a trade lol. well 1 out of 100
-
From MLB rules.
After MLB's July 31 trade deadline and through to the end of the season, however, a team must place a player on waivers if that player is to be eligible to be traded.
Waiver deals are tough to come by then...? Opposite teams have to win the respected waivers and agree to trade those players. I believe the intention of the RC wasn't to create a mess with waivers, but open up a restricted avenue for gutting contracts and making trades after the non-waiver trade deadline.
I think we have to go with our current rules and adjust if necessary for next year.
-
In real life, teams place almost everyone on their roster on waivers and cancel the waivers if someone they want to keep gets claimed. We could submit waivers by team and create one large list like we did for the RFAs and make it due by midnight Wednesday. I think we should force all non-prospects to be placed on waivers before they are eligible to be traded. My assumption all along was that we were trying to emulate real life, so I never considered anything other than this.
-
No offense Roy, but you are on the RC. We have to go by the rules in the league with real-life as a guideline for rules. At this point, we need to roll with what we currently have and make amendments for next year.
-
No offense Roy, but you are on the RC. We have to go by the rules in the league with real-life as a guideline for rules. At this point, we need to roll with what we currently have and make amendments for next year.
Fine. So why did you ask me whether all MLB players involved in trades were placed on waivers then? I was trying to help, because the rules don't seem to clarify that point. I will now leave it in your capable hands.
-
Fine. So why did you ask me whether all players involved in trades were placed on waivers then? I was trying to help, because the rules don't seem to clarify that point. I will now leave it in your capable hands.
I wasn't being condescending... don't let the text speak with attitude. I still want to discuss this for next year. As two members of the RC, we should abide by the rules that we established and seek ways to improve them. I'd say there is a hole open for some big trades right now, but the teams at the bottom of the standings have a say in such situations.
-
1. For starters anyone not on the 40 man roster can be traded after the 7/31 MLB deadline (would be EDR for us), I think we should expand it to anyone with no MLB experience (or little experience that their clock hasn't started yet) since our minor league system is lacking... Yay or Nay
- therefore Howe, your trade would never happen because all guys would have to clear waivers in order for it to happen
2. Anyone claimed on waivers goes to the team that claimed them, whether or not players are exchanged...anyone remember Alex Rios?
Tough breaks, don't claim the guy, or work something out with the GM in advance.
Yay or Nay?
3. If a player is not claimed on waiver he is returned to his former team. I put CoJack on waiver hoping someone would want him enough to absorb some of his contract, not to lose him if no one claims him. My original argument was this. Where is the advantage to put him on waiver if he just gets dropped anyway. If I was a GM I would just wait and go to bidding because there is no way the contract would equal the current contract.
Yay or nay?
That is my piece of mind on the subject
-
:iatp:
1. For starters anyone not on the 40 man roster can be traded after the 7/31 MLB deadline (would be EDR for us), I think we should expand it to anyone with no MLB experience (or little experience that their clock hasn't started yet) since our minor league system is lacking... Yay or Nay
- therefore Howe, your trade would never happen because all guys would have to clear waivers in order for it to happen
2. Anyone claimed on waivers goes to the team that claimed them, whether or not players are exchanged...anyone remember Alex Rios?
Tough breaks, don't claim the guy, or work something out with the GM in advance.
Yay or Nay?
3. If a player is not claimed on waiver he is returned to his former team. I put CoJack on waiver hoping someone would want him enough to absorb some of his contract, not to lose him if no one claims him. My original argument was this. Where is the advantage to put him on waiver if he just gets dropped anyway. If I was a GM I would just wait and go to bidding because there is no way the contract would equal the current contract.
Yay or nay?
That is my piece of mind on the subject
-
1. For starters anyone not on the 40 man roster can be traded after the 7/31 MLB deadline (would be EDR for us), I think we should expand it to anyone with no MLB experience (or little experience that their clock hasn't started yet) since our minor league system is lacking... Yay or Nay
- therefore Howe, your trade would never happen because all guys would have to clear waivers in order for it to happen
2. Anyone claimed on waivers goes to the team that claimed them, whether or not players are exchanged...anyone remember Alex Rios?
Tough breaks, don't claim the guy, or work something out with the GM in advance.
Yay or Nay?
3. If a player is not claimed on waiver he is returned to his former team. I put CoJack on waiver hoping someone would want him enough to absorb some of his contract, not to lose him if no one claims him. My original argument was this. Where is the advantage to put him on waiver if he just gets dropped anyway. If I was a GM I would just wait and go to bidding because there is no way the contract would equal the current contract.
Yay or nay?
That is my piece of mind on the subject
1. only EDR and those that have 0 major league experience can be traded without exposed to waiver. I dont want some dude thats P-2011 traded without going through waivers.
2. Yay
3. Don't care - you can pull him off the waiver before 72 hr is up anyway even if this rule doesn't exist
-
In regards to #1, I only meant to add this to make it a little easier on all of us to make a waiver deal or deals after the 7/31 deadline. By not having his clock start, I meant he can still be considered a P-n/a (40 IP -pitcher or play in 50 games)... since we don't have a limitless minor league system, and our EDRs are somewhat shallow, it might make for a decent half way point.
-
1. For starters anyone not on the 40 man roster can be traded after the 7/31 MLB deadline (would be EDR for us), I think we should expand it to anyone with no MLB experience (or little experience that their clock hasn't started yet) since our minor league system is lacking... Yay or Nay
- therefore Howe, your trade would never happen because all guys would have to clear waivers in order for it to happen
2. Anyone claimed on waivers goes to the team that claimed them, whether or not players are exchanged...anyone remember Alex Rios?
Tough breaks, don't claim the guy, or work something out with the GM in advance.
Yay or Nay?
3. If a player is not claimed on waiver he is returned to his former team. I put CoJack on waiver hoping someone would want him enough to absorb some of his contract, not to lose him if no one claims him. My original argument was this. Where is the advantage to put him on waiver if he just gets dropped anyway. If I was a GM I would just wait and go to bidding because there is no way the contract would equal the current contract.
Yay or nay?
That is my piece of mind on the subject
1. Yay with the provision that any player that has passed rookie eligibility needs to clear waivers before being traded.
2. Yay.
3. Yay.
-
1. yay
2. yay
3. yay
-
I agree with the 3 above. I just want to clear it up. As of right now, if we put a guy on waivers, then he gets claimed, he either goes to the other team if no trade is made, he goes to the other team without players exchanged, or you can pull him back before 72 hours is up?
-
1) Yay
2) Yay unless waiver is rescinded
3) YaY
-
Colby, rescinded by who? IMO claiming someone is like placing a bid on them. Once you do it, you are hand cuffed to it. That is the way it goes in MLB. The team that placed the player on waiver can take the player back if they wish to not lose him.
-
I agree with dan, if you put a claim on him and your the only one, then no trade is made, the claiming team either has to take the contract and make room or the team that put him on waivers can pull him back. -
-
I agree that anyone with MLB experience needs to clear waivers to be included in a trade. The implication is that you can trade minor leaguers that have never played a game freely after the deadline, and you can trade anyone that has cleared waivers or been claimed by the team you're trading with.
If the player is put on waivers, there are one of the following outcomes:
1. No one claims the player
a. waiving team decides to rescind the waiver and keeps the player
b. waiving team decides to release the player (following normal release rules)
2. One or more teams claim the player, and the team with the lowest standing is awarded the claim
a. waiving team decides to rescind the waiver and keeps the player
b. waiving team agrees to a trade with the claiming team, where all players must be eligible for trade (cleared waivers, been claimed by the team involved, or have no major league experience)
c. waiving team decides to let the player leave via waivers, claiming team inherits the player and contract (claiming team cannot rescind claim)
This matches MLB's rules and I think this is in line with Dan's post, just wanted to get my thoughts out there since I missed so much. Sorry for chiming in so late, no real access from work.
Assuming we are all on the same page which seems to be the case, timeline is the next discussion. The only modification to the current rules is who needs to clear waivers for a trade to be valid, and I would be in favor of implementing the rule immediately. The reason I think it is ok to deviate from our policy to implement rules only for future reasons (something I am a strong proponent for) is that I don't think anyone has made plans assuming otherwise (please speak up if you did), the league is all very much in agreement on the topic (are there any objections to this change?), and the rule is too ambiguous as is to enforce.
I also definitely agree in restarting all waiver related moves so that everything is clear and the rules are set before we move forward.
-
If were supporting waiver trades, we need a deadline after which new acquisitions cannot be on the playoff roster - do we already have something for that?
-
We just need the major league experience caveat added to the rules. If this was an assumption by the RC then we need it in writing.
-
If were supporting waiver trades, we need a deadline after which new acquisitions cannot be on the playoff roster - do we already have something for that?
I would take a cue from MLB and say that players acquired after August 31 are ineligible for the postseason.
-
I would take a cue from MLB and say that players acquired after August 31 are ineligible for the postseason.
:iatp:
We just need the major league experience caveat added to the rules. If this was an assumption by the RC then we need it in writing.
:iatp:
-
I agree with Ben, I would like to suggest one stipulation, and I don't know if everyone agreed to it, or nayed it, but I think as long as the player is still legally defined as p-n/a he should be able to be dealt after 7/31 without clearing waivers. The only reason I suggest this is to make deals easier on people. Like I said earlier we really don't have the several levels of prospects which makes it more difficult for us to work out a deal and easier for our MLB counterparts. Just a though, If we have to vote on it, I vote Yay.
-
My only concern with that is there are so many P-n/a that we would have effectively extended the trade dealine 1 month. I would probably have to say nay to that proposal.
Also, I am assuming that cash exchanges for players waived and later traded follow the player in the same manner that they would in normal trades.
-
I agree with Ben, I would like to suggest one stipulation, and I don't know if everyone agreed to it, or nayed it, but I think as long as the player is still legally defined as p-n/a he should be able to be dealt after 7/31 without clearing waivers. The only reason I suggest this is to make deals easier on people. Like I said earlier we really don't have the several levels of prospects which makes it more difficult for us to work out a deal and easier for our MLB counterparts. Just a though, If we have to vote on it, I vote Yay.
:iatp:
-
If "everyone" is put on waivers in MLB and we want to mimic the system of restricted trades then allowing the return of P-n/a prospects is the simplest and most logical way to go.
I think we could adopt that rule change for this go around, but anything else needs to be booked for next year including when players can be used on a playoff roster.
-
Not on the Rules Commitee but have a question regarding the rules for the waiver process. The 3rd and 5th rule regarding the waiver process to me seem to contradict each other. I have bolded the sections that confuse me. Can someone elaborate on what these rules are saying?
3) If a player isn't claimed by any team in either league, he can be traded until the end of the month to anyone. If a player is claimed, but only by one team, the player can be traded only to the team that claims him. If a player is claimed by more than one team, the club with the worst record in that player's league gets priority (player's league has priority over other league) -- and the player can be traded only to that team.
5) If the player on waivers goes unclaimed within 72 hours waiver then waiving club must have the player released outright or traded to any team within the next 72 hours.
-
I think #5 is null and void