ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: Jake on August 02, 2011, 09:32:22 PM
-
A question for someone who is more familiar with the waiver process in the real MLB:
Do teams typically discuss players before said teams put a player on waivers or claim him? Is that allowed?
I guess I'm looking for proper protocol here, as I might be interested in a couple players on waivers, yet it seems I would want a deal in place before I make a claim, so I'm not necessarily just getting dumped on.
-
A question for someone who is more familiar with the waiver process in the real MLB:
Do teams typically discuss players before said teams put a player on waivers or claim him? Is that allowed?
I guess I'm looking for proper protocol here, as I might be interested in a couple players on waivers, yet it seems I would want a deal in place before I make a claim, so I'm not necessarily just getting dumped on.
The answer is no, but apparently it is allowed here.
-
Alright, ill play by the real MLB code then. Just wanted clarification. :taco:
-
The answer is no, but apparently it is allowed here.
I don't agree with this. Names are floated all of the time, baseball executives talk.
-
Rob, is there a way to 'prove' this? Are we sure it isn't the media creating targets they claim to hear from 'executives who do not wish to be named'?
I mean, do GM's really discuss these things like they do normal trades?
-
It makes sense. Most real life waiver deals are a low spec and cash for the player. Teams will call and be like how muchvare youvwilling to pay. Its obvious and to me makes common sense of thats how it works.
-
I just read a MLB article whereby the waiving team promised the team that claimed the player that they would eat a portion of the waived player's salary and later reneged. This process is definitely one of buyer beware, because Colby could not force (nor should he) the team waiving the player to live up to whatever bargain they had with the team claiming the player. That is why whether or not these discussions happen in real life is a moot topic here. Teams in real life LIE. Just ask the Yankees who thought they had a deal with the Rangers last year for Cliff Lee.
-
I just read a MLB article whereby the waiving team promised the team that claimed the player that they would eat a portion of the waived player's salary and later reneged. This process is definitely one of buyer beware, because Colby could not force (nor should he) the team waiving the player to live up to whatever bargain they had with the team claiming the player. That is why whether or not these discussions happen in real life is a moot topic here. Teams in real life LIE. Just ask the Yankees who thought they had a deal with the Rangers last year for Cliff Lee.
Then, with this scenario in mind, are any of us willing to "lie" to another member of this league? Are we really going to risk getting kicked out of the league because we want to dump a bad contract? Are any of us really going to make a trade agreement and then back out and leave another league member holding the bag? I think all of us would agree that there is an expected level of integrity in this league, rules or no rules. We all play this for our own personal enjoyment and we all know our activity is monitored by the Commish, the Rules Committee, the Trade Committee, and other members of the league. Do we really have to worry about someone being a total "j... a..?"
Someone spoke of being naive in another post, and maybe I am, but in this league I see a lot of mutual respect and common sense. That's why we have to petition to get into this league.
Again, I don't see anything wrong with behind the scenes negotiations. Do we really have to put a gag on the very thing that is continually going on during the season? Isn't that why we have trade blocks? Don't we all continually send PMs inquiring about the availability of a player or propose countless trade scenarios? I don't see how can now say waivers should be conducted in a vacuum.
If we didn't have a salary cap I wouldn't have to worry about taking on any contact. I could claim anyone I wanted because we're not dealing with real money. MLB owners worry about getting stuck with contracts because that is money out of their profits. Our salary caps and roster limits serve the same purpose. However, in the final analysis, we are a self-regulating body who needs to keep our rules from choking away our fun.
-
Does it really matter? With the waiver process it doesn't really make a big difference because you either have to trade with them or nobody, so you cannot drive the price up, so to speak. We just need to make all deals final, you cannot dump it. I don't really get the problem I guess. I don't get how you are arguing for allowing GM's to turn face, Roy.
-
Does it really matter? With the waiver process it doesn't really make a big difference because you either have to trade with them or nobody, so you cannot drive the price up, so to speak. We just need to make all deals final, you cannot dump it. I don't really get the problem I guess. I don't get how you are arguing for allowing GM's to turn face, Roy.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I was just warning GMs that in my personal opinion the Commissioner should not get involved with gentleman's agreements between two owners during the waiver process.
-
Ernesto that naive comment wasn't directed at you. It was directed towards the assumption, suggested by another GM, that real life GMs dont talk before hand about the cost of a player before making a claim. I think more or less we all came to the conclusion that they more than likely do. And yes to agree to something and back out leaving a leaguemate in the lurch would be a total D-Bag move.
-
Ernesto that naive comment wasn't directed at you. It was directed towards the assumption, suggested by another GM, that real life GMs dont talk before hand about the cost of a player before making a claim. I think more or less we all came to the conclusion that they more than likely do. And yes to agree to something and back out leaving a leaguemate in the lurch would be a total D-Bag move.
I don't recall saying that they don't talk. I said that it might be illegal. I am pretty certain about one thing though, and it's that the waiver process is not public. Real-life GMs do not know who other GMs are claiming off waivers.
-
I don't recall saying that they don't talk. I said that it might be illegal. I am pretty certain about one thing though, and it's that the waiver process is not public. Real-life GMs do not know who other GMs are claiming off waivers.
:iatp:
Tampering is illegal, and we always hear it's going on... anyway, the question is whether or not we want to bother with it, or we just say forget it allow whatever negotiating you want.
-
IMO negotiating in public takes away your leverage since someone can come in and one up you. I however don't have a problem with it with negotiating price for players on waivers.
-
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I was just warning GMs that in my personal opinion the Commissioner should not get involved with gentleman's agreements between two owners during the waiver process.
HUH?
I just read a MLB article whereby the waiving team promised the team that claimed the player that they would eat a portion of the waived player's salary and later reneged. This process is definitely one of buyer beware, because Colby could not force (nor should he) the team waiving the player to live up to whatever bargain they had with the team claiming the player.