As I write, Atlanta has 39 players under contract and I am bidding against him as he tries to acquire number 40 (Kang , PIt). In the past day and a half he has put 8 players on waivers. I am sure he is within the rules. No problem. The rules are the same for everyone. That is not my gripe.
I think it is time the league revise its waiver rules for next year. Would everyone agree it’s a bit abused within the rules?
I propose we we try to emulate MLB next season. A team puts a player up for waivers. (Organization doesn’t want him anymore). One of the following happens. A) player is claimed by another team B) no one wants him and he is out of baseball
I propose when a team puts a player on waivers, if after a week and no one claims him, then you have to buyout his contract and he is put back in the player pool.
This way we don’t have teams float 40 players. Again, not a knock on Atlanta, it’s a critique of our rules. I have seen one manager put the same player on waivers at least twice and reclaim him twice. Who in MLB does that?
Post by Brewers (Kyle) on May 29, 2018 21:39:46 GMT -5
Rob,
I see your point with forced buyouts, but real MLB still pays players when they are sent down to the Minors. An example is Arcia with the Brewers (surprise, surprise a Brewers reference). The brewers are still paying him his contract even though he is in the Minors, and can bring him up anytime they want (if they DL Saladino for example).
I don't think we should force a buyout, because 'after a week' the player would be sent down to the Minor leagues (with some exceptions: Hanley Ramirez). In our example, Hanley Ramirez could be bought out of his contract (like the BoSox did).
If you wanted to make a '40-player' max roster, I would be okay with that, because that may affect 1 or 2 teams. If you hit 40 players, you should have to buyout someone you clearly won't use before picking up/bidding/claiming another player. However, I don't know how that would work with DL/NA players. If your team is unfortunate enough to have 12 NA/DL's, then you only have 3 extra players on waivers, and that would be unfair.
Perhaps another idea of '35 non-DL/NA players' would be better? or something similar: 10 players on Waivers at any given time?
I currently have 36 players (had 39 before I sold 3 of them), so if we were to institute a new rule (next year at the earliest), I would be one affected.
Post by Braves (Kyle) on May 29, 2018 22:21:00 GMT -5
I agree with Rob there should be a rules revision I have been thinking all year about this I think a rule stating that no team can have more than 7 players on wavers at one time.
Your so called waiver players, send down, bring back, again and again and again is a joke. It needs to tightened up or limited in some regard for next year. It is being abused. My post was meant for the ruling class, our league leaders, to take a serious look at the Braves (legal) example and perhaps change things for next year.after the season ends. Discuss this after the season, not now. I just wanted to document a moment in time to point out the Braves example.
The fact that nobody claims them means there isn’t a mass hoardingg of talent. They are available to all. I don’t hate how the rule is in place right now, but I’d be open to hearing what the league thinks is best after the season
Post by Mets (Hani) on May 30, 2018 19:50:41 GMT -5
Waivers should be 72 hours, if the player goes unclaimed he is bought out at 50%. Pretty standard in all dynasty leagues not sure why it's different here. Hoarding of players in this manner is not good for the league.
Post by Brewers (Kyle) on May 31, 2018 6:57:13 GMT -5
Mets: (I can't seem to make this sentence make sense, but I think you get my point) If players were forced buy-out, and a person wanted to bring them back, you could't because you can't bid on a player that was previously bought out. (example: if Kendall Graveman starts being good, I couldn't bid on him after I bought him out, which would be unfair for me (potentially being the only one who does want him).
All: I think we'd need to make the first poll 'should we limit the number of players on waivers' then the second poll should be 'how many players on waivers before forced buyout'
Grand spectrum: I agree with Marlins, that those players are available to all teams if someone wants to be claimed, and the initial team is still on the hook for the contract.
Mets: (I can't seem to make this sentence make sense, but I think you get my point) If players were forced buy-out, and a person wanted to bring them back, you could't because you can't bid on a player that was previously bought out. (example: if Kendall Graveman starts being good, I couldn't bid on him after I bought him out, which would be unfair for me (potentially being the only one who does want him).
All: I think we'd need to make the first poll 'should we limit the number of players on waivers' then the second poll should be 'how many players on waivers before forced buyout'
Grand spectrum: I agree with Marlins, that those players are available to all teams if someone wants to be claimed, and the initial team is still on the hook for the contract.
No. Player then becomes a freer agent.
Waivers is for players that you no longer want it should not be used to expand your roster which is essentially what we have now
Limits won't help since that still allows for managers to run with an expanded roster. .
Post by Pirates (Gregg) on Jun 2, 2018 8:58:46 GMT -5
Definitely an area we now need to address. In this league we have tried to run as MLB rosters, but we are not a perfect system. We do not have options, waiver wire trades, DFA (designated for assignment), or players refusing assignments.
I really think two rules need to be explored
1) players placed on waivers before buyout for 3(?) day period
2) waiver restrictions with intent to force managers to make decisions: such as 1 or 2(?) times on waivers with forced Buyouts (DFA) and/or hard limit. Not sure how to handle poor contracts when manager has tight or no payroll to handle Buyouts? Example $16.5/ 3 years when their remaining payroll is $5 do you use future payroll
Thanks for addressing this subject. Perhaps best to address this after the season is over? My team example might be a good test case to study. Not long into the season I had 7 DL players at one time. I could legaaly add extra players to fill those slots. So when those 7 DL players start coming off the DL how are those extra players handled? Say 5 of them7;DL players return 5;players would have to be dropped from the team, BUT would still be owned and stored for immediate call ups, later if needed. .
You should not be able to place your extra 4-5-6 players on waivers and continue bidding on more, by using a league waiver loop hole in the rules, which is what the Brewers and Braves are doing.. I opened a bid on Kang PIT and was competing with both the Brewers and Braves. They both have around 39 contracted players already. The rules if written correctly next year would not allow teams from continued bidding until they address their surplus of players. Claimed waivers and buyouts would be the only recourse for teams with extra players to continue bidding. There is your new rule.
Post by Blue Jays (Brandy) on Jun 7, 2018 13:28:46 GMT -5
I think it is fine the way it is. It allows teams to be competitive when injuries arise and makes managers think about the financial aspect of this game. The teams that have left a cap cushoin are the ones who really benefit from this rule and those that made stupid bids on players and depleted their cap are handcuffed. I see no problem with how this rule is enforced.
I think it is fine the way it is. It allows teams to be competitive when injuries arise and makes managers think about the financial aspect of this game. The teams that have left a cap cushoin are the ones who really benefit from this rule and those that made stupid bids on players and depleted their cap are handcuffed. I see no problem with how this rule is enforced.
The point is no manager should be allowed to increase his roster size by rotating players through the waiver wire. Wavers are used as a pre cursor to a buyout. Same as real life MLB.
If you are interested in the player, you can claim them. I don't think its a huge issue. Like I said, I'm willing to hear ideas and take a vote at the end of the season, but lets not pretend that Braves and Brewers are just stashing talent that isn't accessible to the rest of us (Most of which none of us want at an easy $1-1yr price)
New York Mets wrote: <<<<<<<The point is no manager should be allowed to increase his roster size by rotating players through the waiver wire. Wavers are used as a pre cursor to a buyout. Same as real life MLB.>>>>>>
This is the point, nothing more, nothing less. Vote on this next year.
I had at one point 7 players on the DL. No team should have anymore players than the highrpest number of DL at one time. I can have 7 over. If a team has a max of 4 DL at one time he can have have 4 players over his roster size. Never anymore. If he wants more players a buyout is in order before bidding on more. Using this rule, no team will get to 40 players on their roster. Once a player goes on waivers.......he is gone period! Either by claim or buyout after a certain time frame. No more catch and release, catch and release the same player. That is the BS in this league.
Claim them if you want them Brewers and I have gotten several players at $1/1yr. nobody else bid, nobody cared.
It's not about the other managers, this is about the waiving team being able to increase their roster by rotating players in and out of the waiver wire.
I don't really care one way or the other but it's important to at least understand the point of this thread and how waivers is being run in all dynasty leagues.
An update on my mission to change our waiver rule abuse: (within the current rules)
Luv ya Kyle, but got to say it.......
Brewers roster count stands at 42 players, three hours ago. Waivered players currently stand at around 11-12 Just documenting a moment in time for the league to look at next year, for a much needed rule change.
Post by Brewers (Kyle) on Jun 21, 2018 12:20:02 GMT -5
I have no problem with you pointing out the current status, but I had thought we mentioned it was going to be followed up after the season. While I have my opinion on the matter, I am willing to let the group decide. That's why there wasn't an update yet.
10 of the 42 are DL/NA (7 on waivers), I have a very injury prone team this year. Only one player with 100 at bats for me hasn't been on DL/NA.
Last Edit: Jun 21, 2018 12:32:17 GMT -5 by Brewers (Kyle)
Ryan (Cubs): Today is the last day to re-sign your restricted free agents! All players that are left unsigned will be dropped tomorrow and eligible for free agency
Feb 23, 2024 10:02:14 GMT -5
Padres (Rodger): Luis Matos is showing up twice on my roster sheet, as a OF and a SP, can you remove the SP line please.
Feb 24, 2024 6:56:36 GMT -5
Pirates (Gregg): Everyone update your Yahoo Roster!
Feb 25, 2024 12:41:26 GMT -5
Red Sox (Kris): We still have a MAX 20 prospects, correct?
Feb 26, 2024 9:15:10 GMT -5
Ryan (Cubs): Yes. 20 prospects is the MiLB max, you either need to drop a prospect or call someone up if you are over that limit.
Feb 26, 2024 11:56:08 GMT -5
Red Sox (Kris): I don’t, but I know that some do. So, to be clear, we can draft over the 20 limit as long as we cut down before the season starts?
Feb 29, 2024 23:45:26 GMT -5
Ryan (Cubs): Technically you should be dropping a player anytime a draft pick or trade takes you over the limit of 20. I must've missed it but Yankees needs to release one of his MiLB players, they are the only team over the limit right now
Mar 1, 2024 7:43:12 GMT -5
Red Sox (Kris): Thanks for clarifying
Mar 1, 2024 8:48:23 GMT -5
Blue Jays (Brandy): Still willing to talk SP......
Mar 3, 2024 1:12:18 GMT -5
Rockies (Jose): Is Yuki Matsui rostered?
Mar 12, 2024 16:15:04 GMT -5
Ryan (Cubs): Technically you can't bid on Yuki in free agency until he pitches an inning in the MLB. You could have drafted him in the MiLB draft, but players that haven't made their debut can't be nominated in Free Agency.
Mar 13, 2024 13:37:27 GMT -5
Blue Jays (Brandy): Shopping Gallen if anyone needing an ace level sp
Mar 29, 2024 11:53:28 GMT -5
Blue Jays (Brandy): Shopping Vaughn if anyone needs a 1b?
Apr 2, 2024 19:06:22 GMT -5
Mariners (Rook): I do believe Ronel Blanco free agent final bid of $3/3 by LAD is invalid and the player should be returned to free agency. That was LAD last transaction and it put his cap -0.25. We can’t go negative cap. What say you?
Apr 5, 2024 21:29:05 GMT -5
*
Ryan (Cubs): @mariners, correct. LAD's bid on Blanco put him $.25 over the cap so the bid is invalidated. I've messaged LAD and dropped Blanco from his roster
Apr 8, 2024 7:28:32 GMT -5
*
Pirates (Gregg): @mariners Tyler Holton RP DET
Apr 8, 2024 19:39:18 GMT -5
*
Ryan (Cubs): NEW FORUM UPDATE: I created a new space to list your Prospect Promotions. A lot of the promotions get lost in the Roster Moves tab. Please post all of your prospect call-ups in the new section and I'll be able to update the page faster!
Apr 16, 2024 7:42:44 GMT -5
Ryan (Cubs): Of course D’Arnaud hits 3 HR today…after I put him on waivers
Apr 19, 2024 20:46:13 GMT -5