Waivers option - vote on new rule

[Hitman23]

Right now the waiver rule is set to be a constant rotation that never resets. You put in your claim and if you get a player you are dropped to last and you move up the ranks as others put in their claims.

It was proposed that we look into the other option CBS has where the waiver priority resets each week based on reversed order of the standings. So the teams with the best records get lower priorities and the teams with the worst records get top.

Do you favor the current system or would you like it changed to favor the teams with bad records?

*to amend an existing rule, 65% (13 owners) need to vote for the change.
** if the league decides to make a change it will be implemented for next year, 2012.

[gdn]

This is a tough one. I'm going to have to think about it for a bit.

[Hitman23]

Yeah same with me. I see the good for both options.

[Saxmania]

I voted 'yes', but I guess this could get problematic early in the season. Reverse draft order might be used for the first couple of weeks, or something like that.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[Hitman23]

ooooh... good point. If we do decide to change this we need to decide which week it would be implemented. Obviously we can start week one like we always do, reverse draft order. But do we start the weekly rule from week 2 on or what?

I guess that will be part 2 if it gets that far.

[ruthianblast]

I voted yes as I feel it is more fair; however I feel like if an owner got a waiver claim the previous week, even if they have the worst power ranking or record or whatever they should not automatically go up to the top of the list. That's probably not possible, but it would be the most fair imo.

[Big_E]

I like the way it is now...it can add a bit of strategy to the game...a player near the top of the list can avoid picking up players on the waiver list, waiting for someone they absolutely want. And a team, just because they are having a good season this year, should have an equal chance to move up the waiver priority, not be stuck at the bottom all season.

[Big_E]

I voted yes as I feel it is more fair; however I feel like if an owner got a waiver claim the previous week, even if they have the worst power ranking or record or whatever they should not automatically go up to the top of the list. That's probably not possible, but it would be the most fair imo.

Yeah, but that's how it would be though. Worst is always first.

Thats one way our current system is fair -- if you use your claim, you drop to the bottom of the list until another person wins a claim.

[Hitman23]

One of the reasons I see it being a decent option is because we reward the winners in our league multiple ways. High minor league picks. Playoff teams getting less of a penalty for keepers. First priority in waivers to start the season.

Outside of having high draft positions (which are rewarded to the best of the teams that missed the playoffs) there is really nothing given to the lower teams for help.

Not saying failure should be rewarded but the bonuses in this league are weighted very heavily in the winning team's favor.

It wouldn't be so awful to throw them a bone.

[Hitman23]

Maybe I should say throw "us" a bone instead.

[Soriambi]

I'm going to have to think about this one, too. As of right now I'm slightly leaning toward keeping it the way it is, but I could be persuaded.

[ChrisRo]

Isn't it possible to have one option for part of the season, and the other for the rest?
I don't like the reverse standings option, because that would basically mean that later in the season the same 2-3 teams will always get all waived players, which isn't fair for the "middle" teams, that might need reinforcements more than the last team in the standings, that's gonna be out of contention anyway.
I'd love a system with:
- reverse standings for April-June, when all teams are contenders, and the last placed teams change a lot
- the current system for July-end, when all teams will get their chance at waived players.
For now, with only these 2 options, I voted No.

[Soriambi]

Isn't it possible to have one option for part of the season, and the other for the rest?
I don't like the reverse standings option, because that would basically mean that later in the season the same 2-3 teams will always get all waived players, which isn't fair for the "middle" teams, that might need reinforcements more than the last team in the standings, that's gonna be out of contention anyway.
I'd love a system with:
- reverse standings for April-June, when all teams are contenders, and the last placed teams change a lot
- the current system for July-end, when all teams will get their chance at waived players.
For now, with only these 2 options, I voted No.

Yeah, that's actually a really good argument. Based on this, and my initial inclination, I'm going to go with no as well, at least based on how the choice is currently constituted.

[miko]

Hmmm. I am just thinking about teams dumping players and picking up keepers as I may be in that situation soon meself.
I don't think it is fair in that sense however I don't feel it is fair the current way either.

[Stupid Flanders]

I also think that we have a lot of rules that say "that's how MLB does it."

We can't trade draft picks for instance because MLB doesn't allow it.

This is the way that MLB handles waiver claims - the Royals get to put in a claim before the Red Sox.

Besides the other factors (currently the best teams can sit and wait for premium guys while the bad teams obviously need to make more waiver moves because their teams are horrible/injured) we usually side with the way MLB does things, and I see no reason to be different here.

[Stupid Flanders]

Also I think an effect of this would make teams more competitive. My team for example, sucks out loud. I lost out on my last 3 waiver claims (Kuroda, Colon, Matsuzaka) any of whom would have made my craphole gang more competitive.

[JDPNYY]

Isn't it possible to have one option for part of the season, and the other for the rest?
I don't like the reverse standings option, because that would basically mean that later in the season the same 2-3 teams will always get all waived players, which isn't fair for the "middle" teams, that might need reinforcements more than the last team in the standings, that's gonna be out of contention anyway.
I'd love a system with:
- reverse standings for April-June, when all teams are contenders, and the last placed teams change a lot
- the current system for July-end, when all teams will get their chance at waived players.
For now, with only these 2 options, I voted No.

I vote no on this proposal, but would vote yes on ChrisRo's suggestion.

[Hitman23]

Isn't it possible to have one option for part of the season, and the other for the rest?
I don't like the reverse standings option, because that would basically mean that later in the season the same 2-3 teams will always get all waived players, which isn't fair for the "middle" teams, that might need reinforcements more than the last team in the standings, that's gonna be out of contention anyway.
I'd love a system with:
- reverse standings for April-June, when all teams are contenders, and the last placed teams change a lot
- the current system for July-end, when all teams will get their chance at waived players.
For now, with only these 2 options, I voted No.

I think this is a very good suggestion. Based on a number of arguments in this thread I also voted no to the current selections but maybe this is a better alternative.

[Big_E]

Isn't it possible to have one option for part of the season, and the other for the rest?
I don't like the reverse standings option, because that would basically mean that later in the season the same 2-3 teams will always get all waived players, which isn't fair for the "middle" teams, that might need reinforcements more than the last team in the standings, that's gonna be out of contention anyway.
I'd love a system with:
- reverse standings for April-June, when all teams are contenders, and the last placed teams change a lot
- the current system for July-end, when all teams will get their chance at waived players.
For now, with only these 2 options, I voted No.

But how would you set the waivers come July 1? Based on the previous year's standings which are pointless 3 months into a new season? Or based on the current standings?

[miko]

I voted No on the poll but I do think the system needs to be tinkered with a bit.

[Big_E]

The "No's" have it. With 8 votes, there is no possible way for "Yes" to get the majority it needs...

[Hitman23]

Motion denied. Things stay the same.

[The FUTURE]

I voted no. you can't punish the teams for being near the top.

[miko]

I voted no. you can't punish the teams for being near the top.

Congrats for voting after the motion was denied. HAHAHAHA!