*then*

Honestly, you guys have been mucking around for 10 days now and I think you're too busy trying to outthink the room.

If I'm correct, the objective is to have no more than 20 players on the 40 at the R5 freeze.    That's your deadline.

Players on LT contracts,  and not on the 40, will never be R5-eligible.     Those players need to be designated, with waivers, just before the freeze happen.  Then they can be picked up off waivers. 

It's just too simple.

I agree with Mike. There is no flaw.

I think what people are saying is, for players with long-term contracts, they would not appear on the R5 draft board even if they are taken off of the 40-man.

Posted by bjschumacher on 1/11/2015 12:26:00 PM (view original):
There is no flaw only if we don't set the 20 man limit until the R5 draft.

Why does it need to be set before the R5 freeze?

Posted by bjschumacher on 1/11/2015 12:29:00 PM (view original):
I think what people are saying is, for players with long-term contracts, they would not appear on the R5 draft board even if they are taken off of the 40-man.

They won't.   That's why they need to be designated, with waivers, just before the freeze.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/11/2015 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bjschumacher on 1/11/2015 12:26:00 PM (view original):
There is no flaw only if we don't set the 20 man limit until the R5 draft.

Why does it need to be set before the R5 freeze?

It doesn't need to be. That is just a proposal that jkenned put out there (at the beginning of FA signing period), and that a few of us agreed with. 

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter a bit to me.

I'm just a tad annoyed that the term "impact player" is being thrown around in reference to WW claims.   Those players are coming from the same pool as the R5 redistribution draft players are coming from.    So, in essence, the entire process is folly if you don't think the WW claims matter.    IT'S THE SAME PLAYERS YOU'LL BE PICKING FROM IN THE R5.

Ok, so as far as I can tell, we can't "marry" jkenned's proposal and MikeT23's idea together. So, we are left with the need to choose one or the other. So, we need to decide which one to go with. Perhaps a vote on:
a) no waiver claims till R5 day
b) get to 20 by the start of FA signing, and again at r5 freeze, with no limits on waiver pickups, or
c) get to 20 by the start of fa, and again at r5 freeze, with a limit of 2 pre-r5 waiver pickups per team.

I'll put a time limit on this one - Votes get tallied tomorrow 7 pm est

It's not exactly the same pool, as the WW pool includes the LT guys while the R5 pool does not.  The WW pool is more likely to be made up of veteran players who are already fully developed, while the R5 pool will include younger players, many of whom are not yet completed their development.

Now if your argument is that more value will be found in the WW pool than in the R5 pool, that's a fair argument and is probably true.  And it's also fair to be concerned that the top guys on the WW priority list will be able to "hoard" the best of the WW players.  But those players still will tend to be the back of the roster guys from the other teams.  You don't like references to "impact players", but the fact is that being able to add four or five #21 guys isn't going to turn anybody around from a 60 game winner to a 100 game winner.

Posted by shobob on 1/11/2015 2:43:00 PM (view original):
Ok, so as far as I can tell, we can't "marry" jkenned's proposal and MikeT23's idea together. So, we are left with the need to choose one or the other. So, we need to decide which one to go with. Perhaps a vote on:
a) no waiver claims till R5 day
b) get to 20 by the start of FA signing, and again at r5 freeze, with no limits on waiver pickups, or
c) get to 20 by the start of fa, and again at r5 freeze, with a limit of 2 pre-r5 waiver pickups per team.

I'll put a time limit on this one - Votes get tallied at 9 pm est

My official vote is b.

But I can live with c, and I am dead set against a.

I still think it should be 20 by start of FA and then let it be a free for all from there.

Extended the voting deadline to tomorrow

Posted by whboone on 1/11/2015 2:49:00 PM (view original):
I still think it should be 20 by start of FA and then let it be a free for all from there.

I think you're in a pretty slim minority with that.

My official vote is c
could live with b but like tec I am totally against a