You don't have to explain anything to me.   A)  I'm surprised you got it off the ground with all the nonsense that was going on  B) I'm not in it.

But I think it's a very interesting concept that needs tweaking.   It may not. 

Posted by shobob on 1/31/2015 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Am I wrong that if you ban waiver claims outright before the rule 5 draft, it almost kills the concept entirely? Say you have 30 on your 40, so you waive 10. They clear waivers, and then you demote them to AAA. You have now brought yourself down to 20 without risking the loss of players 21-30 of your 40 man roster. Is there something I am missing here?

But they all appear in the R5 pool right?

Wasn't THAT the concept?

Posted by mchales_army on 1/31/2015 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shobob on 1/31/2015 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Am I wrong that if you ban waiver claims outright before the rule 5 draft, it almost kills the concept entirely? Say you have 30 on your 40, so you waive 10. They clear waivers, and then you demote them to AAA. You have now brought yourself down to 20 without risking the loss of players 21-30 of your 40 man roster. Is there something I am missing here?

But they all appear in the R5 pool right?

Wasn't THAT the concept?

Not necessarily.  You can waive a guy with multiple years left on his contract.  He goes unclaimed (because nobody is allowed to make claims).  You demote him to AAA.  He's now off the 20, he's not exposed to R5 (because of the additional seasons left on his contract).  It's a loophole that allows you to "hide" such players.

I hate to say it but I am actually in agreement with MikeT here. The best way to move forward if we want to limit the impact of #1 waiver priority is not to limit the number of successful claims but instead to ban WW claims altogether until after the Rule 5 draft. This ensures that all players are exposed to the Rule 5 draft and it more evenly spreads the talent around to the teams in the bottom 10.

However, the problem that then follows is that players waived with multiple years left on their contract will not be available in the Rule 5 and if waived early will just be able to be stashed in the minors until after the Rule 5. The simple fix is to say that anyone with a multi-year contract cannot be waived until the final day of Free Agency that way they are exposed to the waiver wire during the Roster Freeze and will have a chance to be claimed by other teams. Or the other option is that anyone with a multi-year contract cannot be waived until after the Rule 5 draft, but since most of the league is taking over for someone else at this point that is not quite a fair option until the fourth season or so when all existing contracts have been played out.

Posted by jkenned on 1/31/2015 12:49:00 PM (view original):
I hate to say it but I am actually in agreement with MikeT here. The best way to move forward if we want to limit the impact of #1 waiver priority is not to limit the number of successful claims but instead to ban WW claims altogether until after the Rule 5 draft. This ensures that all players are exposed to the Rule 5 draft and it more evenly spreads the talent around to the teams in the bottom 10.

However, the problem that then follows is that players waived with multiple years left on their contract will not be available in the Rule 5 and if waived early will just be able to be stashed in the minors until after the Rule 5. The simple fix is to say that anyone with a multi-year contract cannot be waived until the final day of Free Agency that way they are exposed to the waiver wire during the Roster Freeze and will have a chance to be claimed by other teams. Or the other option is that anyone with a multi-year contract cannot be waived until after the Rule 5 draft, but since most of the league is taking over for someone else at this point that is not quite a fair option until the fourth season or so when all existing contracts have been played out.

Too complicated to enforce.  Limiting waiver claims is easy.. I have it hard enough enforcing the rules as they are without adding more complex rules than what we already have.

A ban on claims is easier to enforce than limiting them. A ban means anyone that claims a player has to waive them. With a limit you have to check each team to make sure they didn't go over that limit.

I really don't see why limiting waiver claims to 3 is an unpopular option.  It introduces strategy to who the first pick decides to select.  He will select less, no doubt about it.  I would be afraid to "shoot my wad" too early, so I might let some good/decent ones pass early on, leaving them to be picked by the later selectors.  If first pick uses up his three early, then second becomes number one, and has the same opportunity/dilemma.  So on, and so forth down the line.

Posted by jkenned on 1/31/2015 12:55:00 PM (view original):
A ban on claims is easier to enforce than limiting them. A ban means anyone that claims a player has to waive them. With a limit you have to check each team to make sure they didn't go over that limit.

Banning waiver claims cannot be done without a) introducing a loophole or b)introducing complex rules to close the loophole.

Enforcing a limit of three pre rule 5 successful waiver claims per team is as easy as going to one page, and counting the number of claims per team.  It would take me ONE MINUTE.

I would be going to that page anyway to ensure the "assignment by rule 5 roster freeze" rule is in compliance.

Limiting waiver claims is itself a complex rule, especially if I have the #5 or so Waiver Priority because at that point I might make eight claims with the expectation that I only get two of them. However I win four of them and now I have unintentionally violated a rule and robbed the teams below me of the chance to claim that player. If I limit my claims to make sure I am in compliance then I am likely to not improve my team but if I violate the rule and am punished for it, that could also hamper my ability to improve my team.

Posted by jkenned on 1/31/2015 1:10:00 PM (view original):
Limiting waiver claims is itself a complex rule, especially if I have the #5 or so Waiver Priority because at that point I might make eight claims with the expectation that I only get two of them. However I win four of them and now I have unintentionally violated a rule and robbed the teams below me of the chance to claim that player. If I limit my claims to make sure I am in compliance then I am likely to not improve my team but if I violate the rule and am punished for it, that could also hamper my ability to improve my team.

Simple solution: Don't ever have more than 3 pending claims at any one time. How hard can that be? Is it even technically possible to have more than 4 pending claims at one time?

The point I am trying to make is that because of the uncertainty of the Waiver Wire for everyone but #1 overall, the limit system does very little to help teams and is nearly impossible to control the results. If you make the #8 or #15 or #30 limit the total number of claims in fear that they may go over a limit they can't foresee then it hinders their ability to plan and potentially improve their teams. Yes it does limit to some degree the players that #1 overall can claim but still doesn't negate his advantage or spread those players evenly to the teams in the bottom 3rd.

I think you're wrong. I think I make a good case against your assertion in my 1:03 post.

This is not complicated. You can have no more than 3 pending claims at any one time. If you get one, then bonus! Now you can only have 2 pending claims at any time. If not, you try again. It's easy to see how many pending claims you have going on the waiver page. This will result in more talent filtering down to the lower selections than the current version, and is easy to enforce.