Does anyone else get annoyed by the fact that we have to set revokable waivers before we put a guy on the wire?

For example...I want to make a trade with Team A, but Team B sees the guys on the wire and figures out what's going on, so he claims one of the players to prevent me or Team A from getting that player.  That player is then revoked, etc.

My issue is, in real life (yes, I know RL comparisons don't always fly), teams get to decide AFTERWARDS if they want to revoke a guy.  So if I'm trying to dump salary in a trade, and some team claims my player just to disrupt the trade...I should then have the chance to decide if I want to pull the player back, or let the other owner have him and be saddled with the salary.

If a team claims my player and I can only trade with him for the rest of the season, then I think it's only fair that I have the option to dump the player on that owner and make him take on the contract.

I don't have a problem with the way it currently works, but what you describe above would better mirror real life and add a little more strategy to the waiver process after the trade deadline.

I don't see a downside to this.

The current setup is basically fine as it is, but this would be a great addition. We should have, say, 24 hours to decide whether to dump the contract, and it should default to the original team keeping the player if no affirmative step is taken. You should suggest this, Jtpsops.

Well, there's the old "I can't afford him" problem with dumping a contract.  Quite frankly, if I'm in a tight race for a WC, I claim players that A) I don't care if I get and B) can't afford if they're from the team I'm fighting for playoff spot.   I figure I'll stop them from trading and improving their team at no risk to me. 

BOO-YEAH!!!!  I'LL PLAY DIRTY IF I HAVE TO!!!!

The system should not allow claims for players you can't afford.

How does that work MikeT if they aren't set to revokable?

Sounds like a great idea.

Posted by asher413 on 3/1/2011 10:38:00 AM (view original):
How does that work MikeT if they aren't set to revokable?

You get a note saying "You were awarded the claim for Player A but you do not have the cap space to accept.   Your claim was voided" or something to that effect.

Ya, but if your claim is voided, then shouldn't it go to the next person in line?  You wouldn't really be blocking anyone in that case

That's only if they aren't revoked.    If it's revocable waivers, I'm just blocking a trade.  If they're non-revocable, you(or the person waiving the player) isn't getting anything in return.   If that's the case, I don't care anyway.

Seems odd that we can't make FA offers that take us beyond our cap, but we can make waiver claims on players we can't afford.  It even seems the spirit of the two rules is in conflict, as most claim the reason we can't overbid on FAs is so we can't unfairly drive up the price for other owners.  Yet we can make a claim on a player we don't want and can't afford in order to screw another owner. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2011 10:28:00 AM (view original):

Cash and salary can be traded back.   So, if you want, you can make room.   Used to be "no cap space, no claim" until people complained.

Here's your answer.   That can't be done with FA.  You either have the money to pay or you don't. 

So then they could institute something that says if you claim a guy off waivers and don't have the cash for him, then you get stuck with him anyway and take a $5-10mil budget penalty the next season.

jtpsops, many players would not worry about it, since they one and done their teams.  Penalizing the next owner would not bother them.