Just a thought- what if we said that you have to flat out release players instead of DFI with waivers?

That would make people think twice about releasing big contacts. And would solve the WW situation.

Posted by runnrun on 1/9/2015 7:15:00 PM (view original):
I also think that jkenned approach is the best way to go

Did you read item #3 in my rebuttal?

Posted by bjschumacher on 1/9/2015 7:23:00 PM (view original):
Just a thought- what if we said that you have to flat out release players instead of DFI with waivers?

Wow, that one makes my head spin trying to work out the effects. Pretty sure it would act as too much of a drag on FA signing, to the point of rewarding the people lucky enough to log on at just the right time. alogman's fears would be realized.

I just wonder what the big advantage to jkenned's system is, that justifies having to at least double the enforcement work, lessens the amount of time to get your roster down to 20, and greatly increases the reward for tanking in a system that already will reward tanking more than HBD already does. You will probably have to find someone to replace me. I'm dead set against it.

Posted by shobob on 1/9/2015 7:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bjschumacher on 1/9/2015 7:23:00 PM (view original):
Just a thought- what if we said that you have to flat out release players instead of DFI with waivers?

Wow, that one makes my head spin trying to work out the effects. Pretty sure it would act as too much of a drag on FA signing, to the point of rewarding the people lucky enough to log on at just the right time. alogman's fears would be realized.

:). I just like to throw sh*t out there sometimes to spark new ideas.

But we're finding out in the tourney world that you should start out simple, and tweak from there. With this world, we can tweak after only one season.

The point about being #1 on the waiver wire will get first pick throughout the preseason and R5, and the inherent advantages that go along with that, are well taken.

But let's take a reality check . . . is that really going to be so much of an advantage that it tips the scales of competitiveness drastically?

I would doubt that anybody is going to be waiving their top guys, the impact players, just to free up a spot on their 20/40.  The reality is that it's going to be the 21-25 guys (or maybe the 17-20 guys after FA's start signing).  Even if one team gets to snag up a bunch of these back of the roster guys, they're likely not going to be difference makers that reward the tankers.  So while the point of being #1 on the WW priority is well taken, the impact might be getting a big blown out of proportion.

Thoughts?

Posted by shobob on 1/9/2015 7:37:00 PM (view original):
I just wonder what the big advantage to jkenned's system is, that justifies having to at least double the enforcement work, lessens the amount of time to get your roster down to 20, and greatly increases the reward for tanking in a system that already will reward tanking more than HBD already does. You will probably have to find someone to replace me. I'm dead set against it.

I already explained what the advantage to jkenned's system is in my 3:15pm post from this afternoon.

Yes, it increases the enforcement work.
Yes, it lessens the time amount of time you have to get your roster down to 20.  But probably not to the burdonsome extent that you're making it out to be.
I'll disagree that it "greatly increases the reward for tanking".  I think the "reward" is minimal.

Just thinking the way I play the game: If I need to trim my BL roster; unless he is one of my studs, I am going to dump my oldest and highest-salary guys. If the #1 team on the WW pecking order is that bad-off that he needs these old over-paid guys, then it only improves the parity, right? Unless we have reighny in our world, I guess.

The reality of this format is that the teams with lower waiver priorities are going to greatly improve from year to year and to my understanding the primary goal of the 20 man roster was to ensure increased parity and that the worst teams could drastically improve quickly. Anything that better accomplishes that goal should be considered a win. Additionally if we are worried so much about the worst teams improving too much we could raise the MWR bar to something like 60/135/200/275 with the penalty being loss of waiver privileges for the following season.

Alright, I'll back down. I'll reluctantly give it a shot. I'm going to need help with enforcement, but it seems like some people are willing to step up with that. This whole thing is an experiment with unknowable results expected. If nobody else has any other additional proposals, I will come up with a new rule proposal to vote on tomorrow, and we'll see how that goes. Good night and dog bless.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/9/2015 9:48:00 PM (view original):
The point about being #1 on the waiver wire will get first pick throughout the preseason and R5, and the inherent advantages that go along with that, are well taken.

But let's take a reality check . . . is that really going to be so much of an advantage that it tips the scales of competitiveness drastically?

I would doubt that anybody is going to be waiving their top guys, the impact players, just to free up a spot on their 20/40.  The reality is that it's going to be the 21-25 guys (or maybe the 17-20 guys after FA's start signing).  Even if one team gets to snag up a bunch of these back of the roster guys, they're likely not going to be difference makers that reward the tankers.  So while the point of being #1 on the WW priority is well taken, the impact might be getting a big blown out of proportion.

Thoughts?

Honestly, I don't know.   But I'd want to be #1 on the WW in order to find out.    I wouldn't have a trickle of players to pick thru like I did with my Hamilton team, I'd have the bottom end of 31 rosters to choose from.   That's a pretty big menu at the all you can eat buffet.

What if we just said no WW pickups allowed from the beginning of the FA signing period to after the Rule 5 draft?

Then we are still placing all of the onus on the Rule 5 draft to claim those players as we were before. This means that we all have to be up to sorting through up to an extra 620 players (20 players on 31 teams exposed to Rule 5 more than usual) during the Roster Freeze. If we are truly worried about Real Life getting in the way of our league this is the biggest flaw because missing the Rule 5 and not being able to sort my list or adjust my settings would kill my depth for the year. If we use the waiver wire those players are spread out over 4 days and only those that were not claimed (i.e. the least valuable or desirable) would be exposed to the Rule 5 meaning that missing it would hurt less (although still be quite damaging). I would actually prefer that the bottom 5-10 teams in the waiver priority are the ones to scoop up the best players available as we trim down to thin out the player pool for the Rule 5 and more equally distribute talent. This should help to accelerate rebuilds and create a more balanced world and if we are so concerned about the advantages of "tanking" then we should stiffen the MWR and combine it with loss of privelages such as the use of the Waiver Wire for teams that fail to meet their MWR marks.