Rule change suggestion for waiving FAs won by bidd

[raisingarizo]

I just wanted to bring up something further about bidding in Free Agents. There was recently a discussion regarding Free Agents that were won by a team and whether they should be allowed to be eligible tfor rades. In the discussion that followed I was a big proponent of letting the team that won the FA in bidding trade that player. For anyone who is unfamiliar here is the explanation. Braves won FAs in around $40 million with what appeared to be only the intention of trading those players. Some teams felt there should be a waiting period before one of these players could be traded. I also fit the same scenario.

I felt that trading those players was fair because.

1. No other team bid as highly as the winner did.
2. If the FA was overpaid for by a team looking just for trade bait than wouldn't the excessive bid amount prevent that player from being desirable by other teams who wouldn't bid that high to begin with?
3. The winning bidder has demonstrated a serious interest in the FA just by closing the gap to their cap with the high bid.

Now the Braves are putting Benji Molina on waivers. This move completely contradicts the reasons for allowing the bids and trades in the first place. The second reason for it being allowed has been contradicted and circumvented:

2. If the FA was overpaid for by a team looking just for trade bait than wouldn't the excessive bid amount prevent that player from being desirable by other teams who wouldn't bid that high to begin with?

If the FA you bid on is too high in price for you to trade you should not be allowed to waive that player. If this is allowed the following could happen.

Any team can make outlandish bids on every player of any value. They can than try to trade them and if it fails they will just put then on waivers. This practice will make FA players prices skyrocket to unreasonable amounts and a league can than be ruined for a long time after. I ask that anyone who has an opinion please comment. I believe a rule should be instituded that prohibits any FA players won by bids to be placed on waivers until the regular season. What do you think?

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Jan 12, 2010 14:47:58 GMT -8 @raisingarizo said:

I just wanted to bring up something further about bidding in Free Agents. There was recently a discussion regarding Free Agents that were won by a team and whether they should be allowed to be eligible tfor rades. In the discussion that followed I was a big proponent of letting the team that won the FA in bidding trade that player. For anyone who is unfamiliar here is the explanation. Braves won FAs in around $40 million with what appeared to be only the intention of trading those players. Some teams felt there should be a waiting period before one of these players could be traded. I also fit the same scenario.

I felt that trading those players was fair because.

1. No other team bid as highly as the winner did.
2. If the FA was overpaid for by a team looking just for trade bait than wouldn't the excessive bid amount prevent that player from being desirable by other teams who wouldn't bid that high to begin with?
3. The winning bidder has demonstrated a serious interest in the FA just by closing the gap to their cap with the high bid.

Now the Braves are putting Benji Molina on waivers. This move completely contradicts the reasons for allowing the bids and trades in the first place. The second reason for it being allowed has been contradicted and circumvented:

2. If the FA was overpaid for by a team looking just for trade bait than wouldn't the excessive bid amount prevent that player from being desirable by other teams who wouldn't bid that high to begin with?

If the FA you bid on is too high in price for you to trade you should not be allowed to waive that player. If this is allowed the following could happen.

Any team can make outlandish bids on every player of any value. They can than try to trade them and if it fails they will just put then on waivers. This practice will make FA players prices skyrocket to unreasonable amounts and a league can than be ruined for a long time after. I ask that anyone who has an opinion please comment. I believe a rule should be instituded that prohibits any FA players won by bids to be placed on waivers until the regular season. What do you think?

I disagree because there is almost no difference between trading FAs and putting them on waivers. If they did, in fact, bid too much, then nobody would want to claim them. Not sure how this is any different than trading.

[sirpenguin45]

I disagree also.

Why would someone want to trade for overpaid players?

Overbidding for players will only hurt the team who is bidding because they will be stuck with the contract

[josh4bs]

I can see where Rob is coming from and understand the point he is making. However, placing a player on waivers does not necessarily mean that the person will leave that team. I think there have only been, what, 2 trades from placing a player on waivers. So if a team overpays for a FA attempting to flip them in a deal with someone else...I don't see that someone else being willing to pay the overpaid price for that player.

In the end, if a team "overpays" for a FA, the worse thing that can happen to them is that they can release the player and be on the hood for 1/2 of his salary for the length of the contract. I don't see a team wanting to do that unless they have a ton of cap space available to them.

If anyone feels that a team has "overpaid" or "inflated" the price of a FA, just don't trade for that player with that team. That way the owner is "punished" for making a bad signing. Now instead of saying a FA cannot be waived or released until June 15...we could make it that a FA that is released before the June 15th deadline would cost 3/4 of their salary...but not sure that is necessary.

[Royals GM (Mac - Retired)]

- Option 2: If after the time limit a deal is not reached, the team that posted the player on waivers can elect to receive nothing in return for the player, much like the old “Irrevocable Waivers” rule. The franchise that claimed said player is responsible for this player’s contract in full, and therefore is awarded this player. The team that placed this player on waivers no longer has any contractual responsibility.

the part that scares me about this part of the rule about waivers is that the option to just give him away for nothing is in the hands of the person who put up the waiver claim. i think that this should be a mutual option. if the person who claims him wants to try to make a trade for him, then why not make the option mutual for both teams. if a trade is not worked out, a mutual agreement between the parties can be made for the team who waivered the player to receive nothing. putting that decision in the team that waivered the player allows for player salary dumping. not saying that this happens in this league but it does leave the salary dumping option open. peace

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Jan 13, 2010 1:56:38 GMT -8 Royals GM (Mac - Retired) said:

- Option 2: If after the time limit a deal is not reached, the team that posted the player on waivers can elect to receive nothing in return for the player, much like the old “Irrevocable Waivers” rule. The franchise that claimed said player is responsible for this player’s contract in full, and therefore is awarded this player. The team that placed this player on waivers no longer has any contractual responsibility.

the part that scares me about this part of the rule about waivers is that the option to just give him away for nothing is in the hands of the person who put up the waiver claim. i think that this should be a mutual option. if the person who claims him wants to try to make a trade for him, then why not make the option mutual for both teams. if a trade is not worked out, a mutual agreement between the parties can be made for the team who waivered the player to receive nothing. putting that decision in the team that waivered the player allows for player salary dumping. not saying that this happens in this league but it does leave the salary dumping option open. peace

It definitely is mutual. If a player claims the player, it means they have interest, so if they get them for free that should be a bonus. This is EXACTLY how waivers work in the MLB.

And the reason I have first dibs is because the Nats were the worst in the league last year. Again, this is how it works in real life. Once the season begins, it goes by our seasons records and that's when waivers should really be exercised, especially after the trade deadline.

There is no need to change this rule. Placing a waiver claim means you have interest in that player, so it seems like if nobody has interest because of concerns over the salary, don't put a claim in!

[wrigley]

......and the bottom line is...the team that ACTUALLY wants or needs the player should just wait until the following week. No need in bidding if some else will dictate what your going to spend anyway....but thats only if you want to solidify your team and you want to compete.

Me? If I get the player I do and if I dont I dont.....I will play with holes. I am not about to take a player from someone who out bid me by 4 or 5 million AAS. Good luck all!!

[mikekottka]

It comes down to the simple fact that there should be some kind of safeguard to prevent running up player prices.
There SHOULD be a deadline in which FA's are held, at least a week for the minimum. It is the only way to discourage people from trying it.
To think that people will not pay for overpriced players is ludicrous, people will pay what they have to pay to win and most importantly, the people who try this method know this. There needs to be safeguards, otherwise we will end up with another league looking for new players
who don't try to pull that crap!
Wasn't there a league prior to this in which these rules were allowed, how did that league end up? This should seriously be discussed and handled because obviously enough people have a problem with it.
The Brewers Mgmt

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Jan 13, 2010 10:56:24 GMT -8 @mikekottka said:

It comes down to the simple fact that there should be some kind of safeguard to prevent running up player prices.
There SHOULD be a deadline in which FA's are held, at least a week for the minimum. It is the only way to discourage people from trying it.
To think that people will not pay for overpriced players is ludicrous, people will pay what they have to pay to win and most importantly, the people who try this method know this. There needs to be safeguards, otherwise we will end up with another league looking for new players
who don't try to pull that crap!
Wasn't there a league prior to this in which these rules were allowed, how did that league end up? This should seriously be discussed and handled because obviously enough people have a problem with it.
The Brewers Mgmt

umm what league are you talking about?

I said the CO would discuss so calm down, were close to making a two week rule

just saying, waivers shouldn't be any different than trading, you can't have concern of one and not the other

[mikekottka]

I am not angry, people should bid whatever they want for their players, I am also in agreement that there should be a 2 week period before you can waiver a player though.
If someone wants to accept a trade, then let them trade for him.
The other league in which I am referring to is from the comments I have heard from others about being in a similar league with some of the players from this league. Not all the comments were very positive. The guy who quit early due to his displeasure with another one of the GM's must have been in another league at some point? I heard players like Adam Dunn & Manny ramirez going for $45-$46 M each. So I am fearful that players salary's may get out of control if there are no safeguards.

This is not my first fantasy league, and unless alot of the GM's that are still in college are on the ten year plan, then my guess is I have been doing this a lot longer than most. Either way, it's $20 dollars and I just want to have fun and make some trades, so whatever the outcome, I will still be here.
Personally Preston, I think you are doing a great job of handling 29 other teams along with your own and I very much enjoy having you as a commish. It is not an easy task and I don't feel $200 for running a league of this size is too much, maybe we increase the entry fee next year??
I still think your going to have the top waiver order for at least a good part of the season, even after it starts, lol.

[raisingarizo]

I think there have been many intelligible comments on both sides of the discussion. I have heard that teams just won't pay the inflated price for the overbid players put on waivers. There is one new thought I have to add that merits some consideration. Like many of the teams, I too have been in numerous league . In fact I am in a different league going on it's 19th year. I think a successful league really doesn't have to consider safeguards so much in light of how it affects experienced General Managers. The true litmus test I personally believe is how things will affect the inexperienced teams that tend to get exploited. The more of this that happens, the less any chance for parity becomes. In the case of an overbid player who is waived I do agree there is no way I would personally claim a player whose price far outexceeds his worth. However it is not safe to assume that an inexperienced GM will also practice the same abstinence. A possibility becomes that the practice of waiving overbid players causes the inexperienced teams roster to be full of the salary dumped. Getting tied into these contracts has a lasting effect on a league. Either way like the Brewers I am in. It's $20.00 but I would like to have a balanced and competetive league. We already look out for new GMs with other measures. I'm just advocating consistent long term practices. In the past leagues I have been in I will admit there has never been a rule. However a team that continuously abused the FA system was usually asked to leave. At this point I would not accuse anyone. There hasn't been a big enough sample to indiscriminately appoint any teams anything. I say bid on as many players as you want but try to practice some control of your own bid amounts. If you want to bid on Kenny Rogers for $27 mil than keep this player you value so highly if you fail at striking a deal. I just want to have fun, win it all and not have too many slimy dealings and even less for the newer teams. Later and good luck with your bids tonight.

[Deleted]

Jan 15, 2010 11:42:47 GMT -8 @raisingarizo said:

I think there have been many intelligible comments on both sides of the discussion. I have heard that teams just won't pay the inflated price for the overbid players put on waivers. There is one new thought I have to add that merits some consideration. Like many of the teams, I too have been in numerous league . In fact I am in a different league going on it's 19th year. I think a successful league really doesn't have to consider safeguards so much in light of how it affects experienced General Managers. The true litmus test I personally believe is how things will affect the inexperienced teams that tend to get exploited. The more of this that happens, the less any chance for parity becomes. In the case of an overbid player who is waived I do agree there is no way I would personally claim a player whose price far outexceeds his worth. However it is not safe to assume that an inexperienced GM will also practice the same abstinence. A possibility becomes that the practice of waiving overbid players causes the inexperienced teams roster to be full of the salary dumped. Getting tied into these contracts has a lasting effect on a league. Either way like the Brewers I am in. It's $20.00 but I would like to have a balanced and competetive league. We already look out for new GMs with other measures. I'm just advocating consistent long term practices. In the past leagues I have been in I will admit there has never been a rule. However a team that continuously abused the FA system was usually asked to leave. At this point I would not accuse anyone. There hasn't been a big enough sample to indiscriminately appoint any teams anything. I say bid on as many players as you want but try to practice some control of your own bid amounts. If you want to bid on Kenny Rogers for $27 mil than keep this player you value so highly if you fail at striking a deal. I just want to have fun, win it all and not have too many slimy dealings and even less for the newer teams. Later and good luck with your bids tonight.

For future cases, can you try to break these essays into paragraphs. It gives me a headache trying to read this.

[Deleted]

Also, my beliefs are that GMs will always trade for players, overpriced or not. Take Molina for example. 14M or what ever he is, ya hes worth no where near 14M, but im sure someone with money, will take him in a trade but they just wont give up full value for him. Well hopefully not, but Kevin is a good gm ;D , regardless Gms can bid up a player but generally it will only hurt their value.

Im in favor of a 2 week rule, especially durring offseason FA. So that Gms cant spend all of their money and win the best players each week, and turn around and trade them for cheap talent in order to free up money for the next week of FA.

[scottk]

I am with DBacks i am in favor of a 2-week waiting period

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Jan 15, 2010 12:29:09 GMT -8 @scottk said:

I am with DBacks i am in favor of a 2-week waiting period

Yes, the Commish Office has discussed it and have agreed to a two-week waiting period. Official post will come later.