ZiPS dispute

[Guardians]

Jake messaged both JP and I (JP maybe last week, me tonight) about a dispute over Drew Ehrhard. Jake bid $20, John bid $20 and John won it since he was a lower waiver priority. Jake's position is that waivers should have been reset and he should have been lower and awarded the player. He also noted that John still hasn't even created the player he was awarded (on Dec. 20).

I have some opinions, but I'll let the group discuss.

[Padres]

Jake messaged both JP and I (JP maybe last week, me tonight) about a dispute over Drew Ehrhard. Jake bid $20, John bid $20 and John won it since he was a lower waiver priority. Jake's position is that waivers should have been reset and he should have been lower and awarded the player. He also noted that John still hasn't even created the player he was awarded (on Dec. 20).

I have some opinions, but I'll let the group discuss.

Do waivers "automatically" get reset after a successful ZiPS bid?

We probably should institute a deadline for a ZiPS claim to be completed (say 48 hours after notification of successful ZiPS bid) if we don't already have one. Gives a GM time to release a player or trade to create an opening ...

[Marlins]

I think Jake has a good point, but it opens up a big can of worms as some people might have not put bids in on guys they actually wanted (who were already up to $20) since they thought they had lower waiver priority.

Also agree with Jim that once there are multiple bids at $20, the ultimate winner should effectively "use" their waiver priority in addition to their zips budget and be reset back to 30th.

[Reds]

Since the ZiPS bidding rules specifically state that waiver priority isn't reset as a result of the ZiPS bidding process, we can't change that this year. I would be in favor of changing it before next year.

Now onto the real issue, we have been sloppy about reseting the waiver order per our rules (below). With that in mind he may be correct because I don't recall the last reset, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't October. Unfortunately, we can't really retroactively change that because too many claims/events have happened. The time to object about the waiver order was prior to the ZiPS bidding beginning. We should reset it before the draft because there will be more players released starting then.

"Waiver Priority Order is set and refreshed on the first of the following months (May, June, July, August, September, October) based on team record. Ties will be broken by record over the last 10 days."

[Guardians]

I think we're all pretty much on the same page here.

Jake's point is waivers didn't reset and he was harmed and we should fix it. However, a few things here:

1) It's been a month and I don't see how we can reset waivers retroactively and re-do all the zips bidding that has occurred. It would essentially affect all the teams (20ish) that are out so far. And it would change team's strategies on zips if they had a low v high waiver priority.

2) I almost think we should remove that section of the rule on waivers resetting...not because I don't support it but because Shawn is not present enough to do it. I agree in theory that Jake should have had the higher waiver priority to get the player, but I also can't remember the last time waivers was actually reset.

3) The problem with "using" a waiver priority in zips goes back to point #2...we're just very inconsistent at resetting waivers. I don't know mechanically how we would move a team's waiver priority based on zips.

My gut tells me that there isn't a way to fix this particular issue and I would lean toward leaving waivers as a continuously changing number based on actual claims and not based on a monthly/offseason reset.

[Guardians]

Is there any other comment or opinion on this?

One thought is we could post a waivers order based on standings in the zips thread and work off that rather than the waivers number associated with each team on the members page. That is if waivers aren't going to reset by Shawn consistently. Thoughts?

[Marlins]

Thinking about it more, what if we simply get rid of the $ budget completely? There are so few players that get bid on nowadays as it is and even fewer that don't go for the full $20. Why don't we just have a "Zips waiver" system, post the order at the start of the zips season. Instead of bidding, you put in a claim. If you get a player, you still can put in more claims but you move to the back of the list each time you're awarded a player. Seems much simpler and doesn't need to have any tie to the official OOPSS waiver order.

[Guardians]

Thinking about it more, what if we simply get rid of the $ budget completely? There are so few players that get bid on nowadays as it is and even fewer that don't go for the full $20. Why don't we just have a "Zips waiver" system, post the order at the start of the zips season. Instead of bidding, you put in a claim. If you get a player, you still can put in more claims but you move to the back of the list each time you're awarded a player. Seems much simpler and doesn't need to have any tie to the official OOPSS waiver order.

I think the issue with that is if you want multiple players in the zips season, you basically have no shot. It becomes a one and done situation. I agree we have fewer bids, but I don't think this solves the current problem. I think if we post a postseason zips waiver order we can run the tiebreaker situation that way.

[Marlins]

If you're getting multiple players (i.e. one's that don't go for the full $20), then they are probably ones you can snag even with the worst waiver priority.

I don't think the tiny chance of getting multiple players of any value is worth keeping this so complex.

[Guardians]

I don't think anyone is saying the zips bidding process is complex. I think we're just trying to figure out how we incorporate waivers for a tiebreaker since it isn't reset as frequently as it has been.

[Cardinals]

Long term solution - ditch waivers for this and just go by draft order/final standings.

[Reds]

Long term solution - ditch waivers for this and just go by draft order/final standings.

I'm good with that.

[Guardians]

Long term solution - ditch waivers for this and just go by draft order/final standings.

Just checking: are you saying the same thing I wrote above that we would forget what the site says for waivers and just post a final standings that would be used for tiebreakers in bidding?

[Cardinals]

Correct

[Guardians]

Are we in agreement that:

For next year we will post in the zips thread a final standings for the purposes of breaking zips bidding ties?

That for this year, Jake can receive no relief for his ZiPS bidding issue?

Outstanding:

Do we reset waivers like in the past or is that not something we can rely on Shawn for so we're going to eliminate that from the rules?

[Reds]

Agree to part one.

Reset at the end of the season only going forward, but reset January 31 (prior to the draft) this season because it hasn't been done in a while?

[Padres]

Agree to part one.

Reset at the end of the season only going forward, but reset January 31 (prior to the draft) this season because it hasn't been done in a while?

I concur ...

[Rangers]

I definitely agree on the ditching waivers for this and go by draft order.

If a vote is needed on the Jake part, I will vote, but generally good either way on it.

[Reds]

Are we going to reset the waivers prior to the draft?