IBC

So, I was thinking about this the other day and wondered if it was something the IBC could incorporate.

In the majors, you have a July 31 trade deadline. Ours is a month later. But what if we used the MLB trade deadline as ours and created a revocable waivers system in OOPSS? Shawn's a genius, so I'm sure this could be doable.

How it would work:

All regular trades would be due into the TRC by 7/31

Any players you wanted to trade after 7/31 would have to be placed on revocable waivers. So, when you drop a player, there would have to be a drop-down list to select regular waivers (same system we have now) or revocable waivers.

If you selected revocable waivers, you'd put your player out to everyone.

If no one claims him, he can be traded to any team through the end of August without restrictions.

If one team claims him, you can pull the player back or you have a designated time frame (MLB is 48.5 business hours) to make a trade.

If more than one team claims, the team with the lowest waiver priority (also would need to be a separate waivers list) gets preference.

If a deal can't be worked out, the player can be pulled back once that month. If you place him on revocable waivers a second time and don't work out a deal, he's lost to regular waivers....essentially he becomes irrevocable.
Better explainers here: http://www.purplerow.com/2009/2/19/7625 ... -part-thre
or http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/08/e ... des-2.html

I think we'd have to set a few rules, such as number of players you could place on revocable waivers per day. Otherwise, there could be a lot of players on the wire per day, which would become cumbersome.
Second, do you have to put all players involved in a trade on waivers or just one? If I were to dangle Jon Lester and work out a deal with someone, do all the players we discuss have to be put on waivers? Probably.
What are the time frames we want to work with? A week to work out a deal? We're not all sitting at our desks waiting for the phone to ring to work out a trade (well, some of us are)

It's certainly an added layer of complication, but I think it would be fun as long as everyone understood how it worked. If it happened, I would also advocate for moving the draft pick trading deadline up a few more weeks (maybe 7/1) to accommodate additional trades involving picks, which I wouldn't think would need to be added to waivers to deal them.

So, the upside is it brings the league a little closer to reality. The downside is it adds a new layer of difficulty.

I just wanted to get a discussion going and see what people think. I think it would be new and interesting. It could always be abandoned if it caused issues. Ultimately, I just wanted to see what people thought about the idea. Let's get a discussion going.

Yay or nay and why?

Why would anyone go unclaimed by the very first team possible? The system works in MLB due to salaries. I don't see how anyone other than some very low level prospects would ever go unclaimed.

Giants wrote:Why would anyone go unclaimed by the very first team possible? The system works in MLB due to salaries. I don't see how anyone other than some very low level prospects would ever go unclaimed.

Pretty much the response I was going to give.

Unless you guys want to start adding contracts and budgets to teams. Would be pretty cool, but super complex.

I would say Nay, as I think it would put the kybosh on trades after the July 31st deadline.

If you are trying to trade a quality player to a playoff team, he would almost never make it through waivers in order to actually made a deal with that particular team. Any playoff team would essentially need to have any impact deals done by July 31st or the likelyhood of being able to make an impact trade for this season during the revocable waiver period would be almost nil.

I think open trading up until the August 31st deadline is the best way to keep the trading activity going.

I think in MLB most of the post July 31st trading that gets done is because of bad contracts. We don't have to worry about contracts in the IBC, as such nobody would be hindered from claiming a decent player put through waivers, IMO.

Interested concept, but some things in the MLB are just not worth duplicating.

Yeah, way too complicated and nobody would ever make it through waivers that would be worth trading for

Agreed, any respectable player would never make it unclaimed past the first team.

Here's my rebuttal: If Z had top priority and claimed Lester, for instance, and we traded would he then move to #30? Then, Bren would be #1, and my rebuttal is that he would never claim anyone because he's not really part of the league. So, good players would move past the first guy. I win!

Ok, ok, I get it. Probably won't work without salaries, but seems like it would be a cool concept if we could work it.

Yea, it works because of salaries and we don't have them. Also thought that for that month waivers stay constant, so Z would always have first rights to claim.

Angels wrote:Yea, it works because of salaries and we don't have them. Also thought that for that month waivers stay constant, so Z would always have first rights to claim.

Just for clarification, once you make a waiver claim as soon as it settles you get sent to the back of the waiver order. It rotates throughout the month.

The overall order only resets back to being based on record at the beginning of each month.

Idle thought - maybe you should join that CBA league. Things like revokable waivers and big rosters were why I joined and those parts have been enjoyable. There are definite drawbacks to the league, but it has agents and about as many rules as MLB (mostly similar though they have RFA rather than arb, for example).

Rangers wrote:Idle thought - maybe you should join that CBA league. Things like revokable waivers and big rosters were why I joined and those parts have been enjoyable. There are definite drawbacks to the league, but it has agents and about as many rules as MLB (mostly similar though they have RFA rather than arb, for example).

Trying to get rid of me, BP?
Just kidding... Not looking for anything that complex, just wanted to get a discussion going. Ibc has been a little inactive lately... Good chatter on the topic. I hadn't thought about the salary part. That probably makes it useless for our purposes.

I actually think this might be an interesting thing to do in advance of the draft with minor league players, maybe something like guys who are coming off draft rosters. I know I'm not as on top of the bottom of guys rosters as I used to be so every time someone gets released I'm always checking out who they are, this might be a way to drum up trade interest at a time when everyone needs to clear our roster spaces.

I'm thinking something like at the end of the draft everyone who needs to get under the roster limit puts the guys they're thinking about cutting on waivers for a few days with possible claims, pullbacks and trades, allowing us to keep slightly bigger rosters or something. Not sure exactly what the benefit would be (maybe you can keep a couple of extra guys who pass through unclaimed on the draft roster? I know Jag, et. al would love that), but I think that could liven up the dead time between the draft and spring training since we stopped doing the winter league.

Or maybe expand the non-draft rosters to 50 and have a rule 5 draft for guys not protected on the 40 man roster?

Of course I could do it.

Tigers wrote:Trying to get rid of me, BP?

Hah, no, was suggesting that you do both.

Jim's recent block post got me thinking..

Each year we have a draft. And each year after a pick is made, we're required to drop a player immediately to get back to legal roster size otherwise we get scolded heavily by the powers that be about being over limit.

So, instead of a traditional revocable waiver deadline of Aug31.. what if we had a post draft revocable waiver system?

My proposal would be that we are allowed to draft and not drop anyone while the draft is occurring. When the draft has concluded - We give everyone a 72 hour window to make cuts and get your roster down to limits. Once everyone has submitted their cuts, the waiver wire is then flooded with a large group of players hitting waivers. Then there's an additional time period, to revoke that player and try to make a deal with the claiming team if your players are claimed.

It might be cool to have a revocable system in place at this point in time - maybe you can work out a deal with a guy that you dropped that was claimed that you thought no one would have interest in. IDK.

It might facilitate some extra activity post draft and offseason, and you may find some deals you didn't know were out there and are beneficial to all involved.

I'm not saying all the bugs/kinks in this idea are worked out.. but might add an interesting niche to the offseason that can get rather stagnant.

The idea of roster freezes brings back some bad memories.

Who said anything about roster freezes? I'm simply saying we would be allowed to go over 50 during the draft, and when the draft concludes we make the cut within 72 to get down to size.. Those players go on a special waiver wire... Obviously processes would have to be worked out on the logistics of everything.. But I'm not necessarily proposing any actual freezing of rosters and/or transactions.

Astros wrote:Who said anything about roster freezes? I'm simply saying we would be allowed to go over 50 during the draft, and when the draft concludes we make the cut within 72 to get down to size.. Those players go on a special waiver wire... Obviously processes would have to be worked out on the logistics of everything.. But I'm not necessarily proposing any actual freezing of rosters and/or transactions.

Sorry about that, misread.

Rangers wrote:

Astros wrote:Who said anything about roster freezes? I'm simply saying we would be allowed to go over 50 during the draft, and when the draft concludes we make the cut within 72 to get down to size.. Those players go on a special waiver wire... Obviously processes would have to be worked out on the logistics of everything.. But I'm not necessarily proposing any actual freezing of rosters and/or transactions.

Sorry about that, misread.

And read my post again and I can see how it can be construed that way.. Worded poorly, sorry.