[jj-malaysia]

hmmm against then

i prefer everything to be contained in yahoo

[KingCorran]

jj-malaysia, on Feb 23 2010, 05:04 PM, said:

hmmm against then

i prefer everything to be contained in yahoo

Vote recorded. May I ask what part of that issue makes you vote against the change? I guess I'm just not quite following the logic... I'd love to understand what I'm missing.

All players are still handled normally by the Y! system - the only difference is when they're added to the player pool. Either way there's no handling minor leaguers in the message boards, like in the dynasty leagues.

[TheZenador]

jj-malaysia, on Feb 23 2010, 05:04 PM, said:

hmmm against then

i prefer everything to be contained in yahoo

Everything is contained in Yahoo!, it just reverts the system to what it was a few years ago.

[Idahomariner]

Ill with for.

[55panhead]

As per the rules the worst 2009 team drafts first and the best 2009 team drafts last. However the 2009 first place team is granted the #1 waiver wire priority and the worst team has the #20 WW priority. Hdboc will have the #1 WW priorty followed by Idahomariner, KC, and myself 55Pan. Yankees 13 will have the #20 waiver wire priority preceded by Vigalantes, Hotwheels, and Jinx (now Crusty J).

If we adopt Jordan's proposal, last year's best team will have first shot at Strasburg or Heyward or Alvarez. To me this proposal rewards the best teams. Again this is not sour grapes because my team is right up there. If we make all players in the Yahoo database available in the draft then the worst teams will have to first chance to select a Strasburg or Heyward if they so choose. I personally think this would be fairer to all and would help to provide league parity.

[KingCorran]

Hey Matt - thanks for the insights. I'll put your vote down as 'no' for the moment, as you seem to consistently argue in that direction... by all means let me know if that's not right.

Matt's description is technically accurate, insofar as the order of picks is concerned. This order of picks is unchanged, however, whether you adopt my proposal or reject it. I believe that this arrangement of picks is a fair one, as the first 5-10 picks in the draft will have keeper-level players available that were not kept by other teams... a much higher rate of return than that available to the top waiver selections.

---

I think there are some consequences to the proposal's passage or failure which haven't been examined. A few of them:

* Strasberg and possibly Heyward will still be available in the draft. This proposal doesn't take ALL top minor leaguers out of the draft... Y! apparently still includes a couple marquee names (and, eventually, all projected MLB starters) in the main event.

* Most waiver picks aren't spent on marquee keeper-level players, but rather picking up other teams' drops (ill-advised or not), new closer candidates, and so forth. Pulling Alvarez out of the draft doesn't mean that Matt or I or another top team automatically get him.

* Let's say Strasberg is undrafted, and hdboc wants him. He has to hold on to that pick all year until Stephen is called up. He can't put in waiver claims on those dropped players and new closer candidates ALL YEAR for fear of 'wasting' the pick. Again, there is a cost to teams with the top claim that is associated with having a high waiver position.

* Furthermore... if more talent is in the waiver pool over the course of the year... more teams will get a real benefit from the waiver picks they have. More quality Civics and closer candidates will trickle down to the 10-12 teams, who last year had little hope to translate a waiver pick into anything significant. So I don't think that the sole benefit here goes to the top waiver teams.

* As a corollary... if all potential top prospects are in the draft... that just pushes other good keeper-quality players down to the 'top teams' from the previous year, as established quality guys are passed over in favor of Alvarez-types. NOT passing this rule has a consequence which favors the 'top teams' as well.

* Finally, I *am* more opposed to the realization that ANY quality prospect talent in our league currently has to be hoarded away all year if a manager wants to get it. If Pedro Alvarez is going to be a difference maker, well and good... but why should we in a MAJOR-league fantasy game have to hoard away MINOR leaguers to have any shot at upside talent? You could roster Alvarez from opening to closing day, he never gets called up, and he's not one of your top-6 keepers... what then? You wasted a roster spot all year, handicapping yourself just to have a SHOT at a future talent. At least when you draft players that don't pan out, they're generally PLAYING. It just doesn't seem like the spirit of the game we're playing... unlike dynasty, we don't have a minor league system, so why should we be forced to be well-versed on minor leaguers before they're even part of the game we're playing?

---

Good discussion, and I do think there are good points on both sides of this argument. I'm sure some can be made even in response to these bullet points I raise - I'm sure I don't see all sides of the conversation clearly. I don't think this is a 'huge' issue, and the league is going to be great whether the proposal passes or fails. I do continue to hope for its passage though, because I think that revitalizing the waiver system will make the league more fun.

[KingCorran]

By the way - Matt gets kudos for publicly taking a vote position which DOESN'T benefit his team. This is hard for me to argue my side, because my personal waiver pick (#3) definitely becomes more valuable this year if it passes.

However, I'm not pushing this for personal gain. I may well have a lower pick in future years, and I think I would still take the same position - at least, I hope I would. Matt, you have the unique position of actually taking the non-beneficial position (to yourself), and I commend you for that. Good on you for putting the league first.

[55panhead]

I would be in favor of Jordan's proposals if we change the WW priority rule to awarding the #1 priority to the last place team.

[KingCorran]

55panhead, on Feb 24 2010, 01:25 PM, said:

I would be in favor of Jordan's proposals if we change the WW priority rule to awarding the #1 priority to the last place team.

I'd have to think long and hard about whether I'd support that amendment. I (obviously) like the way the waiver rule provides a slight counter-balance to the top draft picks heading to the lower teams. I might NOT support my own proposal if that rule were put into place... I *might* feel that was too much additional talent going to the last-place teams, and we don't want to encourage NBA-style tanking.

---

Let's face it - the NBA isn't a good model for about ANYthing these days.

[DocMilo]

KingCorran, on Feb 24 2010, 02:34 PM, said:

I'd have to think long and hard about whether I'd support that amendment. I (obviously) like the way the waiver rule provides a slight counter-balance to the top draft picks heading to the lower teams. I might NOT support my own proposal if that rule were put into place... I *might* feel that was too much additional talent going to the last-place teams, and we don't want to encourage NBA-style tanking.

---

Let's face it - the NBA isn't a good model for about ANYthing these days.

Everything should be in order to help the worst teams compete with the better teams. The draft and WW would be most benefitial to the worse teams. If you want the #1 waiver KC, you have to wait for it or trade for it. At least that's how it should be. In the real world the worst teams always get the #1 waiver claim... every time. That's not what the Pan Man is proposing... I think.

[CrustyJuggler]

DocMilo, on Feb 25 2010, 09:00 PM, said:

Everything should be in order to help the worst teams compete with the better teams. The draft and WW would be most benefitial to the worse teams. If you want the #1 waiver KC, you have to wait for it or trade for it. At least that's how it should be. In the real world the worst teams always get the #1 waiver claim... every time. That's not what the Pan Man is proposing... I think.

That was going to be a question I wanted to ask. Why did the league not give the bottom teams top waiver claim as well as top draft slotting? As Doc says, that's the way it is in real life. Do you think it may be unbalancing? Just curious.

Oh and I probably should be abstaining from this vote since I've been in the league all of, what?.. a few days.

[jj-malaysia]

CrustyJuggler, on Feb 26 2010, 01:42 PM, said:

That was going to be a question I wanted to ask. Why did the league not give the bottom teams top waiver claim as well as top draft slotting? As Doc says, that's the way it is in real life. Do you think it may be unbalancing? Just curious.

Oh and I probably should be abstaining from this vote since I've been in the league all of, what?.. a few days.

no need to abstain.... your vote is as valid as anyone else

[jj-malaysia]

one other thing...

I am in a few leagues.

the other leagues are not going to be changing the settings.. it will be confusing for me personally to deal with differeces in timings of callups

[TheZenador]

I was under the impression that the last place team got both the number 1 waiver and the number 1 draft pick. Is this not true?

[MarinerPride]

TheZenador, on Feb 25 2010, 11:15 PM, said:

I was under the impression that the last place team got both the number 1 waiver and the number 1 draft pick. Is this not true?

In years past, the team with the last pick got the top waiver, I believe.

[jj-malaysia]

MarinerPride, on Feb 26 2010, 03:18 PM, said:

In years past, the team with the last pick got the top waiver, I believe.

correct

[CrustyJuggler]

Just seems strange that the best team in the league would get the #1 waiver. Again, I'm not sure how the balance has been in the past. Looking over past standings it doesn't look all that perennial at the top of the league so something is being done right.

[KingCorran]

Hey guys,

The last place team in this league has never gotten the #1 waiver. At least not since the second year of this league (2006), which was my first year here. The team with the last pick (in the original order) indeed gets the first waiver.

---

To the comment about last-place teams in real life always getting the top waiver pick... those teams don't get the benefit of a redraft every year. If you gave those teams the option of a top draft pick, or a free run at the first available player after all teams protected only six players... well, in baseball at least, you'd see a lot of teams choosing the redraft option. The parallels to real life teams just don't fit, because we're playing an entirely different game. If we were going to play with 30 teams and extensive minor league systems... then we'd need different rules. And lives.

The point I'm making is this: the redraft is SO powerful as a rebalancer and neutralizer that the reversed waiver priority is necessary to balance it out. If you give a top waiver pick and the top draft pick to the last place team, you're punishing teams for success. There's a fine line between giving a helping hand to teams that had a tough year, and giving them a major handicap.

---

CJ - please do weigh in on anything you like. This is your league now as much as ours.
Actually, you can't get off the hook on this one - if you don't vote, it'll be registered as a no-vote (but you get an incomplete for not participating )

[KingCorran]

jj-malaysia, on Feb 25 2010, 09:49 PM, said:

one other thing...

I am in a few leagues.

the other leagues are not going to be changing the settings.. it will be confusing for me personally to deal with differeces in timings of callups

JJ,

The players are called up to the majors at the same time in real life. The difference is... in this league's ruleset, you have to keep those players on your roster forever, inactive, while they remain in the minors. If you don't do this... you'll be very unlikely to get these players. And once you have them, you have to keep track of when they're called up to know when to start playing them. Under the proposed ruleset, you still have to know when players are called up... but to add them AND play them. It consolidates your effort... you don't have to track the players A.) when they're available in Yahoo! AND B.) when they're available to put up stats for your team.

Changing the rule shouldn't confuse you in this regard, so much as just give you one less thing to worry about. But again, that's just IMHO.

[55panhead]

I personally am in favor of the last place team receiving BOTH the first draft pick AND the top waiver priority. This would make it easier for the worst teams to ascend and harder for the best teams to remain on top. It would create a more balanced league with more parity.

If Strasburg is truly a once every ten year pitcher then the worst team should get first shot at him, whether it be in the draft or via the waiver wire.

I believe that favoring the have nots in the draft and waiver wire will result in more tighly bunched league standings, which in turn will keep everyone's interest high through out the season. Last year we had a team or two that lost interest and stopped submitting lineups. Helping the weaker teams can only help the overall health of the league.







As a compromise, we could have waiver wire priorities carry over to the next year as in the dynasty league. Even with doing this, I'd recommend starting with the #1 WW priority going to the last place team and then carry over the WW priority next year.