[MajorMajor]

i vote FOR this rule change

[OutfieldGrass]

For

[KingCorran]

11 votes in favor, 3 against.

We've now got a majority of the league in favor of making this change, although we need 3 more votes for the supermajority our league rules require. If you're sitting on the fence, I'd urge you to consider that most of your co-managers want to give this a go... but whether you're in favor or not, please vote!

[DocMilo]

CrustyJuggler, on Mar 3 2010, 08:12 PM, said:

I like making waivers more important but I don't like the upper teams having equal opportunity at these important waivers (if that makes any sense). Which is what the random draw does. I see the top teams having a guaranteed watered-down waiver as the lesser of two evils I guess.

Now if there was any way to give the basement teams a better shot at getting a high waiver position, I'd be all for the change. Maybe you could work out an NBA lottery system where the crumby teams have better odds at landing that top waiver? Idunno.

Look at this Crusty. You talk about what I am pushing for and then vote FOR.

The waiver order doesn't need to be some random thing. The waiver order should be the same as the draft to improve the basement teams.

Reverse waiver order only makes sense in the first year of a league to try and balance something random as first draft order. This league doesn't need a reverse waiver. A random waiver order makes sense never. A carry over waiver order makes less sense than that.

This league needs the waiver order to be the same as the draft to help the basement teams. This doesn't benefit me, I'm drafting 14th. It benefits the people who need to improve their clubs.

Come on Crusty, change your vote, create some momentum, kill this thing like the health care plan should have been killed and lets get it done right.

1) Close rosters to prospects
2) Waiver order base upon reverse finish of league
3) New waiver order every year.

A waiver going from year to year does not motivate people to use it. It does the opposite, it gets people to wait. People could potentially sit on a waiver spot for years. Now that's exciting.

This post has been edited by DocMilo: 22 March 2010 - 08:40 AM

[KingCorran]

If the guys at #1 sit on their pick for years waiting for a Strasberg... the guys at #2 and #3 will be picking up the Heywards, Alvarezes, Uptons, and Brauns like hotcakes. The picks will rotate just fine, and if someone holds on to 1 or 2, then 3-5 will gain more value. The point is that the picks are useful again, instead of boring and generating zero interest.

And the waiver order won't be random... it'll be initialized randomly, sure, but the order after that will be based entirely on who's had the longest time since their last waiver pick. I like the strategy this allows for. Teams that have a bad year already get a huge boost with top draft picks... they don't need welfare too.

[DocMilo]

KingCorran, on Mar 22 2010, 08:48 AM, said:

If the guys at #1 sit on their pick for years waiting for a Strasberg... the guys at #2 and #3 will be picking up the Heywards, Alvarezes, Uptons, and Brauns like hotcakes. The picks will rotate just fine, and if someone holds on to 1 or 2, then 3-5 will gain more value. The point is that the picks are useful again, instead of boring and generating zero interest.

And the waiver order won't be random... it'll be initialized randomly, sure, but the order after that will be based entirely on who's had the longest time since their last waiver pick. I like the strategy this allows for. Teams that have a bad year already get a huge boost with top draft picks... they don't need welfare too.

Of all you points, the only thing that makes waiver claims valuable again is the restricting of prospects from the data base. That's the only thing. That is the only thing really necessary in your rule change suggestion and that's the only thing I agree with. Helping the lower teams isn't welfare. It helps keep managers in the league and help create parity.

As we argue this point, the top teams in the league are already trading their "non-keepers" for upgrades in the draft. Before the draft even begins, the best teams will already have a distinct advantage over the lesser teams. The lesser teams will NEVER have that ability to catch up because they don't have the same pieces to trade as the "Haves".

I challenge you to do a list right here of all the draft picks by manager that have changed hands this winter in the order of finish so the whole league can see who's getting the best picks in the draft. Then try and tell me that getting a single waiver claim is welfare.

[KingCorran]

It's like you always say, Doc. Draft picks are resources. If you want them, trade for them. The teams which HAD the best picks profited from them... and generally MORE than what they would have gotten from the pick had they kept it. That's why draft pick trading works... it makes both teams better. The value added to those teams by their higher draft picks is preserved... and in many cases, amplified.

Quote

Of all you points, the only thing that makes waiver claims valuable again is the restricting of prospects from the data base. That's the only thing. That is the only thing really necessary in your rule change suggestion and that's the only thing I agree with. Helping the lower teams isn't welfare. It helps keep managers in the league and help create parity.

Well... you rejected the idea of making claims valuable again (like they were always before, without the league imploding from unfair advantages)... so I had to find SOME compromise. Its interesting to me that you agree with that idea as necessary all by itself, but require those picks to go to the lowest teams before you'll support it. I'm not the only one who thinks giving powerful waiver picks to the low-end teams every year is unnecessary.

If your complaint is draft pick trading... that's another issue entirely. That definitely makes the top teams more able to keep their top talent than anything else, as they can convert extra players into SOME format of value (even at 40-50% of worth)... but it allows the lower teams an avenue of profit as well (without having to give away a top-10 guy in the process). If you really want to balance the league more in favor of lower-end teams, I'd challenge you to put up a vote to end draft pick trading instead of going after this. Making the waiver picks more valuable (and then taking them away from automatically going to the top teams) is peanuts compared to what that system does... you're pouring your energy into the wrong argument! Or so it would seem.

After all... my proposal here gives more power to the lower-end teams than the current system. Your only real complaint is that it doesn't go far enough (in your opinion). Right? (I don't mean to put words in your mouth; that's just my understanding of your arguments to this point)

[DocMilo]

KC, I came around to your way of thinking on the waiver wire and agreed. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with people trading their players for picks, they've earned it. All I'm saying is that the upper teams don't need the waiver wire as much as the lower teams because every year the better teams get to move their lower keeper level talent to improve their draft slots.

Imploding the league? Unfair advantage?

How does your proposal give more power to the lower-end teams? The current system lets anyone pick up a player at any time. That just rewards the quickest trigger. Your earlier argument was the current system was unfair for the better teams because they couldn't afford to hold a prospect that was in the minors like a non-competing team could. That isn't true. It did take the fun out of the waiver wire, I agree retrospectively.

Teams struggling to compete are upgrading their rosters and spend waivers on players that are better than what they have on a regular basis. By September, the waiver wire will be cycled almost completely anyways. I just feel that the lower teams should be given every opportunity to climb the ladder. It's not unfair, it's fair.

[KingCorran]

Ah, okay... I hadn't realized you were in agreement with me on the value of increasing the importance of the waiver wire back to where it was. I thought that was a concession more than anything else... glad to see we agree there. As for pick trading... it just sounded like you were questioning the system based on players trading away those high draft picks. I just wanted to be sure to point out that the high picks weren't being GIVEN away... but that the value gained by having them was still preserved.

'Imploding' and 'Unfair advantage' were somewhat hyperbolic terms, yes... but I stand by them in the case where baseballbond (to use 2010's specific example - nothing personal, Brandon) would gain Stephen Strasberg AND Jason Heyward for finishing last. I thought you agreed with me at one point on that... which is why giving top 'powerful' picks to the last place teams is overdoing it. It would encourage tanking, no doubt about it. And it would create too many barriers to teams that do well... good teams would always pick lower in the draft (even if you just had a good one-time year), AND would have no shot at top prospects to shore up areas of need. But it's not just the top teams... it's the guys 6-15 who also have to plan on no real shot in the arm from the waiver system on an annual basis. Even 'powerful' picks only allow 3-6 impact prospects per year to be distributed... the others have to settle for marginal pickups, so the dropoff from being a bottom-10 team to a bottom-5 team (in terms of 'balancing' reward) is substantial.

As far as how my proposal gives more power to lower-end teams...
* under the current system, anyone can pick up a player at any time? Yes, but the high teams start with higher priority... and if people want prospects who never go through waivers, they have to carry them months in advance.
* under the new system, anyone can still pick up a player at any time. Many are still available in advance, but several now come through that waiver system. And the top teams do NOT have automatic pickup even on the players who came through the system before that way (still 1-2 interesting prospects/year)... but it is effectively unpredictable who will have the top pick (as it's based on strategy and how long it's been since the last pick). Instead of being last in line for Jason Heyward... Brandon has a 1/20 chance of being first in line, just like anyone else. And if 3 top prospects and 4 more 'interesting' prospects come through the waiver system as a result... Brandon has a roughly 7/20 chance to be in position to get one of them... instead of zero, or being forced to carry one 'possible' interesting prospect months in advance.

So that's how I see a significant advantage going to lower teams over the current system.

In the end, you and I agree that SOME measure of 'rebalancing' should occur - as always, our point of contention is only the degree... how much is too much 'rebalancing'.

[Cbo24663]

I vote for

[KingCorran]

More votes! More votes!

[baseballbond]

for

[KingCorran]

One vote away, folks... let's make it happen!

EDIT - Actually, 13 may technically be a 2/3 majority (13.333 votes being exactly 1/3, 13 is closer)... but since we've been saying 14, let's remove the possibility for doubt and just get it done cleanly!

[phredmojo]

KingCorran, on Mar 28 2010, 10:12 AM, said:

One vote away, folks... let's make it happen!

EDIT - Actually, 13 may technically be a 2/3 majority (13.333 votes being exactly 1/3, 13 is closer)... but since we've been saying 14, let's remove the possibility for doubt and just get it done cleanly!

so what bribe....err...earmark do i get for the deciding vote?

[KingCorran]

None. . We run an honest election here.

That being said... we value your opinion for it's own sake, whether it agrees with ours or not, so perhaps you'd deign to share anyways... ?

[phredmojo]

KingCorran, on Mar 28 2010, 07:44 PM, said:

None. . We run an honest election here.

That being said... we value your opinion for it's own sake, whether it agrees with ours or not, so perhaps you'd deign to share anyways... ?

none? what the hell i don't care either way. just tired of seeing it lol




for

[KingCorran]

Well... I'd rather a positive vote for its own sake... but realizing that 13 votes might have legitimately carried us past the 2/3 requirement, I suppose I can say that a half-vote would definitely get us past 13 and a third.

Motion carries. I'll inform TZ, and see about getting Lonnie to set us up with an original waiver order. All further notes can be discussed in the 2010 MCKL thread.