2005 Rules Discussion - Waivers for released players
 

I hijacked my other thread with this topic, and there appears to be significant interest in this idea, so I felt it deserved it's own thread.

Basically, the idea I proposed was to expose ANY released player to waivers, where his contract could be claimed by any team (based on a reverse order of record) within a 24 hour window.

If the player was claimed by another team, the original releasing team would not be subject to paying the 20% cap hit, although any applicable remaining signing bonus would still be charged against the original team.

It's a pretty simple concept, and wouldn't be too difficult to administer.

Anyone have some clarification or additions/deletions they'd like to add to the above?

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I'd like the waiver order not to reset on a weekly basis. I don't think that makes sense in a league such as ours. I think we should set the waiver order priority only twice; once at the begining on off season free agency (ie June 1), once again at the begining on in season free agency, but then never reset it. Once a team makes a waiver claim, they are put down at the bottom of the list of the waiver priority.

Otherwise I like the idea.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Not totally familar with the waiver concept but it sounds like an interesting one. If you guys could flesh it out a bit I think I would be happy to get on board here.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Inbteresting, I'm not totally opposed to your idea Brian, however, if we set it as you stated, the order would never change. I mean, we have no records to go by to change the order from the beginning of the off-season FA to the beginning on the in-season FA.

I think your idea is to reward lower tier teams all year long, while not opposed to that, I think maybe we should have an off-season order (based on the previous years standings), and then a mid-season order after week 7, which would be based on the records up to that point. This would give the lower tier teams 7 full in-season weeks to get 1st crack at released players, while having a mid-season adjustment that would be reflective of the trends up to that point (i.e. some teams likely will be improved while others will have struggled downwards by that point).

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Mike, I don't think I've explained my thoughts very well, so I'll go into a little more detail. First off, the way I dislike it, and the way we do it in my other league is that the waiver order is reset at the end of every week. So the person in last place gets first shot at pickups that week (different from how we're doing it, but the same concept). Thus, if you win week 1 with a high score, you won't get a shot at good pickups ever, or at least not until you start losing.

The way I propose is that we set the order on June 1, and again at some point during the season, and then we do not reset it again. The only way the order changes is when a team actually makes a waiver claim, at which point they are bumped to the end of the line. It works like this;

Say we have a 4 team league, on june 1 the waiver order is:

Team 1
Team 2
Team 3
Team 4

Team 3 drops a player. Team 1 claims that player. The waiver order now looks like this:

Team 2
Team 3
Team 4
Team 1

Then Team 4 drops a player. Team 2 passes on that player. Team 3 claims the player. The order now looks like this:

Team 2
Team 4
Team 1
Team 3

The order would be reset to the starting order only at our predetermined dates, based on whatever criteria we decide.

This way, the team at the end of the priority list will eventually get first crack at someone in the waiver process, and not be penalized for success. In a redraft league, I think it makes sense to reset the order based on standings each week allowing teams to get back into contention. However, in a keeper league, it doesn't make as much sense.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

OK Brian, I had understood the 1st part (resetting the order only twice a year, but I didn't understand that you wanted to make a team move to the back of the line once they claim a player.

I have no problems with that way either (although keeping track may be more difficult, I guess, we'd need to just keep a Waivers thread and have it be updated).

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I could track the waiver thread. I don't forsee an overwhelming amount of players being claimed on waiver, so it should be fairly easy to keep updated. I can just edit the original post to show the current order, and add a post for every waiver claim transaction.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Work's for me :thumbsup

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I like Brian's suggestion. That's how we run it in another league I'm in. Sure makes it a bit more interesting for drops and cap hits!!

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Interesting idea. So the if for example I cut a player with 2 years left and another team claims him off waivers, I am not responsible for the %20 cap hit this year but I am responsible for the remaining signing bonus (10% of the year 2 salary)? I just want to be clear. I'd be in favor of this, although I agree its unlikely we'll see alot of players claimed off waivers but you never know.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

yes, you have it right Joe

Re: Waivers for released players
 

This idea sounds good to me.

One man's trash is another man's treasure!

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Where does that put JJ Stokes? :confused:

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I think it puts him on the Nittany Dodger roster next year.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

A man with a plan. Every night I go to bed and :bow to thank the FF gods that the Dodgers are in my division.

:WinkKiss

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Ouch. That hurts.

At least we're still tied with lifetime post season victories.:whistle

Re: Waivers for released players
 

GREAT comeback :thumbsup

NOW STOP HIJACKING MY THREAD AND GET BACK ON TOPIC! :box

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Damnit! :Banghead

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Just looking through old stuff, and I thought this post really needed to be bumped in light of this years' final standings.

Whatever happened to this waiver idea?

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Was anyone opposed to this idea? Did we not vote on it since we were to far into the off-season? This seams like something we could incorporate for 2005 IMO.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I don't see a single viewpoint opposed. We should definitely have this on our voting agenda.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Bring it on!

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I like it

Re: Waivers for released players
 

This sounds good to me as well.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I'm all for it.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Good here.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Works for me also

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I'm also for it. But: could we have a longer window in the off-season, say 48 hours?

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I have a clarification question on the signing bonus portion. If a player is cut with a remaining signing bonus due, and he is picked up by another team, you state "any applicable remaining signing bonus would still be charged against the original team." I assume that would be an accelerated cap hit to the original team, correct? And if the same player is cut by the team that picked him up, is there a singing bonus cap hit for that team as well, or just the standard 20%?

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I would guess just the standard 20%, because the original team has already dealt with the full signing bonus. Good clarification question, though!

My understanding of the primary "savings" this policy is that it allows any team to claim a cut player at their current salary/contract rate (instead of waiting for the player to go back on the Free Agent market). The team doing the cutting still has to take the "signing bonus" hit, but can avoid the 10% prorated or 20% current salary hit (depending on what time of the year it is) if another team claims that player off of waivers...

Right?

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Did we ever get clarification on Brian's question? I would agree with his view. The team that claims the player would only be responsible for the 20% cap hit and not the remaining signing bonus that the previous team already dealt with.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I'd concur with that. But I think the cutting team should still have to pay the signing bonus hit even if the player is claimed. Much like they do in the NFL.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

What Mike said makes sense to me.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Agreed.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I'm on board with this.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Sounds like a solid proposal to me. I still think we need a longer window for claims in the offseason.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I think a 48 hour window in the off season makes sense. I wouldn't want to drag it out any longer than that. Most people are here just about every day throughout the off season, save vacations and the like.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I could see allowing 72 hours or more in the off-season. I mean, come July the Frenzy slows down quite a bit.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

No need to rush things in the offseason... 72 hours would be okay for me, too. I'll be gone for practically the whole month of June anyway... this would allow me to seek out some internet cafe every 3 days.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion - Waivers for released players
 

Mike (and others), I'm working on updating the league rule file document, and I need a clarification here. In this proposal, you state that the waiving team would not "be subject to paying the 20% cap hit, although any applicable remaining signing bonus would still be charged against the original team." As we reworded the signing bonus language, the actual cap hit is only 10% of the current year salary, and the signing bonus is 10% of each remaining year's contract (so, in essense, 20% of the current year, and 10% thereafter for the total hit). However, since we have it worded that half of the 20% for the first year is technically signing bonus, do we want to change the language here so that the waiving team receives the full signing bonus hit (10% for the current and each future year), and the team claiming the player would then only be charged for 10% of the current year if the player is again waived?

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion - Waivers for released players
 

Eww, that's a muddy picture.

I believe this is the specific reference you're referring to in the rules... After reading that, I'd say we should be consistent, meaning that if a team cuts a player, they must pay any and all remaining signing bonus, including the current year. The cap relief would thus be 10% if the player is claimed by another team. Subsequently, the claiming team would then be subject to a 10% cap hit if the player is cut at a future date.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion - Waivers for released players
 

It seems like we need to be clear as to WHY we're having this waiver claim. There are two primary advantages that I can think of: 1. Other teams can have "first crack" at a released player, while keeping their current salary/contract years. 2. The releasing team can save a bit on the cap hit.

At first, I was inclined to say that a team that makes a successful waiver claim then inherits the entire contract (and future cap hits). The team which released the player takes the hit only for the current year...

BUT THEN I GOT TO THINKING ABOUT THE NFL... and there are players that are released & they still have cap ramifications for the releasing team in future years. Do NFL teams get any advantage when other teams pick up their waived players? I don't think so, right? So then, we should probably have the full cap hit (for the entire length of the contract) for the releasing team. This will insure that this waiver claim is an advantage only to the claiming team, and not the releasing team.

Or am I missing something?

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion - Waivers for released players
 

NFL Teams are always responsible for the Signing Bonus hit, but not the contract itself. Thus a claiming team picks up the contract (which isn't guarenteed) and no cap ramifications.

All that being said, OUR contracts ARE GUARENTEED. I personally have no problem giving the cutting team a portion of the cap relief...

In the past, a team had 2 options when they no longer want a player... cut a player (with a cap hit, but available immediatly to be resigned as a UFA) or trade a player (with no cap hit).

Now those options are slightly different as we've added a new variable to the mix. Now if a player is cut, he cannot be immediatly resigned/bid upon by his team, as the other 11 teams in the league will have 1st crack to claim said player off waivers. Cutting a player with the hopes of resigning them now has an element of risk.

Also, the original vote was all about providing cap relief if a guy was claimed off waivers. The conflict that Brian is brining up is that we thought it would provide a full 20% relief of the base contract when we voted, when in reality, according to the rules we updated last year it'd only be 10% (which is fine IMO... as I stated earlier).

Does this make more sense to you now Jim?

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Somewhat... I'm fine with a 10% savings of the players base salary to the releasing team, and the rest of the "cap hits" will incurr accordingly. But I am clear in thinking that the claiming team assumes the remainder of the salary & contract, right? So if I cut Steven Davis with a contract of 3 years and 1200cbs... and the Predators claim him, they'll have him at 3 years and 1200cbs. I'll take whatever the regular releasing hit should be...

Now, if the Preds release him, the process continues, right? And they'll have a cap hit and Davis goes back on waivers? If no one then picks him up, he becomes an UFA. Tell me I'm on the right page, here.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Jim, you are right in that the contract stays in tact for the same years and cb. In your scenario, when Mike claims Davis, and then cuts him, the only cap hit Mike would have would be 10% of the current year salary. If another team claimed him, and cut him, the same 10% hit would apply again.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

So if Mike claims Davis, and cuts him... he doesn't have to pay for years 2 and 3 remaining on the contract? That seems a bit strange. What's the reasoning there - that my team (original owner) has already paid it up? Maybe this is no big deal... but it seems, then, that claiming a player with a multiple year contract off of waivers can be economically more prudent than signing an UFA (granted, you have no control of a player's salary from waivers).

Hmm... okay by me... but I just wanted to be clear.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Correct. The original signing team is responsible for the signing bonus and pays it upon release. The following teams aren't responsible for that portion of the contract.

In a way, claiming a player can be more economical, but how many players are going to be picked up with the future plans of cutting said player?

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Further, the odds are that a guy claimed off waivers won't exactly have a bargain contract. In some cases they might (players who've yet to emerge) but in many cases, the players we cut are generally cut because nobody else would take them off our hands at the current contrat they're at.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I agree with Mike and Brian's assessments. If a cut player is picked up by another team, the original team will should only be responsible for the signing bonus (10% of the current year + 10% of each additional year). If the 2nd team cuts the player againt they will only be responsible for the current salary. They should not be penalized for a signing bonus that has already been paid. I believe that's how it works in the NFL too.