Rule Change (part deux): Concerning players waived during the playoffs *** PASSES ***

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Let's try this again.

If a player is WAIVED/CUT during the playoffs, shall any team be eligible to make a waiver claim on him?

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Don't forget to vote on this before you "hibernate" for the fantasy football winter!

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Still need 4 people to vote...

[Preds]

Current voting by team:

Still Missing:

Philadelphia Freedom
Rabid Llamas
Chi-Town Cards

__________________

4x Frenzy Champions (2003, 2005, 2013, 2022*) with 9 appearances in the Frenzy Bowl (4 in the past 5 seasons)
*2022 Co-Champions with WchMeGo Roosters

Email: preds1@gmail.com
Cell: 716-481-8823

[chasmvp19]

Open season...why should we be left out of the bidding process....

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Precisely!

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

If the last vote goes the way I hope it does, we'll have a rule change.

[Preds]

I still think they should just become UFA's eligible to be bid on the next off-season, but whatever. Not a huge issue as long as they're not restricted solely to playoff teams.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by chasmvp19

Open season...why should we be left out of the bidding process....

Because only playoff teams are allowed to bid....why would non playoff teams be allowed to claim? Same reason we are only allowed to sign players won during playoffs to one year contracts. Why should claiming not be same reasoning? You can't assign a player multi year contracts during playoffs, but you can claim one? Seems to go against the intent of the rules...

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

Because only playoff teams are allowed to bid....why would non playoff teams be allowed to claim? Same reason we are only allowed to sign players won during playoffs to one year contracts. Why should claiming not be same reasoning? You can't assign a player multi year contracts during playoffs, but you can claim one? Seems to go against the intent of the rules...

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

Because only playoff teams are allowed to bid....why would non playoff teams be allowed to claim? Same reason we are only allowed to sign players won during playoffs to one year contracts. Why should claiming not be same reasoning? You can't assign a player multi year contracts during playoffs, but you can claim one? Seems to go against the intent of the rules...

Because it's a WAIVER CLAIM... it's not a free agent claim. Meaning, the player is already under contract (which was secured during the regular season). If a playoff team decides to jettison a player in order to pick up a potential playoff help, I believe that ALL TEAMS should be able to make a claim on that player. It makes it a much more difficult decision for an owner, knowing that he won't be able to automatically bid on that player again the following UFA period... IF someone claims him. Any team should have the chance to pounce on a player cut under regular season contract.

In my opinion, it's not even in the same ballpark as "going against the intent of the rules."

[Bounty Hunter]

And when someone irks you by nickel bumping every player you put up for bid you can claim that one player with the one year contract he wanted/needed (assuming waiver priority) even if he's out of the playoffs.

Not that i would do this but someone might.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Because it's a WAIVER CLAIM... it's not a free agent claim. Meaning, the player is already under contract (which was secured during the regular season). If a playoff team decides to jettison a player in order to pick up a potential playoff help, I believe that ALL TEAMS should be able to make a claim on that player. It makes it a much more difficult decision for an owner, knowing that he won't be able to automatically bid on that player again the following UFA period... IF someone claims him. Any team should have the chance to pounce on a player cut under regular season contract.

In my opinion, it's not even in the same ballpark as "going against the intent of the rules."

Well, I think your opinion is stuck in the frozen tundra and forgot to move to the House OF BOOM!!

The action was done DURING the playoffs. Non playoff teams rosters are 'Frozen' during playoffs. How is this not even in same ball park? It doesn't say Frozen only from bidding.

Current Rules state
"rosters are frozen at the beginning of the week 14 games for non-playoff teams, and the minute a team is eliminated from the playoffs or wins the Frenzy Bowl, whichever comes first. Any players acquired by playoff teams between weeks 14 and 17 may only be assigned 1 year contracts and CANNOT be declared as RFA's the following season."

It did say ANY player, right?

Anyways, rules are meant to be broken I guess...carry on

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

The REASON rosters are "frozen" during the playoffs is precisely so they can't interfere with the bidding process for teams still in postseason playoffs. IMPROVING ONE'S TEAM should never be "frozen" for some & not for others. The one-year, non-RFA contract status precisely keeps it that way for those playoff teams. They don't get an unfair advantage over other non-playoff teams.

When players already under contract are cut during the playoffs, if every team can make a claim on them, NO TEAM HAS AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. And every team has the same chance to better their roster, should they choose to do so.

It's really not rocket science. At least where I stand... but hey, I'm in the islands.

[Preds]

I'm still with Burt on this (hard to believe... OMG)!

The frozen rosters IMO is a great point and lends credence to my position that any player cut during the playoffs should not be eligible for waivers at all and should instead become UFA's the next off-season. Nobody has an advantage in this scenario.

FWIW, I also agree with Bobby's point...

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Okay, the final vote has been cast. 7-1-4... the rule change passes.

[RManz]

Guys - I see both side of the coin you are on and here's my version of trying to make sense of it. I absolutely see why the playoff teams don't want the non-playoff teams having the potential to impact the playoffs.

My sticking point is the wording of the rule "Any players acquired by playoff teams between weeks 14 and 17 may only be assigned 1 year contracts ". That's fine for players who were BID. Only the playoff teams are impacted. No issue.

But a WAVIED player may have a multi year contract (NOT a 1 year contract), so a playoff team can gain a multi year advantage by claiming him. The wording of the rule doesn't match reality because waived players can have multi year contact values.

BUT, now I paint a scenario... say Peyton gets hurt in week 2 of the playoffs. A playoff team cuts him as they need to sign a healthy QB for their run. Any team may wish to claim Peyton so they have rights to him and can get points compensation. How many players now hit the waiver wire to make room for Peyton. This could certainly impact the playoffs.

I was batting around these ideas, but I can't find the perfect answer. As the scenario exists, playoff teams gain a known edge on muli-year contact waived players. In other scenarios, there is potential for playoff teams to be impacted by moves made by teams not in the playoffs.

Some thoughts....
A) Reduce the contracts of all waived players to 1 year to match the rule (we'd need to be sure we don't discount the cap penalty if the waived player had a multi year deal). Non-playoff teams cannot claim. No multi year advantage for playoff teams.
B) Allow playoff teams to ONLY waive players with 1 year contracts. May be limiting, but no advantage on multi year contracts for playoff teams and non-playoff team don't impact the playoffs
C) Allow non-playoff teams to only claim waived multi year contacts so they can't mess with the playoff team.

Again, any time we allow playoff teams to claim players, there is the chance they too cut players. And I don't think we want to go the other way and say that players cut by non-playoff teams cannot be claimed by playoff teams. (stops non-playoff teams from messing with the playoffs, but not playoff teams may miss out a multi year player they want).

[Burt the Butcher]

That was my point Rich..must have been lost somewhere - the contract would revert to 1 year. I was saying only playoffs teams should be able to add players during playoffs, and only 1 year contract. So I voted no so that those waived players would be in the pool for playoff teams. I would assume in most cases, non playoff teams would be higher in waiver order, so playoff teams essentially have no access to released players if non-playoff teams put in claims.

Moot point now though.

[Burt the Butcher]

OK...writing in new rules into the rule book. On this one, say a one-year player is waived by playoff team, and picked up off waivers by another team, playoff team or not. Can the player picked up be declared an RFA the following year?

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Well, since there's no point in claiming off waivers a player with 1 year on his contract for non-playoff teams if you can't make the aforementioned player an RFA... I'd say yes. I players cut in the playoffs will be RFA-caliber... but I'm willing to be talked out of this opinion, if others think it should be different. Still no changes to players picked up DURING the playoffs. 1 year contract. No RFA designation.

[Preds]

I see it differently. I'd think all playoff transactions are for the remainder of the season only.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

But Mike, it's a WAIVER CLAIM. Meaning, the player wasn't a free agent prior. The team winning the claim ASSUMES THE CONTRACT that they had prior. If there were 2 years left on the contract, would you reduce it to one with no RFA? That doesn't make sense. So it should be consistent to have the winner of a waiver claim (even in the playoff period) be able to assume the current complete & unabridged contract period, including RFA designation the following year.

If you don't want to lose a potential RFA player in the playoffs, don't cut him.

Or am I missing something obvious here?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

But Mike, it's a WAIVER CLAIM. Meaning, the player wasn't a free agent prior. The team winning the claim ASSUMES THE CONTRACT that they had prior. If there were 2 years left on the contract, would you reduce it to one with no RFA? That doesn't make sense. So it should be consistent to have the winner of a waiver claim (even in the playoff period) be able to assume the current complete & unabridged contract period, including RFA designation the following year.

If you don't want to lose a potential RFA player in the playoffs, don't cut him.

Or am I missing something obvious here?

Yeah, I was against allowing waiver claims in the playoffs (and shockingly sided with Burt on this issue) and still don't like it!

[Burt the Butcher]

I agree Jim, I do not see players cut during playoffs that are RFA caliber players, but with Championship in week 17, I can see that happening...a team could have 5 RFA caliber players, 4 of which are sitting on the bench to rest up for NFL playoffs, and a RB is available that is needed to field a starting lineup....bidding war drives up price so that they are 'forced' to cut one of these players...claim made by non-playoff team who only has 1 RFA caliber player...instant RFA during playoffs....

But the rule already passed, so just trying to adjust rules accordingly.

So I'll try to word it so that the playoff 1 year clause and RFA stipulations are for pure FA's only, and only playoff teams can bid on them.

ANY player cut by ANY team during playoff is held to same Waiver rules as any player cut during regular season....basically its just a waiver cut regardless of when it happens.

[emerald]

After listening to the different poiints/counter points of the playoff timed waiver pick ups and player claims I would like to put up a poll during the preseason to:

A) Keep it as we voted concerning playoff waivers and claims

or

B) Playoff teams ONLY can pick up players during playoffs with traditional
restriction of 1 year contract and no RFA elgibility AND any players cut
by playoff team to make room for player pick ups become UFA's and can't
be claimed by playoff or non-playoff teams until the following seasons
UFA period.

If no objections or suggestions then I will put up the poll by Valentines Day.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Well... I see where this is heading... and I hate the fact that a rule that has been passed might be changed. But such is the case for ANY rule. Anyone can propose a change. So... go ahead. And I'll see if I have any support left. lol

[emerald]

After creating the poll I came to the conclusion that I was restating the 4 vote option that wasn't the vote winner so I have decided to accept the part Deux results and hope for the best (Much like the presidential race).

[Bounty Hunter]

Originally Posted by emerald

After creating the poll I came to the conclusion that I was restating the 4 vote option that wasn't the vote winner so I have decided to accept the part Deux results and hope for the best (MUCH LIKE THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE).

Or you could go out and start a peaceful riot (those seem to be in vogue for some).