|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Nov 14, 2018 9:20:57 GMT -8
For simplification, I will be removing the DFA process from our transactions. Today it functions as non-revocable waivers, and IMO doesn't offer anything that the regular waiver process does not besides signaling to the rest of the owners that the player is absolutely not desired on your 40 man roster. I've found that the presence of both a waivers process and DFA process only adds an additional item for new owners to learn, and don't think this is necessary at all.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Nov 14, 2018 12:51:05 GMT -8
Will we now be able to immediately move someone to paid minors once we place them in waivers?
I think the benefit of DFA was that there was no waiting period.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Nov 14, 2018 12:59:36 GMT -8
That's true - but I've also never come across an instance where a team immediately had to become compliant with the 40 man roster limit. I'll also revise the Constitution to allow a waiver "grace period" to immediately reduce the 40-man roster to a compliant player count
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Nov 17, 2018 11:30:33 GMT -8
This change has been executed - the only way to remove a player from the 40-man roster (besides offseason non-tenders and buy-outs) is to place the player on Major League Waivers.
It occurs to me that we could even further simplify the waivers process, doing away with the four waiver periods needing to be tracked, if we changed major league waivers to being irrevocable. E.g. the team waiving the player cannot withdraw the player from waivers if another team claims them. IMO this would remove the ability for teams to use the waivers process in order to gauge trade interest in a player.
Would love to hear your opinions on this irrevocable major league waivers option.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 11:45:25 GMT -8
This change has been executed - the only way to remove a player from the 40-man roster (besides offseason non-tenders and buy-outs) is to place the player on Major League Waivers. It occurs to me that we could even further simplify the waivers process, doing away with the four waiver periods needing to be tracked, if we changed major league waivers to being irrevocable. E.g. the team waiving the player cannot withdraw the player from waivers if another team claims them. IMO this would remove the ability for teams to use the waivers process in order to gauge trade interest in a player. Would love to hear your opinions on this irrevocable major league waivers option. I don’t like that idea. I think it’s better to have the ability to pull players back so I would vote to keep the revocable waivers
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Nov 17, 2018 13:41:05 GMT -8
I’m with Sox on this one. There are lots of times when a player needs to go to the paid minors, but aren’t worth risking losing. Revocable waivers are important.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 16:07:53 GMT -8
Thirded on the revocable waivers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 16:15:34 GMT -8
I'm also a fan of revocable waivers. Making all waivers irrevocable eliminates the ability to negotiate a trade for a player that is claimed.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Mariners (Robin) on Nov 17, 2018 16:44:18 GMT -8
Agree with Keeping Revocable waivers
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Phillies (Paul) on Nov 18, 2018 9:29:09 GMT -8
I, also, desire to keep revocable waivers.
There are a handful of guys I have on my Paid Minors that I still wish to keep - and am glad they passed through, but if claimed and I was forced to let them go, would never have waived them.
And a waiver claim doesn't always indicate trade interest - sometimes it's a strategy move to force the team to keep a guy on the 40-man. Either way, I don't see anything wrong with gauging trade interest on a guy through revocable waivers. We only allow any given player to be waived up to 4 times a year, which isn't an over-abuse or stretch of the trade gauge aspect, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Tigers (Matt) on Nov 29, 2018 15:28:43 GMT -8
I also like the revocable waivers and would like to keep then
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Dec 13, 2018 17:03:15 GMT -8
So where do we stand now on this rule?
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Dec 13, 2018 17:36:07 GMT -8
Based on the feedback I'm fine with keeping it
|
|