mike
Offline
Florida Marlins GM - Holds record for most times to quit and come back
Posts: 3,931
Threads: 1,225
Joined: Jul 2010
02-22-2011, 02:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2011, 05:17 PM by 'PR'.)
Get rid of the useless revocable waivers. If a team wants to get interest on a player then that's what the chat box is for or the trade block thread. Having revocable waivers pretty much makes the waiver thread pointless when every single time they just pull them back if we don't meet their trade demand.
What we should do is just have revocable waivers. If you place a guy on waivers hes gone if someone claims him, and if no one claims him then he gets released.
danpac47
Offline
Trade Mod / Red Sox GM
Posts: 786
Threads: 92
Joined: Aug 2010
mattynokes
Online
Cleveland Guardians GM
Posts: 8,984
Threads: 4,310
Joined: Feb 2011
REV waivers are fine. And just because a player is waived, even if IRR, doesn't mean the team would release the player. A better way would be to make waivers IRR unless noted that the player is REV. REV waivers serve a purpose. Maybe you feel teams are bluffing for trade interest, maybe you only want to move one of two players, but not both, or possibly want to make sure a division rival does not get the player for free. And then there's the obvious August waiver trading.
The purposes are there. From reading current the rules all players are assumed REV and that shouldn't be the case. If you want them REV they should be labeled as such or they're assumed to be IRR. It's a team's right to be able to pull a player back, but I definitely do agree that potential claiming teams should know whether the player is REV or IRR.
Cleveland Record: 5631-4946 (.532) [2054-2071, 2083-2104, 2110-2135]
AL Post: 16 (ALC), 11 (WC) - ALDS Win: 12 - ALCS Champ: 7 - WS Champ: 4
ALW: Mariners + Angels Record: 1072-864 (.554) [2042-2048, 2105-2110]
AL Post: 3 (ALW), 4 (WC) - ALDS Win: 3 - ALCS Champ: 1 - WS Champ: 1
NLW: Rockies + Padres Record: 3230-2753 (.540) [2017-2042, 2072-2082]
NL Post: 18 (NLW), 4 (WC) - NLDS Win: 7 - NLCS Champ: 4 - WS Champ: 0
mike
Offline
Florida Marlins GM - Holds record for most times to quit and come back
Posts: 3,931
Threads: 1,225
Joined: Jul 2010
But your missing the point. IRR is pointless as if you want to advertise the player then make a trade block.
danpac47
Offline
Trade Mod / Red Sox GM
Posts: 786
Threads: 92
Joined: Aug 2010
Yeah, and if you don't want to give a player to your division rival for free, then don't trade with them.
It's this revocable shit that makes me not wanna waste my time on waiver threads.
'PR'
Offline
Chicago Cubs GM
Posts: 2,474
Threads: 634
Joined: Jul 2010
Quote:Yeah, and if you don't want to give a player to your division rival for free, then don't trade with them.
Do you know how much I have laughed since reading that statement? What you basically just said is if we don't want our DIVISION RIVALS to gain a valuable player that is on OUR team then don't even attempt to trade that player. I don't think anyone wants to do much business with their division rivals, and I think it is a team's right to prevent any trade that they could (within their power to do so) which involves their division rival gaining an incredible talent or incredible value.
hokeyrules
Online
Admin / Former Marlins HOF GM / Former Rangers GM/ Current Jays GM
Posts: 5,462
Threads: 1,061
Joined: Jul 2010
I just release players never waivers.
mattynokes
Online
Cleveland Guardians GM
Posts: 8,984
Threads: 4,310
Joined: Feb 2011
I'm not missing the point. You guys are missing the point of REV waivers. You're crabbing about someone pulling a guy back when that's the point of REV waivers. There's a simple solution. Make waivers IRR unless noted that they're REV. Then if it's your policy to not want to be hanging in lingo, don't deal with REV waived players.
Cleveland Record: 5631-4946 (.532) [2054-2071, 2083-2104, 2110-2135]
AL Post: 16 (ALC), 11 (WC) - ALDS Win: 12 - ALCS Champ: 7 - WS Champ: 4
ALW: Mariners + Angels Record: 1072-864 (.554) [2042-2048, 2105-2110]
AL Post: 3 (ALW), 4 (WC) - ALDS Win: 3 - ALCS Champ: 1 - WS Champ: 1
NLW: Rockies + Padres Record: 3230-2753 (.540) [2017-2042, 2072-2082]
NL Post: 18 (NLW), 4 (WC) - NLDS Win: 7 - NLCS Champ: 4 - WS Champ: 0
danpac47
Offline
Trade Mod / Red Sox GM
Posts: 786
Threads: 92
Joined: Aug 2010
(02-22-2011, 05:25 PM)Mstrpr626 Wrote: Quote:Yeah, and if you don't want to give a player to your division rival for free, then don't trade with them.
Do you know how much I have laughed since reading that statement? What you basically just said is if we don't want our DIVISION RIVALS to gain a valuable player that is on OUR team then don't even attempt to trade that player. I don't think anyone wants to do much business with their division rivals, and I think it is a team's right to prevent any trade that they could (within their power to do so) which involves their division rival gaining an incredible talent or incredible value.
what's your point?
'PR'
Offline
Chicago Cubs GM
Posts: 2,474
Threads: 634
Joined: Jul 2010
My point is that the point you made is garbage.
|