Posted by: Bond,JamesBond@work
- [5610121212] Fri, Nov 12, 2004, 14:16
Gents, In regards to our current rules concerning a general manager/owner (what ARE we anyway? LOL), what is the purpose of having a G.M.'s name go to the bottom of the waiver priority list after a claim has officially gone through?
I apologize if this has been discussed time and time again but from past forums all I've seen is numerous waiver priority lists themselves but not the original meaning behind this process.
It's my contention that, as in all major league sports, the worst team should have first dibs on any free agent. I fully recognize that--at least for now--Great One would be the primary beneficiary and Wiggs the least beneficiary of this proposal but isn't a semblance toward parity really what we want in our league?
The rules could still allow for a full 24 hour period to pass before a claim is considered official but at least in this scenerio the G.M. in last place has a much more favorable opportunity, in my opinion, to turn his team from rags to riches in a shorter span.
Just my thoughts. Let me know what you think.
1
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 2824911 Fri, Nov 12, 2004, 14:22
Interesting idea.
2
Mike D Sustainer
ID: 41831612 Fri, Nov 12, 2004, 14:44
So it would reset every week depending on the standings? That is interesting.
3
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 2824911 Fri, Nov 12, 2004, 14:46
We then might have to limit the number of waiver claims to one per week per team.
4
Mike D Sustainer
ID: 41831612 Fri, Nov 12, 2004, 14:48
True. Unless trumped.
5
Great One@Work
ID: 59946299 Fri, Nov 12, 2004, 14:55
yeah, like Waivers in real pro sports...
i.e. like when the Yankees (cough wiggs cough lol) get the last shot at a guy when he is made available... not a bad idea.
Bond - keep it up and you might win Rookie of the Year! (well you are the only rookie, but ya know..)
6
Mike D Sustainer
ID: 41831612 Fri, Nov 12, 2004, 15:08
He currently is in 2nd place in the voting.....based on the latest poll.
7
Great One@Work
ID: 59946299 Fri, Nov 12, 2004, 15:30
yeah - and the 1 per week is important - or even reseting it after each PPV (once per month, just another idea)...
lets say a hot new Tag Team (America's Most Wanted!) shows up... whoever is lined up (I guess that would be me at the moment) shouldn't have first priority on BOTH claims... you get one... and then second guy is gonna land the other.
You use your one, drop to the bottom of the order. I don't think it even effects someone like Wiggs that much cause he wouldn't drop anyone on his roster right now anyway.
8
Tree
ID: 76471215 Fri, Nov 12, 2004, 17:19
i don't like changing the system. in a nutshell, the odds of someone at the top of the standings being able to EVER pick up a decent free agent with the proposed changes is practically nil, and i don't like that.
9
wiggs Donor
ID: 04991311 Fri, Nov 12, 2004, 23:03
i agree with tree. No yahoo leagues reset the priority every week. We already reward managers for finishing last by giving them the best player from the precious season. This will reward them even more for finishing last.
10
Bond, James Bond
ID: 471071216 Sat, Nov 13, 2004, 00:09
re: 8 and 9
Respectfully, I must disagree with your thoughts. Here's why:
1.) Under this scenerio, weak teams are not automatically made strong but they can be made stronger. It greatly depends on a G.M.'s pickup, his wise use of who to start and who to bench, lack of injuries and of course, current WWE storylines. 2.) Once the weakest team becomes stronger, ideally they will no longer be "the" weakest team anymore. Hence, they will not always have the privilege of getting the first dibs on any free agent. 3.) In most cases, creating opportunites for the weakest team to become better is good for them, for their morale and for the league as a whole. Parity is a good thing for all of us. 4.) There is no such thing as "rewarding" the weaker rosters. Since we must have six starters, one player will not break or make a team. They can enhance the performance of that team to a great degree but one guy can't do it alone. 5.)The thought that the number one guy will never be able to pick up a decent free agent is simply not true. It all depends on each team's strengths and weaknesses. Simply put, the number one guy usually doesn't have a lot of weaknesses. As such, he usually will refrain from free agency pickups anyway. 6.) This is not "changing the system". I would consider it tweaking the system in order to provide a more level playing field for all parties. 7.) I agree wholeheartedly with the previous suggestions that a limit on free agent pickups should be applied. One a week should be the maximum. In most cases, no roster, no matter how bad, will completely overhaul itself more than that anyway.
There may be other thoughts that can be better expressed than those that have been laid out here. I know that change can be difficult but I truly believe that this significant change is in the best interests of the league.
11
Great One
ID: 2910361222 Sat, Nov 13, 2004, 00:44
important note -
in the last month I have added Muhammed Hussan and Jesus Aguilera BOTH when I had low waiver priority. put that in perspective when claiming that you will never get anyone good that comes along... its all about the effort, luck, research...
the guy you WOULDN'T get would be when i.e. Sting walks on to RAW. We all sprint to our computers and yes indeed - the guy with the worst team lands him and suddenly his team has hope again. And thats exactly the reason this is a great proposal.
Plus a number 1 priority will the keep the guy in last interested - a reason to watch - always looking for something and reading house shows etc.. of course with me its not a problem - i am obsessed - but for others... :)
12
wiggs Donor
ID: 04991311 Sat, Nov 13, 2004, 11:21
with this proposal, I could bench my entire roster for the next 7+ weeks and I would never get that shot at a top free agent.
GO, you got Jesus and Muhammad not because of your research, I knew how jesus was coming the whole time, I just didnt think he would make his debut that fast. I got bit by the picking up guys due to rumnors to many times, so I was saving my priority. IE Jeff hardy and konnan last season. I think that was a matter of luck, and good for you on taking a chance.
I believe our league already favors teams that do poorly in the fact that they get the number 1 pick out of all the best scorers. In every other keeper league there is not rule forcing a team to drop a number 1 player. for Example the Jeepers Keepers basketball league, I understand why I picked 2nd to last, because I was able to keep my BEST 4 players, not my 2nd best 4 players. Teams should be rewarded for winning league not set back. How many times have we seen posts on here saying, I am giving up on this season and waiting for my 1st pick next year? I dont have an exact number, but I bet it is close to 3. The same goes for averaging in total points scored when figuring out draft positions. Some one can drop a high scorer just so their team is worse and get a higher pick.
What happens when TNA runs out of money and all those superstars start slowly making their way to WWE. GO will have 1st crack at everyone of them with Species picking up the 2nd best guy each time and MITH and myself taking shots in the dark hoping 1 of our guys will sneak though.
Sorry for my ramble here, but I think we need to leave things the way that they are. It has worked for 2 years, why mess with it?
13
wiggs Donor
ID: 04991311 Sat, Nov 13, 2004, 11:28
another thing is more times then not if someone does know something that others dont someone will make a claim on them just because they dont want to miss out on anything. I waited 3 days to make a claim on snitsky and as soon as i did there were 4 more claims on him. Seems weird that no one touched him on the monday that he debuted, or the Tuesday after he debuted, but once I claimed on wednesday all the others came in.
14
Farn Sustainer
ID: 451044109 Sat, Nov 13, 2004, 14:50
another thing is more times then not if someone does know something that others dont someone will make a claim on them just because they dont want to miss out on anything.
ah, i think we should rename that the "kev plan". I think Tree would agree. :)
I'm with wiggs though. I am against changing the system. how many different things can we do to give the bottom teams a chance? Is first pick of the top 8 not enough? And I can say this as a bottom feeding team. I have no interest in changing the system. I want the people who deserve it to get guys.
15
Bond, James Bond
ID: 471071216 Sun, Nov 14, 2004, 01:01
wiggs, wiggs, wiggs...It's possible that I have misunderstood your rants so if I have please forgive me.
You, of all people, should obviously love the system that is in place now. From what I have gathered from the past forums I have read, you have been "da man" for the past few years or whatever so I suspect that anything that challenges your hold on your supremecy of this league would be met by the proverbial cold shoulder. Nobody will blame you for wanting to keep things as they are. I'm sure there have been those that have offered you congratulations and their graceful thanks for their view of your derriere during this time of amazing consistency. You've achieved a great period of sustained excellence and should be commended for it. You're the one to beat, everybody keeps aiming at your title and yet time after time you have been fortunate enough to withstand all attempts to unseat you from first place. Hey, I completely understand where you're coming from. Ironically, that is why you, of all people, should appreciate a "better challenge", if you will. You've conquered this hill and certainly there are seemingly no more heights to attain. However, I would like you to consider the plight of your other comrades. How would you feel if you were in their shoes?
Hopefully, by helping to illuminate the dark and murky waters that often engulf issues such as this, we can assist each other in cleaning the debris from our train of thought and create a centrifuge of debate regarding what I believe to be a proposal worthy of considerable thought, discussion and acceptance.
Let me start off by saying that I really don't care what Yahoo or ESPN or Fox or CNNSI or The Disney Channel or The Ladies' Home Journal does in regards to their league rules. I only care about OUR league. I only care what's best for us. I only care what would make it more entertaining, more enlightening, more enjoyable and certainly more balanced for all of OUR league members.
Allow me to be crystal clear: It's not just my implication, it is my assertion that the system that is in place now does NOT and can NOT give the last-place member a chance of success. It only gives them an illusion of a chance of success!
I maintain that the way the waiver priority list is set up now is unfair and unbalanced. I am not sure if you're trying to justify its existence or merely simply serving to obscure its folly. It's a bogus argument that the system we have in place now has "worked for the last 2 years". Worked for whom?
You can spin this issue to your heart's delight for however long you want but you have to agree that it is pure nonsense for the last-place team NOT to have a shot at the best free agent(s) out there. Can you give me one good reason, just one, why the #1 guy should get the best free agent? Please don't insult our intelligence that "teams should be rewarded for winning"? Are you kidding me? As Booker T would say, "Please tell me you did not just say that!" Teams should not be "rewarded" for anything! Especially those that have achieved the highest success that can be attained. If a team is in first place it's because they earned first place. The same is true for last place. But this proposal is not about "rewarding" anybody anything. It's not like Great One is going to ripping Kurt Angle AND Randy Orton AND RVD off of your roster and giving you the equivalents of 3 Rodney Macks. It's about giving him, or any other lesser talented squad, a fair opportunity to grab the best talent available. He would NOT be taking points away from you but he would be in position to add points to himself. Is something wrong with that?
Now I admit that perhaps it would be best if we're allowed to keep all of our superstars from year to year or tweak the system there so that the last place isn't stocked automatically with studs. However, I'm not ready to make a judgment on that just yet. On this issue, I am.
Granted, we will all approach this issue with built-in prejudices. Some from the viewpoint of life at the top, some from the middle, some from the bottom. Competitive disadvantage should have no place in our league at any time. It's bad enough when our guys get hurt or get fired or are no longer involved in a meaningful WWE storyline. We all will suffer these things---some more than others. Yet, we need to find a way to create the most level playing field possible. If it's by tweaking a rule change here and there or by a new addition to the point system, so be it. What we can't accept is to be complacent and rest on the laurels of the past.
I urge you, and any others that may have doubts, to please reconsider your opinion(s) regarding this proposal. While I may question the validity of your claims, I sincerely applaud your efforts to make them known. I am acutely aware that as the "rookie", I haven't earned my stripes or paid my dues like any of you have. Perhaps it's because of this there may be an underlying feeling of uncomfortableness to accept any of my proposals for consideration. If that's the case, then perhaps I'm in a place where you feel I don't belong. If so, I can only offer my hope that you'll accept me for whom I am: a person with a passion for all things WWE and one that enjoys this league as much as any of you.
With that said, I think somewhere here there can be room for compromise if you're willing to discuss this further.
16
kev
ID: 3155515 Sun, Nov 14, 2004, 01:25
The kev plan is great!
17
Mike D Sustainer
ID: 041831612 Sun, Nov 14, 2004, 08:50
The Ladies' Home Journal has fantasy sports? Woo-hoo!
Who let this Bond guy in, anyway? I'm behind anyone who uses the word centrifuge in a post about Pro Wrestling. I haven't heard that word since high school science class.
;)
18
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4494554 Sun, Nov 14, 2004, 08:58
another thing is more times then not if someone does know something that others dont someone will make a claim on them just because they dont want to miss out on anything.
That might be true but it wasn't the case with Snitsky. I'm sure akmost everyone was holding out for as long as they could to try to get a hint as to whether he'd just be a one hit wonder. But I doubt most of us were skeptical enough that we would have allowed a lower waiver priority take him. Snitsky would have been claimed in the next few days, no matter what.
19
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4494554 Sun, Nov 14, 2004, 10:36
It's not just my implication, it is my assertion that the system that is in place now does NOT and can NOT give the last-place member a chance of success. It only gives them an illusion of a chance of success!
Bond, I can see why this appears to be the case to your right now, but keep in mind that this is our 4th season and you've only been in this league for about a third of a season. The stats after 3 seasons show pretty plainly that your assertion simply isn't true.
20
Farn Sustainer
ID: 451044109 Sun, Nov 14, 2004, 10:43
to add to what MITH is saying:
Bond, guess where wiggs finished in Season 1. Come on, guess.
If you guessed 10th out of 12 teams you would be correct.
You don't need waiver priority to improve your team in this league. In my opinion if you think you can build a strong team with waiver priority you probably won't do too well. This league is built on a solid draft and a little lucky. Maybe once or twice a season a high quality guy comes off waivers. But it certainly won't fix any team.
21
Mike D Sustainer
ID: 041831612 Sun, Nov 14, 2004, 10:45
In truth, we've had lots of people in last place. Most people have had their turn. If that's the case, people have had their chance to escape the dungeon as well.
22
Mike D Sustainer
ID: 041831612 Sun, Nov 14, 2004, 10:47
BTW, Bond has done a great job with the team he took over. It's not like he's in last place or anything. So it does appear he's trying to present an unbiased view.
23
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4494554 Sun, Nov 14, 2004, 10:48
Season 1
Postseason Keepers
Season2
Keepers
Season 3
Postseason
Sn4 wk11/32
1
Species
Benoit 9
1
Wiggs
Orton 2
1
Wiggs
Orton 2
1
Wiggs
Christian 17
Rey 10
RVD 20
M Hardy 21
Batista 12
Angle 28
Shane O Mac 79
Angle 19
Grenier 19
2
GLocker
A-Train 28
2
Mist
X
2
Farn
Show 65
2
MITH
D-Von 30
X
Jordan 71
Doug Basham 78
X
Spike 18
Renee Dupree 29
X
Conway 16
3
THK/Kev
Bischof 18
3
Tree
Chavo 16
3
Grt One
Edge 4
3
Bond
Kidman 58
Dan Basham 21
Rhyno 33
Hurricane 33
Buh Buh 22
Mack 90
Coach 96
Maven 66
Kim 35
4
Blue Hen
Benjamin 6
4
Farn
Show 8
4
Tree
Eugene 17
4
Species
Grenier 31
Molly27
HBK 35
Lita 132
Victoria36
London 37
The Rock 43
Spike70
Chavo Jr 21
5
Mike D
Kane 11
5
Species
Christian 17
5
GLocker
Dvon 12
5
Mike D
Tajiri 41
M Hardy 39
Dupree 22
Jazz 34
Steiner 32
Haas 23
Zach Gowen 66
Scotty 42
Heidenreich X
6
MITH
Vince 38
6
Mike D
HHH 15
6
MITH
Benjamin 25
6
Kev
Trish 25
Storm 59
Stratus 26
Rodney Mack 39
Jazz 84
Reigns 32
Nunzio 44
Jordan 86
Morgan X
7
Mist
Test 22
7
MITH
Trish 26
7
Gunz
Tajiri 30
7
Farn
Rob Conway 102
Rikishi 30
Flair 14
Undertaker 19
Vince 47
Tomko 38
Bradshaw 76
Morgan 53
Noble 54
8
Grt One
HBK 27
8
GLocker
Devon 28
8
Kev
Rey 11
8
Tree
Rhyno 37
Dupree 38
Cade 48
Torrie 26
Haas 43
Lita 27
Ultimo 93
Nowinski X
Hurricane 45
9
Tree
Bubba 24
9
Hen/
X
9
Mike D
Guerrero 15
9
GLocker
Mysterio 12
Sponge
X
Kidman 41
Jindrak 104
X
Hardcore 69
Spanky 48
Jazz 64
10
Wiggs
Goldberg 23
10
Adam H/
Tajiri 23
10
Species
Christian 50
10
Great One
Batista 65
Gunz
Noble 35
Mordeci 58
Flair 16
Austin 50
Bischoff 46
Garrison Cade X
Nidia 77
Nidia 40
11
Farn
Big Show 13
11
Kev
Cade 41
Victoria 40
Hurricane 49
Rosie 45
Stacy 65
Jerry Lawler 73
Kidman 69
12
Adam H
Jamie Noble 60
12
Grt One
Rhyno 48
Nidia 59
Gail Kim 34
Gail Kim 71
Spade X
Goldust 51
Edge X
24
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4494554 Sun, Nov 14, 2004, 10:56
Incidentially, I still think there might be merit to Bonds' idea. I'll want to think about it a while more, but the notion that our system does no allow for parity simply isn't true.
Wiggs' continued success comes from his patience in sitting on Goldberg and Batista while they were unproductive and his team wallowed, making two or three great trades, at least one of which wound up breaking hugely in his favor and (imo) the luck of excellent production from an unlikely stud in Sylvan Granier.
25
wiggs Donor
ID: 04991311 Sun, Nov 14, 2004, 11:33
look at season 1 to season 2
I was 10th place and went to 1st, mIST was 7th to 2nd, Tree 9th to 3rd, Farn 11th to 4th. All the bottem teams moved up the ranks.
Season 2-3 was alittle different, but GO went from 12th to 3rd.
Season 3-4 Everyone at the bottem moved up. Species from 10-4, Mike D from 9-5, Kev from 8-6, Yourself, from 7-3, MITH from 6-2. All the bottem ranks went up.
Managers move up in this game due to a great draft and a FA pick up here or there. The system works just fine the way it is. I have been able to hold onto 1st place because I have had a pretty good draft each year and I have made a few key trades, not because I picked up monsters off waivers.
Just so you know, my feelings for you have nothing to do with you being new to the league. I believe in all honesty that I have been nothing but nice to you. I always respond to your emails in a friendly way, and although we couldnt agree on a trade I thought what we ended the discussion civil with a chance at starting it up again in the future. I am a bit offended that you think I am picking you out because you are new, because that is simply not true.
Let me start off by saying that I really don't care what Yahoo or ESPN or Fox or CNNSI or The Disney Channel or The Ladies' Home Journal does in regards to their league rules. I only care about OUR league. I only care what's best for us. I only care what would make it more entertaining, more enlightening, more enjoyable and certainly more balanced for all of OUR league members.
my comment about waivers in other leagues was simply to point out that this never happens. Also to respond to GOs post in #5 about the yanks.
You can spin this issue to your heart's delight for however long you want but you have to agree that it is pure nonsense for the last-place team NOT to have a shot at the best free agent(s) out there. Can you give me one good reason, just one, why the #1 guy should get the best free agent?
My reason for believing that the number 1 team should get the number 1 free agent after the draft is simply because the difference between the 1st and the 10th pick in our drafts is such a HUGE difference. The difference between 11 and 20 is even more.
pick 1- species chris benoit- highest scorer in the league last season. and currently ranked 4th this season.
pick 10- wiggs- Kenzo suzuki- ranked 44 last season and ranked 19th this season- 132 points behind benoit.
pick 11- species JLB- ranked 10th last season and ranked 15th this season.
pick 20- wiggs Mark Jindrak- ranked 80 last season and ranked 33rd this season- 93 points behind JLB. I also got totally lucky with this pick as jindrak wasnt even wrestling to start this season.
Now if you give species the top FA pick also he can go pick up another star like maven or snitsky and without a whole lot of effort he shoots from last to 1st before you know it. Basically we are rewarding someone for finishing last. And punishing me for winning because I lose my top scorer, I get the worst pick in every round and then I am last on the waiver wire as well.
Thats all for now.
26
Mike D Sustainer
ID: 041831612 Sun, Nov 14, 2004, 11:36
I kinda think the waiver priority is being vastly overrated. It certainly isn't an end-all. I passed on tons of guys even when I had high or top waiver priority. We all have. Snitsky could have been made, etc..
27
GoatLocker
ID: 427272213 Sun, Nov 14, 2004, 11:36
Even though Bonds thoughts would help me right now, not sure I don't like things the way they are. The one thing that the system now does is if you have that top priority, it really makes you think hard about when you are going to use it.
Not closed to other thoughts though.
Sorry I haven't been around much all. Real busy at work.
I sure need wrestlers to start wrestling.
Cliff
28
Bond, James Bond
ID: 471071216 Mon, Nov 15, 2004, 20:42
Gentlemen....Thanks for your many varied and interesting thoughts. Though we may have diverse opinions on this proposal, I appreciate the input nevertheless.
Wiggs....If you were offended in any part, I apologize. That was not my intent. I haven't had a problem with you or any of the other guys and I don't plan on it either. Frankly, I'm a little bit offended that you were a little bit offended. ;)
Although I still feel this proposal has some real merit, I'll drop the issue for now.
29
Mike D Sustainer
ID: 041831612 Mon, Nov 15, 2004, 21:51
Frankly, I'm a little bit offended that you were a little bit offended. ;)
LMAO!
30
kev
ID: 3155515 Tue, Nov 16, 2004, 04:42
So why, if this league is running well, would we be against instituting a waiver wire change, but a trade deadline is a good idea?
31
wiggs Donor
ID: 04991311 Tue, Nov 16, 2004, 06:29
kev, who are you talking to?
32
Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Tue, Nov 16, 2004, 07:11
So why, if this league is running well, would we be against instituting a waiver wire change, but a trade deadline is a good idea?
kev - why institute any changes then!??!
seriously, some changes just work better than others...
33
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4494554 Tue, Nov 16, 2004, 07:17
So why, if this league is running well, would we be against instituting a waiver wire change, but a trade deadline is a good idea?
The simple fact that the league itself is running well does not mean that certain parts of it are not flawed or otherwise in need or improvement. This league has been running well since its inception, but there have been many changes over time to address flaws or to make improvements. The primary argument against Bonds' proposal isn't that the league isn't running well. His primary argument was that the current waiver system prevents parity, which we showed to not really be the case.
Incidentially, I like some parts of Bonds' waiver idea. As we've shown the league really doesn't require that change for the reason Bond stated, but I still think its worth looking into as n improvement.
A trade deadline however is something that I think our league requires and is something that, without it, does leave the league flawed. For me, the issue is that it will always be easier for the top teams to rearrange their talent to set themselves up for the next season. I know that Kev's was not a top team and that he was able to improve himself for this season with a final trade. But I'm quite sure that over time we will see that it will usually be a handfull of lower teams competing for the few opportunities at improvement with the scant number of top teams that can make these deals. And I don't think that's right. I allows the teams that just enjoyed a successful season to dictate too much power in deciding which of the lesser ones gets to be lucky enough to help the top ones help themselves.
Frankly, by mid-season the lower scoring teams know that they don't have a good chance to compete, so they have at least half a season to devote their transactons to making the future look better for their squad.
Moreover, and I think this is the issue that Tree and maybe some others hinted at, to be able to stay ahead of the sprint all season long, only to have the ability to pull out a last minute trade in the final week that significantly changes the team you took into the home stretch doesn't feel right. A trade should have some effect on the season in which it occurrs.