Dazepster wrote: ↑16 Mar 2024 07:56 am
After further review of The Settings.
Allow injured players from waivers or free agents to be added directly to injury slot.
Would seem to me that you could claim an IL player without requiring a cut player as the IL player goes directly to IL without affecting roster count.
Yet when I try to claim a IL player it is requiring me to add a cut.
What gives?
I'm not sure. I found with the initial wave of waiver claims which were proceed on March 13 that you would make a waiver claim for an IL eligible player and have them go straight to your IL without having to drop someone in the process. I'm not sure if that is/was intended, or whether that was just another fluke in the system.
Gotcha.
Can somebody test that current state to see if just me or if it requires you to make a cut as well. Don't have to actually complete the claim just see if requiring you to now add a cut.
So to now make a waiver claim for an IL-eligible player (Felix Bautista), it seems to require me to drop a player, but it looks like it would let me drop one of the guys who is already on IL (Waldichuk) to make the claim.
So, if that went through, I guess Bautista would do directly to my IL.
But you would lose Waldichuck.
Is what I would hope and expect.
Alternative would allow someone to claim every IL player and park them on a seemingly endless IL bench.
IL is limited to 4 players. Matt maxed his out early on… that’s why he has to drop a player.
Dazepster wrote: ↑16 Mar 2024 07:56 am
After further review of The Settings.
Allow injured players from waivers or free agents to be added directly to injury slot.
Would seem to me that you could claim an IL player without requiring a cut player as the IL player goes directly to IL without affecting roster count.
Yet when I try to claim a IL player it is requiring me to add a cut.
What gives?
I'm not sure. I found with the initial wave of waiver claims which were proceed on March 13 that you would make a waiver claim for an IL eligible player and have them go straight to your IL without having to drop someone in the process. I'm not sure if that is/was intended, or whether that was just another fluke in the system.
That was intended, and one of the initial settings.
Dazepster wrote: ↑16 Mar 2024 07:17 amI would agree with tossing the FAB component but am curious as to how it plays out this season.
Keepers: Assuming a year 2. Have we determined if we will have any Keepers? Be better to determine that sooner rather than later for fairly obvious reasons.
Trades: I see the ability to reject a trade. Appears that it likely takes 5 rejections to nullify. Not sure that is right. Assuming it is, is there an appeal process if 1 gets blocked? Have seen many an issue in past years with trades being questioned as to reasonableness or fairness. Created some issues. At end of the day one can say let the buyer beware yet often it isn't that simple.
If a trade is rejected, you can make the same trade again, assuming both managers are willing. They would both have the opportunity to plead their case, or make adjustments to the trade.
Dazepster wrote: ↑16 Mar 2024 10:39 amI have none to my knowledge and it will not allow me to add a single one without a reciprocating cut being made at claim time. That is how it should operate. Yes, No?
Answered this earlier, I think. Chances are the player has not been formally moved to the IL. Which player is it?
Dazepster wrote: ↑16 Mar 2024 07:56 am
After further review of The Settings.
Allow injured players from waivers or free agents to be added directly to injury slot.
Would seem to me that you could claim an IL player without requiring a cut player as the IL player goes directly to IL without affecting roster count.
Yet when I try to claim a IL player it is requiring me to add a cut.
What gives?
Which player?
If they have not been moved to the 60-day IL, they are not formally on the IL yet. Teams do not do this until their 26-man rosters are set.
Hmmm
Was there an IL other than 60. Serious question as I can add an IL60 with a cut as optional. Couldn't do that previously unless they were under another Il designation.
There is no IL other than the 60-day, this time of year. Players who are expected to start the season on the IL will be listed as “DTD” until the season begins, and will take up a normal roster spot.
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2024 08:10 amI don't know if it is possible, but a more "equitable" waiver system might be no FAB, but have the waiver priority reset every Monday at midnight in reverse order of the current standings. Then the team that is currently the worst in the league would always start that week after Sunday's games with, momentarily, the best waiver position.
AFAIK there isn’t a setting that allows for waiver priority to be set according to the standings. I’ve used a variety of formats, and haven’t seen that in any of them with baseball. Sounds like a football thing.
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2024 08:10 amI don't know if it is possible, but a more "equitable" waiver system might be no FAB, but have the waiver priority reset every Monday at midnight in reverse order of the current standings. Then the team that is currently the worst in the league would always start that week after Sunday's games with, momentarily, the best waiver position.
AFAIK there isn’t a setting that allows for waiver priority to be set according to the standings. I’ve used a variety of formats, and haven’t seen that in any of them with baseball. Sounds like a football thing.
I’m not sure what what he’s suggesting is more equitable. Because the priority is based off the draft. Why would the last pick lose number one without making a claim? (And yes, I know that is me)
Late in the year, when the draft is a mere memory, I could see that as being a fair system in theory… but it basically negates the strategic use of your waiver priority. And in practice, the waiver priority would be reset to the same thing every week w/ the same terrible teams getting the highest priority.
The FAB system is good. I know it’s new to some people, but maybe they could give it a shot for a full season before trying to ‘scrap’ it. By my experience leaving it to plain waivers penalizes the more active teams, and in time just feels like ‘luck’.
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2024 08:10 amI don't know if it is possible, but a more "equitable" waiver system might be no FAB, but have the waiver priority reset every Monday at midnight in reverse order of the current standings. Then the team that is currently the worst in the league would always start that week after Sunday's games with, momentarily, the best waiver position.
AFAIK there isn’t a setting that allows for waiver priority to be set according to the standings. I’ve used a variety of formats, and haven’t seen that in any of them with baseball. Sounds like a football thing.
I’m not sure what what he’s suggesting is more equitable. Because the priority is based off the draft. Why would the last pick lose number one without making a claim? (And yes, I know that is me)
Late in the year, when the draft is a mere memory, I could see that as being a fair system in theory… but it basically negates the strategic use of your waiver priority. And in practice, the waiver priority would be reset to the same thing every week w/ the same terrible teams getting the highest priority.
The FAB system is good. I know it’s new to some people, but maybe they could give it a shot for a full season before trying to ‘scrap’ it. By my experience leaving it to plain waivers penalizes the more active teams, and in time just feels like ‘luck’.
Agree, later it may make sense. But early on, the team with number 1 has a good week 1 (which I will of course ) and loses it after one week? Doesn’t make sense.
Right… the standings for the first few weeks are basically random, and there’s no reason to penalize a team if they get lucky w/ a few saves or SBs early on.
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑17 Mar 2024 04:36 am
I will say my biggest peeve with any fantasy sports league is when other players just don't respond at all to trade offers. If you don't like the offer and want to decline it, or decline it and make a counteroffer, great. But when you put some thought into an offer and it just sits there, you don't know whether they've seen it, or not seen it, or are still thinking about it a week later, etc. Hopefully people will have the courtesy to at least check in every couple of days and act one way or the other.
Agreed. My responses have mostly been prompt, but I’ve also been PMing w/ other managers here, to get a feel for what might work and what won’t. Lots of “I need to see what I have” responses, but that’s understandable.
Some of our managers are using email addresses that they may not monitor, so it’s possible the don’t know an offer has been made.
I don’t think it will be a problem in this league, but some will leave offers on the table in the event one of their players is injured. When their pitcher comes up w/ a UCL sprain - bang, suddenly it’s accepted. Doubtful that’s happening here.
The season hasn’t started yet, and many aren’t actively engaged… so maybe just be patient.
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2024 08:10 amI don't know if it is possible, but a more "equitable" waiver system might be no FAB, but have the waiver priority reset every Monday at midnight in reverse order of the current standings. Then the team that is currently the worst in the league would always start that week after Sunday's games with, momentarily, the best waiver position.
AFAIK there isn’t a setting that allows for waiver priority to be set according to the standings. I’ve used a variety of formats, and haven’t seen that in any of them with baseball. Sounds like a football thing.
I’m not sure what what he’s suggesting is more equitable. Because the priority is based off the draft. Why would the last pick lose number one without making a claim? (And yes, I know that is me)
Late in the year, when the draft is a mere memory, I could see that as being a fair system in theory… but it basically negates the strategic use of your waiver priority. And in practice, the waiver priority would be reset to the same thing every week w/ the same terrible teams getting the highest priority.
The FAB system is good. I know it’s new to some people, but maybe they could give it a shot for a full season before trying to ‘scrap’ it. By my experience leaving it to plain waivers penalizes the more active teams, and in time just feels like ‘luck’.
Agree, later it may make sense. But early on, the team with number 1 has a good week 1 (which I will of course ) and loses it after one week? Doesn’t make sense.
Right… the standings for the first few weeks are basically random, and there’s no reason to penalize a team if they get lucky w/ a few saves or SBs early on.
Well, one way or another, the point being to give more leverage to those teams who are trailing a better opportunity to improve their rosters and catch up. In terms of trying to keep the league competitive, and people engaged, that would seem to be a positive. I'm not sure that "getting lucky" in Week 1 and falling out of waiver position for Week 2, or Week 2 and Week 3, it that significant of a penalty over a 24+ week season.
A lot of critical moves can be made in the early stages of the season… managers will get impatient and drop underperforming players. W/o the FAB system, and nearly arbitrarily assigned waiver priority, that becomes pure mayhem.
The FAB system, as I see it at least initially, pretty much ensures that waiver claims will be, at best, evenly distributed throughout the league, if not ultimately biased in favor of the better teams (a "the rich get richer" system). The better teams will be more inclined to be engaged and active in making waiver claims and the FAB system will probably ensure that they are more successful than they would be on waiver position alone.
The better teams are less likely to be desperately making waiver claims to improve their team. Assuming all managers are equally engaged, this favors the underdogs who need to improve via waivers. If managers lose interest b/c their teams aren’t doing well, that’s not the system’s fault - it’s because they’re quitters.
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑17 Mar 2024 05:33 am
BTW - why isn't the waiver priority order resetting with all the waiver claims that have been made?
Since I last made a waiver claim on March 13, at least six teams (QV, Whatashame, imadamnman, Samtheman, BallisLife (Jeffy), Barking Lion) have made waiver claims. Shouldn't I now at least be ahead of all them in the waiver priority?
Waiver priority changes when a claim is determined by waiver priority. If managers claim a player for whom there is not another claim (without a FAB bid), their priority remains the same.
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑17 Mar 2024 05:33 am
BTW - why isn't the waiver priority order resetting with all the waiver claims that have been made?
Since I last made a waiver claim on March 13, at least six teams (QV, Whatashame, imadamnman, Samtheman, BallisLife (Jeffy), Barking Lion) have made waiver claims. Shouldn't I now at least be ahead of all them in the waiver priority?
Waiver priority changes when a claim is determined by waiver priority. If managers claim a player for whom there is not another claim (without a FAB bid), their priority remains the same.
Ok, that's different from what I've seen in other contexts. That would mean that the waiver priority order is seldom going to change. It would only change if 2+ owners decided on the same day to make the same FAB bid ($0, $1, etc.) on the same player.
Aside from your claims that were voided b/c of previous claims, have you missed on any player?
It appears as though all of our waiver priorities remain the same as they were, post-draft. This would mean that no claims have been determined by priority… not that surprising. FAB bids overwrite waiver priority. The weird thing - it also appears we haven’t had any claims decided by the FAB system. When a bid is the deciding factor, all of the bids and parties involved become visible in the transactions tab, post-claim.
Hehe - I’ve already blown about 12% of my budget for the season for no reason. Wheee…
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑17 Mar 2024 05:33 am
BTW - why isn't the waiver priority order resetting with all the waiver claims that have been made?
Since I last made a waiver claim on March 13, at least six teams (QV, Whatashame, imadamnman, Samtheman, BallisLife (Jeffy), Barking Lion) have made waiver claims. Shouldn't I now at least be ahead of all them in the waiver priority?
Waiver priority changes when a claim is determined by waiver priority. If managers claim a player for whom there is not another claim (without a FAB bid), their priority remains the same.
Ok, that's different from what I've seen in other contexts. That would mean that the waiver priority order is seldom going to change. It would only change if 2+ owners decided on the same day to make the same FAB bid ($0, $1, etc.) on the same player.
Aside from your claims that were voided b/c of previous claims, have you missed on any player?
It appears as though all of our waiver priorities remain the same as they were, post-draft. This would mean that no claims have been determined by priority… not that surprising. FAB bids overwrite waiver priority. The weird thing - it also appears we haven’t had any claims decided by the FAB system. When a bid is the deciding factor, all of the bids and parties involved become visible in the transactions tab, post-claim.
Hehe - I’ve already blown about 12% of my budget for the season for no reason. Wheee…
No, I haven't put in any additional claim. I just want to make sure I understand the system for future reference.
Then for clarity - waiver priority is most likely to change when claims with no bids are placed. It’s otherwise unchanged unless the top two bids for a player are the same, and the determining factor is waiver priority.
) and loses it after one week? Doesn’t make sense.