Every year there is a player that ends up getting bought out that that some owner in the league wishes they had a crack at.
So, after a team announces its intended buyouts, should other teams have the ability to pick up the intended buyout?
So, after a team announces its intended buyouts, should other teams have the ability to pick up the intended buyout?
- How would we decide the order of selection?
- First come first serve?
- In reverse order from the previous season’s standings?
- Can a team pick up more than 1 player?
I think that this is yet another think to manage and sit through on Bidding Day. Let's keep it simple and put the player in the general FA pool.
ReplyDeleteI like this. Should be worst to first to allow picking. before you buy someone out there should be a 24hr waiver wire. this would be a nice replacement for that Equalization draft.
ReplyDeleteIf this was introduced it would be before bidding day. Buyout day could be pushed back and a system introduced to get this done ahead of time. I have ideas for how, but don;t feel like typing it out.
ReplyDeleteThe idea for how is like the remotely done FPs, probably. I like the idea of trying to get that done before bidding day...but as someone pointed out (Ian?) all it takes is one owner to chew up all the time for a legitimate reason...
ReplyDeleteAny waiver wire (which I think I am for in principle) needs to be hammered out in it's entirety before a decision can be made. (BoG!)
I like this idea, and don't think it would be all that complicated to do. It would work a lot like the EQ draft we used to have.
ReplyDeleteAs for owners chewing up time, simple fix. If you don't get your picks in on by the set-time, then we go to the next team.
One thought: if we go from worst to first, would the worst team get to select as many players as they wanted, before going down the line? Or is it one pick, then goes to the next teams pick? Way 1 would be much simpler, but Way 2 is how we used to do EQ, so is do-able.
Also there should be no re-negotiation of contracts involved. What their contract is(value and length), is what you pick up.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIan, since you weren't in the league when we last did EQ draft here is a brief explanation of what we are mentioning. Essentially a list of unprotected players was released. Then those teams selecting in the EQ draft, would review, and submit an ordered list of players back to Dave. It would go team by team, worst first. When it was your teams pick, if the player at the top of your list was still available, you got him. If not, then your 2nd,3rd,4th selection etc. was looked at until a player was available, or your list ran out.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the explanation - it seems like a good idea to keep people engaged.
ReplyDeleteI am split on the waiver wire idea as a whole I think. First, is has the potential of reducing the amount of buyouts (therefore the pot) which I don;t like. That said, after pouring through the league archives it might have been better if my current franchise hadn't been so footloose and fancy-free with expenditures...
ReplyDeleteI am not in favour of people getting players off the buyout at a reduced price, unless the buyer outer still pays something. Follow that logic? I buy out a player for 2.00/yr. A claimant get him for 1.50/yr (75%) and it reduced my buyout to 1.00/yr (50%) Thus the player is now valued at 125%. But, spread over 2 ppl, it's not too bad. This discourages buyouts willy-nilly and provides some benefit for the claimants.
Just an off-the-top-of-my-head thought.
I like the idea of a waiver wire. We can discuss the mechanics of it, but perhaps the easiest way to do it is on a first come first serve basis.
ReplyDeleteUnder this system the Commish wouldn't be able to select a player until at least one other team has made a selection.
My main goal with a process such as this is that i stops having to worry about a clock that people might be forced to adhere to.
If we do a waiver wire it needs to be fast and efficient. Especially because I expect that we are looking at very few players being picked up in this way; therefore it shouldn't require a major effort to implement.
The problem I always had with EQ, was players sticking around for far too long with really good contracts. Player A is purchased for $2.00 at 5 years, scores 100 points, and ends up going in the EQ draft, ends up at $3.00 for another 3 years...
ReplyDeleteThe original GM made a wise move to draft the player, and everyone else has to watch this player with a strong contract float around for 8 years potentially without getting a crack at them.
If EQ is brought back, I'd like to see the contract calculation re-written a bit to include a minimum value for a player, based on the number of points they've had in the previous 1, 2 or 3 years.