Broken Bat - Suggestions: 2 Tier Waiver System

Forum >> Suggestions >> 2 Tier Waiver System

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function

#15095	02/21/2015 8:01:07 am
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5201 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	An off-the-cuff idea I posted in another thread cleaned up a bit. Idea: Add a second round to the current waiver system. Managers would be able to make waiver claims as present, but would also have the option of making a claim a "priority" giving them a better chance to win the player. Realism: Not all players are pursued equally. Making a player a priority is akin to frequent visits with the agent, better signing bonus, special seating for the player's girlfriend at games, bowls of red M&Ms in the clubhouse, etc.. How it would work: An additional button / toggle would be visible on the player page near the waiver claim button. Clicking the button would place a "priority" claim. Once a priority claim is won, the button would grey out. The button would have a clear warning symbol / mouseover. "You may only win 1 priority waiver claim per season!". When a priority claim is placed, it would show up as a normal claim on the waiver button (other teams would know there is interest in the player, but wouldn't know the level of interest). When claims are processed, the player would be randomly assigned to a team that made a priority claim. If no priority claims were made, he would be assigned to a team making a normal claim. If no normal claims were made, the player would pass through to free agency. Why bother? I think it would add quite a bit of strategy to the waiver process. Do I want to build for the present (use p-claim on a major league player) or build for the future (use p-claim on a minor league prospect)? Is there a certain need my team has (pitching, SS) I want to emphasize? Do I go hard from the start of the season, or do I hold my p-claim for later hoping for less competition on a great player (risking not getting a p-claim at all)? It would also help "share the wealth", and give everyone an opportunity to emphasize some players they would really like to add to their team. How does this relate to other waiver issues? As stated, it helps share the wealth, potentially helping teams with streaks of bad luck. If a "search by potential" was added to the waiver system, it would add some thought to who to claim, rather than blindly claiming every 14 and 15 that shows up. Would this be hard to code? No idea. It would seem to use the same machinery that is already in place. Problems Hey! That means I can only add 1 good player a season. That's kind of the idea. I also don't think that is true. I think managers would come to value their p-claim, and many good players would pass through the normal round. Later in the season, p-claims would be used up and more good players would be normally contested. Sounds confusing. Noobies are going to mess this up. Probably. Noobies can mess a lot of stuff up. Make the warning as clear as possible. If a new player does mess up, its a mistake they will hopefully learn from and only make once. If I win my p-claim in week 1, I have no incentive to play waivers the rest of the season. Your chances of getting an awesome player are certainly reduced. But as mentioned above, there will still be good players without priority claims on them, moreso as the season progresses. This would benefit good teams. Good teams would probably prioritize prospects. They are probably already active in waivers winning their share of players. I don't see how it would benefit them any more than an average or weak team.

#15106	02/21/2015 2:59:57 pm
Tiger504 Joined: 06/17/2014 Posts: 1314 Kalamazoo Bloody Tigers III.4	Very interesting idea, this might actually be viable solution. Well thought out at the very least. Good work Seca

#15107	02/21/2015 3:06:16 pm
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	If you use your priority claim and do not get the player, would you recoup your claim or is it more of a once it's gone, it's gone, so be very sure situation?

#15112	02/21/2015 6:01:50 pm
Tiger504 Joined: 06/17/2014 Posts: 1314 Kalamazoo Bloody Tigers III.4	Haselrig, I understand it this way...you have one successful priority waiver claim a year, if you are unsuccessful you would retain your claim.

#15122	02/21/2015 8:43:06 pm
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5201 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	Ya, that was the intent. You wouldn't lose it till you won something. The idea wasn't well received elsewhere, and I appreciate the objections. I still feel the integration of some sort of currency (and when I say currency, I don't necessarily mean money) would make the waiver market more strategic, equitable, and interesting. Maybe someone else can figure out what that currency should be.

#15130	02/22/2015 3:03:01 am
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	Welcome to my world I think I've made in the neighborhood of a dozen suggestions/ideas and only one had a positive response and got adopted into the game. What strikes me is how much the game has changed and improved in my time here yet seems so resistant to new ideas. Even if those ideas are intended to open dialogues and illustrate areas where the game could go.

#15144	02/22/2015 8:08:59 am
Tiger504 Joined: 06/17/2014 Posts: 1314 Kalamazoo Bloody Tigers III.4	I saw that it wasn't received well after I read this thread. Part of the problem may have been in its partial presentation in the other thread. I really do like this idea and I think it has a lot of merit. I guess I would hope those who didn't like it initially would take another look at it in this format.

#15145	02/22/2015 8:21:58 am
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	I think it's as solid an idea as I've seen. Well thought out and well laid out. I could see a wrinkle where instead of one priority claim, you have three each a level below the last. So, if you put you priority 1 claim (full court press wine & dine etc) on a guy and I put my priority 2 claim ( little less enthusiastic pursuit, but still showing some love) on the same guy, you (and the other with the prio 1 claim) would be the ones he would pick from. I think that would add more intrigue and strategy to it, but I think your idea is good as-is.

#15147	02/22/2015 9:24:41 am
newtman Joined: 11/02/2013 Posts: 3343 Inactive	I agree, this is definitely one of the better ideas I've seen imo. I kind of like the strategy that would go into the two tier system, and while a three tier system offers even more possibilities (especially after the one priority claim is used), I wonder if the complexity might introduce problems on both the coding and the new user ends. I like it, if it is possible. To be honest, I am very inconsistent with checking waivers right now, as I don't feel there are enough upgrades on the market that I have a high enough odds chance of winning for me to justify the time. This might make me re-evaluate that stance. Updated Sunday, February 22 2015 @ 9:28:12 am PST

#15276	02/25/2015 12:53:37 pm
Slug5373 Joined: 12/23/2014 Posts: 376 Inactive	Wonderful idea! I don't see a thing wrong with it. It's logical, and it adds strategy. Well laid out, strong structured argument, and well thought out. Excellent suggestion!

#15302	02/25/2015 5:58:29 pm
FreddyTheEye Joined: 11/11/2014 Posts: 625 Inactive	Ya, that was the intent. You wouldn't lose it till you won something. The idea wasn't well received elsewhere, and I appreciate the objections. I still feel the integration of some sort of currency (and when I say currency, I don't necessarily mean money) would make the waiver market more strategic, equitable, and interesting. Maybe someone else can figure out what that currency should be. How about bidding points like in playoff pool auctions? Every manager starts the seasons with "x" amount of points. He is then allowed one bid on any/every waiver. Each waiver is won by the highest bid by deadline. Winning manager surrenders the bid points and gets the player. Unsuccessful managers get their points bid back. Bids are blind (we can't see other bids and do not know the current highest bid) for fairness to all. When you run out of points you can no longer bid until the new season starts.(you can still win unbid players exactly as you can now) Left over points at season end are lost. Strategy is simpler if you start the season with just a few points each (most have run out by mid season) and more complex if you have a large amount. Fair to all, loads of strategy. Disclaimer: This is for discussion only. I don't think it's that hard to code but I DO NOT ever expect anything from admin because the game is awesome as is!

#15304	02/25/2015 6:53:15 pm
Balbinjj Joined: 05/27/2014 Posts: 213 Appleton Foxes III.1	I love the suggestion. I hope we can here from the admin

#15320	02/26/2015 7:07:55 am
Mig2012 Joined: 09/26/2012 Posts: 547 Inactive	Even with special bids or whatever people will not get the players they “really want” because there will always be many teams disputing the more talented players. Perhaps the main reason for all this discontentment is the shrinkage of the draft pool. People were used to see and gain a certain amount of talent they are not seeing anymore and they feel they are not getting their fair share, and I’m pretty sure that’s not the case. Thing is, now, 14 POT players are the new 15 POT players, 13 POTs are the new 14 POTs and 12 POTs are the new 13 POTs. People really need to let this sink into their brains and adjust their expectations to spare themselves all that frustration. The waiver system is fine just the way it is.

#15330	02/26/2015 9:22:08 am
Tiger504 Joined: 06/17/2014 Posts: 1314 Kalamazoo Bloody Tigers III.4	Mig, I think you are spot on about the fact that what is considered good or average talent is going to be a lower potential and that it isn't a bad thing. As long as everyone is working from the same talent pool, the game will be competitive. People will just have to adjust how they appraise talent. As far as the 2 tier Waiver system, I think we should be doing it as early as next season. Updated Thursday, February 26 2015 @ 9:24:31 am PST

#15335	02/26/2015 1:32:21 pm
Holmes Joined: 11/07/2013 Posts: 1175 Inactive	As mig said, it won't really change much. The few true gamechangers will still be flooded with priority bids. If you really need someone for one special position, it might help a little bit, and, yeah, you might say it adds an illusion of strategy, but is that really worth it?

#15338	02/26/2015 1:44:08 pm
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive	Yes, expectations of new players and pitchers have to be tempered. It's easy for the have's (owners who have been around for several seasons) to not have an issue with it because they have a noticeable advantage over newcomers. They had time to stockpile loads of high end talent that we will never get, providing them with the stars they need to dominate for the next decade. There isn't anything that can balance that out, though. Not a tiered waiver system nor trading; it is what it is. Updated Thursday, February 26 2015 @ 1:49:15 pm PST

#15421	02/27/2015 1:46:43 pm
Slug5373 Joined: 12/23/2014 Posts: 376 Inactive	To Mig's point, the purpose is not to completely change anything, it is improvement. Things can always be improved. The waiver system right now is ok. There is nothing wrong with it; however, if something can be improved, why not improve it. Your implication seems to be "Well, it would just help so little that there is no point in trying it." I don't think that is true. I agree that this would not help higher tiered teams like yourself very much as it would be the same story as now. However, this feature could really help a lower tiered team like myself get an extra solid player every year that can help my team. Your logic seems to be that it is fine the way it is, don't change it. Ok, let me ask what is the worst that can happen with it? If Steve is willing, why not? If, like you say, it wouldn't change much, than isn't the worst that could happen simply having the same system as we have now? In the best case, it could really aid lower teams.

#15437	02/27/2015 4:48:50 pm
Mig2012 Joined: 09/26/2012 Posts: 547 Inactive	The worst thing that could happen is Steve spending his time putting this suggestion up instead of doing better things for the game, and there are many better things than this. And you are kidding yourself if you think this suggestion would get you an extra solid player every year.

#15445	02/27/2015 9:33:30 pm
Slug5373 Joined: 12/23/2014 Posts: 376 Inactive	One, that's why I said if Steve is willing. I completely understand if he says that he has "better things to do," to quote you. And two, haha, I am not kidding myself or anyone else when I said what I did about the priority waiver claim. Not everyone has a team rating of 9831048.76 like you do. Some, like myself, could benefit from a 101 SI player that six other people claimed but you really need him to fill a void in your offense or in the field. Heck, my best player this season is a 33 year old 88 SI player I got from free agency. He's batting over .330 with an OBP well over .400 and he's leading my team in RC/27. If an 88 SI player can do that, imagine how much a 100 SI player can aid. You know, when I look at this from your POV, I can see why you don't want it. It wouldn't help you one bit and it would only help other players. You're exactly right about that. Updated Friday, February 27 2015 @ 9:34:11 pm PST

#15465	02/28/2015 3:25:13 pm
Mig2012 Joined: 09/26/2012 Posts: 547 Inactive	Now you're just being stupid. This suggestion you like so much would actually hurt weaker teams more than the others. In cases like these special bids, the strongest teams would hold on to theirs and use them on top players only, while the newer, most eager and weaker teams would lose patience after the first special bids lost and would waste theirs on secondary players, because that would still help them. In result, top teams would be renewing their rosters with top players and keeping themselves always ahead of the other teams. This has also already been said, if you had taken more time reading about it than pursuing this crusade of yours, apparently meant only for Steve's eyes. So tell me, if you don't care about the fact that most people reject trades, and you're only interested in Steve's opinion, why don't you write him a letter and drop this windup merchant stance of yours in the forums. You should also stop complaining about top teams having better players than your team. You've just joined a few months ago, and since you like digging in the past so much, have a look at where those top teams were when their owners were where you are now. When I started playing the game, none of the people who started from the ground had the team they have now nor even the much better chances the newer teams have today of improving their teams. Asking for welfare is not cool. All teams here have equal opportunities. It's a luxury you won't find in many other games. Learn to enjoy it. It won't last forever.

#15472	02/28/2015 10:23:13 pm
Slug5373 Joined: 12/23/2014 Posts: 376 Inactive	Haha, four paragraphs of semi-reasonable argumentation, and four paragraphs of insults and accusations of kissing up. Hmm... Anyway, I don't recall ever complaining about better teams having the better players. In fact, any game where all teams are equal is no fun. Where's the challenge? I applaud the capitalism present in the game. And I almost agree with your argument here. I'll just change a few words: "...the sage teams would hold on to theirs and use them on top players only, while the newer, most eager and foolish teams would lose patience after the first special bids lost and would waste theirs on secondary players." Isn't this the point??? The smarter baseball mind is exposed just a bit more and they are given a bit more of an advantage. This is the whole point. Your argument seemed to imply that the weaker teams are also the unwise ones. I hope that was not the implication because that would be extremely naïve and arrogant. If the most stupid teams also happen to be the weakest, so be it. It is still worth it in my book. And by the way, with all the arguments you've had right here in the suggestions forum, I wouldn't be blaming others for "windup merchant stances." Updated Saturday, February 28 2015 @ 10:28:41 pm PST

#15480	03/01/2015 2:33:29 pm
Mig2012 Joined: 09/26/2012 Posts: 547 Inactive	Oh, so this idea is just a trap for new and inexperienced managers to fall into and regret for the rest of the season. A way to get rid of some undesired claims and make the odds a little better for the rest of the teams. The irony here is all of this has been sold as something to favour the same ones we now find would be screwed by this. Turns out, not such a good idea after all.

#15487	03/01/2015 6:55:27 pm
Slug5373 Joined: 12/23/2014 Posts: 376 Inactive	What??? I'm confused as to when I ever sold this to be a benefit to a team with a, for lack of a better word, stupid owner. Shouldn't the wiser manager get a boost at the very least for making better moves? In real life, do stupid teams win? NO! Now, this is not to say that smarter teams don't lose. Maybe they are building their team up through the draft, or something. But buy and large, in real life, the smarter team has a distinct advantage. But, the great part about this idea is that it will NOT make or break a team, despite what you say. What is the ABSOLUTE worst thing that can happen? Maybe a person who just joined uses his priority claim on the first player he finds intriguing, wasting it for the season. I guarantee you he will not make that mistake more than once. But this will not decimate his team's chances. He didn't lose any of his star players, and maybe he even acquired an ok player with that premature waiver claim. Look, I'm not claiming this to be an impeccable system. But it is definitely better than the current system, it is simple, and it gives better minds a SMALL advantage. I don't see the downside with it. Updated Sunday, March 1 2015 @ 6:58:06 pm PST

#15494	03/02/2015 2:46:02 am
Mig2012 Joined: 09/26/2012 Posts: 547 Inactive	In my book, this is not giving an advantage to smart managers. This is taking advantage of the most inexperienced managers. No wonder you’re also so adamant about trades. The goal is the same.

#15503	03/02/2015 8:48:40 am
Slug5373 Joined: 12/23/2014 Posts: 376 Inactive	You can't have one without the other. Inexperienced owners cannot be given a slight disadvantage while nothing happens to the smarter owner, and smarter owners cannot be given a slight advantage without a slight disadvantage to the inexperienced manager. Also, I am not really all that adament about trading anymore. If you noticed, I have backed off the subject. Its not that I think it would hurt the game, but it would take too long to implement and would be a bit complicated. If someone ever comes up with a simple system, I am 100% open to it. However, until that day comes, I do not see it happening. I like how now you're trying to make me seem like the bad guy by suggesting that I would throw inexperienced and unintelligent owners under the bus. Look at my join date. This implication seems a bit odd for someone who has only been on here for 2 and a half months. All I am asking for is a simple feature which would improve the realism of the game. That's it, that's all. Updated Monday, March 2 2015 @ 8:50:14 am PST

#15504	03/02/2015 8:54:24 am
Mig2012 Joined: 09/26/2012 Posts: 547 Inactive	I very much doubt this is your first account in the game.

#15521	03/02/2015 7:48:35 pm
Slug5373 Joined: 12/23/2014 Posts: 376 Inactive	To be 100 percent honest, I had another account like a year and a half ago, but I got on a total of one time after signing up. I was trying to find a replacement for mlb manager online. I think I lost that account two months later, I'm not really sure. This is the first account i have checked more than once. I know that for sure. Updated Monday, March 2 2015 @ 7:49:32 pm PST