Post by BK Dodgers GM (Man) on Sept 3, 2018 11:30:14 GMT -5
Been thinking... wonder if a tweak for late-season trading (and the deadline) that borrows the waiver-trade process idea of real life MLB might help...
I wonder if part of the problem is the $$$ typically involved that make late-season trading hard to do -- and we don't currently allow any explicit eating of salaries for players being traded away...
Maybe we could allow that during a small window under certain circumstances similar to real life MLB's waiver-trade process... which could help contenders chase the top team or two while giving rebuilding teams better chance to trade...
A couple active GMs have already expressed interest in something like that after I mentioned it...
---------------------------
We could maybe make the salary eating only limited to rest of current year, not future years, so there's minimal bookkeeping (and potential problems). Not likely the rebuilding team would wanna eat more than that anyway.
We could maybe bump the regular trade deadline (as well as lumpsum buyout deadline... both to minimize complication and to make it a bit less easy, especially for contenders) earlier to say 8/15 instead and then have 16-day window for this waiver-trade process where we just assume everyone's full roster is available for waiver-trade claim... and have a 1-week (or 3-day?) window to submit claims -- maybe allow some modest limit on number of claims (whether per target team or overall) -- and then, the rest of that 16-day window, ie. 8-9 (or 11-12) days, to complete such trades...
Not sure if we should allow teams to decide how much current year salary to eat or just make it 1/2 (to keep it simple and resemble cost of dropping player on 1-year contract)
Also, making it 1/2 would probably work better/simpler if we want to allow the waiving team to just let the claimed player go for nothing more in return -- this should probably require active affirmation since the claim process automatically assumes all players are available... We might need to do that to prevent say a lesser contender from winning all the claims over say the #2-4 contenders...
Not sure if we also need to be more careful about potential collusion though if we allow claimed players to go w/out actual trades this way...
And players that go unclaimed can then be traded to anyone w/ the same ability for the team to eat 1/2 of current year salary.
Also, we could probably allow such trades to include any other players as long as they include the claimed players (rather than be limited to non-active MLB-ers only besides the claimed ones).
Having this process might also give people a bit more urgency for normal trades earlier, but not necessarily too early... meanwhile, it'll hopefully generate more activity in general from the All-Star Break onward...
We could start w/ that for next year... and if it seems to help much and the feeling is we should try squeezing 2 waiver-trade windows in (w/out bumping the regular deadline too early), then we could maybe try that the following year... unless there's consensus for being more ambitious right from the get-go...
What are everyone's thoughts such a proposal?
I wonder if part of the problem is the $$$ typically involved that make late-season trading hard to do -- and we don't currently allow any explicit eating of salaries for players being traded away...
Maybe we could allow that during a small window under certain circumstances similar to real life MLB's waiver-trade process... which could help contenders chase the top team or two while giving rebuilding teams better chance to trade...
A couple active GMs have already expressed interest in something like that after I mentioned it...
---------------------------
We could maybe make the salary eating only limited to rest of current year, not future years, so there's minimal bookkeeping (and potential problems). Not likely the rebuilding team would wanna eat more than that anyway.
We could maybe bump the regular trade deadline (as well as lumpsum buyout deadline... both to minimize complication and to make it a bit less easy, especially for contenders) earlier to say 8/15 instead and then have 16-day window for this waiver-trade process where we just assume everyone's full roster is available for waiver-trade claim... and have a 1-week (or 3-day?) window to submit claims -- maybe allow some modest limit on number of claims (whether per target team or overall) -- and then, the rest of that 16-day window, ie. 8-9 (or 11-12) days, to complete such trades...
Not sure if we should allow teams to decide how much current year salary to eat or just make it 1/2 (to keep it simple and resemble cost of dropping player on 1-year contract)
Also, making it 1/2 would probably work better/simpler if we want to allow the waiving team to just let the claimed player go for nothing more in return -- this should probably require active affirmation since the claim process automatically assumes all players are available... We might need to do that to prevent say a lesser contender from winning all the claims over say the #2-4 contenders...
Not sure if we also need to be more careful about potential collusion though if we allow claimed players to go w/out actual trades this way...And players that go unclaimed can then be traded to anyone w/ the same ability for the team to eat 1/2 of current year salary.
Also, we could probably allow such trades to include any other players as long as they include the claimed players (rather than be limited to non-active MLB-ers only besides the claimed ones).
Having this process might also give people a bit more urgency for normal trades earlier, but not necessarily too early... meanwhile, it'll hopefully generate more activity in general from the All-Star Break onward...
We could start w/ that for next year... and if it seems to help much and the feeling is we should try squeezing 2 waiver-trade windows in (w/out bumping the regular deadline too early), then we could maybe try that the following year... unless there's consensus for being more ambitious right from the get-go...
What are everyone's thoughts such a proposal?
