Waiver claims / Veterans accepting assignments

[ChrisG]

I'm not sure if I'm just imagining things, but I feel like I've never had another team beat me with a waiver claim (or have had a player claimed off waivers) or seen a veteran player refuse a minor league assignment.

Here's an example. I was playing with the Rays, and I was able to claim Allen Webster (a bizarre DFA in the first place, seeing as his OSA rating was 1.5/4 stars and was considered the #45 prospect in the majors) in the 2013-2014 offseason, and had no trouble claiming him. I was fresh off a World Series win that year, so it's not like my team would be high in the pecking order.

And I feel like Alex Anthopolous would have snagged at least one or two of my players by now

Additionally, I don't think I've ever had a veteran refuse an assignment, even if they are "Very Angry."

Does anyone else have these issues or is it just me?

Is there any way to adjust AI teams' propensity to claim players off of waivers? Or propensity for veterans with the right to refuse a minor league assignment to actually refuse it?

[SirMichaelJordan]

Yea, it seem like the Vets on the AI teams do not refuse assignments (I have the option on) with further research it seem as this has been an issue for awhile.

As for the user, I believe the option is disabled by default.

[mgoetze]

I have had both AI teams beat me to a waiver claim and veterans refuse to go to the minors. Funny thing is, sometimes you can send those same veterans to the minors a week later and they will suddenly accept....

[r0nster]

mine love to refuse assignment .... I just waive them and assign the vets to minors IF need be. I don't do it very often unless I am interested in trading the player or have no interest if unable to trade.

[RchW]

I'd say it's about 80-20 for refusing assignments. As for waiver claims my teams are usually good so my W-L record loses me almost all of them.

[Le Grande Orange]

The question that pops into my mind is how often in real life does a veteran (e.g. a player with five or more years of major league service) decline an outright assignment in real life?

[sandman2575]

Originally Posted by r0nster

mine love to refuse assignment .... I just waive them and assign the vets to minors IF need be. I don't do it very often unless I am interested in trading the player or have no interest if unable to trade.

I've had the experience of a vet refusing assignment, then getting DFA'd and clearing waivers, and then *still* refusing to be demoted. This is what led to me to disable the 'players can refuse assignment to minors' option. The guy still had a couple of multi-million $ seasons left on his contract, so either he was going to be dead-weight on my Active Roster or I was going to have to release him and pay up all those millions up front.

I'd be in favor of the 'players can refuse assignment' option *if* it meant that after clearing waivers and still refusing, you could release them without penalty, with the remainder of their contract voided.

[ihatenames]

I have veterans refuse assignment all the time. I usually try to just trade them for whatever I can get. If for some reason they have no takers, I either release them or depending on the salery bite the bullet and leave them on the roster and try again later.

I rarely get beat on a waiver claim but at the same time I rarely make waiver claims except when I'm rebuilding. But I have been beat on a claim before.

[HH20xx convert]

The AI is reasonably aggressive with waiver claims during the offseason, but waiver claims during the season are pretty rare. I wish this would be tweaked, because teams tweak their 40 man roster throughout the year with waiver claims in real life.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by sandman2575

I've had the experience of a vet refusing assignment, then getting DFA'd and clearing waivers, and then *still* refusing to be demoted. This is what led to me to disable the 'players can refuse assignment to minors' option. The guy still had a couple of multi-million $ seasons left on his contract, so either he was going to be dead-weight on my Active Roster or I was going to have to release him and pay up all those millions up front.

Welcome to being a real-life GM! That's exactly what they have to deal with.

Originally Posted by sandman2575

I'd be in favor of the 'players can refuse assignment' option *if* it meant that after clearing waivers and still refusing, you could release them without penalty, with the remainder of their contract voided.

Doesn't work that way in real life. Basically, be careful with guys once they hit five years of major league service. Once they hit that threshold your options are rather limited.

In real life, there's an additional category: players with three or more years of major league service. These players, when faced with an outright assignment, can either: (a) accept the assignment (and continue to get paid); (b) refuse the assignment and immediately become a free agent (in which case they no longer get any pay); or (c) accept the assignment and opt for free agency at the end of the season if not returned to the 40-man roster by a certain date. In this case they get paid until the end of the season.

[sandman2575]

Is there really nothing a MLB team can do with players, with 5+ years MLB experience, who refuse assignment? I'm sure the contract law involved here is very complicated (and that agents are very savvy about how to manipulate such things in favor of their clients) -- but couldn't some sort of legal action be brought against a player who outright refused to do his job as specified by his employer? Or some kind of suspension that would affect the player's collection of salary?

That's why I just deactivated the 'players can refuse assignment' option -- it just seems like it leads to an impasse (in effect, blackmail) where your only option is to release a player and swallow the rest of his salary, which it seems to me a real-life MLB team would have ways around.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by sandman2575

Is there really nothing a MLB team can do with players, with 5+ years MLB experience, who refuse assignment? I'm sure the contract law involved here is very complicated (and that agents are very savvy about how to manipulate such things in favor of their clients) -- but couldn't some sort of legal action be brought against a player who outright refused to do his job as specified by his employer?

Nope. It's a negotiated part of the various CBAs.

Such a restriction has been around for a long time. It originally started off in 1914 as a ten-year threshold against being unilaterally assigned to the minors. In the mid-1950s it was lowered to seven years, then dropped again to five years in the mid-1970s, where it has remained ever since.

[sandman2575]

Wow -- OK then. It looks like I will have to reactivate the 'players can refuse assignment' option for the sake of realism! It really is a bitch though, from the GM standpoint!

[DCG12]

Originally Posted by sandman2575

Wow -- OK then. It looks like I will have to reactivate the 'players can refuse assignment' option for the sake of realism! It really is a bitch though, from the GM standpoint!

I'm glad Le Grande jumped in here because I was going to post earlier but didn't want to come across as criticizing you or the way you choose to play.

What I was going to post is that it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people post that they disable this rule or that rule or go in and edit injuries etc. just because they find the situation is inconvenient. Then they come on the board to gloat how their team won 130 games and 12th straight championship.

Maybe its just me but I enjoy the challenge of players flaming out with years left and refuse to leave the team and other GM's are laughing when I try to shop them around. Same goes for injuries, winning while dealing with these issues is more fun to me then taking the shortcuts mentioned.


Glad you've decided to turn the rule back on.

[sandman2575]

Maybe there should be a right-click option to "Verbally berate, threaten, and chew out veteran for refusing to accept assignment." That might make the pill of player refusal a little easier to swallow... although not much.

I take your point about dealing with the things that are annoying and inconvenient as part of the fun of the game. I agree. I figured -- incorrectly as I've now be told -- that the player refusal option was modeled in too limited a way to reflect reality. But it's not, so back on it goes.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by DCG12

I'm glad Le Grande jumped in here because I was going to post earlier but didn't want to come across as criticizing you or the way you choose to play.

What I was going to post is that it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people post that they disable this rule or that rule or go in and edit injuries etc. just because they find the situation is inconvenient. Then they come on the board to gloat how their team won 130 games and 12th straight championship.

Maybe its just me but I enjoy the challenge of players flaming out with years left and refuse to leave the team and other GM's are laughing when I try to shop them around. Same goes for injuries, winning while dealing with these issues is more fun to me then taking the shortcuts mentioned.


Glad you've decided to turn the rule back on.

It's the fun of the frustration of the game. Yes, it sucks having my old expensive vet refuse to go to the farm, but on the other hand, it's what a real manager deals with. It does mean I get a little more aggressive in dealing players before they decline, and I am extra careful before giving them that extra year on their contract.

The main change I would like to see is more repercussions for my actions. I mean, the way I GM the game, nobody would ever sign with my team unless if they had a full no-trade deal. I aggressively shop players around, probably averaging 5 or so trades per season, and another bunch in the off-season. And I do that every year. And even in years I tell myself, "Only 2 trades this year!"

But I have seen players refuse assignments, and I often see players refuse to waive their 5 and 10 rights (I'm not sure if in the game they ever agree to waive those). And I definitely see my waiver claims rejected, and agree with those above who said the AI should be more aggressive with waivers. That'd even be a cool trait of a GM - how often will they do those changes. I'm pretty sure the Jays this year have put in a claim for about half of the players in the league who've been on waivers, would be kind of cool to see a real life GM do the same (although that likely also comes from roster management, needing more week-long injuries to pitchers, and so on). The GM/management aspect of the game is pretty awesome as it is, but still a lot of tweaks to make it even better.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by DCG12

I'm glad Le Grande jumped in here because I was going to post earlier but didn't want to come across as criticizing you or the way you choose to play.

What I was going to post is that it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people post that they disable this rule or that rule or go in and edit injuries etc. just because they find the situation is inconvenient. Then they come on the board to gloat how their team won 130 games and 12th straight championship.

Maybe its just me but I enjoy the challenge of players flaming out with years left and refuse to leave the team and other GM's are laughing when I try to shop them around. Same goes for injuries, winning while dealing with these issues is more fun to me then taking the shortcuts mentioned.


Glad you've decided to turn the rule back on.

Although I agree with the point you're making, I must "flip the coin" so both points are seen here.

One of the beauties of OOTP is the ability to customize things. I often disable that "right to refuse" rule in fictional leagues. I like the ability to create "what if" leagues, like what if the bum can't refuse an assignment. I don't see it as any advantage if every team in the league has the same ability. I see it as another way to have fun with OOTP.

Winning 130 games when all teams play by the same rules is still an accomplishment.

Having said that, I have never come close to 130 wins, nor would I feel the need to gloat if I did. But I wouldn't begrudge those that do, simply because they're having fun with their game their way.

[DCG12]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Although I agree with the point you're making, I must "flip the coin" so both points are seen here.

One of the beauties of OOTP is the ability to customize things. I often disable that "right to refuse" rule in fictional leagues. I like the ability to create "what if" leagues, like what if the bum can't refuse an assignment. I don't see it as any advantage if every team in the league has the same ability. I see it as another way to have fun with OOTP.

Winning 130 games when all teams play by the same rules is still an accomplishment.

Having said that, I have never come close to 130 wins, nor would I feel the need to gloat if I did. But I wouldn't begrudge those that do, simply because they're having fun with their game their way.

Which is why I said that I didn't want to tell him how to play. I only made my point after he agreed with Le Grande and said he was turning the rule back on.

As to whether or not it's a level playing field, I would think not because the AI will not be as aggressive as the human in dumping players to the minors. I try to play as realistically as I can and I just feel making roster management easier takes away from that.

As to UWHabs point about all the trading he does, if he enjoys that great but it wouldn't work for me because as I said it's not realistic. Even in my worst rebuilding year I don't think I broke 5 trades in a season. I like to have players, especially players from my minor system, have some history with my team. Otherwise it seems too much like fantasy baseball where you are just trading names not people. One of the things GM's have to do is deal with the human aspect and ramifications of their moves.

Just how I play and my

[RchW]

Originally Posted by sandman2575

Is there really nothing a MLB team can do with players, with 5+ years MLB experience, who refuse assignment? I'm sure the contract law involved here is very complicated (and that agents are very savvy about how to manipulate such things in favor of their clients) -- but couldn't some sort of legal action be brought against a player who outright refused to do his job as specified by his employer? Or some kind of suspension that would affect the player's collection of salary?

That's why I just deactivated the 'players can refuse assignment' option -- it just seems like it leads to an impasse (in effect, blackmail) where your only option is to release a player and swallow the rest of his salary, which it seems to me a real-life MLB team would have ways around.

It's part of the CBA a freely negotiated contract that stipulates how player contracts must be paid out. The right to refuse assignment was bargained for and given through negotiation. I'm sure the players had to give on other issues.

I don't think there is anything complicated about contracts. I've worked under a few and everything is clearly set out. I personally love them as there is no doubt of what your rights and obligations are. You seem to feel that a player exercising his contractual rights is using "blackmail" but a team trying to escape it's obligations is doing nothing wrong. Kind of a warped view of proper behavior eh?

Edit; In the game you can do whatever you want. I took your comment to apply to real life.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by DCG12

Then they come on the board to gloat how their team won 130 games and 12th straight championship.

I don't know, there is some fun in beating up on a hapless AI opponent. Sometimes you beat them up so bad you almost feel sorry for the virtual little fellows...