OOTP 14 Update, Version 14.4.23 officially available!

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by hefalumps

Fair enough, but what I would often do is find a player I was interested in claiming, but I had another comparable player on my team, and didn't want to keep both of the same players on my payroll, so I'd offer to trade my marginal guy for their marginal guy. I guess I can still do that - just have to wait for him to clear waivers and go to the minors.

Fair enough, in that circumstance. But, other times, the circumstances are such that you want to claim a player because you don't have another comparable player on your team that fits the need that he would fit.

[endgame]

The intent of a waiver designation is to seek permission from other clubs to trade or assign a Major League player’s contract. Once that permission is effectively granted (cleared waivers) the player can then be traded, moved, etc....

To arbitrarily give superseding rights to teams offering goods for the player effectively negates the process or at least diminishes the integrity of the right to claim, albeit sometimes that right is exercised simply to encourage other claims or to block a potential trade, e.g. in post deadline waivers.

There's been some research and discussion done in this area. If I can locate it, I'll post it here to support the position.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by endgame

The intent of a waiver designation is to seek permission from other clubs to trade or assign a Major League player’s contract. Once that permission is effectively granted (cleared waivers) the player can then be traded, moved, etc....

To arbitrarily give superseding rights to teams offering goods for the player effectively negates the process or at least diminishes the integrity of the right to claim, albeit sometimes that right is exercised simply to encourage other claims or to block a potential trade, e.g. in post deadline waivers.

There's been some research and discussion done in this area. If I can locate it, I'll post it here to support the position.

I've read the Basic Agreement and the Major League Rules on waivers. Neither of them explictly prohibits a player from being traded while being on irrevocable waivers. I also spoke to a highly ranking,well known baseball writer this afternoon, who I know through my ATM reports. He confirmed that such a prohibition does not exist IRL.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by endgame

The intent of a waiver designation is to seek permission from other clubs to trade or assign a Major League player’s contract. Once that permission is effectively granted (cleared waivers) the player can then be traded, moved, etc....

The granting of permission to trade a player that you are referring to has to do with the narrow issue of trading a player after the trade deadline. It nothing to do with granting permission to trade a player during any other time of the year. That kind of waivers is also explicitly called "trade waivers", since its intent is to seek permission to trade the player.

There's nothing about irrevocable waivers IRL that prohibits a team from trading a player.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Another data point in case it is helpful:

I haven't encountered any of the facegen issues people have been talking about, but the new patch does run much slower than the old one on my machine. Everything, including saving the game takes noticeably longer, and basic navigation like scrolling, selecting items in pop-up menus, etc., is a bit laggy.

2.66 GHz i7 MacBook Pro, 8 GB RAM
OS 10.6.8

[endgame]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

The granting of permission to trade a player that you are referring to has to do with the narrow issue of trading a player after the trade deadline. It nothing to do with granting permission to trade a player during any other time of the year. That kind of waivers is also explicitly called "trade waivers", since its intent is to seek permission to trade the player.

There's nothing about irrevocable waivers IRL that prohibits a team from trading a player.

That may well be, and I've reached out to my own MLB transaction gurus, as well. It may be detailed in the little black book that few have access to, in addition. Regardless, often the intention of the irrevocable waiver is to remove a player from the 40-man, a decision that cannot be undone in the event of a claim, thus irrevocable. The term itself conveys commitment to its end; then another action can follow. So what if a team claims him? Wouldn't it be unfair to 'revoke' the status in order to trade the player? I think it works as is in policy myself, but that's just my opinion.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by endgame

That may well be, and I've reached out to my own MLB transaction gurus, as well. It may be detailed in the little black book that few have access to, in addition. Regardless, often the intention of the irrevocable waiver is to remove a player from the 40-man, a decision that cannot be undone in the event of a claim, thus irrevocable. The term itself conveys commitment to its end; then another action can follow. So what if a team claims him? Wouldn't it be unfair to 'revoke' the status in order to trade the player? I think it works as is in policy myself, but that's just my opinion.

We are agreement on a little bit here.

Often, the irrevocable waivers are to remove a player from the 40 man. When that's done, it's referred to as "irrevocable waivers for the purpose of giving him his unconditional release" and not simply "irrevocable waivers."

It may not be access to the little black book, but this may be as close as we can get to it-- http://bizofbaseball.com/docs/MajorLeagueRules-2008.pdf

Rule 10 covers waivers and starts at page 60. There's nothing in there that explicitly says that a player on irrevocable waivers can't be traded.

As far whether it's fair to "revoke" the status in order to trade him, if MLB rules don't prohibit a player on irrevocable waivers from being traded, then it something that is allowed. And, as to whether it is fair to the team that claimed him, yes, it would be. Any waiver claim is always a tentative one. It's always tentative, subject to another team making a claim. Well, at least it is in every case except for when you are the worst team and have waiver claim priority over everybody.

The real issue here is the fact that when a player is DFA'd, the team can trade him, release him or send him to the minors after he clears waivers. There's nothing in the rules that says they can trade him, except for the time when he's on waivers. OOTP thus accurately replicated MLB, until it was just changed.

I'd also like to propose a solution to the impasse that we have seemed to reach on this issue. The ability to trade a player on irrevocable waivers is disabled for online leagues. So, the code contains a switch to disable it. I would like to propose that the user also has the option to disable it.

[endgame]

^
Seems reasonable.

[CobaltJays]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

The real issue here is the fact that when a player is DFA'd, the team can trade him, release him or send him to the minors after he clears waivers. There's nothing in the rules that says they can trade him, except for the time when he's on waivers. OOTP thus accurately replicated MLB, until it was just changed.

Not quite. In real life when a player is DFA'd, he's not automatically waived. In those rare instances where a team DFAs in order to trade him (as the Blue Jays did with Matt Stairs a few years back), it won't put the player on waivers. A team will often do put a DFA'd player on waivers (in order to send that player to the minors), but it is not required to do so.

This is one thing that OOTP gets wrong. By requiring waivers when a player is DFA'd, it reduces the usefulness of DFAing a player. What team is going to give up something of value for a player when that team could have had the player for nothing via a waiver claim? Unless the DFA'd player is overpriced, and the acquiring team can give up one of its overpriced/under-performing players, there isn't much point to trading for a DFA'd player.

[hefalumps]

Originally Posted by CobaltJays

Not quite. In real life when a player is DFA'd, he's not automatically waived. In those rare instances where a team DFAs in order to trade him (as the Blue Jays did with Matt Stairs a few years back), it won't put the player on waivers. A team will often do put a DFA'd player on waivers (in order to send that player to the minors), but it is not required to do so.

This is one thing that OOTP gets wrong. By requiring waivers when a player is DFA'd, it reduces the usefulness of DFAing a player. What team is going to give up something of value for a player when that team could have had the player for nothing via a waiver claim? Unless the DFA'd player is overpriced, and the acquiring team can give up one of its overpriced/under-performing players, there isn't much point to trading for a DFA'd player.

I dunno... I've found a lot of value in being able to trade for DFAed players who are on irrevocable waivers - from both sides. I already commented on how there's times where I'll want to claim a player, but I already have a very similar player on my team, so I'd want to try to swap the two players so that I didn't end up paying both of their salaries. In addition to that, there are also times where I'll DFA a player to free up a roster spot, and I really don't want to lose him - but I have no choice. In that case, if someone claims him, I'd like to be able to work out a trade so that I get something back for him. I understand that's not how irrevocable waivers work in real life, but I've gotten used to being able to do that. Guess I'll have to adjust to the new way.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by CobaltJays

This is one thing that OOTP gets wrong. By requiring waivers when a player is DFA'd, it reduces the usefulness of DFAing a player.

I'm not aware that OOTP requires this. I can easily DFA players without placing them on waivers. Just right click/transactions and this is clear. However in real life and in OOTP if a team wishes to remove a player from the 40-man roster they must use waivers.

Not sure what is limiting you or what OOTP is doing wrong.
Edit!!
See attached.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by RchW

I'm not aware that OOTP requires this. I can easily DFA players without placing them on waivers. Just right click/transactions and this is clear.

If the player is on the 40 man, OOTP won't let DFA him without placing him on waivers. It is true that it lists that option, as your screenshot confirms. But, if you try to DFA someone on the 40, without placing him on waivers, you will get an error message that says he's on the 40 man, he has to be placed on waivers.

[RchW]

I see that and stand corrected. This has changed but I don't know in what version. That being said I doubt that it has any significant effect. Players can only be outrighted once in their career IRL without their consent so it's not as if you are shopping a desirable trade chip. Put another way. If you can't trade a player while not on waivers or on DFA, why should you expect him to be more easily traded after.

I'd like OOTP to maintain the RL rule above instead of allowing multiple DFA's currently that exploit the AI. Many players would whine about this for sure.

[braunfullyaccused]

Adding to the waiver discussion, I am having difficulty getting revocable waivers to work post trade deadline. (August 19th)

I'm trying to waive a few of my players that have options left (specifically Kyle Lohse and ARam) and it is only showing irrevocable waiver option for them. What am I missing?

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by braunfullyaccused

Adding to the waiver discussion, I am having difficulty getting revocable waivers to work post trade deadline. (August 19th)

I'm trying to waive a few of my players that have options left (specifically Kyle Lohse and ARam) and it is only showing irrevocable waiver option for them. What am I missing?

Don't place them on waivers. Just try to make a trade. If you succeed at making a trade, the game will place them on waivers for you. If they clear waivers, the trade will be completed. If any of them are claimed, you will get an email message saying the trade was blocked by a player getting claimed.

[braunfullyaccused]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

Don't place them on waivers. Just try to make a trade. If you succeed at making a trade, the game will place them on waivers for you. If they clear waivers, the trade will be completed. If any of them are claimed, you will get an email message saying the trade was blocked by a player getting claimed.

Sweet. Will give it a crack. Is this posted anywhere?

Would absolutely love if the inverse were true – being reactive versus proactive. Obviously their will be only a handful of buyers at this point in the season w/ budget room, but short of shopping 1 for 1's, the only other way would be to approach each of those teams individually.

Interestingly enough, I just shopped ARam (I have trading on hard) and Joey Gallo was offered by Texas...rather intriguing indeed.

[nyy26wc]

You can still be reactive. If you have somebody that someone wants, you will still get trade offers after the trade deadline. It seems like every season, I've gotten a few of them.

[braunfullyaccused]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

You can still be reactive. If you have somebody that someone wants, you will still get trade offers after the trade deadline. It seems like every season, I've gotten a few of them.

I haven't received a single trade offer all season.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by braunfullyaccused

I haven't received a single trade offer all season.

Since there are over 100 trades a year in real baseball, I've set my AI trade frequently level up to the highest. It results in me getting trade offers all of the time.

[braunfullyaccused]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

Since there are over 100 trades a year in real baseball, I've set my AI trade frequently level up to the highest. It results in me getting trade offers all of the time.

Interesting. I'm at default and was looking at the total number YTD last week and it seemed only slightly below average, which I chalked up to standard deviation.

I know at the trade deadline their were about 25 in 7 days or so.

Given how I have AI evaluation at 40/30/20/10, I guess my hesitancy in raising is in trying to avoid the AI on mid-level clubs from going after stars w/ dumb contracts because they're having good seasons.

I also noticed a lot of marginal teams just swapping similar types of (MLB level) players which, although certainly happens IRL, they are usually the same position, ability or contract which seems like they're 'trading just to trade'.

Are you in current years MLB or way in the future where you could post a screenshot of current trades.