As I said, if a guy does not lose his waiver priority in an uncontested claim, that would change my thinking and make it unanimous.

And is it not possible that someone else might change their opinion once in possession of all the facts with respect to how this will work?

I mean, we had a whole discussion here this morning that probably no one has even seen.

Not that I expect that anyone will change their mind, because for some reason no one seems to really care.

I don't see it that way.

As I said, you have put up your waiver priority to guarantee getting the player.

That's what you're paying to be sure of getting him, since you don't know if anyone else is gonna claim him or not.

I think there's a certain logic in that.

Anyway, we'll say what Yahoo says. They usually answer the same day.

I went to a fight thread once. A hockey discussion broke out.

I expect Big Daddy Don to show up next.

There is no guarantee, unless you have the first waiver priority. In a sense, I suppose the person with the first waiver priority "pays" for his pick if it's contested, but he is also gambling that he'll get the pick without having to pay for it (if uncontested).

Even your words ("since you don't know") suggest it's a gamble. Picking up an uncontested wavier your way would be like winning a poker hand with no other players at the table, and still losing your original bet.

Cardi and I already know what Yahoo is gonna say... :p

Hmmmm. You may be on to something here SC. Maybe someone should start a fantasy boxing league here. That in itself may solve some of the disagreements on here.


Don Cardi

Unless you already asked them, I don'e know how you can ever be sure of anything that any of these fantasy game providers will say.

I see your point about there not being an absolute guarantee unless you have the first pick.

But unless you have the last pick - in which case you should always claim the player on waivers since you have nothing to lose and if you wait two days for him to be a FA, someone else might sneak in in the middle of the night and grab him before you do - you are always risking something but claiming a guy off waivers instead of waiting for him to be a FA, even if it's only the difference between being last in waiver prioity and next to last.

So i think even that little bit that increases your chances of getting the player warrants that you go to the bottom of the list.

keep in mind, that the higher your waiver priority, the better your chances of winning the claim, and the more you are "using up" by exercising that claim.

I mean, if you are #2, say, it almost guarantees that you will get the player, whereas if you waited for him to be a FA you could easily lose him.

The lower you are on the priority list, the less of a guarantee you have, and the less you are risking as well.

What do you lose if you're #7 in priority in an 8 man league, and you claim a player on waivers, and it was uncontested and you get the player?

You went from #7 to #8. You risked almost nothing, but the increase in the chances of getting the player were barely increased also.

Just to give you guys an update:

Here's what I wrote to Yahoo:

If a manager claims a player off waivers, and he is the ONLY MANAGER claiming that player, does he still lose hiswaiver priority and roll to the bottom of the list, or does this only happen in cases where he is awarded a waiver claim when another manager has claimed the same player as well?

Thank you in advance.

Here's their response:

Hello,

Thank you for contacting Yahoo! Customer Care.

The waiver period -- measured in hours -- is between 48 and 72, because waivers are processed at midnight every night. For example, if a player is waived Monday at Noon, they will clear waivers at midnight on Wednesday. Waivers will then be processed approximately 4 to 8 hours later, at which point they will show on your roster.

If more than one team claims the same player, the team that is highest on the priority list is given the rights to the player. The priority list is initially set based on the reverse of the draft order. However, each time you add a waived player to your roster, you are pushed to the back of the list. This "rolling" list stays in effect for the entire season.

Click on the "Team & Manager List" link from the league home page to view the current Waiver Priority list. If you are viewing the list after a claim has been processed, the team with the lowest priority will be the team that was most recently awarded a player.

If you claim multiple players on waivers, you have the ability to prioritize them via the drop-down menu next to the "Pending Transaction"information. You can select the appropriate numbers to reorder them.

You will not lose the player you plan on dropping unless and until your waiver claim is successful.

If you place a player on waivers, he is dropped from your team. If you wish to reclaim him, you will have to wait for him to clear waivers.

Thank you again for contacting Yahoo! Customer Care.

Regards,

Morris

Yahoo! Customer Care

Good old Morris. :rolleyes:

Didn't directly answer the question, did he?

The only sentence in their lengthy and unnecessary reply on how the whole waiver system works is this one:

Each time you add a waived player to your roster, you are pushed to the back of the list.

That would seem to indicate that my intepretation is the correct one. But since they don't make a distinction between a waiver claim when you are the only one claiming the player, and a waiver claim in which more than one person is claiming the player, I'm gonna reply to them and ask good old Morris for further clarification.

I didn't participate in the draft this past week because I was happy with my players and my team. I did get an e-mail from Don Cardi informing me his breaking up those teams. I thought that it was a good idea. I don't know you people very well, but I must admit that I am very surprised at the big deal being made about these changes. If we were playing for money, then I could see someone getting uspset with a change like that. But this is for fun. From what I've read here almost everyone seemed to be fine with the changes, except for one person. I don't want to make any trouble here, but I just cannot see how this is such a big deal. I don't know if you people know Don Cardi like I do, but I've known him for many years and he is a standup guy. So I don't think that he would do anything to hurt anyone in this game or to benefit himself. As long as I've known him he has always been a real standup guy and above board.

Sorry for the long post. I will try to participate here more once my laptop is fixed.

Long post? That was nothing.

If you read all of the posts the last few days, you will understand where I'm coming from.

Yes, we're playing for fun and there's no money involved, but money is not the acid test here.

If I play a game, a play it to the hilt, money or not.

And when I do play for money, I still play for fun.

I'm a gambler. I bet sports and play poker and a bit of blackjack.

As I'm sure you may know, there are many games that one can play in a casino, and even though I love to gamble, there are many that I won't play simply because i don't enjoy playing them.

Same thing with poker. I love the game and I've been playing almost all my life, but in a casino, where several different games are offered, I play seven-card stud almost exclusively, because that's the only game that I really enjoy.

And while I'll bet on football, baseball, or basketball, I won't bet on hockey because I don't enjoy watching hockey.

My whole point here is that I believe that there's a correct way to run a fantasy league - whether money is involved or not - and decsions should not be made that impact on the game's fairness, even if the decisions impact on the game's fairness inadvertently or unintentionally.

The fact that we are playing for "fun" and not money shouldn't change the way the game is run.

As you may know, we've played a lot of different fantasy games here over the last three years, and never for money.

But the lack of seriousness in this game by the players, most of whom have stated in way way or another that "it doesn't matter" or "they don't care" because we're merely playing for "fun" is unprecedented.

There have been several fantasy game problems here on the Gangster BB - most recently in our Yahoo Football League where we faced the same problem (what to do with doormant teams) - and everyone took the discussion(s) about what to do very seriously.

Yes, it's for fun. And no, we're not playing for money.

But what makes the game fun is that we keep score. If that wasn't what makes it fun, why do we even bother keeping score in the first place?

So as long as we are gonna keep score, we are playing for something - to see who can win.

And as long as that's the case, any decision which is made that affects the league should not be a decision that gives an advantage to some players over others.

I think that when you say this:

You are, in effect, agreeing with me that what was done was incorrect.

If you choose not to care, that's entirely up to you.

But if I choose to care, that should be entirely up to me.

To tell you the truth, when I feel that a team I have is working well I DON'T CHANGE. I feel that blocking someone for the sake of blocking someone could harm my team. Big names never sway me and a JOE BLOW sometimes scores as much as a great player. I think that we should play it out and see what happens. No one can predict how these things pan out. My needs were more in line for a goalie and felt that what I had was good.

And if I choose not to care how you feel at this point, that is entirely up to me!


You just will not let this go will you?


Don Cardi

Of course if you choose not to care what I think that's up to you.

Don Pelosi posted his opinion. I was responding.

And since he responded to my post, I'm gonna respond to his response, unless he deletes it.

Do I even want to know what's going on in here??

Another guest appearance

I'm still waiting for Big Daddy Don....

Do you want to know?

Well I, for one, would certainly be interested in your opinion.

Well your surprised because you are new here and you are not familiar with the only person who has made a huge deal out of this.

No one else has complained. As a matter of fact everyone else besides him seemed to like the idea of my releasing the players to the waiver draft.

But he seems to think that by his constant complaining, his implication that you did not put in for a player so that I could get Alfredsson, and making digs about me, that he is going to make me change my mind. Well it's not going to happen. His ranting and whining and crying has been going on for several days now. He can throw as many tantrums as he wants, write as many e-mails to Yahoo as he wants, and continue to post what a shit commissioner he thinks I am as much as he wants, but it is not going to make me change a thing.

I did what I thought was best at the time, with he best intentions for our league as a whole.


Don Cardi

Holy Eden's Expressway, Batman. He ALREADY sounds like a married man. :p

If that's your reason for not claiming anyone, fine.

Your strategy in how you play the game is up to you.

What I was responding to what was your "no big deal" POV, and how you said that you would understand if we were playing for money, but since we aren't it doesn't matter.

If you take the game seriously, it matters whether we're playing for money or not, and I don't see why it should be taken less seriously because we aren't.

You may not agree with my POV, but I'm sure you can understand it.

Yeah, this may all wind up making no difference, but that doesn't change the fact that what was done created an unfair advantage for some of the members of the league.

And please understand that I'm not saying that it was done to intentionally create such an advantage.

Just so you know, my biggest problem is not with the waived players, although I think it was unnecessary and actually wound up hurting competitive balance rather than helping it.

My problem is with the fact that because that the season is 22 weeks long and the schedule is unbalanced to begin with.

Despite the fact that the two teams in question had been doormant, they were still managing to pick up 2 or 3 wins every week.

By disbanding these teams, it became virtually impossible for them to pick up any wins, and since they were disbabnded in the missle of a schedule cycle, some of us have 3 more games against them, while others have only two.

Clearly, this is an advantage to those of us who get to play them the extra time.

Well then maybe you should complain to the NHL for the way that they've scheduled their games this season. Maybe you'll get them to listen to you and change it for next year based on the way that you think it should be done. Or maybe you shouldn't have even joined this league if you were not happy with the unbalanced schedule. You complained about things from the first day and haven't stopped since.


Don Cardi

Holy Eden's Expressway, Batman. He ALREADY sounds like a married man. :p [/b][/quote]

I side with SC, whatever his side is.

If you can tell me in 50 words or less, I'd like to know.

No one else complained because clearly no one cared, and I think that JL and Dm and IM simply don't want to get into the middle of an argument between the two of us.

And no, I certainly don't expect you to change your mind.

You can call it ranting and crying and whining and tantrum-throwing all you want, but the fact is that every one of my arguments was logical IMO - I've yet to have anyone tell me that they weren't - and I think that you keep calling it ranting and crying and whining because you don't really have a logical response to them.

You seem to have a problem, though, with an intelligent discussion about what is going on here, since you have yet to respond to one of the arguments with a logical argument of your own.

How did putting those players on waivers help competitive balance, and how did disbanding two teams not give an advantage to the league members who will get to play them the extra time?

Again, I am not saying that the scheduling thing was done deliberately to benefit you.

AAMOF, the two teams which benefit from that are IM and DMC.

And if you say that you weren't aware of the waiver order and didn't know that Don Pelosi was not going to pick anyone, I believe you.

As I've said, even if you did know that DP was not going to pick anyone, that does not give you any unfair advantage.

Now, if you want to talk about my opinion that you are a lousy commissioner, well, I'll plead guilty to that.

You made two decisions, which by not thinking them through and giving the other league members the opportunity to present the arguments against those decisions - or not listening to the logic of the arguments against them when someone (me) did disagree - you hurt the league rather than helped it.

Actually, I've become convinced that youchose to ignore the logic of my arguments simply because they came from me, and as a residue of our political debates, you can't deal with the idea that I could be right.

OK, maybe that's a far-fetched psychological theory, but I think it may have some basis in reality, altho I certaily don't expect you to think so.

And BTW, I was perfectly willing to drop the whole thing two days ago. I was only responding to Don Pelosi today since he reopened the whole question and I wanted to be sure he understood my feelings, lest he think that I'm a ranter, crier, whiner, complainer, or tantrum-thrower.

As far as the waiver thing goes, we were all still discussing that yesterday - including you - and we were all unsure exactly how it would work (and still are), so I don't understand why you keep bringing up my "emails to Yahoo".

You know, in our Yahoo Fantasy Basketball League, something came up earlier in the season which we awere all unsure about, so I wrote to yahoo for a clarification and they provided one, and everyone was happy that I did.

I don't understand why you find this to be a problem.

Two doormant teams.

Teams disbanded, players put on waivers.

4-5 useful players.

6 teams left.

Top two teams had first two picks.

Doormant teams were getting 2-3 points each week against foes.

Now they can't get any.

Unbalanced schedule.

Two teams have an extra game left against disbanded teams.

49 words.

Be prepared for a surprise….

Here’s what I wrote:

Thank you for your timely reply.

Could you please provide some further clarification:

Do you still lose your waiver priority when you are the [i]only manager claiming a player on waivers?[/i]

And here’s what Morris wrote back:

Hello,

Thank you for contacting Yahoo! Customer Care.

Yes, any successful waiver claim you make will put you at the bottom of the waiver priority list, even if you are the only one who made a request on a player.

Thank you again for contacting Yahoo! Customer Care.

Regards,

Morris

Yahoo! Customer Care

As the football commish, I'd like to say that JG's recollection is incorrect. If a player is claimed off waivers (that means he had a little W under his status), the claiming team had his waiver priority dropped all the way down to last. The only way it would not change is if you were last to begin with and none of the other teams tried to put in a waiver claim. If the player claimed was a free agent (FA under his status), the claiming team's priority does not change.

With that, I'm not getting in the middle of this. Looks too messy.

Which makes perfect sense.

Think of your waiver priority as "capital", or an "asset" in the game.

If it's high, it's worth a lot.

If it's low, it's worth little.

But when you claim a player on waivers, you are spending that capital or using that asset to increase the chances - however much or little you actually do - of obtaining that player.

If you have the highest priority, you're guaranteeing that you get the player.

If you have the next-to-lowest priority, you're still eliminating one other league member from getting that player.

Plus you're eliminating the gamble that if you wait to try and get the player as a free agent, at least you don't have to worry that someone else will be "quicker on the trigger" than you and claim the player before you do.

Your claim is already in, so the only way you can lose the guy is if he's claimed by someone with a highr priority than you.

Well.

Maybe my brain's gone soft from all that comedy I'm playing in Fantasy Sports... cuz I coulda sworn I picked up someone off waivers this season. I must've been mistaken, since I just checked through every pick-up/drop made this season and apparently I hadn't.

I really thought I had, and since I ended up with a Waiver Priority of 2, I assumed it worked the way I (apparently erroneously) described. I stand corrected.

Nonetheless, I like my way better! :p

That's just outright ridiculous Plaw. And you know it. Our political disagreements have never interfere with anything else that we have done. At least on my end. That's really just an imature statement.

Ok, as for the first decision. Well I remember stating that I would set their lineups for them and keep them active. This was part of a discussion that you claim never took place. So here is what you said :
When I said that I would contact them to ask them to start playing and managing their teams again, you said :
I think that the diologue that went on here would be considered a discussion about what to do. I was willing to keep things going and manage the teams. You didn't agree. I then offered to give them the opportunity to come back and play. IceMan did. You disagreed. So I went with locking out the 2 remaining teams. After what I consider a discussion.

Even several others took part in this discussion that you claim never took place :
As far as my going on to place the players on waivers, I sent everyone an e-mail through the league and everyone, except you, was for it. Just Lou even posted about it.


You yourself even admitted making a mistake with your pick in putting in for those players that I made available to everyone by placing them on the waiver list :

And after that you went off on your rampage.

You and I discussed the options in regards to what to do withe the inactive teams. You disgreed with my first two suggestions, so i tried compromising with you and took your third one by locking out the teams. I e-mailed everyone and got responses from everyone about my intent on releasing the players. All were for it but you. Yet for someone who was so much against it you did put a claim in for a player, and to boot you beat out IceMan for that player, but yet you claim that he was given an advantage.

How you can sit here and tell me that I did not allow for a discussion and did not give any of the others a chance to voice their feelings is a flat out lie.


And getting back to that ridiculous comment that I chose to ignore you was because of our political disagreements. Well first off I did not ignore you as explained above. Maybe you chose to go into what has basically turned into a 3 page rant on here because YOU are the one that holds a grudge about our political disagreements. Maybe you chose to bash me as a commissioner and rant about this as a way to get back at me for our poitical disagreements.

That sounds ridiculous, right? Well it is. And that is how ridiculous you sounded when you made that statement.


Don Cardi

Looks like you don’t want to let this go, either. :p

I have to check the PMs we exchanged, and re-read the posts and look at the dates to figure out exactly who said what to who and when.

I’ll have to get back to you on this one.

Do I have your permission, DC, to post the PMs we exchanged regarding these issues?