ny92mike Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 Just now, bcb1213 said: well, say the worst team gets a guy to go on IR, should they get the first two picks if no one else has someone hit IR? Not sure I follow, "worst team gets a guy to go on IR" NM, you're saying that the worst team meaning the 1st waiver would be picking two players at the top of the list. That really doesn't bother me that much. If they are the worst team then they probably need the help more. If it's possible to submit a proposal for the future I'd like to. I think if a player goes on IR, that the IR waiver claim should be the same position, that makes sense to me. Then the team is actually filling the vacancy with a player at the same position and if they want to claim someone else at another position using the normal WW claim, regardless of order. I'm fine with that. I just think that the IR claim should carry more urgency as long as that position that they are claiming is the same position on IR. The current process seems to hurt the team with the greatest priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 5 minutes ago, ny92mike said: Not sure I follow, "worst team gets a guy to go on IR" NM, you're saying that the worst team meaning the 1st waiver would be picking two players at the top of the list. That really doesn't bother me that much. If they are the worst team then they probably need the help more. If it's possible to submit a proposal for the future I'd like to. I think if a player goes on IR, that the IR waiver claim should be the same position, that makes sense to me. Then the team is actually filling the vacancy with a player at the same position and if they want to claim someone else at another position using the normal WW claim, regardless of order. I'm fine with that. I just think that the IR claim should carry more urgency as long as that position that they are claiming is the same position on IR. The current process seems to hurt the team with the greatest priority. you can submit that for the offseason meetings if you like to be voted on 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuskieTitan Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 8 minutes ago, ny92mike said: Not sure I follow, "worst team gets a guy to go on IR" NM, you're saying that the worst team meaning the 1st waiver would be picking two players at the top of the list. That really doesn't bother me that much. If they are the worst team then they probably need the help more. If it's possible to submit a proposal for the future I'd like to. I think if a player goes on IR, that the IR waiver claim should be the same position, that makes sense to me. Then the team is actually filling the vacancy with a player at the same position and if they want to claim someone else at another position using the normal WW claim, regardless of order. I'm fine with that. I just think that the IR claim should carry more urgency as long as that position that they are claiming is the same position on IR. The current process seems to hurt the team with the greatest priority. It can get tricky if you limit the IR waiver claim to being the same position. I was able to fulfill my IR waiver with my weekly waiver claim, so why should my team be 'forced' to double dip the same position? Otherwise I'd have to go with a different position for my initial claim, and then risk not getting my positional IR waiver claim (as he would get picked by someone before it reached the IR waivers). I guess if we made it IR Waiver Claims come first, that might make sense to make it restricted by position. But otherwise, you are hurting teams by forcing them to double dip potentially, or run the risk of not getting the top guy they wanted as the current format sits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said: It can get tricky if you limit the IR waiver claim to being the same position. I was able to fulfill my IR waiver with my weekly waiver claim, so why should my team be 'forced' to double dip the same position? Otherwise I'd have to go with a different position for my initial claim, and then risk not getting my positional IR waiver claim (as he would get picked by someone before it reached the IR waivers). I guess if we made it IR Waiver Claims come first, that might make sense to make it restricted by position. But otherwise, you are hurting teams by forcing them to double dip potentially, or run the risk of not getting the top guy they wanted as the current format sits. I don't think I said being forced to double dip, at least that wasn't how it should of came out....haha. My suggestion is mainly to put a priority on allowing the team to fill a greater need after placing a player on IR. By allowing the IR to cut the line of non-IR related claims does that. The number of IR claims are limited to typically only a few teams and with the IR claim needing to fill the exact position the odds are you'd land your first choice to fill that position. You may want to include a second, but again the odds of landing the first is going to be pretty high. The standard Waiver Wire claim, under my proposal doesn't change and you wouldn't need to target two players at the same position unless you just wanted to add a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLadd Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 Sydney Trades: Sydney 3rd WR Brian Quick Louisiana Trades: S Sean Davis @Lukicccc to confirm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WFLukic Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 Thats not my username haha, but confirm. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 Orlando Ospreys trade D.J. Humphries OL Rodney McLeod S Orlando 4th Berlin trade Tashaun Gipson S @ny92mike to confirm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmad Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 Berlin Trades 2019 berlin 5th Portland trades RB Jay Ajayi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 25 minutes ago, SwoleXmad said: Berlin Trades 2019 berlin 5th Portland trades RB Jay Ajayi Approve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 approve both trades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 Approve all current outstanding trades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 16 hours ago, Ragnarok said: Orlando Ospreys trade D.J. Humphries OL Rodney McLeod S Orlando 4th Berlin trade Tashaun Gipson S @ny92mike to confirm Confirm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 Approve the Sydney Lou trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted October 5, 2018 Author Share Posted October 5, 2018 Approve all outstanding trades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted October 5, 2018 Author Share Posted October 5, 2018 (edited) 20 hours ago, DingoLadd said: Sydney Trades: Sydney 3rd WR Brian Quick Louisiana Trades: S Sean Davis Approved: Bcb, JLash, Rags, SirA Do you mean Louisiana 3rd since I have your 3rd next year? @WFLukic Edited October 5, 2018 by SirA1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts