Update

[WayOutWest]

I disagree if Arenas was picked up off waivers.

Being dropped doesn't all of a sudden switch a player's keeper eligibility, dude.

IMO it does.  Collusion is alot less likely because you don't know who has the highest waiver spot at any given time.

[Derek Bodner]

well, this is something we're going to have to vote on come offseason.  Considering WHY the keeper eligibility rules where put in place, I can't see any reason why he shouldn't be eligible.  Keeper eligibility was setup to keep the following from happening:
1) People who have a good set of keepers to remain dominant for years
2) To restock the great players availability to the league.

Considering 1 doesn't apply (his original team can no longer benefit, either by his services or by players received in a trade), and he was just made available to the entire league.  Clearly, the rules previously set (which only covered trades, NOT waived players) need to be voted on and updated.  I save up my waiver priority for just the right reason.  I haven't used it once this year.  I used it under the assumption that a waived player can be kept.

[WayOutWest]

well, this is something we're going to have to vote on come offseason.  Considering WHY the keeper eligibility rules where put in place, I can't see any reason why he shouldn't be eligible.  Keeper eligibility was setup to keep the following from happening:
1) People who have a good set of keepers to remain dominant for years
2) To restock the great players availability to the league.

Considering 1 doesn't apply (his original team can no longer benefit, either by his services or by players received in a trade), and he was just made available to the entire league.  Clearly, the rules previously set (which only covered trades, NOT waived players) need to be voted on and updated.  I save up my waiver priority for just the right reason.  I haven't used it once this year.  I used it under the assumption that a waived player can be kept.

IMO that is why people like Joe V saved theirs in the past as well.  There is a possibility of collusion if you trade away a keeper player while you have top priority if the recieving team then waives a keeper knowing the other team can pick him up.  I doubt people in our league would do that though.

[Wolverine]

With Adam being new, I don't know if he would've dropped Arenas (who he acquired in a trade this season) if he knew someone ELSE could keep him.

[westkoast]

That is why I haven't dropped Wade...I figured if you dropped the player someone else could sign him just to have the ability to keep him.

[Joe Vancil]

I disagree if Arenas was picked up off waivers.

Being dropped doesn't all of a sudden switch a player's keeper eligibility, dude.

IMO it does.  Collusion is alot less likely because you don't know who has the highest waiver spot at any given time.

Sure you do.  It's on the Managers page.

I could go in either direction on this question, because of just how unlikely it is to come up - a keeper being waived.

[Joe Vancil]

IMO that is why people like Joe V saved theirs in the past as well.  There is a possibility of collusion if you trade away a keeper player while you have top priority if the recieving team then waives a keeper knowing the other team can pick him up.  I doubt people in our league would do that though.

Actually, the reason I saved my eligibility was to make sure that I'd have top crack at a guy I really wanted in the event he was dropped, not because I wanted to keep said player.  Then again, I've generally got better players than will be available on waivers.

Personally, I do not think Derek should be punished for what amounts to a very savvy move by him.  And were a person to try to use the waiver wire to get around such a thing in a trade, the trade would get vetoed by the league.  And a player cannot claim his own waived player, so there's no issue there.

However, there is a risk.  I could drop a player, have someone else claim him, and then trade for him, and that would reset his eligibility.  It makes no sense that Norwegian could trade for Arenas in the off-season, and have his eligibility reset.

I propose the following: 

1)  A player claimed from WAIVERS - not free agency - can be kept for a maximum of ONE off-season by any player OTHER than the player who waived him.  Players acquired through the draft or through free agency can be kept for a maximum of two off-seasons.

This is truly a unique situation, complicated by Arenas's injury and his status as an ineligible keep by Norwegian, but I can see similar situations arise in the future.  Caleb also ran into this situation a couple of years back with Amare Stoudemire, but because of the injury list, he kept him the entire time.  The injury list, however, no longer exists.

I'd be interested in hearing how people would react if I were to trade Tim Duncan at a time he's no longer eligible for me to keep, the other manager drop him, and I come back and claim him on waivers.  Where does the line get drawn?

Personally, I'm in favor of siding with Derek on this one, since he kind of got screwed the last time around on the Tracy McGrady situation.  At some point, cleverness needs to be rewarded.

[WayOutWest]

I disagree if Arenas was picked up off waivers.

Being dropped doesn't all of a sudden switch a player's keeper eligibility, dude.

IMO it does.  Collusion is alot less likely because you don't know who has the highest waiver spot at any given time.

Sure you do.  It's on the Managers page.

I could go in either direction on this question, because of just how unlikely it is to come up - a keeper being waived.

Sorry, that is not what I meant.  If you and I had wanted to do a collusion waiver it would not work since Bods would have been ahead of me on the waiver priority and there is no guarantee that he would ever give it up.

[WayOutWest]

I'd be interested in hearing how people would react if I were to trade Tim Duncan at a time he's no longer eligible for me to keep, the other manager drop him, and I come back and claim him on waivers.  Where does the line get drawn?

IMO that is not something somebody in our leage would do but if the waiver happened at the same time you had top priority then we would probably cry foul and you would have to drop TD and the guy you acquired in the trade.  That should be deterrent enough.

[Joe Vancil]

I'd be interested in hearing how people would react if I were to trade Tim Duncan at a time he's no longer eligible for me to keep, the other manager drop him, and I come back and claim him on waivers.  Where does the line get drawn?

IMO that is not something somebody in our leage would do but if the waiver happened at the same time you had top priority then we would probably cry foul and you would have to drop TD and the guy you acquired in the trade.  That should be deterrent enough.

You misunderstand.

Let's say Duncan is disappointing me, and I trade him to you, presumably because I'm out of the playoffs, and you're in them and can use Duncan.  You give me a young player with eligibility - in effect, selling your soul for the championship this season.

It's a month later, and Duncan goes down with a season-ending injury.  You're in the playoff picture, so you drop Duncan, since he won't be back, and the roster spot is valuable during the playoff drive.  You were going to lose him anyway at the end of the season, after all.  I just happen to be top waiver pick, and I claim Duncan off of waivers.  Is his eligibility reset for me?  If not, WHY NOT?

I see that as being the EXACT SAME CASE as Derek's case now.  I'm just curious as to how other people would see it, especially when it involves a player who, thanks to three separate drafts, I've now had every year that the league has been in existence and that many people would consider the best player in the NBA.

Personally, I see things the way Derek sees them;  Arenas *WAS*, in essence, offered to every other person in the league.  I think his eligibility is re-set.  However, I can also see the two teams with the top two waiver priorities each dropping their star players, claiming the other team's star player, and resetting their eligibility that way, and I would STRONGLY disapprove of that.

The unwritten rule for the league is "Play to enjoy, not to dominate."  And an unwritten side rule is the rule of respect.  The problem is that sometimes, we need the rules spelled out to prevent folks from doing what I described in the last paragraph, and in that regard, I do support spelling out exactly what the rules are - and I do expect the rules to be FAIR.  In this case, I see BOTH cases being fair.

Here's the interesting question:  if Arenas had not been claimed immediately, and had become a free agent, and a week later, Norwegian claimed him back - would his eligibility be reset?  I say yes.

We need to just clear it up a bit more.  I think it's a relatively trivial argument, but one that does need to be answered.

[Skandery]

Whatever it is?  Set it in stone. 

Apparently I lack MASSIVE comprehension because the entire time I always thought it was as geniusly simple as:

player <----> eligibility  (NOT SEPARABLE BY ANY MEANS)

I thought so that we could by pass the what if's, in case's, what have you's, weird situation's, etc.

[WayOutWest]

Whatever it is?  Set it in stone. 

Apparently I lack MASSIVE comprehension because the entire time I always thought it was as geniusly simple as:

player <----> eligibility  (NOT SEPARABLE BY ANY MEANS)

I thought so that we could by pass the what if's, in case's, what have you's, weird situation's, etc.

Nope.

[Joe Vancil]

Whatever it is?  Set it in stone. 

Apparently I lack MASSIVE comprehension because the entire time I always thought it was as geniusly simple as:

player <----> eligibility  (NOT SEPARABLE BY ANY MEANS)

I thought so that we could by pass the what if's, in case's, what have you's, weird situation's, etc.

While that WOULD have been, as you so accurately describe, "geniusly simple," the fact of the matter is that we weren't genius enough to do it at the time.  Would have been nice to, but Derek and WayOut are correct in their interpretation that we DID NOT do it.

[Wolverine]

Uhhhh ... sorry ... but I'm with Skander on this one ...

Maybe it's that it's St. Patrick's Day and I'm wasted out of my mind at 3 o'clock ... but once we establish a "rule" ... it's absolute.

Am I wrong in thinking this???

A player has two total seasons of eligibility after being drafted ... there are no exceptions.

Again ... if Adam would have realized this ... he may not have dropped Arenas.  I know *I* wouldn't have ... if anything to keep him out of the hands of opponents as a possible keeper.

[Derek Bodner]

The problem is the "rule" has never been established.  We have half the league running under the assumption that a dropped player CAN be used as a keeper, and we have had people who have held onto injuried players just so others couldn't use him (wk) as well.  We have never defined waived players anywhere, ever.