I'm not taking a position yet, but there are some things I would like to bring up for discussion.

I am currently in a SIM league that uses another product to simulate games where the league rules allow unlimited pick ups of rookies and free agents in the middle of the season. The effect of this approach is that players that are having a good year get snagged on a first come first serve basis and therefore the "cream of the crop" free agents we see in our spring drafts would be snagged in the middle of the previous season. While this approach does not have a negative impact on the rookie draft it does significantly reduce the relevance of the free agent draft. In the case of purebaseball I think a reduction of the relevance of the free agent draft would be a BAD THING.

In his proposal Mike suggests that the players that only players that have no value for the future would be available in this draft. I'm wondering what kind of safeguards can be put in place to ensure that is actually the case. I can think of many cases where a player comes out complete obscurity and does something, hence it may be possible for someone who is very lucky to scoop up something of value using this approach.

In particular, what is the criteria for deciding who has future value.

For example:

- I was told late last season that Keith Ginter had no value. I see at least one website that is projecting him as the starting 3B in Milwaukee. I would think that constitutes some value. (This is a bad example because he wasn't INN but does point out that projections of future value can be flawed).

- Chris Richard fell off the face of the earth last year. Is he worthless or does he have a chance to play this year and retrieve some value. I certainly don't know the answer at this time.

- Carl Pavano. He has talent but has suffered through injuries and ineffectiveness. What is the criteria for decing when he transitions from "no future value" to having value.

- Adam Eaton - (see Carl Pavano).

I am sure there are other better examples. These are just a few I thought of when pouring over contraction lists.

My primary point is to ask whether a definition of what constitutes players eligible for this waiver system has been considered. Furthermore, is it even desirable to have this type of system. I thought the whole point of awarding INN players was that teams that failed to plan ahead would get a live body to help them through. This system may discourage planning ahead if people have a chance to handpick their own INN player.

Having said all of this I am willing to go along with such a system if the consensus of owners agrees with it. I am just suggesting that it be well defined to avoid abuse. If not then I know some people (myself included) who would love to use this (potential) loophole to snag an extra fringe prospect or two every once in a while.