The following players were not protected by their CFCL teams, however because they are now in the American League, they were released outright rather than going through Winter Waivers:

Click here for updated rosters in Excel format.
Click here for the 2004 Rotation Draft Pick Tracker

Click here to view the players who were waived by their CFCL teams and are eligible to be claimed in the first round of Winter Waivers. This first round of waivers will last until 4:00 PM on Friday, November 7.

NOTE: You don't have to wait until Friday to submit your claims. Since the priority for waiver claims goes in reverse order of the standings, you might want to submit a waiver claim earlier, which will give me time to get in touch with you if someone lower than you in the standings claims the player you wanted. Either that, or you might want to give a list of 4-5 players you want, in the order of preference, in case your first couple picks don't work out.

Remember, you're allowed to attempt to claim as many players as you like. If you do claim more than one player, please RANK THEM IN THE ORDER OF PREFERENCE. This ranking may determine which players you do or do not get. For details on what happens if multiple teams claim the same player, see the Constitution. If you don't supply an explicit ranking, I'll assume the order that you name them is the order in which you want them.

All unclaimed players go into the Free Agent Pool for next year's Draft. Also, remember that if you want to claim a player on waivers, you must waive a player on your 23-man roster to make room for him. All the waived players will go through the second round of waivers.

Take a good look at the list, particularly you rebuilding teams -- there's a lot of good talent and cheap potential available. The salary and contract status that the player will receive if he is claimed is listed. W contract players will be come D contracts on Draft Day, minor leaguers will keep their M contract status until they lose their rookie status or you activate them.

Last year, 34 players were claimed (21 in the first round), including solid 2003 performers such as Edgar Renteria, Jeromy Burnitz, David Dellucci, Ramon Vazquez, Adam Eaton, Matt Mantei, and others. So start digging…

Congratulations to Jason Grey on his second straight championship in the AL Tout Wars experts' league. His repeat is especially impressive since Tout Wars is not a keeper league – they start from scratch every season.

Hmmmm… Jason has won Tout Wars every year since joining the CFCL. Coincidence? We think not…

Contrats, Jason!

At the banquet, and on the list of 2003 CFCL Award Winners, I reported that Robb Nen of the Stones won the Nick Esasky Award this year. Right player, wrong team – Nen was drafted by the DoorMatts this year, not the Stones. I apologize to Matt B. for this oversight. Though, given the nature of the award, perhaps it is Steve to whom I should be apologizing.

Continuing the report of the results and comments from the 2003 End of Season Opinion Survey, we'll pick up with feedback on the various CFCL web pages and reports.

CFCL Reports and Web Pages. I'll go through this quickly, as this was mainly for my own feedback – what people were using, what they weren't, etc.

The popular pages/reports were the Team Pages at TQS, the Main Page at the CFCL website, the Weekly Transaction Report at the CFCL website, the CFCL Rosters in Excel format, and the CFCL Message Board. All of these were checked at least once a week by 90% of the owners.

Not so popular were the Standings Report and Roster Change Report in Word format that are available in the website's Download Center. The Standings Report in particular does not seem to get much use at all.

CFCL Trade Posting Board. 55% felt that it was "Great – a quick way to advertise for trades." The other 45% said it was "OK if some people want to use it, but I'd rather initiate trade talks privately."

Comments:

I didn't really agree with "Great" or "OK". I'm somewhere between them.

Weekly Transaction Report Format. All except for one person (me) was fine with the current format of the weekly report on the website.

Comments:

Too much scrolling through all the transactions at the beginning. I like having the information available, but would like a smaller/simpler format.

The only improvement I see is placing the bidding results at the top of the list of transactions. The impatient can tell at a glance whether they picked up a FA before scrolling through the roster move minutiae. I, however, like the anticipation that results from reading each transaction before finding out who bid what.

News Flashes Section. 100% of respondents replied that they "Like it – it's important to know what other teams are doing."

Overall, I still find it useful and easy to use. My suggestions: Would like the Excel roster to be updated more frequently (weekly) and I'm not sure about where to find FAAB budget info and $$$ remaining/spent (without adding it up myself) – if the Excel spreadsheet were updated more often then this info would be available then.

Dave does a nice job putting everything together, but he's only one person. There are a few people who could put stuff out there over a couple of weeks that could be fun and entertaining for all.

Try to stop the pop-ups that happen only when I go to the site.

Stat Categories. Ok, here's the fun one.

In terms of overall reaction to the new scoring scheme, here's how things sort out:

33% = I loved it
44% = Not perfect, but pretty good overall
23% = I liked some parts of it, but have major concerns about other parts

78% = Excellent
11% = Good
11% = Acceptable

Comments

Excellent, naturally, since I'm leading the category.

RAH!

I never really paid much attention to the BA category (just kind of drafted the other categories and hoped for the best in BA), and I guess it's the same with OBP. But I like the idea of it, so thumbs up.

You should be rewarded for drawing walks.

That's what hitters are supposed to do, right? Get on base?

60% = Excellent
20% = Good
10% = Acceptable
10% = Ok, but better options are available

Comments

A more accurate way to judge a player's productivity than just HR.

I miss HRs.

Rewards doubles and triples the way they should be rewarded.

I don't miss HRs at all.

RAH!

They add up quick, so it's hard to gauge how a triple helps you, but overall I liked it.

55% = Excellent
33% = Good
12% = Acceptable

Comments

A fine addition.

Partially a function of team success, but still a good category.

RAH!

55% = Excellent
33% = Good
12% = Acceptable

Comments

An oldie, but a goodie.

Partially a function of team success, but still a good category.

RAH!

44% = Excellent
12% = Good
44% = Acceptable

Comments

Probably rated "acceptable" because my team always sucks at this. Acceptable in 5x5 because it accounts for only 20% of offensive points.

I am of two minds. First, I think that steals skew values because of their relative scarcity, both in number and in players who contribute. On the other hand, I flat out love stolen bases in the 'real world' so feel they belong here too.

Not a very meaningful stat in real baseball, the scarcity of SBs means players who get them are more valuable in our league than they should be. Still, I suppose it is an element of baseball that should be included.

78% = Excellent
11% = Good
41% = Acceptable

Comments

An oldie but a goodie.

RAH!

78% = Excellent
11% = Good
41% = Acceptable

Comments

Damn Cub relievers

Not quite in the same league as ERA, but still quite good.

RAH!

10% = Excellent
20% = Good
60% = Acceptable
10% = Ok, but better options are available

Comments

I believe it is an excellent indicator of pitching quality.

Should be Ks only.

Sometimes a double play serves a pitcher better than a K.

Good for what it is. I know I pushed hard for this over just counting Ks last offseason, but after seeing this in play for a year I would probably vote for counting Ks if we were to reconsider.

There was more late movement in this stat than I thought there would be. I like it, but could probably go for Ks as well.

Puts too much emphasis on middle relievers: maybe make this stat K/BB/IP. Chicks dig the Starters and Closers!

30% = Excellent
10% = Good
40% = Acceptable
10% = Ok, but better options are available
10% = Terrible

Comments

I never liked this category.

RAH!

Not sure I like this stat, period.

Awesome! QS certainly isn't a perfect stat, but it makes so much more sense than Wins ever did. It's based much, much more on the pitcher's talent. Plus it seems to be getting a lot more mentions in the media and sabremetric evaluation (Baseball Prospectus uses it a lot). Maybe I'm just noticing the mentions more since we use it as a category.

The fundamental problem with QS, as I see it now, is that it puts too large a premium on starting pitching. A great starting outing helps in 4 categories (HoSv being the exception). It could be argued that a HR does the same for offense, but because there are fewer QS than TB, R, and RBI, it puts QS at a premium. Can go into more detail later if need be.

I'm still not sold on this stat – it doesn't always weigh the true value of a SP – maybe we should include the QS definition + Wins (regardless of whether it's a QS or not).

50% = Excellent
10% = Good
31% = Acceptable
10% = Terrible

Comments

Rewards middle relievers, which is good.

I have seen the light, Mr. Mahlan. I retract my strong opposition to combining Holds and Saves.

Makes up for the loss of Wins for middle relievers.

Too much emphasis on one out lefties and set-up guys.

Great to give some value to set-up guys and middle relievers.

Kind of like SB on offense – Saves isn't a very meaningful stat, but if we're going to use it it makes sense to include Holds as well. The one thing I'm not thrilled about is that it's still somewhat of a role-based stat (though less so than straight Saves), but it does reflect a player's talent somewhat.

I still don't know what a Hold is. Also, it puts too much emphasis on middle relievers.

I thought 5x5 was implemented too quickly into the league.

I found the categories and the game to be much more meaningful this year. Between the new categories and not losing AL players, I felt a lot more in control of my team's fortunes than in past years. That's a good thing.

My only real objection is QS, but I can live with that if I have to.

Overall I am definitely glad we made the change to non-traditional categories and scoring in a 5x5 format. I think it changed the nature of the game quite a bit but that the change was for the better. It takes more of the luck factor out of evaluating player talent, which is the whole point of this game – for me anyhow.

I enjoyed the league a lot this season and am looking forward to the Draft next year. Good things are happening in my camp.

Thanks to everyone who responded to the survey, especially those who took the extra time to provide feedback and explanation in the form of comments.

Based on the final 2003 standings, here are the teams that will receive Toppers, the number of Toppers the team receives, and the players who are eligible for Topper use.  There was a lot of dumping of B contracts this year and as a result there will only be a maximum of four toppable players in the 2004 Draft.  

Record Book