Nightengale's Griffey/ Sox update

[RockRaines]

Nope.. no such thing.

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/bo...t=.jsp&c_id=bos

How irrevocable waivers work

By Jim Molony / MLB.com

 

In a surprise move, the Boston Red Sox placed outfielder Manny Ramirez on irrevocable waivers Wednesday. But what are irrevocable waivers, and how do they work? MLB.com, with an assist from Houston assistant general manager Tim Purpura, explains the ins and outs of the process:

More at link.

:rolly

[Rowand44]

All I've been trying to say is that players put on waivers, claimed on waivers, cleared through waivers or withdrawn from waivers are NOT commonly reported.  It was stated that we'd know about all these transactions.  We don't know about these because it is such a common occurance. We know of at least two players (Remlinger and Moyer) that have been placed on waivers and have either been been claimed or cleared.  If I would be shown in the MLB daily transactions that are printed in every newspaper across the country that one of these was listed, then I would gladly yield to Juggs point.  So far, I haven't seen that.

You're exactly right(I'm sure you're so thrilled to have my support ) teams put a ton of players on waivers every single year, the reason the Manny thing was so publicized was because if a team claimed him he was gone and there wasn't a thing Boston could do about it.

[JUGGERNAUT]

My point was Moyer was placed on waivers and it was not in any paper or any news report. I never said waivers was to gauge interest. I'm pretty sure every GM has a pretty good idea who has interest in all their players. I will guarantee you hundreds of players have either cleared waivers or have been placed on waivers since July 31.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you guarantee it then I would expect you to certainly have proof of it

 

Let's recap this debate so we know where it stands.

We both agree that a player can be placed, withdrawn, or clear waivers without it being reported SO LONG AS it does not change that player's status as it pertains to their being on the 25 man or 40 man roster.

 

Where we disagree is that you believe most (601+) players are put on waivers from Aug 1st to Sep 1st 12AM EST & I do not.

 

You have offered no factual evidence to support your assertion & I have offered factual evidence opposing your assertion. Neither of us have provided indisputable evidence which is why the debate lingers on. But common sense would strongly suggest that given the public interest & value of such information when marquee players are put on waivers someone is going to write about it.

 

On a side note, if such information is confidential wouldn't there be an uproar when Levine reports that KGJ is on waivers? Didn't Kevin Shea say that such information is confidential in MLB rules &/or the CBA? So who's crapping who?

 

I skimmed the CBA & didn't find anything about confidentiality of waivers.

[JUGGERNAUT]

YOU said we'd know about it.  That all these players going through waivers would be known.  I'm saying SHOW ME!.... You said it.  Back it up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why would they report something that is implied by the rules?

[Steff]

Where we disagree is that you believe most (601+) players are put on waivers from Aug 1st to Sep 1st 12AM EST & I do not. 

 

I skimmed the CBA & didn't find anything about confidentiality of waivers.

 

Q: Aren't irrevocable waivers supposed to be confidential?

A: All waivers are supposed to be confidential. Most players are put on waivers now and then for various reasons, such as to gauge interest, but most players never even know they're on waivers.

 

As usual you're wrong.

 

 

Skim again.. I found it.

[YASNY]

I give up. Some people just will not ever admit they are wrong even though it has been proven numerous times by numerous people that they are, in fact, mistaken. It's not a disgrace to be mistaken about something. It is, however, moronic to continue to evade posts that prove you wrong and to pick and choose and squirm and to select minute points to attack when the crux of your argument is drastically flawed.

[YASNY]

Why would they report something that is implied by the rules? 

 

You said it ... you said we'd know about. I've been telling you to show me those transactions ... repeatedly. Back it up or back the hell up.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Thank you.  This proves quote from that article proves my point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's not a reference to a MLB rule. It's nearly the same reference as the ESPN one.

 

Perhaps I didn't state it clear enough before so I'll make it indisputable this time:

When a team has exhausted it's right to withdraw a player from waivers the act of putting the player on waivers is irrevocable.

 

Anybody find a Rule 10 reference yet? Play time is getting tedious.

[JUGGERNAUT]

You said it ... you said we'd know about.  I've been telling you to show me those transactions ... repeatedly.  Back it up or back the hell up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If it's implied how do you not know about it?

[YASNY]

If it's implied how do you not know about it? 

 

Show me the damn transaction listing. That's all I ask. You said it was

"implied" after you said we'd "know" it. That's crap. Back it up or shut up.

[Dick Allen]

If you guarantee it then I would expect you to certainly have proof of it

 

Let's recap this debate so we know where it stands.

We both agree that a player can be placed, withdrawn,  or clear waivers without it being reported SO LONG AS it does not change that player's status as it pertains to their being on the 25 man or 40 man roster. 

 

Where we disagree is that you believe most (601+) players are put on waivers from Aug 1st to Sep 1st 12AM EST & I do not. 

 

You have offered no factual evidence to support your assertion & I have offered factual evidence opposing your assertion.  Neither of us have provided indisputable evidence which is why the debate lingers on.  But common sense would strongly suggest that given the public interest & value of such information when marquee players are put on waivers someone is going to write about it. 

 

On a side note, if such information is confidential wouldn't there be an uproar when Levine reports that KGJ is on waivers?  Didn't Kevin Shea say that such information is confidential in MLB rules &/or the CBA?  So who's crapping who?

 

I skimmed the CBA & didn't find anything about confidentiality of waivers.

Where is your proof that the Remlinger deal was agreed on before he was DFA, and that the Moyer deal was agreed on before he was placed on waivers?

[Steff]

Why do you guys bother...??

 

You could say the sky was blue and he'd come up with some bulls*** math equasion as to why it's not.

 

We need the flying/falling s*** tag from WSI over here...

 

Heads.. can you get that on loaner for us...??

[Kyyle23]

Why do you guys bother...??

 

You could say the sky was blue and he'd come up with some bulls*** math equasion as to why it's not.

 

We need the flying/falling s*** tag from WSI over here...

 

Heads.. can you get that on loaner for us...??

 

LOL, the sky is pink because A+B=-X

 

And because everyone not a christian is a heathen

[CanOfCorn]

Here's a reason why most players are put on waivers during a year, but mostly now:

 

July 31st is a non-waiver deadline, so you can make a trade W/O putting someone through waivers.

 

August 31st is the waiver deadline, so you can still make trades, but your players on the 40-man need to pass through waivers.

 

Agreed.

 

What if Team A wants to make a trade, they ask for Player A, Team B says, ok, we want Player B. Team A responds by saying, "We tried to get Player B through waivers, BUT HE WAS CLAIMED!!!" Therefore, the trade, as was originally asked for, is dead.

 

If you pass a player through waivers in August, then you ABSOLUTELY KNOW who on your 40-man roster is available to trade.

 

As unrealistic as it sound, you do realize, that a GM may just call one day and say, "hey, do you guys want Albert Pujols, but we want two players from your 25-man-roster and one from your 40-man." This way, you KNOW WHO'S AVAILABLE TO TRADE!!!! That, to me, would be why you put MOST of your players on waivers.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Here's a reason why most players are put on waivers during a year, but mostly now:

 

July 31st is a non-waiver deadline, so you can make a trade W/O putting someone through waivers.

 

August 31st is the waiver deadline, so you can still make trades, but your players on the 40-man need to pass through waivers.

 

Agreed.

 

What if Team A wants to make a trade, they ask for Player A, Team B says, ok, we want Player B.  Team A responds by saying, "We tried to get Player B through waivers, BUT HE WAS CLAIMED!!!"  Therefore, the trade, as was originally asked for, is dead.

 

If you pass a player through waivers in August, then you ABSOLUTELY KNOW who on your 40-man roster is available to trade. 

 

As unrealistic as it sound, you do realize, that a GM may just call one day and say, "hey, do you guys want Albert Pujols, but we want two players from your 25-man-roster and one from your 40-man."  This way, you KNOW WHO'S AVAILABLE TO TRADE!!!!  That, to me, would be why you put MOST of your players on waivers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Very sad. You're whole argument hinges on the belief that what is normal outside of the month of August (calling a team & asking about a player you have an interest in) is not normal during the month of August.

[CanOfCorn]

Very sad.  You're whole argument hinges on the belief that what is normal outside of the month of August (calling a team & asking about a player you have an interest in)  is not normal during the month of August. 

 

Well yeah, because it IS different during the month of August. You see...to trade a player on the 40-man roster...he HAS TO GO THROUGH WAIVERS. Before that...HE DOESN'T. Interesting how a man of such great intellect doesn't see the factors change.

[CanOfCorn]

You know what, Juggernaut...I used to have so much respect for you. How you would pull the numbers and analyze a player's worth. No one else really does that all too often around here. But now you are blinded by those numbers. And formulas. The world is not black and white...the world is a bunch of shades of gray...and I like it that way...and I'm not trying to figure out why that is.

 

This is baseball...and it's not supposed to make sense. That's why we love it.

[kdhargo]

You could say the sky was blue and he'd come up with some bulls*** math equasion as to why it's not.

 

 

Just playing along Steff...

 

The sky isn't actually blue.

 

[JUGGERNAUT]

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/arch...hp/t-75859.html

MLB rules:

The general rule for all waivers is that they are irrevocable. The exception is the MAJOR LEAGUE WAIVER.

 

From Aug 1st to the end of the regular season a team can request waivers on a player they wish to either option to their ml club or assign a player outright to another ML team. They need to secure this waiver on a player if the date of the assignment is 3+ yrs after the date the player first reported to a ML club during a championship season. (Strike years don't count.)

 

A team can revoke the waiver ONLY once during this period. When a team revokes a waiver the player can not be be placed on waivers for anything but unconditional release for 30 days.

 

***************************************

 

That's why I doubt very much most players are put on ML waivers for the month of Aug.

Edited August 11, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[JUGGERNAUT]

In regards to the Manny posts in the thread, BOS requested what is known as a special waiver (SPL). From Sept 1st to the 30th day of the following seasons a club can request a SPL waiver. This waiver is only good for 7 days. Meaning that if the player clears SPL waivers you can request SPL waivers on him again 7 days later. You can repeat this process as often as you like. But each time you do you have to DFA him.

[JUGGERNAUT]

With regard to KGJ try to understand what that means.

 

If the Reds revoke a ML waiver on KGJ they can not trade him until after Sep 1st in which case he is ineligible to play in the post season.

 

That is why the process of putting him on waivers & trade discussions go hand -in-hand. The Reds not only have to come to terms with the team they want to trade KGJ to but they likewise need an OK from the other GM's. If a GM doesn't give their OK then the Reds have to decide whether to keep KGJ, work a trade with the evil GM or simply dump his contract on the evil GM.

 

For the CWS to get KGJ from the Reds all other GM's must OK the trade.

The one time revoke option is really for the bizarre case where an evil GM gives his word not to block but puts a claim in anyways. Since that would seriously jeopardize the credibility of that GM I would expect such cases are very rare.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I don't know if this helps boost your hope but I do not believe the need for KGJ to clear ML waivers will have any impact on the White Sox getting him.

 

It comes down to the White Sox making an offer the Reds owner can't refuse. It's as simple as that.

 

It makes no sense for the Reds to request ML waivers on KGJ just to dump his contract on another team. They can do that with SPL waivers after the season. With the season he's having they have to weigh the risk of him getting hurt over the next 2 months vs his trade potential for & during the 2006 season.

 

It doesn't help that KGJ played a major role in sweeping the Cubs. The owner is probably feeling pretty good right now.

Edited August 11, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Gene Honda Civic]

4 in a row. That might be a record.

[Dick Allen]

I don't know if this helps boost your hope but I do not believe the need for KGJ to clear ML waivers will have any impact on the White Sox getting him.

 

It comes down to the White Sox making an offer the Reds owner can't refuse.  It's as simple as that. 

 

It makes no sense for the Reds to request ML waivers on KGJ just to dump his contract on another team.  They can do that with SPL waivers after the season.  With the season he's having they have to weigh the risk of him getting hurt over the next 2 months vs his trade potential for & during the 2006 season. 

 

It doesn't help that KGJ played a major role in sweeping the Cubs.  The owner is probably feeling pretty good right now.

The Reds supposedly agreed to trade Griffey for Young, Rogo and a lower prospect. They were also willing to pick up approx. $15 million of what's left on his contract. Now ask yourself, if you were the Reds, would you rather have Young, Rogo and a lower prospect or $15 million. I think I would rather have the $15 million. I don't think the Reds would mind dumping his contract on another team, in fact, if someone claimed him, I think they would be stupid not to let him go. They have enough outfielders, they aren't going to contend for a while. Griffey can get seriously hurt at any moment, his value is not going to get any higher, and this would free up some money to get some pitching. And as great as Griffey was against the Cubs, the owner can't feel too good about being in 5th place in their division.

[RockRaines]

Wow Juggs, what an incredible headache I just got from reading 4 novels in a row and still not getting any clear indication of how you think you were right in the whole argument. Well played