Sox need Griffey, NOW!

[JUGGERNAUT]

The PTBNL cannot be on the 40 man roster.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Two ?: How can Martinez be claimed off of waivers from MIL & never be added to STL 40 man roster? Where did you read that the PTBNL cannot be on the 40 man roster?

Edited August 18, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[AirScott]

Is Pods causing Dye to hit below 200 in August or Crede to hit below .140. 

 

Pods is responsible for Timo playing at that is it. 

 

Uribe and Crede killing rallies last night was the reason for the loss.  They were walking Arow like he was barry bonds to get to the blackhole of the lineup.

 

URIBE POPS IT UP on the first pitch!!!!!!!!!!!!

CREDE POPS IT UP!!!!!!!

Uribe's been a better hitter recently. he took a walk from Radke, and Radke has about as many walks as wins. but Crede and Uribe is a blackhole, Ozzie should at least put Anderson between them.

 

as for Griffey, I'd say bring him in as a replacement for Thomas' bat. and put him in LF, and DH Pods. then play Carl like he would have had Thomas stayed healthy. now the hurdle is acquiring Griffey, which JR and KW should do everything in their power to do, whether they have to pay Griffey everything he's owed.

[YASNY]

Two ?:  How can Martinez be claimed off of waivers from MIL & never be added to STL 40 man roster?  Where did you read that the PTBNL cannot be on the 40 man roster?

 

It's all over Soxtalk. I'm not going to search for it.

[YASNY]

Two ?:  How can Martinez be claimed off of waivers from MIL & never be added to STL 40 man roster?  Where did you read that the PTBNL cannot be on the 40 man roster?

 

What does question one have to do with a PTBNL?

[JUGGERNAUT]

Check the transaction logs. The 3 mlers involved in the Walker trade were Busch, Novescon, & Martinez. If you find purchased contract that means they were not on the 40 man roster to start the season. If you find called up that means they were on the 40 man roster at the start.

 

Again I think it's much more a question of $$$ than talent. The Sox don't seem willing to take on any more than a 1/3rd of what he's owed before 2009. The Reds want them to take on substantially more (at least 2/3rds if not the whole thing). The Sox have at least as many chips to deal with as STL did. Maybe the losing streak will change things.

[YASNY]

Uribe's been a better hitter recently.  he took a walk from Radke, and Radke has about as many walks as wins.  but Crede and Uribe is a blackhole, Ozzie should at least put Anderson between them.

 

as for Griffey, I'd say bring him in as a replacement for Thomas' bat.  and put him in LF, and DH Pods.  then play Carl like he would have had Thomas stayed healthy.  now the hurdle is acquiring Griffey, which JR and KW should do everything in their power to do, whether they have to pay Griffey everything he's owed.

 

That Uribe walk was the first Sox hitter walked by Radke in his last 12 starts against us.

[JUGGERNAUT]

What does question one have to do with a PTBNL?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because if Martinez signed a ML contract after being claimed off waivers from MIL then he was added to the 40 man roster. Optioning him to AAA doesn't change that. He was definitely one of the PTBNL in the Walker trade in Aug, 2004.

[YASNY]

How can Martinez be claimed off of waivers from MIL & never be added to STL 40 man roster? 

 

Because if Martinez signed a ML contract after being claimed off waivers from MIL then he was added to the 40 man roster.

 

Which is it?

[JUGGERNAUT]

I found it.

 

Mar, 2004 STL Optioned LHP Luis Martinez, LHP Chris Narveson to Triple-A Memphis

 

You only option players signed to a ML deal to the mls. When a player is signed to a ML deal he is added to the 40 man roster.

 

If he had no option years left then he would have had to clear OR waivers.

He had at least 1 option year left so that wasn't necc.

 

Both of these players were on STL 40 man roster. They were the PsTBNL in the Walker trade. They both had option years remaining. It was more than likely they had first reported to a ML club in either 2003, or 2002 & STL did not have to secure ML waivers on them before including them in the trade.

Edited August 18, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[YASNY]

Ok ... I'm bowing out of this discussion. I was reading Your waiver discussion over in trade winds and now my head is spinning.

[YASNY]

I stand corrected.

 

Quite often, you'll read that a player has been traded to another team for "a player to be named later."

 

There are two restrictions at work here. First, the transaction must be completed within six months. And second, the player named later can't have played in the same league as the team he's being traded to. That's why the player named later is almost always a minor leaguer.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The part that had my head spinning was how does a player get charged for an option year in a year he doesn't report to a ML club?

 

It's got to have something to do with waiver seasons for the off-season & ST. If you are on the 40 man roster in ST & get optioned to the ml's that costs you an option year even though you might never report to the ML club in the course of the season.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/transact...ar=2005&month=3

You can see all the players like Borchard for which this happened.

 

As for BMac his first option year was spent when he optioned back to AAA on 5/27. He has 2 yrs remaining.

[YASNY]

The part that had my head spinning was how does a player get charged for an option year in a year he doesn't report to a ML club?

 

It's got to have something to do with waiver seasons for the off-season & ST. If you are on the 40 man roster in ST & get optioned to the ml's that costs you an option year even though you might never report to the ML club in the course of the season. 

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/transact...ar=2005&month=3

You can see all the players like Borchard for which this happened.

 

As for BMac his first option year was spent when he optioned back to AAA on 5/27.  He has 2 yrs remaining.

 

I believe what is in bold print answers your question.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I believe what is in bold print answers your question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Right. But you just opened another question box. Can a team really take up to 6 months to complete a PTBNL trade during the ML waiver period (Aug 1-Oct 2)?

 

I found a cool site in the mean-time:

http://www.mlb4u.com/rumors.html

 

Somehow this site is tuned into players being discussed in trade talk around MLB & who shows up on waivers & such. It seems to get updated daily.

[Kalapse]

Right.  But you just opened another question box.  Can a team really take up to 6 months to complete a PTBNL trade during the ML waiver period (Aug 1-Oct 2)?

 

I found a cool site in the mean-time:

http://www.mlb4u.com/rumors.html

 

Somehow this site is tuned into players being discussed in trade talk around MLB & who shows up on waivers & such.  It seems to get updated daily.

That's quite possibly the best MLB site on the net. The players that have been rumored in trades is pretty much bulls***, they've been adding players to the same list for the past 3 months.

[YASNY]

Right.  But you just opened another question box.  Can a team really take up to 6 months to complete a PTBNL trade during the ML waiver period (Aug 1-Oct 2)?

 

I found a cool site in the mean-time:

http://www.mlb4u.com/rumors.html

 

Somehow this site is tuned into players being discussed in trade talk around MLB & who shows up on waivers & such.  It seems to get updated daily.

 

That quote of mine was from Rob Neyer's transaction primer. Apparently, a team CAN take up to 6 months to complete a transaction.

[JUGGERNAUT]

That quote of mine was from Rob Neyer's transaction primer.  Apparently, a team CAN take up to 6 months to complete a transaction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It appears your right. I found two other sources. Does same league mean NL/AL or just major league? Neyer also says you can include players currently on the DL as PTBNL.

 

In any case it sounds like the CWS & Reds could structure this using PTBNL to skirt the ML waiver period. The Reds wouldn't get the players they want until Oct but they'll probably like that idea because they'll save a few more bucks that way. It sure would solve their 4 OF dilemma which is sure to get worse in Sept.

 

Neyer also goes on to say that when the two teams can't agree on the PTBNL cash can be used instead.

 

So it seems like it's just a $$$ issue then. Maybe desperation will loosen the purse strings.

[SouthsideNorthsideFan]

this is the best chance the Sox have had to getting to a World Series in 86 years.

 

 

 

It's been 46 years. And their best chance at this point was in 1983.

[moochpuppy]

Better late than never.

[kapkomet]

Better late than never.

I was wondering who was going to dig this up.

 

[DABearSoX]

<!--QuoteBegin-moochpuppy+Aug 17, 2005 -> 10:33 AM-->

<!--QuoteEBegin-->this is the best chance the Sox have had to getting to a World Series in 86 years.

 

 

 

It's been 46 years. And their best chance at this point was in 1983.

 

 

Well, this guy was wrong...

[elrockinMT]

Well, this guy was wrong...

 

Just hindsight

[BamaDoc]

I was wondering who was going to dig this up.

 

 

But where would he play?......green

[DBAHO]

Ha I was defending Pods in this thread 3 years ago.

 

How things have changed.

[southsider2k5]

The Mooch-man! Good to see you again!