kapkomet Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Like I said, it's time to part ways with glass boy, the first version. Up next? Glass boy, the revenge (Grinderstad). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 10, 2007 -> 07:41 AM) Well, ESPN via AM 1000 was the reported source. That's as official as it has gotten. ??? QUOTE(The Critic @ Aug 10, 2007 -> 07:41 AM) I heard it on Chicago Baseball Tonight on AM 1000 and on the radio cast of the Cub game last night. They also claimed Shannon Stewart and Casey Blake, and Hendry's trying to work a deal for any of them. The Stewart deal doesn't appear to be happening, from what Levine was saying last night. OK, it is just odd that only one source has been reporting it for so long without anyone else picking it up. Maybe that will happen today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 QUOTE(RME JICO @ Aug 10, 2007 -> 08:46 AM) OK, it is just odd that only one source has been reporting it for so long without anyone else picking it up. Maybe that will happen today. Waiver claims never seem to get as much attention because so much has to happen for a trade to be completed. I think the newspapers and AP would rather wait and report on a trade rather than report every waiver claim(apparently there are a lot of them) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwolf68 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 If we get anyone above A ball that is less than 25 years old I will consider it a successful move. Williams got nothing but low minors fodder for Mack and Gooch and Pods is certainly no better than Gooch, and it's debateble if he's better than Mack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Make the trade and who cares if it helps them. Some people still roast the Sox for the Sosa trade and vice versa for Garland. Everyone will get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchtower41 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 (edited) I'd like to think Murton is actually obtainable here. The Cubs are really desperate for a sparkplug... Edited August 10, 2007 by watchtower41 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 QUOTE(watchtower41 @ Aug 10, 2007 -> 10:27 AM) I'd like to think Murton is actually obtainable here. The Cubs are really desperate for a sparkplug... He would have to clear waivers up to at least the Sox, which is unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 QUOTE(Felix @ Aug 10, 2007 -> 09:34 AM) He would have to clear waivers up to at least the Sox, which is unlikely. Just out of curiousity...could they trade him for a PTBNL...wait 'til the offseason...and then have Murton, or anyone who didn't make it through waivers, be that player? Or is that not possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwolf68 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Why does Murton have to clear waivers? The Cubs didn't put him on waivers...the Sox put Pods there and by rule the Cubs can now acquire Pods since no one else claimed him. I never heard that the player traded for the waived player also has to clear waivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Aug 10, 2007 -> 09:43 AM) Why does Murton have to clear waivers? The Cubs didn't put him on waivers...the Sox put Pods there and by rule the Cubs can now acquire Pods since no one else claimed him. I never heard that the player traded for the waived player also has to clear waivers. If he didn't have to be put on waivers, then what's the point of the waiver deadline at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 If we can get any type of young player at all, we should make the deal. It would either allow for Erstad to take over his role which I suppose is the lesser of 2 evils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Aug 10, 2007 -> 09:43 AM) Why does Murton have to clear waivers? The Cubs didn't put him on waivers...the Sox put Pods there and by rule the Cubs can now acquire Pods since no one else claimed him. I never heard that the player traded for the waived player also has to clear waivers. The rules are incredibly basic, if a player is on the 40 man roster he needs to clear waivers before he can be dealt. That's why they call July 31st the "Non-Waiver" trade deadline. The only players that can be traded without first passing through waivers are those players not on the 40 man roster. Murton is on the Cubs 40. When it comes to Podsednik to the Cubs I want something for him. If we're going to be helping out a desperate team trying to make a playoff push I want something of value in return. If the Cubs want to give up Single-A fodder then hold onto Podsednik and non-tender him at season's end. I'm not just going to give him away to a desperate playoff contender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Aug 10, 2007 -> 08:43 AM) Why does Murton have to clear waivers? The Cubs didn't put him on waivers...the Sox put Pods there and by rule the Cubs can now acquire Pods since no one else claimed him. I never heard that the player traded for the waived player also has to clear waivers. You are correct. If he wasn't put on waivers, he doesn't have to clear them. Not everyone is put on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 10, 2007 -> 08:56 AM) The rules are incredibly basic, if a player is on the 40 man roster he needs to clear waivers before he can be dealt. That's why they call July 31st the "Non-Waiver" trade deadline. The only players that can be traded without first passing through waivers are those players not on the 40 man roster. Murton is on the Cubs 40. When it comes to Podsednik to the Cubs I want something for him. If we're going to be helping out a desperate team trying to make a playoff push I want something of value in return. If the Cubs want to give up Single-A fodder then hold onto Podsednik and non-tender him at season's end. I'm not just going to give him away to a desperate playoff contender. The link provided earlier this week was clear that not all players MUST be put on waivers. IIRC YASNY posted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capn12 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Oh...so torn!! I would be the first person to help pack up Pods stuff if it meant he was traded, but then...what do I do with my avatar and nickname? Retire them and be sad! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 If this went through he would probably pull a groin driving over to Wrigley for his first game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 10, 2007 -> 09:56 AM) The rules are incredibly basic, if a player is on the 40 man roster he needs to clear waivers before he can be dealt. That's why they call July 31st the "Non-Waiver" trade deadline. The only players that can be traded without first passing through waivers are those players not on the 40 man roster. Murton is on the Cubs 40. When it comes to Podsednik to the Cubs I want something for him. If we're going to be helping out a desperate team trying to make a playoff push I want something of value in return. If the Cubs want to give up Single-A fodder then hold onto Podsednik and non-tender him at season's end. I'm not just going to give him away to a desperate playoff contender. I personally wouldn't care if we gave him away. Why hold onto someone that you don't plan onto holding yourself, that you won't be getting compensation for anyway and that won't be helping a division rival? Might as well start clearing house so you could let the young guys play. Hell, I'd throw Erstad on waivers too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan3530 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Question: Could the Cubs take Murton off the 40-man now or does he have to be in the minors when the player is picked up? Im guessing the latter but just thought i would ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 I just found this quick on Wiki. It doesn't state that everyone is or is not placed on them. I'm sure one of you guys can find something better and more detailed, but it was my understanding that being put on waivers is not mandatory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_...ll_transactions Waivers Any player under contract may be placed on waivers at any time. If a player is waived, any team may claim him. If more than one team claims the player from waivers, the team with the lowest record in the player's league gets preference. If no team in the player's league claims him, the claiming team with the lowest record in the other league gets preference. In the first month of the season, preference is determined using the previous year's standings. If a team claims a player off waivers and has the viable claim as described above, his current team (the "waiving team") may choose one of the following options: arrange a trade with the claiming team for that player within two business days of the claim; or rescind the request and keep the player on its major league roster, effectively canceling the waiver; or do nothing and allow the claiming team to (1) assume the player's existing contract, (2) pay the waiving team a waiver fee, and (3) place the player on its active major league roster. If a player is claimed and the waiving team exercises its rescission option, the waiving team may not use the option again for that player in that season. If no team claims a player from waivers in three business days, the player has cleared waivers and may be assigned to a minor league team, traded, or released outright. The waiver "wire" is a secret within the personnel of the Major League Baseball clubs; no announcement of a waiver is made until a transaction actually occurs. Many players are often quietly waived during the August "waiver-required" trading period to gauge trade interest in a particular player. Usually, when the player is claimed, the waiving team will rescind the waiver to avoid losing the player unless a trade can be worked out with the claiming team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 10, 2007 -> 10:00 AM) The link provided earlier this week was clear that not all players MUST be put on waivers. IIRC YASNY posted it. From the Transaction Primer Yasny posted: (3) They can trade him to another team, even if the so-called "trading deadline" has passed. Any trades made after July 31 may only involve players who have cleared waivers. It would make no sense for Murton to NOT have to clear waivers, it would defeat the purpose of the Non-Waiver Deadline. Murton could be traded to the Sox as a PTBNL to be sent at season's end which is made possible since the Cubs are in the NL and the Sox are in the AL. That's the only way he wouldn't have to clear waivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 10, 2007 -> 09:12 AM) From the Transaction Primer Yasny posted: It would make no sense for Murton to NOT have to clear waivers, it would defeat the purpose of the Non-Waiver Deadline. Murton could be traded to the Sox as a PTBNL to be sent at season's end which is made possible since the Cubs are in the NL and the Sox are in the AL. That's the only way he wouldn't have to clear waivers. It would make perfect sense if he did not have to be placed on waivers - which I was obviously wrong about. Someone alert the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29andPoplar Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Question: Could the Cubs take Murton off the 40-man now or does he have to be in the minors when the player is picked up? Im guessing the latter but just thought i would ask. The only way the Cubs can get Murton off the 40 man (which they won't do) is to: 1. place him on waivers 2. Murton clears waivers 3. the Cubs decide to outright him to the minor leagues It is the same scenario in which the White Sox outrighted Casey Rogowski off the 40 man roster earlier this year. The Sox put him on waivers, no team claimed him, and the Sox outrighted his contract to Charlotte. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 QUOTE(soxfan3530 @ Aug 10, 2007 -> 10:09 AM) Question: Could the Cubs take Murton off the 40-man now or does he have to be in the minors when the player is picked up? Im guessing the latter but just thought i would ask. In order for Murton to be taken off the 40 man he'd have to first pass through waivers. So either way he's going to have to make it through waivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 10, 2007 -> 03:17 PM) It would make perfect sense if he did not have to be placed on waivers - which I was obviously wrong about. Someone alert the media. This will be the first and last time we ever see these words on Soxtalk from Steff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwolf68 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 OK, so Murton probably isn't an option here. In the end, does anyone think we'd bring in a viable major league player for Pods? We got low A-ball players (one old) for Mack and Gooch. I fully expect to bring in something similiar there. These ideas of getting Murton or Cedeno are ridiculous in light of the fact we didn't get jackcrap for the other guys and Pods isn't exactly the greatest player who ever laced them up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.