Jump to content

Phillies dump day onto waiver wire


southsider2k5

Recommended Posts

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal 3m

 

On waivers today: Rest of the relevant #Phillies: Byrd, Papelbon, Rollins, Utley, Hamels, Ruiz. They will clear (or not) on Wednesday.

 

What each of these is owed (assuming that club options are not picked up but vesting options vest):

 

Hamels: $7.5M this year plus $96M from 15-18 (That's a lot of money owed, but he probably gets claimed)

Papelbon: $4.33M this year plus $26M from 15-16 (He might get claimed)

Ruiz: $2.83M this year plus $17.5M from 15-16 (He probably gets claimed)

Byrd: $2.67M this year plus $16M from 15-16 (He almost certainly gets claimed)

Utley: $5M this year plus $12M in 15 (He almost certainly gets claimed)

Rollins: $3.67M this year plus $11M in 15 (He probably gets claimed)

 

So yeah, while all these guys are expensive, for the most part they are producing near, at, or above what they are getting paid. I would think Papelbon has the best chance of clearing waivers. I doubt either gets through the NL, but I don't see any reason the Sox shouldn't put claims on Ruiz and Utley.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 5, 2014 -> 09:33 AM)
What each of these is owed (assuming that club options are not picked up but vesting options vest):

 

Hamels: $7.5M this year plus $96M from 15-18 (That's a lot of money owed, but he probably gets claimed)

Papelbon: $4.33M this year plus $26M from 15-16 (He might get claimed)

Ruiz: $2.83M this year plus $17.5M from 15-16 (He probably gets claimed)

Byrd: $2.67M this year plus $16M from 15-16 (He almost certainly gets claimed)

Utley: $5M this year plus $12M in 15 (He almost certainly gets claimed)

Rollins: $3.67M this year plus $11M in 15 (He probably gets claimed)

 

So yeah, while all these guys are expensive, for the most part they are producing near, at, or above what they are getting paid. I would think Papelbon has the best chance of clearing waivers. I doubt either gets through the NL, but I don't see any reason the Sox shouldn't put claims on Ruiz and Utley.

 

You'd be a fool to claim Papelbon. I wouldn't sign him to a free agent contract equal to what he has left on his deal, so I wouldn't chance claiming him. The rest of them have pretty fair chances at being claimed, the tops being Hamels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 5, 2014 -> 09:08 AM)
I would be shocked if all of them were claimed. And if they were, I would expect you'd see some of those guys go for nothing.

 

I think like half of them have no-trade clauses and all of them that do have publicly shown reluctance to get moved. Otherwise, yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the Phillies will let him go for nothing on waivers, so then technically wouldn't it be trade?

 

Right, if they work out a trade then the NTC comes into play, but if they just let him go for nothing, the NTC does not come into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 5, 2014 -> 10:39 AM)
I could have swore that when the Sox claimed Rios, his NTC didn't matter. (Not sure if the Sox were on it or not)

 

The Sox weren't on it:

limited no-trade clause from 2011 to

end of contract (may block deals to six clubs: Arizona, Colorado,

Houston, Kansas City, NY Yankees, Oakland)

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensa.../texas-rangers/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have this from Purple Row, which is a Rockies blog. The article is a bit dated, so they may have changed it, but I don't know why this would no longer be accurate:

 

Furthermore, a club may not request outright waivers on a player with a complete no-trade clause or on a player ten-and-five rights (10 years of ML service, the last 5 with his current team). The player can, however, waive those rights and accept the trade if it is to his liking. So for instance, the Rockies could only trade Todd Helton were he to accept the trade.

 

http://www.purplerow.com/2009/2/19/762532/...tions-part-thre

 

It doesn't make sense that a player could block a trade to a team (meaning a team wants his services and is willing to give up assets for him) but he couldn't block a waiver claim to a team (meaning a team wants his services and is willing to give up assets for him). There's no way the MLBPA would have allowed for something like that to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from four years ago on MLB Trade Rumors (ugh):

 

3:09pm: A no-trade clause does not necessarily give a player the right to prevent his team from handing him over on waivers, according to an MLB Players Association official who spoke to MLBTR this afternoon. In many cases, a player has a non-assignment clause that would prevent trades and waiver claims. However, not all players with no-trade clauses can prevent their teams from handing them over on waivers.

 

In other words, Damon's ability to prevent the Tigers from handing him to the Red Sox depends on the wording in his contract.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...