southsider2k5 Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Unless RAJ's asking prices changed, it looks like none of these guy will move. They'll all get claimed though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Aug 5, 2014 -> 08:07 AM) Unless RAJ's asking prices changed, it looks like none of these guy will move. They'll all get claimed though. You think they'll get claimed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Hey y'all, take my overpriced underperforming veterans off my hands please. thx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 5, 2014 Author Share Posted August 5, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 5, 2014 -> 07:19 AM) You think they'll get claimed? Those guys? Yeah. Maybe not Papelbon. No Ryan Howards in that list, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 5, 2014 -> 06:19 AM) You think they'll get claimed? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 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. Shouldn't the Sox be willing to give Ruiz $17.5M from 15-16 and/or Utley $12M in 15? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 I would gladly claim Utley, but Utley is going to get claimed and Phils won't let him walk for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 We need to claim Ruiz, even if he's older. Doubt he makes it to us though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 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. I don't think a NTC can block a waiver claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 5, 2014 -> 10:14 AM) I don't think a NTC can block a waiver claim. I don't think the Phillies will let him go for nothing on waivers, so then technically wouldn't it be trade? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 5, 2014 -> 10:14 AM) I don't think a NTC can block a waiver claim. I believe it can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 5, 2014 -> 10:35 AM) I believe it can. 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 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/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 No trade doesn't matter in a straight waiver claim, if it turns into a trade, then it matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 5, 2014 -> 11:34 AM) This is from four years ago on MLB Trade Rumors (ugh): So it's a case by case basis. That makes more sense and none of us were wrong. Today is a great victory for Soxtalk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Supposedly the Cubs put in the line waiver claim on Cole Hamels... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Aug 7, 2014 -> 08:42 AM) Supposedly the Cubs put in the line waiver claim on Cole Hamels... It's a good move. Nothing likely to come from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 7, 2014 -> 08:45 AM) It's a good move. Nothing likely to come from it. I agree, but if they were negotiating a deal, just wonder what the Phils would ask back 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.