PDA

View Full Version : Twins claim Washburn to block Sox.


Whitesoxfan23
08-14-2008, 05:04 PM
SI.com's Jon Heyman (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/08/14/ibanez.washburn/index.html) says the Twins won the Washburn claim and the Tigers won the Ibanez claim. Interesting on both fronts, but no deals were struck so both players will remain with the Mariners. Heyman says that while the Twins' Washburn claim had the flavor of a blocking move, the two teams did have trade discussions.


Mlbtraderumors.com

areilly
08-14-2008, 05:15 PM
Smart even off the field. Oh, how I hate those Twins.

Whitesoxfan23
08-14-2008, 05:19 PM
I hate them too. More than any other team.

oeo
08-14-2008, 05:20 PM
Smart even off the field. Oh, how I hate those Twins.

That's considered smart? Sounds like common sense to me.

Sox should have dealt for Byrd, anyway.

twentywontowin
08-14-2008, 05:22 PM
Let them have him. They won't win **** anyways.

turners56
08-14-2008, 05:40 PM
Let them have him. They won't win **** anyways.

They probably won't even trade for him, this was just to block a trade to the Sox.

Boondock Saint
08-14-2008, 05:45 PM
If they were really smart, they'd have claimed him, traded for him, then traded him to us for a bag of M&M's. He's a home run waiting to happen, and in the Cell, that's a nightmare.

areilly
08-14-2008, 05:46 PM
Let them have him. They won't win **** anyways.

You don't know that.

EuroSox35
08-14-2008, 06:09 PM
That's considered smart? Sounds like common sense to me.

Sox should have dealt for Byrd, anyway.

So are we dumb for letting the Red Sox get richer?

Am I missing something? Why wouldn't a team like the Sox claim every single player possible? Is there a limit?

TheOldRoman
08-14-2008, 06:18 PM
So are we dumb for letting the Red Sox get richer?

Am I missing something? Why wouldn't a team like the Sox claim every single player possible? Is there a limit?Byrd had cleared waivers already on Saturday when Contreras went down. They would have had no reason to claim him before that. They were free to trade for him, but at that point, Shapiro could trade with anyone. Unless he was getting a top prospect, he isn't going to help his division rivals win another World Series.

And I think it was a dumb move by the Twins. I wish the Mariners would have said "Congratulations, he's yours" and tossed his entire contract to the Twins. Then what would they do, trade Nathan or Morneau in the offseason to make room?

oeo
08-14-2008, 06:23 PM
And I think it was a dumb move by the Twins. I wish the Mariners would have said "Congratulations, he's yours" and tossed his entire contract to the Twins. Then what would they do, trade Nathan or Morneau in the offseason to make room?

He'd probably become an ace for them.

UofCSoxFan
08-14-2008, 07:03 PM
So are we dumb for letting the Red Sox get richer?

Am I missing something? Why wouldn't a team like the Sox claim every single player possible? Is there a limit?

If a team has a player claimed on waivers they can elect to let the player go to the team that claimed him in exchange for $20,000 and the other team would have to take the player and his salary. So there is some risk, especially for guys with crazy contracts.

Zisk77
08-14-2008, 07:21 PM
In a way the twins and tigers blocking Ibanez and washburn may hurt the twins. Now both those players will play the twinks in 2 more series with a potential to stick it up their arses.

TDog
08-14-2008, 08:12 PM
That's considered smart? Sounds like common sense to me.

Sox should have dealt for Byrd, anyway.

I don't believe the Sox could have dealt for Byrd. I also don't see any reason to have blocked him in going to the Red Sox because the pitching situation was different when Byrd cleared waivers. Maybe you're right, though. And maybe the Sox should have picked up Livan Hernandez and Freddy Garcia and held on to Estaban Loaiza.

As for the Twins blocking Washburn from a possible deal to the Sox, it points to the Twins not believing what Kenny Williams said about Washburn in the media (along the same lines as what Williams said about the possibility of not signing Beckham). Fans take such comments far too seriously.

Noneck
08-14-2008, 08:46 PM
Byrd had cleared waivers already on Saturday when Contreras went down. They would have had no reason to claim him before that. They were free to trade for him, but at that point, Shapiro could trade with anyone. Unless he was getting a top prospect, he isn't going to help his division rivals win another World Series.



I know the Sox would have had to claim Byrd before Contreras got hurt and I still don't understand how that would have hurt the Sox. It is probably true Clev would have pulled him back not to help a Division opponent but one never knows unless ones tries and if they do pull him back its a no loss situation. And No One will will be able to convince me that every pitcher currently on the Sox staff is better for a playoff drive than Byrd would be.

TheOldRoman
08-14-2008, 09:45 PM
I know the Sox would have had to claim Byrd before Contreras got hurt and I still don't understand how that would have hurt the Sox. It is probably true Clev would have pulled him back not to help a Division opponent but one never knows unless ones tries and if they do pull him back its a no loss situation. And No One will will be able to convince me that every pitcher currently on the Sox staff is better for a playoff drive than Byrd would be.OK, but 1, you don't know how Byrd would do out the the bullpen since he hasn't had a relief appearance in 7 years, and 2, teams can't just claim players for the hell of it. Wouldn't you expect the Yankees to claim every decent starter on the waiver wire? There is a chance any team will give that player away to unload a contract (see Randy Meyers). It isn't likely the Indians would do that seeing as Byrd is in his last year, but still, you can't throw on $3 million in salary in case someone gets hurt.

102605
08-14-2008, 10:23 PM
If Minny really claimed them than why didn't the Mariners just let them have him for nothing? They would have gotten the salary off the books they wanted too. I don't believe this because of that.

champagne030
08-14-2008, 10:49 PM
Byrd had cleared waivers already on Saturday when Contreras went down. They would have had no reason to claim him before that. They were free to trade for him, but at that point, Shapiro could trade with anyone. Unless he was getting a top prospect, he isn't going to help his division rivals win another World Series.

And I think it was a dumb move by the Twins. I wish the Mariners would have said "Congratulations, he's yours" and tossed his entire contract to the Twins. Then what would they do, trade Nathan or Morneau in the offseason to make room?

I agree that Seattle should've stuck the Twinkies with his contract. I do wish we could've claimed him for the rest of this year and put him in Contreras' spot next year.

pierzynski07
08-14-2008, 11:04 PM
If Minny really claimed them than why didn't the Mariners just let them have him for nothing? They would have gotten the salary off the books they wanted too. I don't believe this because of that.
They want prospects. The Yankees agreed to pay basically the entire contract, but wouldn't offer top-of-the-line prospects.

Jim Shorts
08-18-2008, 10:10 AM
news to me.

http://mlbtr.blogs.sportsline.com/mcc/blogs/view/8691437/1?tag=Minnesota%20Twins

skottyj242
08-18-2008, 10:12 AM
Could it have just been to block us?

spawn
08-18-2008, 10:13 AM
Old news.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=104728

Jim Shorts
08-18-2008, 10:16 AM
Old news.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=104728

Thank you.

Ignore at your leisure.

doublem23
08-18-2008, 10:22 AM
Thank you.

Ignore at your leisure.

:searchfirst: