PDA

View Full Version : Waiver wire explanation......please


tsamdog
08-08-2005, 11:25 AM
I have heard the explanation of how the waiver wire works from several of the so-called pundit experts....but there seems to be some discrepancies. What I seem to hear is that the only way the Sox can 'negotiate' with a team for a waived player is they are the ONLY team that claims said player, .. AND...since the order goes from worst to first with regard to record, the player would have to clear 29 teams prior the Sox having an OPPORTUNITY to negotiate. If just one other team claims the player, then he is pulled. Is that correct, OR can a team negotiate with ALL teams who claim the player?

voodoochile
08-08-2005, 11:36 AM
For a trade to occur, the player must be unclaimed by all teams. Then they can negotiate with any team.

If a player is claimed, then they can either be pulled back or let go to the team that claims them. Yes, the two teams could work out a deal ("make an offer or we pull him back") and yes, that would go team by team meaning the Sox would get last crack at the player.

Normally if a player gets claimed, the team will pull the player off the wire because they will get a better deal if multiple teams are trying to make a trade.

TornLabrum
08-08-2005, 11:37 AM
I have heard the explanation of how the waiver wire works from several of the so-called pundit experts....but there seems to be some discrepancies. What I seem to hear is that the only way the Sox can 'negotiate' with a team for a waived player is they are the ONLY team that claims said player, .. AND...since the order goes from worst to first with regard to record, the player would have to clear 29 teams prior the Sox having an OPPORTUNITY to negotiate. If just one other team claims the player, then he is pulled. Is that correct, OR can a team negotiate with ALL teams who claim the player?

If a player is claimed by any team while on waivers, the team placing the player on waivers has just two choices. Pull him off or let the other team claim him for the waiver price. (The last I heard it was something like $50,000, iirc.) There is no negotiation in that process.

The negotiation comes in when every team passes on said player. It is then, and only then that a trade can be consummated.

The order is by record starting with the league the player is in. Once it clears that league, it goes to the other league. At least that's how I remember it.

tsamdog
08-08-2005, 11:51 AM
Thanks, VC and TL. I am trying to figure out how KW can get some quality help down the stretch.

I know when the question of Jr. came up in yesterday's game, Hawk didn't see a spot for him. I do. If KW has another shot at him, I hope that he takes it. Jr. is a hall of famer, a great kid (read article about Reds in forum), and has years left in his career (if used as a DH). Sure, his health record may be a risk, but the reward may very well be a ring.

Ol' No. 2
08-08-2005, 11:54 AM
If a player is claimed by any team while on waivers, the team placing the player on waivers has just two choices. Pull him off or let the other team claim him for the waiver price. (The last I heard it was something like $50,000, iirc.) There is no negotiation in that process.

The negotiation comes in when every team passes on said player. It is then, and only then that a trade can be consummated.

The order is by record starting with the league the player is in. Once it clears that league, it goes to the other league. At least that's how I remember it.Actually, I'm pretty sure that the team waiving a player can negotiate a trade with the lowest ranking team claiming a player, even if other, higher-ranking teams put in a claim. This would matter for the White Sox if an AL team waived a player. They could then complete a trade with the White Sox if the Sox put in a claim and no other AL team claimed him, even if a NL team did.

voodoochile
08-08-2005, 11:58 AM
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the team waiving a player can negotiate a trade with the lowest ranking team claiming a player, even if other, higher-ranking teams put in a claim.

Yes, and if they don't come to an agreement, they cannot move to the next team, but must either let the player go for the waiver price and the offer they don't like or pull the player back.

There have been numerous instances in the last few years where lower ranking teams have "blocked" a player from getting through by putting in a claim to prevent a rival team from acquiring the help they want. It didn't used to be that way - more of a gentleman's agreement not to claim players being put through waivers, but the game has changed.

TornLabrum
08-08-2005, 12:03 PM
Here's an explanation from an article regarding transactions by Rob Neyer: http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/transanctionsprimer.html


If a player placed on Major League waivers is not claimed by another team during the three business days after waivers have been requested, then the players is said to have "cleared waivers," and the team has secured waivers for the remainder of the waiver period.

And what does that mean? Essentially, the team can do with the player's contract as it pleases. This generally means one of three things:

(1) They can send him to the minors (subject to his consent, if he's a "Veteran Player," more on that below).

(2) They can release him, which makes the player a free agent and thus available to sign with any team.

(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.

If a player doesn't clear waivers -- in other words, if he's claimed by another team or teams -- the club requesting waivers may withdraw the waiver request.

If the club doesn't withdraw the waiver request, the player's contract is assigned in the following manner:



(A) If only one claim is entered, the player's contract is assigned to that claiming club.

(B) If more than one club in the same league makes claims, the club currently lower in the standings gets the player.

(C) If clubs in both leagues claim the player, preference shall always go to the club in the same league as the club requesting waivers.

Ol' No. 2
08-08-2005, 12:04 PM
Yes, and if they don't come to an agreement, they cannot move to the next team, but must either let the player go for the waiver price and the offer they don't like or pull the player back.

There have been numerous instances in the last few years where lower ranking teams have "blocked" a player from getting through by putting in a claim to prevent a rival team from acquiring the help they want. It didn't used to be that way - more of a gentleman's agreement not to claim players being put through waivers, but the game has changed.And there have also been instances of a team "blocking" a trade, only to find itself unexpectedly stuck with the player. This can be a dangerous tactic.

tsamdog
08-08-2005, 12:06 PM
And there have also been instances of a team "blocking" a trade, only to find itself unexpectedly stuck with the player. This can be a dangerous tactic.

Especially if the player's contract is long term with a lot of 0's....ie..Manny Ramirez two years ago.

Mickster
08-08-2005, 02:21 PM
And there have also been instances of a team "blocking" a trade, only to find itself unexpectedly stuck with the player. This can be a dangerous tactic.

ESPN's favorite expert GM, Steve Phillips, had a blurb in the latest ESPN The Magazine (featuring our beloved Sox). He mentioned that GMs around the league used to only claim a player if they had any interest in trading for them. The other GMs would not claim a player if they knew that another GM was interested in him. That all changed in Phillip's 1st year as the Mets GM wherin he claimed over 150 players (some he was interested in and some to block trades) and the ones that he claimed for the purposes of blocking a trade were done so that he would not get slammed in back page of the NY papers (his quote, not mine). I am shocked that he is still not a GM for some team.

Fredsox
08-08-2005, 03:16 PM
Point of clarification: I claim Player A from Team 1 and we try to work a deal. We select 2 players from my roster that do not have any trade restrictions in their contracts. Do the players I trade TO Team 1 for Player A have to pass through waivers also? Or can I just trade whomever I want?

Flight #24
08-08-2005, 03:20 PM
Point of clarification: I claim Player A from Team 1 and we try to work a deal. We select 2 players from my roster that do not have any trade restrictions in their contracts. Do the players I trade TO Team 1 for Player A have to pass through waivers also? Or can I just trade whomever I want?

Your players would need to have cleared waivers themselves, just like the player you're trying to trade for.

The exception is players that aren't on the 25-man roster (or maybe it's the 40, I forget). Those players are not subject to clearing waivers. Which is why you'll almost always see a waiver trade be a player who's cleared waivers for some prospects who aren't subject to the waiver process.

PorkChopExpress
08-08-2005, 04:54 PM
What confuses me, though, is when the player is a 10-5 player. For instance, say Griffey goes on waivers, and gets claimed by the Yanks. Assuming he did not want to go to New York, does he have the power to say no to New York, and remain on waivers, or do his 10-5 rights extend only to trades?

Fenway
08-08-2005, 05:05 PM
from the Boston Globe

Here's the deal on waiver trades

OK, a brief primer on how waiver deals differ from the kind of trades that could have been made before the July 31 trading deadline:

First of all, guys like Curt Schilling wind up being placed on waivers at this time of the year, which should tell you something about the significance of the names winding up on the waiver wire between now and the Sept. 1 deadline for setting postseason rosters. Dozens of players get placed on waivers, in part to help teams mask which players they are trying to get through waivers so they can be traded.

If a player is placed on waivers and isn't claimed by any team, he can be traded until the end of the month to anyone. If a player is claimed by one team, the player can be traded only to that team that claims him. If a player is claimed by more than one team, the claiming club with the worst record in that player's league is the team to which the player can be traded. If a player is claimed only by teams in the other league, the claiming club with the worst record in the other league is the only team that can trade for him.

If a deal can't be worked out or the team doesn't want to trade that player, he can be pulled back off waivers once in August. If he is placed on waivers again before September, he can't be recalled a second time. And if a team is just looking to dump a player, it can allow the team that claimed that player to keep him for a small waiver fee.

The danger during the waiver period is to claim a high-salaried player you don't really want, but one you don't want to get to your rivals, and you wind up stuck with him. That happened with the Padres and reliever Randy Myers in 1998.

http://www.boston.com/sports/articles/2005/08/07/union_should_join_the_fight/?page=full

Ol' No. 2
08-08-2005, 05:15 PM
What confuses me, though, is when the player is a 10-5 player. For instance, say Griffey goes on waivers, and gets claimed by the Yanks. Assuming he did not want to go to New York, does he have the power to say no to New York, and remain on waivers, or do his 10-5 rights extend only to trades?10-5 rights apply to waivers as well as trades.

Flight #24
08-08-2005, 05:16 PM
What confuses me, though, is when the player is a 10-5 player. For instance, say Griffey goes on waivers, and gets claimed by the Yanks. Assuming he did not want to go to New York, does he have the power to say no to New York, and remain on waivers, or do his 10-5 rights extend only to trades?

Good question. I wonder if there's a way to get around the 10-5 deal. Let's say the Reds waive a player, we'll call him Ben Kriffey, Sr., he gets claimed by the Yankees and a trade is worked out but Mr. Kriffey doesn't want to go and invokes his 10-5 rights.

So an agreement is reached whereby an extremely low level prospect is traded along with some cash from the Reds to the Yankees for the prospects they were supposed to give up for Mr. Kriffey. The Reds then let Kriffey go on waivers to the Yankees.

I suppose the commish could kibosh this because of the cash, but if they can work the prospects such that the team assumes the whole contract, is there any way the player could block such a transaction?

PorkChopExpress
08-08-2005, 05:24 PM
10-5 rights apply to waivers as well as trades.

So does that mean if a 10-5 player wanted to come to the best team in baseball, he could conceivably decline a deal to every other team that claims him until he makes it to the Sox?

Mickster
08-08-2005, 05:28 PM
So does that mean if a 10-5 player wanted to come to the best team in baseball, he could conceivably decline a deal to every other team that claims him until he makes it to the Sox?

Nope. If Griffey were claimed by Seattle, for instance, Seattle would be able to try to work out a deal for him. Assuming that a deal is worked out and Griffey uses his 10-5 veto to nix the deal, Cincinnati would either have to give up Griffey for nothing, or pull him back off of waivers making him unavailable to all of the remaining teams.

PorkChopExpress
08-08-2005, 05:38 PM
Thanks everyone. I looooove this board.

MisterB
08-08-2005, 06:19 PM
Nope. If Griffey were claimed by Seattle, for instance, Seattle would be able to try to work out a deal for him. Assuming that a deal is worked out and Griffey uses his 10-5 veto to nix the deal, Cincinnati would either have to give up Griffey for nothing, or pull him back off of waivers making him unavailable to all of the remaining teams.

Actually (if I'm reading the CBA right) in the above situation, if Griffey exercised his 5-and-10 rights there's no way winds up with Seattle by waiver claim or trade. At that point the Reds either revoke the waivers or release him outright, thereby making him a free agent (with the Reds on the hook for the rest of his current contract).

Ol' No. 2
08-08-2005, 06:49 PM
Actually (if I'm reading the CBA right) in the above situation, if Griffey exercised his 5-and-10 rights there's no way winds up with Seattle by waiver claim or trade. At that point the Reds either revoke the waivers or release him outright, thereby making him a free agent (with the Reds on the hook for the rest of his current contract).That's the way I read it, too. The language the CBA uses is "assignment of contract" which means that the contract is transferred to another team. Players with 10-5 rights can veto any assignment of their contract to another team, however it comes about. An outright release is not an assignment of the contract, since the team still has to pay him.

FredManrique
08-08-2005, 11:21 PM
Actually (if I'm reading the CBA right) in the above situation, if Griffey exercised his 5-and-10 rights there's no way winds up with Seattle by waiver claim or trade. At that point the Reds either revoke the waivers or release him outright, thereby making him a free agent (with the Reds on the hook for the rest of his current contract).

I thought we were talking about Ben Kriffey...

tsamdog
08-10-2005, 09:19 AM
Your players would need to have cleared waivers themselves, just like the player you're trying to trade for.

The exception is players that aren't on the 25-man roster (or maybe it's the 40, I forget). Those players are not subject to clearing waivers. Which is why you'll almost always see a waiver trade be a player who's cleared waivers for some prospects who aren't subject to the waiver process.

Jayson Stark on 'Mike and Mike' just clarified this particular waiver point. Greenie brought up Ken Griffey as an example, wondering if he would be traded this month. He mentioned that the Sox were interested earlier and was curious if that particular deal would be possible now through waivers.

Stark stated that the Griffey deal was a 'prospect' trade, and that there is no way, in his opinion, that the Sox prospects involved would clear waivers. Consequently, it may be the 40 man roster that is involved, or it may be anyone in the system that would be involved. So, it's not just the big names that will come across....it's the big prospects, too.

Ol' No. 2
08-10-2005, 10:11 AM
Jayson Stark on 'Mike and Mike' just clarified this particular waiver point. Greenie brought up Ken Griffey as an example, wondering if he would be traded this month. He mentioned that the Sox were interested earlier and was curious if that particular deal would be possible now through waivers.

Stark stated that the Griffey deal was a 'prospect' trade, and that there is no way, in his opinion, that the Sox prospects involved would clear waivers. Consequently, it may be the 40 man roster that is involved, or it may be anyone in the system that would be involved. So, it's not just the big names that will come across....it's the big prospects, too.Only players on the 40-man roster must clear waivers. Since many of a team's top prospects are on the 40-man roster, this applies to them.

tsamdog
08-10-2005, 11:11 AM
Only players on the 40-man roster must clear waivers. Since many of a team's top prospects are on the 40-man roster, this applies to them.

Which will make it very difficult to even get a sniff of a marquis player....unless it's a cash deal, or a big contract for bigger contract swap. I just don't see it happening.

Ol' No. 2
08-10-2005, 01:55 PM
Which will make it very difficult to even get a sniff of a marquis player....unless it's a cash deal, or a big contract for bigger contract swap. I just don't see it happening.There are lots of good prospects not on the 40-man roster. Anderson, Sweeney and Young to name a few.

Flight #24
08-10-2005, 02:17 PM
There are lots of good prospects not on the 40-man roster. Anderson, Sweeney and Young to name a few.

Yet another reason why you don't see guys like that called up earlier in the year. Makes it easier to trade them if necessary after the deadline.

tsamdog
08-10-2005, 03:14 PM
There are lots of good prospects not on the 40-man roster. Anderson, Sweeney and Young to name a few.

Where would our 40 man roster be located? Excuse my ignorance; I just assumed those names would have been included. Now, I see why they are not.

Ol' No. 2
08-10-2005, 03:30 PM
Where would our 40 man roster be located? Excuse my ignorance; I just assumed those names would have been included. Now, I see why they are not.It's on the Sox website.

tsamdog
08-10-2005, 03:34 PM
It's on the Sox website.

Thanks #2....bouncing back and forth between MLB (the game) and the 'Sock (the truth). Let me peruse this roster of ours....