PDA

View Full Version : Waiver Wire


getonbckthr
07-31-2006, 06:12 PM
Can someone explain the waiver wire to me? I have heard many explanations none of which made any sense to me. Here is what I believe happens on August 1st, every ball player is placed on waivers. Worst team has 1st dibs, best team has worst. Once you claim a player the players team can pull him back, trade him or sell him. Here's my question does the list update everyday based upon records or is the record on August 1st the priority list for the whole month? Also lets say the Sox claim Soriano and we complete a deal with Washington are we free to trade him then if we want to whoever, is he eligible to be claimed again, or is his movement completed for the month? Finally at what point do players clear waivers, and when they do are open trades once again available? I wish they would just go with a deadline of August 31st instead of this waiver crap.

Scottiehaswheels
07-31-2006, 06:16 PM
Thanks for asking... my memory is a bit fuzzy on some of those things too

BNLSox
07-31-2006, 06:18 PM
A lot of the waiver world is still unclear to me but I understand that GM's can and often do put their entire roster out there just to see what they can get. If anyone claims the player the GM is able to pull the player back. If the player goes unclaimed then and only then can trade talks between the teams begin.

In terms of waiver order I believe if you get a player off waivers you drop to the bottom of the priority list not unlike fantasy sports. I am not sure what the initial order is based on and how often it changes if at all.

Ol' No. 2
07-31-2006, 06:26 PM
Can someone explain the waiver wire to me? I have heard many explanations none of which made any sense to me. Here is what I believe happens on August 1st, every ball player is placed on waivers. Worst team has 1st dibs, best team has worst. Once you claim a player the players team can pull him back, trade him or sell him. Here's my question does the list update everyday based upon records or is the record on August 1st the priority list for the whole month? Also lets say the Sox claim Soriano and we complete a deal with Washington are we free to trade him then if we want to whoever, is he eligible to be claimed again, or is his movement completed for the month? Finally at what point do players clear waivers, and when they do are open trades once again available? I wish they would just go with a deadline of August 31st instead of this waiver crap.Teams can choose to put players on waivers or not. Not every player is waived. Once a waiver is listed, teams have a specified time (72 hr??) to claim him. If multiple claims are made, priority goes in reverse order of record and with the waiving team's league getting priority (i.e. if Soriano got waived, all NL teams would get priority over any AL team). I believe it's based on the record on the day the player is waived. If a player is claimed, the waiving team has 72 hr to either conclude a trade with that team or pull the player off waivers. You can only put a player on revocable waivers once in each month. If no claim is made, the player can be traded to any team.

Personally, I wish they'd move the non-waiver deadline UP a month.

BNLSox
07-31-2006, 06:30 PM
Personally, I wish they'd move the non-waiver deadline UP a month.

AMEN!!! Although in theory the current system lets a lot more fans stay interested longer. Now with some of these races you can keep a bulk of fans believeing into September.

Thanks for clearing up some of the finer points of a very strange system!

getonbckthr
07-31-2006, 06:36 PM
Teams can choose to put players on waivers or not. Not every player is waived. Once a waiver is listed, teams have a specified time (72 hr??) to claim him. If multiple claims are made, priority goes in reverse order of record and with the waiving team's league getting priority (i.e. if Soriano got waived, all NL teams would get priority over any AL team). I believe it's based on the record on the day the player is waived. If a player is claimed, the waiving team has 72 hr to either conclude a trade with that team or pull the player off waivers. You can only put a player on revocable waivers once in each month. If no claim is made, the player can be traded to any team.

Personally, I wish they'd move the non-waiver deadline UP a month.
Thank you for the explanation

bluestar
07-31-2006, 06:43 PM
If a player is waived, any team may claim the player. If more than one team claims the player, the team with the worst record within the same league as that team gets preference. If no team in that team's league claims the player, the claiming team with the worst record in the other league gets preference.

If a team claims a player off waivers, the team on which the player currently plays has three options: 1.) arrange a trade with the claiming team within two business days of the claim 2.) remove the player from waivers and keep him on their roster 3.) do nothing and let the other team pay a waiver fee and take over the player's existing contract at which point the player becomes a member of the claiming team.

If a player is claimed off waivers and the original team removes the player from waivers, the right to take the player off waivers cannot be used again. In other words, the original team can still waive the player again, but they would not be able to rescind the waiver.

A player clears waivers in three business days if no one claims the player. If a player clears waivers, they can be traded to any team of the original team's choosing.

EDIT: I'm slow.

Ol' No. 2
07-31-2006, 07:09 PM
Teams can and do make trades after the non-waiver deadline every year. Larry Walker was traded from the Rockies to the Cardinals in 2004 only a few days after the deadline. Typically, only players with big salaries can pass through waivers. Obviously, if the Sox put someone like Brandon McCarthy through waivers, pretty much every team would put in a waiver claim.

Teams can also put in a claim to block a rival from acquiring a player. This can be risky business. In 1998 the Padres put in a waiver claim on Randy Myers to prevent the Braves from getting him. They expected the Blue Jays to pull him back. Oops. The Jays said "he's yours" along with $13.5M left on his contract. The Pads wound up paying him that for 21 mostly putrid outings that season.

bluestar
07-31-2006, 07:29 PM
I believe Garland, Buehrle, Garcia and Pods all cleared waivers last year for the Sox. El Duque, Politte, and Marte were all waived and claimed by someone and the Sox rescinded the waiver. Also, Griffey Jr. cleared waivers last year, which was the reason discussions about the Sox trading for him continued right up to the final deadline.

whitesoxfan1986
07-31-2006, 08:21 PM
Vazquez needs to go on waivers. I think Kenny should see what he could get.
I liked the Vazquez trade when it happened. Every time he pitched against us the line was 7-8 IP, 4-7 H 0-2 ER 9-12 K. I thought that Coop could make him pitch like that all the time. He just plain sucks. I know for a fact that he hasn't had more than 7 K in a game this season. I was expecting AT LEAST 6-8 K as a normal start by this point in the season. I watched a couple of his starts against the Braves and Cubs last year and aside from the first game of the season, he was in a medium between the games against us and the suckage that he is displaying as a member of the Sox. He wasn't hanging the curveball or slider at all, and he was using the changeup more often. It seems that coming to the Sox made him worse, not better.

ilsox7
07-31-2006, 08:28 PM
Vazquez needs to go on waivers. I think Kenny should see what he could get.
I liked the Vazquez trade when it happened. Every time he pitched against us the line was 7-8 IP, 4-7 H 0-2 ER 9-12 K. I thought that Coop could make him pitch like that all the time. He just plain sucks. I know for a fact that he hasn't had more than 7 K in a game this season. I was expecting AT LEAST 6-8 K as a normal start by this point in the season. I watched a couple of his starts against the Braves and Cubs last year and aside from the first game of the season, he was in a medium between the games against us and the suckage that he is displaying as a member of the Sox. He wasn't hanging the curveball or slider at all, and he was using the changeup more often. It seems that coming to the Sox made him worse, not better.

Just curious: what'd you think of Contreras last May? Chances are they give Coop a full year with Javy, unless they can get a better deal for him instead of MB or FG after the season.

whitesoxfan1986
07-31-2006, 10:29 PM
Just curious: what'd you think of Contreras last May? Chances are they give Coop a full year with Javy, unless they can get a better deal for him instead of MB or FG after the season.
I am all for giving Vazquez more time to get himself together, as I was with Jose. I am just saying that KW needs to see what is on the market, and if it will help the club.

Ol' No. 2
07-31-2006, 11:07 PM
I am all for giving Vazquez more time to get himself together, as I was with Jose. I am just saying that KW needs to see what is on the market, and if it will help the club.I don't think there's any question Vazquez will be put through waivers. At his salary it's unlikely anyone will put in a claim, and if they do, it can't hurt to see what they're offering. In fact, probably half the team will be put on waivers. Often teams will flood the waiver wire to disguise their true intentions.

TDog
08-01-2006, 05:21 AM
It used to be courtesy to let players go through waivers when teams are trying to make deals. Maybe it still is to some degree. Of course, it shouldn't be, but a veteran headed to a contender is usually left alone for reasons that don't always seem to concern salary.

The 1970 White Sox claimed Steve Hamilton off waivers from the going-nowhere Yankees in September. The Sox, playing out a 106-loss season, were loudly criticized. Hamilton got into three games, faced 14 hitters and publicly slammed the organization whenever anyone from the media was within earshot. After the Sox announced the 1971 red-pinstripe uniforms, Hamilton found the ear of a reporter from Look magazine. "They're taking the names off the uniforms for our protection," he said.

The Sox traded him in March 1971.

bluestar
08-01-2006, 09:41 AM
It used to be courtesy to let players go through waivers when teams are trying to make deals. Maybe it still is to some degree. Of course, it shouldn't be, but a veteran headed to a contender is usually left alone for reasons that don't always seem to concern salary.
The waiver wire has changed a lot in the last few years. It used to be more of a formality, and the GMs all observed a certain etiquette regarding waived players. If two teams wanted to make a deal, it was usually not a problem. However, in more recent years GMs have become more aggressive. Some GMs will routinely claim any player they think might help another team in their division. This is a more common practice among the larger market teams that have the money to pay for any contracts where the other team allows the player to be taken. More aggressive owners -- Steinbrenner, for example -- will hold their GM's proverbial feet to the fire if they let an opposing team make a huge improvement through the wavier wire without doing whatever they can to prevent it.

soxfan13
08-01-2006, 10:00 AM
Rumor has it we are getting Soriano and Zito on a waiver wire deal:rolleyes:

bluestar
08-01-2006, 10:17 AM
Rumor has it we are getting Soriano and Zito on a waiver wire deal:rolleyes:

I'm sure there will be a lot of that, only not in teal, over the next few weeks. They will often be accompanied by pleas to KW to get off his butt and do something and complaints about how there is no way this team is going to win unless KW goes out an makes a deal to get Soriano, Zito and Tejada.

Fenway
08-01-2006, 10:18 AM
You may see a classic waiver move in the next couple of weeks. Clemens wants out of Houston badly and wishes now he had chosen Boston. The Astros and Red Sox have talked but Boston knows they can't get him until if/when New York goes ahead of them. The Yankees would also claim Clemens in a hearbeat.

bluestar
08-01-2006, 10:28 AM
You may see a classic waiver move in the next couple of weeks. Clemens wants out of Houston badly and wishes now he had chosen Boston. The Astros and Red Sox have talked but Boston knows they can't get him until if/when New York goes ahead of them. The Yankees would also claim Clemens in a hearbeat.

What would keep Riccardi from claiming him for the Jays? Especially knowing it would keep Boston from getting him?

Ol' No. 2
08-01-2006, 10:45 AM
What would keep Riccardi from claiming him for the Jays? Especially knowing it would keep Boston from getting him?There's about 8 million reasons.

No problem, Fenway. Boston is only one game ahead of the Yankees. Maybe they could throw a couple of games to give NY the lead so they could get Clemens.

bluestar
08-01-2006, 11:02 AM
There's about 8 million reasons.


Yeah, but Rocket wouldn't want to go to the Jays and Houston would very likely rescind the waiver.

Ol' No. 2
08-01-2006, 11:07 AM
Yeah, but Rocket wouldn't want to go to the Jays and Houston would very likely rescind the waiver.That kind of thing has backfired before (see Myers, Randy). Houston is not going anywhere, so they might not pull him back so they can dump the salary.

bluestar
08-01-2006, 11:34 AM
That kind of thing has backfired before (see Myers, Randy). Houston is not going anywhere, so they might not pull him back so they can dump the salary.

Yeah, I know it would be a bit of a gamble, but isn't this a different situation? I thought Clemens could reject the trade? I'm not sure how no-trade clauses are affected by waivers, but I would assume players with no-trade clauses could still reject waiver wire trades. I just can't see Clemens accepting a trade to Toronto; he would retire first.

bluestar
08-01-2006, 11:42 AM
Or, how about the Mets? They need pitching, and Minaya would have the right to claim Clemens over any AL team. The Mets presumably have the money to pay him, too.

Ol' No. 2
08-01-2006, 11:44 AM
Yeah, I know it would be a bit of a gamble, but isn't this a different situation? I thought Clemens could reject the trade? I'm not sure how no-trade clauses are affected by waivers, but I would assume players with no-trade clauses could still reject waiver wire trades. I just can't see Clemens accepting a trade to Toronto; he would retire first.I'm not sure how a NTC applies to a waiver claim either. It's not exactly a trade.

bluestar
08-01-2006, 03:35 PM
I'm not sure how a NTC applies to a waiver claim either. It's not exactly a trade.

I was very curious about this, so I emailed a friend that works for the Brewers here with the Nashville Sounds. Here is an excerpt from his reply:

"As it relates to players changing teams, a waiver claim that is allowed to go through is no different from a trade. A player with a no trade clause in their contract or a 5 and 10 player has the right to reject a waiver move to another team. In either case it is a contractual arrangement, and you cannot nullify a contract or part of a contract without the full consent of all of the parties to the contract. If this was allowed, teams would probably use this all the time to get around no trade situations with players. The no trade clause and the 5 and 10 rule would be rendered meaningless."

TDog
08-01-2006, 03:45 PM
I was very curious about this, so I emailed a friend that works for the Brewers here with the Nashville Sounds. Here is an excerpt from his reply:

"As it relates to players changing teams, a waiver claim that is allowed to go through is no different from a trade. A player with a no trade clause in their contract or a 5 and 10 player has the right to reject a waiver move to another team. In either case it is a contractual arrangement, and you cannot nullify a contract or part of a contract without the full consent of all of the parties to the contract. If this was allowed, teams would probably use this all the time to get around no trade situations with players. The no trade clause and the 5 and 10 rule would be rendered meaningless."

Still, can a team block another team from claiming a player off waivers? I've never seen this come up before. Has a player a right to say he won't play for the Reds in order to hold out for the Yankees to claim him? That would render the waiver system meaningless. Does the player come off waivers when a team he doesn't want to play for claims him?

I can't imagine a 5-10 player or NTC player would be able o circumvent the waiver system.

getonbckthr
08-01-2006, 03:49 PM
I say claim Clemens so NY and Bos can't claim him. Whats the worst that can happen we get stuck with him and he replaces Javy? Best case scenerio We block our competition from getting better. Although costing a lot of money imagine where Clemens season would go with an offense like ours, Bos or NY?

Ol' No. 2
08-01-2006, 03:53 PM
I say claim Clemens so NY and Bos can't claim him. Whats the worst that can happen we get stuck with him and he replaces Javy? Best case scenerio We block our competition from getting better. Although costing a lot of money imagine where Clemens season would go with an offense like ours, Bos or NY?:reinsy Oh, sure. It's not YOUR money you're throwing around.

Ol' No. 2
08-01-2006, 03:59 PM
Still, can a team block another team from claiming a player off waivers? I've never seen this come up before. Has a player a right to say he won't play for the Reds in order to hold out for the Yankees to claim him? That would render the waiver system meaningless. Does the player come off waivers when a team he doesn't want to play for claims him?

I can't imagine a 5-10 player or NTC player would be able o circumvent the waiver system.Once a player is put on waivers, any team can put in a claim. It sounds like a player with no-trade rights can veto it, but that doesn't mean he can go to the next team in line. So I guess the answer is yes, a team can block a player from going to another team even if he has no-trade rights. I would assume if the player vetoes a waiver claim it becomes a revoked waiver and he can't be put on revocable waivers again that month.

bluestar
08-01-2006, 04:18 PM
More from my friend:

"You should understand that there is only one team that can legitimately claim a player off waivers. It isn't like there is a list of teams in a queue. If a National League team puts a player on waivers and Pittsburgh claims him, by virtue of having the worst record in the NL, Pittsburgh is the one and only team with a legitimate claim. If every other team tried to claim him, it wouldn't matter, because Pittsburgh's claim would be the only legitimate one."

I think that addresses the question of a player refusing a waiver wire trade from one team so he can be traded to another.