Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads

Trading Through Waivers

Aug 01 2005 02:07 PM

I'm a little hazy on the details here and I was hoping y'all could help me. My understanding is that if we agreed with, say, Boston to trade Manny for Glavine straight up, we would put Glavine on irrevocable waivers, thus removing him from our 40-man roster. Boston would do the same for Manny.

Other teams would have 2 days to claim either or both of them, but they would be bound by the contracts Glavine & Manny had already signed. The waiver order, IIRC, would be determined starting within each player's league, in reverse order of the standings, so if the White Sox and the Braves each tried to claim Manny, the White Sox would get him.

I'm fairly comfortable with what I've laid out so far, but what happens if, in this scenario, Manny gets claimed by another team before we can claim him? We can't recall Glavine, right, which means we've pretty much screwed ourselves (inasmuch as DFA'ing Glavine would screw us)?

So realistically, the only people we could possibly trade at this point are ones we're reasonably sure would pass through waivers, and they would all have to be on the 40-man roster?

Thanks for the help!

Edgy DC
Aug 01 2005 02:10 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 01 2005 02:25 PM

Players can be traded after passing through revocable waivers also. (I think.)

Aug 01 2005 02:14 PM

yes, which is why half the roster routinely finds themselves on revocable waivers every august... personally i'd put glavine, piazza on them right now just to see... if anyone claimed piazza pull him back, hes a FA after this yearanyway....if anyone claims glavine's contract for next year they can have it.

Edgy DC
Aug 01 2005 02:24 PM

Well, revocable waivers are technically secret anyhow. Glavine may already be bouncing out there for all you know.

Frayed Knot
Aug 01 2005 02:56 PM

Right, there's no need for them to be [u:ead769252d]IR[/u:ead769252d]revocable waivers. Glavine, in fact, couldn't be put on IWs because he has complete no-trade protection and a waiver claim obviously moves him to a different team w/o his say-so.
He could - and probably will - be put on regular waivers which is just a procedural move that does not remove him from either the 25 or 40-man rosters. Players on waivers are still active members of the team.
If/when he's cleared by all teams he could then be dealt to anyone just as before the July 31st deadline -- although again, only w/his approval on account of the no-trade dealie.

Once a waived player is claimed on reg waivers the team offerring him can:
1) Pull him back off the waiver wire (probably 90+% of all cases)
2) Say to the lowest-ranked claiming team: 'OK, he's yours' and the claiming team gets him for nothing other than the waiver fee (very low) and by assuming his remaining contract. That last bit is why Glavine (and many players) will get through waivers untouched. The Yanx, however, got stuck w/Canseco that way a couple years back when they claimed him only meaning to block him from clearing entirely and his team (Cleveland?) said 'Take him'..
3) Offer to strike a trade w/the lowest claiming team: 'OK, you can have him if you give us X ... otherwise we're pulling him back'

The point of all this is to limit the wholesale "buying" of good players by good teams just for the tail-end of the pennant race/post-season. The waiver process means that if someone good is being dumped at cut-rate prices late in the season the lower teams all still have a shot at him.

Aug 01 2005 03:01 PM

]3) Offer to strike a trade w/the lowest claiming team: 'OK, you can have him if you give us X ... otherwise we're pulling him back'

Wouldn't X also have to go through waivers?

Edgy DC
Aug 01 2005 03:05 PM

Yes but, X will often be a minor leaguer or a PtBNL.

Aug 01 2005 03:12 PM

Wouldn't a minor league be even harder to sneak through? Hey look, a minor leaguer on waivers. Um, sure, we'll take him.

Frayed Knot
Aug 01 2005 03:13 PM

]Wouldn't X also have to go through waivers?

If he's a major leguer, sure. No ML players can be dealt during this time frame w/o clearing waivers.
Now if 'X' means one or more minor leaguers then I think it's OK. I don't believe minor leguers are subject to this process during a specified waiver period (like the one MLB has just entered).

Aug 01 2005 06:19 PM

I'm not sure how this relates to minor league players who are on the 40 man roster of a major league team. But FN got the rest of it correct.


Bret Sabermetric
Aug 01 2005 07:20 PM

Who the hell's FN?

Rockin' Doc
Aug 01 2005 07:47 PM

BS - "Who the hell's FN?"

I think he's one of those DJ 's on Satellite radio. He's too cool to be on FM.

Aug 01 2005 07:54 PM

I would imagine that anybody on the 40-man would have to clear waivers in order to be dealt.

I think it's also standard practice to try and put everybody on waivers over the first couple of days, so that GM's know who can and can't be dealt.

Frayed Knot
Aug 01 2005 11:23 PM

I'm reasonably sure this is just for major league guys (25 man roster).

Remember, the reason for this whole thing in the first place is so that fading teams don't just trade/sell/dump all their vets on the good teams willing and able to pay for them and creating a playoff team which barely resembles the team which played all year. So the waiver process allows those "name guys" to go to the top teams only if all others pass on them.

No one, on the other hand, is trying to get rid of 21 y/o future stars through the waiver wire.

Aug 02 2005 07:42 AM

FN = Frayed Knot, for those of you who are keeping score or can't figure it out.

Or, if you meant that the other way (Who's FN?), I have absolutely no idea who that person is.


Edit, Yeah, I know, I should have wrirren FK, but I was hooked on phonics.