They can, they should and they will.Sox could have done this last year, but I personally think this is not a good look and really not in the the spirit of the new trade deadline. Wonder if there is any thought tot he commissioner not allowing this? Probably not but hope LA gets a lot of crap for this.
Yep. No real incentive for the Angels to keep them, might as well save cash and lose more games down the stretch. In the old days, they could still deal them, or get draft pick compensation.These are all expiring contracts?
They could, but he also gave up 8 HR this month, is he going to help?Meanwhile, can the Sox claim Giolito? They couls use a starter.
Any warm body could arguably help.They could, but he also gave up 8 HR this month, is he going to help?
It seems like there's no league discrepancy as of the latest CBA. Otherwise I think the Red Sox would be the first reasonably in line for all of these... but the Giants, Reds and D-backs will get more pickings.Would be kind of funny if someone like the Royals scooped them all up just to be obnoxious, but more likely they'll all find their way to the bubble teams. Which I guess means the Red Sox actually have a pretty good shot at getting at least one of them, if they're so inclined - I have a vague memory that all of the AL teams get waiver priority before the NL, is that true?
Then don't stop there – Noah Syndergaard could be yours too! He's actually been pitching better than Giolito since the trade deadline.Any warm body could arguably help.
I’m inclined to agree. They’ve managed to make the deadline both less interesting and less impactful.Honestly the new trade deadline is stupid and hurts the game, they need to either push it back a week or two or go back to the dual deadline thing.
You can never have too many guys overthrowing the cutoff man.Renfroe would be a good get.
Correct.It seems like there's no league discrepancy as of the latest CBA. Otherwise I think the Red Sox would be the first reasonably in line for all of these... but the Giants, Reds and D-backs will get more pickings.
The bolded sentence may screw up Boston's ability to grab players here, as they've been claiming some fungible relief arms all year.A previous version of the rules gave priority based on the league of the team waiving the player, with NL teams getting priority for NL players, and AL for AL, but that is no longer the case. If a club has already previously claimed a player on outright waivers in a given year, the club’s claiming priority will be moved to last among the 30 clubs.
To me the issue is one of fairness -- under the old system every team, in theory, had a chance to bid on a guy. I don't think the normal waiver process was designed with this sort of thing in mind.I don't think this is a problem. The players get paid either way and they get a chance to play competitive baseball for a month or two. They don't even have to move their family, just stay in an airBNB for a month.
Doesn't seem any different than trading them for a D prospect or cash considerations.
A good get for what? mediocre offense and bad defense and he plays the same position as one of their best position players. Also likely a clubhouse cancer since he's about to be on his 6th team in 5 years and teams keep giving him away.Renfroe would be a good get.
Yep, Carlos Carrasco, too. Who needs to give anything up at the deadline?According to mlbtr, the waivers keep coming. The MFY reportedly have done so with Harrison bader, while other teams are making similar moves
I suspect that the Reds will be all over this.Is there any reason to not pick up Giolito?
(Other than the $ I guess)
What would we do with Barraclough?Is there any reason to not pick up Giolito?
(Other than the $ I guess)
Does he move the needle at all? Sox have a 9% chance of making the playoffs. It’s a few million bucks, and maybe it gives you some chance of resigning him if he has a good experience? Not sure they bother.Is there any reason to not pick up Giolito?
(Other than the $ I guess)
It’s 9% not 0%Does he move the needle at all? Sox have a 9% chance of making the playoffs. It’s a few million bucks, and maybe it gives you some chance of resigning him if he has a good experience? Not sure they bother.
Sure, if their odds are 9.1% now, what are they after adding Giolito? Can’t imagine much different. It’s not my money, so I say go for it but can understand if they don’t.It’s 9% not 0%
Giving up in August is lame (even if the fans have given up)
As long as it doesn’t take them over the threshold, even a 9% chance is worth it because it costs nothing of organizational value.Does he move the needle at all? Sox have a 9% chance of making the playoffs. It’s a few million bucks, and maybe it gives you some chance of resigning him if he has a good experience? Not sure they bother.
Heh, I think often it's not reported who is placed on waivers because if they're not claimed, they stay with the team and it's awkward. Here it seems like someone reported the Angels ones because it's a big story, then other people said 'fuck it' and reported the other names they knew were out there.It feels like the Angels discovered some sort of loophole & then other teams were like omg we can do that??? & just rushed to dump their own players.
Either that or everyone saw the loophole and the Angels just happened to be the first ones through the door. Makes all kinds of sense to dump players on the waiver wire when teams that might want to grab them have no choice but to claim them rather than wait for them to clear. And with a volume dump like the Angels did, they can bring up a bunch of prospects for a September cup of coffee in the same way they used to before September rosters were limited to 28.It feels like the Angels discovered some sort of loophole & then other teams were like omg we can do that??? & just rushed to dump their own players.
Best explanation I have is Apple announcement dayI don't really disagree with either post, although I assume the waiver thing has been much less common since teams could no longer get anything back.
& what would be special about today to do it? It's not like all those teams were eliminated from contention today. Who knows, though?
Aren't they gone if they aren't claimed? I thought being able to put a guy through waivers and then keep him went away with the rule change a few years agoHeh, I think often it's not reported who is placed on waivers because if they're not claimed, they stay with the team and it's awkward. Here it seems like someone reported the Angels ones because it's a big story, then other people said 'fuck it' and reported the other names they knew were out there.
To be eligible for the postseason, players must be on the teams roster by Aug 31 at 11:59p. So I suspect that’s why these guys are on waivers now.I don't really disagree with either post, although I assume the waiver thing has been much less common since teams could no longer get anything back.
& what would be special about today to do it? It's not like all those teams were eliminated from contention today. Who knows, though?
Yeah, there would be no point in being able to revoke the waivers since trades aren’t allowed.Aren't they gone if they aren't claimed? I thought being able to put a guy through waivers and then keep him went away with the rule change a few years ago
Yeah, I get the end date, but I feel like the start date could have been sooner if these teams are just straight salary dumping. I guess the Angels didn't actually give up until today, though.To be eligible for the postseason, players must be on the teams roster by Aug 31 at 11:59p. So I suspect that’s why these guys are on waivers now.
I'm not sure, but if this meant teams were definitely cutting ties, I don't think Renfroe and Bader would be in lineups tonight (and they are).Aren't they gone if they aren't claimed? I thought being able to put a guy through waivers and then keep him went away with the rule change a few years ago
If they waive a guy a week ago teams might let him pass and hope to get him in FA. Now, if you want a guy for the postseason, you have to put i a claim (and take on the salary).Yeah, I get the end date, but I feel like the start date could have been sooner if these teams are just straight salary dumping. I guess the Angels didn't actually give up until today, though.
Waiver process takes 48 hours?I don't really disagree with either post, although I assume the waiver thing has been much less common since teams could no longer get anything back.
& what would be special about today to do it? It's not like all those teams were eliminated from contention today. Who knows, though?
I think it's just that they can't revoke the claim. IOW they will remain on the team unless someone claims them.Yeah, there would be no point in being able to revoke the waivers since trades aren’t allowed.
I'm not sure the teams exact situations, but as of tonight the players are still on the team even if they've been placed on waivers. In the angels case, they might not have enough bodies to field a lineup if they sat all the waived guys and they have some other guys banged up since they can't call up 5 new players yet.I'm not sure, but if this meant teams were definitely cutting ties, I don't think Renfroe and Bader would be in lineups tonight (and they are).