Potential Trade Deadline Targets

lurker42

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
173
Trying to remember the rules like every year with these waivers. The claiming team can work out a trade, but if they don’t (i.e. a straight block effort) does the waiver pass on to the next claiming team? Also cant the waiving team can just say “ok, he’s yours” and the claiming team would have to add him to their 40?

Edit: here’s the text from mlb:



A blocking team runs a risk of having to take on the player. They can’t just negotiate in bad faith and wash their hands of it.

Edit 2: reading that the claiming team can also rescind their claim? What happens then?
Waiving team puts player on waivers. All other teams have 72 hours to place a claim. At the end of the 72 hour waiver period, the claim is awarded to the claiming team with the highest waiver priority. If no team places a claim, then the player is considered to have "cleared" waivers.

If the player is claimed, then the waiving team and claiming team have 48 hours to negotiate a trade. If no trade is agreed on in that time frame, the waiving team can either:
(a) pull the player back. This can only be done once per player per waiver period. If the player is waived a second time in the same period the player cannot be pulled back ("irrevocable waivers")
(b) allow the player to go to the claiming team for nothing. In this case the claiming team takes on all remaining contractual obligations, and *must* put the player on their 40-man roster (or 25-man roster if the player is out of options or refuses an optional assignment).

This last requirement is why you don't see too many claims intended just to block a trade. If you place a "blocking" claim and the team just lets you have the player, you potentially lose another player off your roster. It's also why it'd be dumb to put in blocking claims on a bunch of different players - you could get stuck with all of them.

The claiming team cannot rescind their claim, or at least they couldn't when I interned in front offices in the late '90s. My guess is that you're misreading/confusing the waiving team's ability to pull a player back with the claiming team's ability to say "never mind!" It wouldn't make sense for teams to back out of waiver claims - then you really would have every team claiming every player.
 
Last edited:

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,265
Thanks for this, particularly the note on b). The roster spot cost along with the inability to control the waiving team tossing the hot potato is the disincentive I was trying to get at.
 

InsideTheParker

persists in error
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
41,464
Pioneer Valley
Just imagine an infield of Moreland, Kinsler, X and Beltre.
I love Beltre as much as anyone, but I can see him getting injured shortly after the Sox give up something of value for him. Of course that's true of any player, witness the very young Devers being on the DL again, but Beltre's already had a hammy, which I believe he re-injured at least once, and an infected tooth this year.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,265
Couldn’t we have drafted Meadows or was it the other big name that was still on the board when we took...Ball?
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
The sub-.500 Nats are in win-now mode? OK...
They're closer to a wild-card berth than the Yankees are to the AL East division title. If you aren't ready to say the Yankees have no chance of catching us, then you can't really say the Nats have no business trying to win. I think they're too far out for it to make sense to buy, but not far enough out to start selling.

Couldn’t we have drafted Meadows or was it the other big name that was still on the board when we took...Ball?
It was indeed Meadows.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
They're closer to a wild-card berth than the Yankees are to the AL East division title. If you aren't ready to say the Yankees have no chance of catching us, then you can't really say the Nats have no business trying to win. I think they're too far out for it to make sense to buy, but not far enough out to start selling.
I guess, but they're a pretty unconvincing team, and if you never do anything bold, you stay stuck in the position you just described. Ah well, it's not my $1b team. I guess it's just hard to tell Scherzer that you're retooling and to dump Harper for prospects.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Patiently waiting for that bullpen piece...don’t think the Sox did anything today except get ready for the 705 game
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,699
With such an intense arms race between Cashman and DD, I wouldn't be shocked if either of them purposely files a trade at 3:59.
 

Jerry’s Curl

New Member
Feb 6, 2018
2,518
Florida
I think the emergence of Brazier and Thorburg’s recent positive outings are encouraging enough for DD to not have to make a move. Plus as the poster above mentioned, Eovaldi and/or ERod could assume a postseason bullpen role as well.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,042
St. Louis, MO
I think the emergence of Brazier and Thorburg’s recent positive outings are encouraging enough for DD to not have to make a move. Plus as the poster above mentioned, Eovaldi and/or ERod could assume a postseason bullpen role as well.
Agree they probably weren’t going to find someone pitching much better than either are currently. They will focus on getting Kelly fixed, EdRo healthy, examine Pom as a bullpen option and keep an eye on Feltman.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
11,338
Don’t know how to embed the tweet but Speier tweeted that Dombrowski said they were close to acquiring a reliever last night until the team switched course.
Would seem that DD is talking about Herrera (dovetail with Olney’s report about the Nats that was quoted earlier in this thread)
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,123
Rogers Park
I guess, but they're a pretty unconvincing team, and if you never do anything bold, you stay stuck in the position you just described. Ah well, it's not my $1b team. I guess it's just hard to tell Scherzer that you're retooling and to dump Harper for prospects.
I'd judge that the Nationals wanted to see if a Harper rental could return a package that would be worth more than just QO-ing Harper by enough of a margin to make it worth punting on the season. I would not surprised if the answers they got back suggested that's not the case. He's been awful.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,126
Is 10 draft spots the only penalty? I thought there was some loss of International FA $ too, but I could have made that up.
It's ten spots plus you have to factor in the pool money lost from those spots. It's a big deal. Basically forces you to take an extra senior sign rather than anyone with upside above slot.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
5,003
Rays made out like bandits on both the Pham and Archer deals. I can’t believe the Pirates gave up that much for Archer, he’s just not that good.