 |
|
|
| |
« Players Who Have Cleared Waivers | Main | Rowand Linked To Nationals? »
Stark On Waiver Happenings
Jayson Stark's column today was a goldmine of waiver-related material. I updated my Players Who Have Cleared Waivers post with his new info. Two thoughts from that group:
- I was surprised to see that no one wanted a piece of Troy Glaus's contract, which really isn't scary at $24MM over 2008-09 (assuming he exercises his player option). I'm sure his no-trade clause would've been a pricey obstacle, but what's the harm in making a claim? Why would the Angels, Phillies, and Dodgers pass on him? Maybe clubs talked to J.P. Ricciardi and decided it just wasn't worth it. And to be fair, Glaus hasn't done anything since June and is dealing with plantar fasciitis.
- I wonder if Jim Bowden was embarrassed that no one would touch Dmitri Young's silly new contract.
Another group Stark had was the Claimed But Withdrawn. Here they are:
Jon Garland
Scott Hatteberg
Kei Igawa
Jacque Jones
Mike Lamb
Mark Loretta
Corey Patterson
Chad Qualls
David Riske
Richie Sexson
Miguel Tejada
Matt Thornton
Javier Vazquez
Dan Wheeler
Just one jumps out at me here. Richie Sexson is a huge burden at $14MM next year. And Bill Bavasi passed on the chance to unload that contract. The guy is hitting .208/.299/.405 as a 32 year-old; his OPS has cracked .800 in only one month this year. This is a team that can't find playing time for Adam Jones. What's the logic here? $14MM could've bought something nice in 2008.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e200e5549c86488834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stark On Waiver Happenings:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
Maybe Sexson was claimed by Anaheim and they didn't want him to stay in the division. Sexson's still a power threat, still walking a lot and his BABIP (.220) suggests he hasn't been quite as bad as his slash line looks. Too logical for Bavasi?
Posted by: Not Joe Morgan | August 16, 2007 at 09:29 PM
I see what you're saying but I would still let the Angels have him if they had made the claim. He's still more of a burden than anything.
Posted by: Tim Dierkes | August 16, 2007 at 09:47 PM
a full no-trade clause allows a player to decline assignment on waivers - maybe the Phils/Angels/Dodgers etc. wouldn't bother claiming Glaus if they knew he would decline. I believe he's said he doesn't want to play in Philly (although I'd love to see him here).
although I guess it still doesn't make sense; seems like putting out the claim would still be a good defensive move.
Posted by: ae | August 16, 2007 at 10:16 PM
how about Glaus for Burrell?
Posted by: cascando | August 16, 2007 at 10:25 PM
I am the last remaining Sexson fan (apologist), I readily admit this. I'd also bet he goes for 30 HR, .850 OPS season next year. See sentence #1.
Posted by: Not Joe Morgan | August 16, 2007 at 10:43 PM
See, I don't think Glaus and Young making it through means no one wanted them, I think it speaks more to no one thinks they will be traded ~ we know the asking price was extreme 2 weeks ago, and that neither team seemed willing to trade them. A claim to block would make sense only if a team thought they were really going to be dealt, but we pretty much know they won't...
Secondly, Ana can't take on more payroll. They are having some money issues and Artie flat out said "we are 4th in payroll, but not 4th in revunie; we will not be adding much if any to that".
As far as the M's not giving Richie away, I think its more likely the Yanks who put the claim in ~ that is the team they are probably least likely to give him to. It would make their team even deeper on the bench and wouldn't hurt them with a contract they just can't afford, its the kind of guy NY is notorious for getting... It could really hurt a Sea team looking at the division but seeing the WC as a possible fallback if they can somehow outplay those Yanks. It hurts Sea for next year by keeping him, but this year it might hurt too much to just give him to the team you're fighting with. Giving him to Ana would criple the Angels this and next year so I really don't think they put in a claim because of that. The M's are probably thinking they will eat some cash and just trade him for a prospect this offseason when it can't come back to bite them in this unlikely season they are having...
Posted by: darkstar1661 | August 16, 2007 at 10:48 PM
I think that if you would like the player on your team at his current salary, you have to make the claim. Worst case scenario, the contract is foisted on you. If you like the player and the contract, there is no downside to claiming. And there is upside in the block.
Posted by: Tim Dierkes | August 17, 2007 at 12:49 AM
I like darkstar's theory on Sexson. A vintage NYY move, reminiscent of their Canseco claim in 2000. And it offers an explanation, beyond Bavasi irrationality, why the Mariners would have pulled him back. I think the M's are a half game up on the Yankees right now.
Posted by: ReflectionEphemeral | August 17, 2007 at 08:10 AM
I love all these Richie Sexson apologists.
Sexson is DONE, toast, sayonara.
Pay him if you want to, he'll look good riding pine and cashing his mega-checks every week.
Posted by: Sunny Reiser | August 17, 2007 at 08:27 AM
Oh, and where is there evidence for the proposition that Jim Bowden is capable of feeling embarrassment?
Posted by: ReflectionEphemeral | August 17, 2007 at 08:33 AM
Yanks aren't a bad call either. Probably a better call, you're right. He's an upgrade from Phillips (who could be DFAed in the move), good with the glove, righty to balance the lineup, Seattle wouldn't want him there ... Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Posted by: Not Joe Morgan | August 17, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Or perhaps the M's, suprised at any interest in Sexson at all, decided they might not want to disrupt the "chemistry" they've been so keen on this year. I'm wondering if Bavasi thinks he may be able to get a better return for him in the off-season.
Or he truly IS the worst GM in baseball.
Posted by: kevin_ess | August 17, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Sexson is 99% done but I don't think the Ms can afford to let him go for nothing while they are in a playoff chase. They don't really need the roster spot for anybody. What I find more intriguing is the possibility that the Ms had a trade in the works where they received some value for Richie but another team put in a blocking claim on him - forcing the Ms to withdraw the waiver request.
"Value for Richie" was not something I thought was possible until this curious waiver move.
Posted by: MorePineTar | August 17, 2007 at 11:27 AM
But Tim, what do you think the odds of them being given away are since the trade cost was so high 2 weeks ago and both GMs said they wanted to keep the respective players...
By putting in a claim you now have only 48hrs to try and work out a deal with a GM who is hesitant to trade the guy; by not putting in a claim you have till the 31st to see if you can get anything done. Putting in the claim does nothing but limit your chances of somehow working with the non-willing GM to get a trade completed...
As far as the M's: Yeah the "chemistry" thing could have played into it, and the team is afterall in the race even with him batting so bad all year... Its a possibility I guess as it could really disrupt the clubhouse.
I don't think a deal was in place where someone blocked it though. The blocking team would have to be worried they would get stuck with the contract themselves. Besides, how many teams really need (or can even take on) an expensive guy for 1st right now where a trade could have been in the works? NY really seems like the only team who would be going for him at all and probably thought they could have him for free just making the claim ~ but that could turn into a nightmare for Sea... I can't see any other team wanting to trade for a 1B with a huge contract right now...
Posted by: darkstar1661 | August 17, 2007 at 12:00 PM