Reds Claimed Hisanori Takahashi

10:16am: Even though the Reds claimed Takahashi, he cannot play for the Mets before May 15th if he signs with New York, according to Adam Rubin of (on Twitter). In other words, don't expect him to return to the Mets.

8:07am: The Reds claimed Hisanori Takahashi on unconditional release waivers last week, according to transactions summaries at CBS Sports and Yahoo Sports. A source confirmed to MLBTR that the Reds claimed the left-hander. Adam Rubin of reports that the Reds claimed Takahashi to obtain an exclusive five-day negotiating window with him.

Takahashi was set to hit free agency, but the Reds' move won't prevent him from hitting the open market. Players claimed on unconditional release waivers have five days to reject the claim and elect free agency and Takahashi elected free agency, according to Rubin.

It's unclear whether the move will help the Mets, who were negotiating an extension with Takahashi earlier in the month. Because the Mets didn’t sign Takahashi in time, it appeared that he would not be able to pitch before May 15th if he re-signed in New York. Takahashi's last club was the Reds, which could allow the Mets to re-sign him.

15 Responses to Reds Claimed Hisanori Takahashi Leave a Reply

  1. MetsEventually 5 years ago

    Super sad face.

  2. camisadelgolf 5 years ago

    Okay, so once he rejected the claim, he went back on waivers, am I right? If that’s the case, would that mean the Mets would be given another chance to claim him and negotiate another contract? That’s the big question I have.

    • oleosmirf 5 years ago

      i would think the Mets still can’t bring him back but who knows for sure.

      • safari_punch 5 years ago

        I think the Mets can still bring him back, because technically he is property of the Reds for five days and after that he is a free agent. If the Reds can’t get a deal done in that window, then were to sign him after, they wouldn’t be allowed to play him until May 15th.

        The Mets won’t have this issue.

  3. bas_in_denmark 5 years ago

    I’m not sure this is right. As far as I can tell any team that has unconditionally released a player after August 31 would be barred from signing said player before May 15. The Mets have unconditionally released Takahashi so the rule would still apply to them, no?

    • I don’t believe it applies because it was written into Takahashi’s contract that he be released.

  4. Slopeboy 5 years ago

    Whether the Mets can or cannot sign him before May 15 is a moot point. He’s asking 3 years $15MM. They obviously didn’t think he was worth that, and he thinks he can get that, so it’s going to be interesting to see what the Reds will do. I don’t think he’s worth all that and can’t see the Reds going there either.

  5. as long as Takahashi does not end up a Philthy, everything will be okay.

  6. Ethanator99 5 years ago

    Did the Reds actually want him or was this some sort of move that could benefit the Reds in a different way? The reason I ask is because the Reds don’t really have a need for a Takahashi

    • bas_in_denmark 5 years ago

      Well, they may need to replace Arthur Rhodes. Maybe they see him as a power lefty in the bullpen. I can’t see him getting more than two years though.

      • yankee2195 5 years ago

        I completely agree. The Reds need another good arm in the bullpen like Takahashi. He’s not that bad of a pitcher, too.

  7. camisadelgolf 5 years ago

    For the record, Takahashi is only willing to sign with a team that will use him as a starter, and I’m sure the Reds knew that. Keeping that in mind, they have no use for him as a starter when you consider that they already have Bronson Arroyo, Johnny Cueto, Edinson Volquez, Mike Leake, Homer Bailey, Travis Wood, Aroldis Chapman, etc. Therefore, I’m thinking it’s safe to assume that the Reds’ motive had nothing to do with actually offering Takahashi a contract.

    My understanding is this: the Reds claimed Takahashi without ever having the intention of signing him. Since the Reds now become the team that released him, it gives the Mets a chance to reach an agreement before May 15th. However, this completely contradicts what Adam Rubin said, so take that with a grain of salt.

    • as stated above in the update Mets can resign him but he can’t play for them until may 15. 2011

  8. nathanalext 5 years ago

    I’m super confused by this whole situation. Please, someone tell me I’m not the only one!

Leave a Reply