The 2017 Blue Jay season thread
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
They have to be offered to every team first before they can be traded. I believe it starts reverse order of the standings, ie worse record gets first dibs and so on.
These waivers are revocable , so the team can pull the player back if a claim is put in.
Years ago the Jays passed Alex Rios and his $68million contract through waivers in August, he was having a bad year, the Chisox claimed him and the Jays just let him and the fat contract leave with no player in return.
In 2010 the amount was $20,000 ....it's likely the same or a similar amount now.
You're basically correct.
Link for more detailed explanation.... http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/mlb-transactions-waiver-trade-deadline-rules-explained-080310
The team has 3 choices when a player is claimed.
A) take the player off waivers (claim is no longer valid)
B) let the team have the player (for example if tulo was placed on waivers and somebody claims him the jays let the team have him )
C) try to work a trade with the team that claimed him. If you don't get decent value you then take the player off waivers.
That was a happy day indeed in my life! Why on earth the Chisox would ever pick up that contract mystifies me to this day!
That was quite an interesting time in Jays history. Rios was having a bad year after signing a big contract, and the Chisox picked him. He actually had a few good years there but probably played a bit below his contract value.
I suppose Tulo and Martin will probably be placed on waivers but likely no takers of their massive contracts. They keep the waiver secretive so as not to insult the players who are put on there. The Jays will probably have to eat some of their contracts if they are serious about rebuilding. Or contending in 2018-19 for that matter.
So they can place Estrada on waivers
A contender picks up Estrada now that he has pitched a couple of good games
The Jays demand some talent in return and the other team agrees or the Jays say no and keep him on waivers for the next team in line to make an offer?
A contender picks up Estrada now that he has pitched a couple of good games
The Jays demand some talent in return and the other team agrees or the Jays say no and keep him on waivers for the next team in line to make an offer?
It's my understanding that a lower ranked team's claim takes precedence.
Example: The Blue Jays place Estrada on waivers, the Oakland A's & the Boston Red Sox put in a claim.
As the Athletics have a worse record, Toronto deals with them only, as far as a trade is concerned, or allows the claim, losing Estrada, or revokes the waiver, and Estrada stays with Toronto.
The above subject to correction...
Not exactly, teams can't simply keep players on waivers
First team to claim the waived player gets dibs, as noted by gcostanza, priority is given to teams lower in the standings . In your example, the Jays either give Estrada to that team, try to work out a deal or Estrada gets pulled back.
If he does get pulled back they can only put him back on waivers irrevocably, that means they can't pull him back from a waiver claim a second time that same August. In this case the Jays would have no leverage and Estrada would be gone for nothing. This prevents teams from yoyo-ing players back and forth from waivers throughout August.
In Estrada's case he has about $5million left on his contract for this year, and is a free agent this offseason.The Jays will have to eat some salary if they want a good prospect. A contender like the Red Sox or Brewers may put in a claim just to block a division rival from getting him. Maybe if the Jays wait a week or 2, Estrada can workup some more trade value with a few good outings. and the Jays can wait for a contender to get hit with the injury bug to their starting rotation. Then things might get interesting.
The article below sums up the deadline activity for the Jays quite well.
http://www.tsn.ca/olney-blue-jays-get-d-for-their-deadline-activity-1.819276
http://www.tsn.ca/olney-blue-jays-get-d-for-their-deadline-activity-1.819276
I don't know for certain if radar guns cause cancer. What I do know for certain is that I don't want anyone pointing a radar gun at me (you ok:beguiled:, but not me).
“There was not enough evidence to decide whether the officers were in danger because of the radar gun, but due to the distressing situation, the chief decided that no hand-held radar guns will be used any longer. So, we sold them to a company that used them for measuring baseball pitching speed,” Proffitt stated." The cops didn't want them so they gave them to people who use radar guns for baseball. Nice.
“There was not enough evidence to decide whether the officers were in danger because of the radar gun, but due to the distressing situation, the chief decided that no hand-held radar guns will be used any longer. So, we sold them to a company that used them for measuring baseball pitching speed,” Proffitt stated." The cops didn't want them so they gave them to people who use radar guns for baseball. Nice.
You need to think outside the box once in a while. They are still using radar guns. Would you want a radar gun pointed at your head for 15 years? What if some Blue Jay or other MLB player were to contract cancer later in life? They use to say that concussions were no big deal, now we know better. I think they should ban radar guns unless it can be proven they are perfectly safe. Did you ever notice your dentist ducks behind a wall when he/she takes x-rays of your teeth?
Keep your eye on the ball, Rocky.
If we're going to ban things until we prove they're perfectly safe, there goes the sport of baseball.
You are such a child. It is impossible to use logic with you.
Question: Would you want a radar gun pointed at your head for 15 years?
