Wanne Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 Just a question...I'm not sure if it starts (as you would think) with the team with the worst record forward or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwritecode Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 If more than one team makes a claim the team with the lesser record will get preferance. Also preference goes to the teams in the same league if the records are even. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sayitaintso Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 QUOTE(Wanne @ Aug 5, 2005 -> 03:23 PM) Just a question...I'm not sure if it starts (as you would think) with the team with the worst record forward or what? I believe that it is the team with the worst record in your league to the team with the best in your league, then the team with the worst record in the other league to the team with the best record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 QUOTE(Wanne @ Aug 5, 2005 -> 03:23 PM) Just a question...I'm not sure if it starts (as you would think) with the team with the worst record forward or what? Say, someone from the NL goes on waivers, the order goes from worst record to best record in the NL then from worst record to best record in the opposite league--or, in this case, the AL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSoxMatt Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 WORST RECORD TO BEST I DO BELIEVE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanne Posted August 5, 2005 Author Share Posted August 5, 2005 So if it's common knowledge that a deal has been struck with a certain team...another team can claim in terms of trying to block it? And ultimately the team that put the player on waivers can revoke the waivers?...is this kinda how it goes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 Off the top of my head: American League: 1.) Kansas City 2.) Tampa Bay 3.) Seattle 4.) Baltimore 5.) Detroit 6.) Texas 7.) Minnesota 8.) Toronto 9.) Cleveland 10.) Yankees 11.) Oakland 12.) LA Angles 13.) Boston 14.) White Sox National League: 1.) Colorado 2.) Pittsburgh 3.) San Francisco 4.) LA Dodgers 5.) Cincinnati 6.) Arizona 7.) San Diego 8.) Milwaukee 9.) Cubs 10.) Mets 11.) Florida 12.) Philadelphia 13.) Washington 14.) Houston 14.) Atlanta 15.) St. Louis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwritecode Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 QUOTE(Wanne @ Aug 5, 2005 -> 03:31 PM) So if it's common knowledge that a deal has been struck with a certain team...another team can claim in terms of trying to block it? And ultimately the team that put the player on waivers can revoke the waivers?...is this kinda how it goes? Yes. But if the team claims a player and they actually aquire him they are soley responsible for his entire contract. One reason Griffey Jr. might make it through. Plus it makes it unlikely that the two teams trying to complete the trade will want to deal with the team that blocked it anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Aug 5, 2005 -> 04:37 PM) Yes. But if the team claims a player and they actually aquire him they are soley responsible for his entire contract. One reason Griffey Jr. might make it through. Plus it makes it unlikely that the two teams trying to complete the trade will want to deal with the team that blocked it anytime soon. Jose Canseco and Randy Myers. Prime examples of why players with giant contracts will not be blocked if placed on waivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankensteiner Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 5, 2005 -> 04:40 PM) Jose Canseco and Randy Myers. Prime examples of why players with giant contracts will not be blocked if placed on waivers. I doubt either of those players had a Griffey-sized contract, not to mention Jr.'s health concerns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Aug 5, 2005 -> 04:37 PM) Yes. But if the team claims a player and they actually aquire him they are soley responsible for his entire contract. One reason Griffey Jr. might make it through. Plus it makes it unlikely that the two teams trying to complete the trade will want to deal with the team that blocked it anytime soon. Ken Griffey will make it through for sure IMHO. The Reds could just say there you go, have him, they're stuck with him then (although I see him staying in Cincy). That is not all true too. Often times GM would see it as you help me this time, I'll help you next time. But, you have to remember this is a business. If you're trying to block a trade by someone, odds are you're not going to be dealing with them anyways as they're a direct competitor. If you won't deal with a team to make your team better because another GM was "very mean to you *tear*," you're just an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 QUOTE(Frankensteiner @ Aug 5, 2005 -> 04:43 PM) I doubt either of those players had a Griffey-sized contract, not to mention Jr.'s health concerns. Which makes it even riskier to claim Griffey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 QUOTE(Frankensteiner @ Aug 5, 2005 -> 04:43 PM) I doubt either of those players had a Griffey-sized contract, not to mention Jr.'s health concerns. Well Canseco didn't but Randy Myers was owed something like $12M for next 2 years. Canseco was making good money but the Yankees had absolutely no use for him so they paid him a good amount of cash to sit on their bench. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 QUOTE(SuperSteve @ Aug 5, 2005 -> 04:44 PM) Which makes it even riskier to claim Griffey. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 QUOTE(SuperSteve @ Aug 5, 2005 -> 04:44 PM) Which makes it even riskier to claim Griffey. That's the point Steve. We're last. We won't claim anyone. Once a player clears waivers, however, he is eligible to be traded to any team. We'd pass on Griffey and work something out with specs so that Cinci would eat some contract. There's no way we would risk putting a claim on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankensteiner Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 5, 2005 -> 04:45 PM) Well Canseco didn't but Randy Myers was owed something like $12M for next 2 years. Canseco was making good money but the Yankees had absolutely no use for him so they paid him a good amount of cash to sit on their bench. $12M for 2 years for Randy Myers is a much safer bet than the $50M+ owed to Griffey. No way he gets claimed by anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 5, 2005 -> 04:47 PM) That's the point Steve. We're last. We won't claim anyone. Once a player clears waivers, however, he is eligible to be traded to any team. We'd pass on Griffey and work something out with specs so that Cinci would eat some contract. There's no way we would risk putting a claim on him. I wasn't saying for us. I was saying in general refering the the people who are worried Griffey will get claimed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 QUOTE(Frankensteiner @ Aug 5, 2005 -> 04:47 PM) $12M for 2 years for Randy Myers is a much safer bet than the $50M+ owed to Griffey. No way he gets claimed by anyone. That was my point, if the Padres got sqrewed by paying $14M (much closer to the actually figure) over two years for Randy Myers. Then NO team will claim Griffey and risk taking on a contract that is 1000X riskier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 5, 2005 -> 04:55 PM) That was my point, if the Padres got sqrewed by paying $14M (much closer to the actually figure) over two years for Randy Myers. Then NO team will claim Griffey and risk taking on a contract that is 1000X riskier. Also, that was 1998 vs. 2005..... That was before the baseball salaries exploded. $6M/yr was huge back then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 5, 2005 -> 05:03 PM) Also, that was 1998 vs. 2005..... That was before the baseball salaries exploded. $6M/yr was huge back then. Which adds even more validity to my point. NO team will claim Griffey and some people just don't understand this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.