Berardino: Suzuki on Trade Waivers

[Vanimal46]

 

Did Suzuki clear waivers or was he claimed? While a trade makes sense I can't imagine getting a return that ever reaches the majors.

They have until tomorrow to trade him or keep him, no? I am not sure, and looking for clarification... 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It would be nice to find a question that eases off the "tell us your strategy" angle they seem to perceive, and goes more for "explain a little more about the ground rules all the teams operate under".

Agreed.  Explaining/confirming general practices probably doesn't rise to the level of revealing competitive secrets.

Although as I alluded to above, since we know the rules, I think we can logically infer those general strategies.

 

- For a player who got no real interest at the July 31st deadline (presumably Suzuki last year), you can probably put them on waivers right away since they will likely clear and you can eliminate that procedural step later.

 

- For a player who got interest but no acceptable offers at the July 31st deadline (presumably Suzuki this year), you probably want to wait a bit to let the market shift and maybe get some different offers.

 

- The one thing to avoid is having a player claimed early when you are not likely to deal him.  No sense having the Indians offer a PTBNL for Suzuki on July 31st and rejecting it, then having them claim Suzuki and make a similar PTBNL offer again on August 1st just so you can reject it again and revoke the waiver request.

 

- Probably important to note that even if you don't request waivers right away, you can keep shopping a player after July 31 and more thoroughly communicate what offers you would find acceptable.  Otherwise other clubs may find it difficult to follow the gentlemen's agreement not to claim players unless a deal is likely to be struck or they are blocking a potential deal to a specific competitor.

 

(If the other team has good waiver priority, talks probably proceed into August much like July 31st negotiations, with waivers being mostly a formality to deal with when you are near a deal -- I am thinking Carl Pavano circa 2009, when he was dealt to the Twins on August 7 after we claimed him.)

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

They have until tomorrow to trade him or keep him, no? I am not sure, and looking for clarification... 

If he was claimed before his waiver period ended noon Sunday, yes, the Twins would have 48 hours (until noon Tuesday) to trade him to the claiming team with highest priority, revoke the waiver request, or let the claim stand and simply have him and his contract assigned to the claiming team.

 

If he went unclaimed, he could be dealt anytime thereafter during this waiver period (through Nov. 10, although usually the effective end of this trading period is August 31st, as that is the deadline for possible postseason roster inclusion.)

 

So you can see, the question of whether he was claimed is rather important in assessing the urgency/intensity of discussions today!

[gil4]

 

Maybe some fans cavalierly throw hyperbole out there as if they know better when at best they know less than half of the information.

 

I know I'm guilty, and I liked the way you worded it.  I decided to embrace it and update my member title.  (I was using "irrational optimist", but the past few seasons have beaten the optimism out of me.  (I kept the irrational part.)

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I have... ha! And wisely, that's one of the things they won't answer. I don't blame them.

 

Don't know if we need the secret sauce per se, but it would be nice to know the types of things to consider when they do it...  like, (hey, a ton of catchers got dropped today, let's drop Suzuki) or trade partners, etc.

[Loosey]

If he was claimed by a blocking team and no trade was negotiated, can he be placed on waivers again or is it done after that?

[old nurse]

 

If he was claimed by a blocking team and no trade was negotiated, can he be placed on waivers again or is it done after that?

He can be placed on waivers and I think if some team claims him he is gone for nothing.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If he was claimed by a blocking team and no trade was negotiated, can he be placed on waivers again or is it done after that?

 

The answer in the previous post was only partially true.  If we pull him back from waivers, we can't request waivers on him again for 30 days.  After 30 days, we can try waiving him again, but the waivers will be irrevocable.

 

So for all intents and purposes, any possibility of a Suzuki trade yet in 2016 would indeed be "done" if we pull him back now.

 

http://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3525

 

 

If a player is claimed but not traded and the waiver request is subsequently withdrawn, the player cannot be placed on Trade Assignment Waivers or Optional Assignment Waivers for at least 30 days from the date the waiver request is withdrawn, and if the player is placed on Trade Assignment Waivers again before the end of the season, the waivers become irrevocable and cannot be withdrawn.

 

[Loosey]

 

The answer in the previous post was only partially true.  If we pull him back from waivers, we can't request waivers on him again for 30 days.  After 30 days, we can try waiving him again, but the waivers will be irrevocable.

 

So for all intents and purposes, any possibility of a Suzuki trade yet in 2016 would indeed be "done" if we pull him back now.

 

http://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3525

Thanks.

[Guest]

You don't know for sure without playing Murphy and Garver.  Even with September call-ups, with Suzuki on the roster, Molitor will play him half the time. Trade Suzuki, rotate Garver and Murphy, with a little Centeno thrown in, see what the catchers can do. You can always re-sign Suzuki in the off-season if necessary.

Nothing in Murphy's 80+ games this year suggest he's ready for 120 next year, unless he makes a magical change this winter.

 

Garver's CS rate in AA this year was outstanding, but it's unclear whether that will continue in upper levels. For some reason, he didn't catch much this year. The next few weeks in Rochester may be his trial, but it's short and he probably still has to share time with Murphy.

 

Generally, I agree with your thought process, but in this case I'd prefer the veteran on an affordable one-year deal. If Garver starts ok in AAA next year, I'd get rid of Suzuki early and let Garver/Centeno share the rest of the year.

[jimmer]

All Murphy needs is an Axe bat...

[goulik]

I know I'm guilty, and I liked the way you worded it.  I decided to embrace it and update my member title.  (I was using "irrational optimist", but the past few seasons have beaten the optimism out of me.  (I kept the irrational part.)

I wish there was a love button but instead you will have to accept a "buy him a steak dinner" like to your reply!

 

I know I've typed things and posted them then thought, "Gee, I hope (insert actual person I just talked) about doesn't read that"

[Rosterman]

 

Nothing in Murphy's 80+ games this year suggest he's ready for 120 next year, unless he makes a magical change this winter.

Garver's CS rate in AA this year was outstanding, but it's unclear whether that will continue in upper levels. For some reason, he didn't catch much this year. The next few weeks in Rochester may be his trial, but it's short and he probably still has to share time with Murphy.

Generally, I agree with your thought process, but in this case I'd prefer the veteran on an affordable one-year deal. If Garver starts ok in AAA next year, I'd get rid of Suzuki early and let Garver/Centeno share the rest of the year.

Get rid of Suzuki early? We haven't ben able to do that thru two trade deadlines already, and will any team just take him off our hands for salary relief this August? With that kind of demand lining up for your services, you wonder how good he will do as a free agent in the off-season. 

 

Him signing with the Twins was like winning a golden ticket from Willy Wonka and not falling in any of the candy vats!

 

Yes, we remove his bat from the line-up. But we do have to see Murphy catch. If the Twins wish to push Garver, they can do that, too. Remember, experience isn't always the key to catching, it is being a mature handler of pitchers (Wynegar, Mauer). 

 

It would be nice to get something, but at best it would a PTBNL. Really, truly, think about it. And another team is basically getting him to be a bench backup for the cost of his contract, which isn't really that great of a bargain.

[kab21]

 

Two years ago, extending Suzuki instead of trading him was a mistake. Now, he may be the best price/value free agent catcher for the Twins this off-season and he may be willing to take less to stay here. The Twins have nobody else ready to catch 120 games. Signing a new short-term deal with him, instead of trading him, would be good.

Was it?

Your argument would be based on anything decent being offered for him. He is having a similarly decent season this year and he is regarded as a backup catcher trade option on an expiring contract. 

 

Somebody mentioned not expecting a top 100 prospect but that a Mejia return would be reasonable. Mejia is a borderline top 100 prospect.

[Guest]

Was it?

Your argument would be based on anything decent being offered for him. He is having a similarly decent season this year and he is regarded as a backup catcher trade option on an expiring contract. 

 

Somebody mentioned not expecting a top 100 prospect but that a Mejia return would be reasonable. Mejia is a borderline top 100 prospect.

Two years ago was the time to commit fully to a rebuild, and Suzuki's value was at its highest. It's impossible to know if there were good or bad offers; it is easier infer that Terry Ryan did not want to fully commit to a rebuild.

 

That said, a top 100 pitcher for him, like Meija, would be great.

[Thrylos]

 

The answer in the previous post was only partially true.  If we pull him back from waivers, we can't request waivers on him again for 30 days.  After 30 days, we can try waiving him again, but the waivers will be irrevocable.

 

So for all intents and purposes, any possibility of a Suzuki trade yet in 2016 would indeed be "done" if we pull him back now.

 

http://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3525

 

 

Nah. The above is for the "normal" outright type waivers that happen during the season.  There are special waivers this time of year.  Trade waivers.  Primer here.  Different kinds of waivers...

[kab21]

 

Two years ago was the time to commit fully to a rebuild, and Suzuki's value was at its highest. It's impossible to know if there were good or bad offers; it is easier infer that Terry Ryan did not want to fully commit to a rebuild.

That said, a top 100 pitcher for him, like Meija, would be great.

I don't see why Suzuki would have any more value than now and now a prospect like Mejia is a pipedream.

 

You can infer all that you want about Ryan but that doesn't mean that anything good was or would have been offered. Suzuki is a player with fairly minimal trade value. This board for example would be justifiably irate if a player like Gonsalves or Mejia was ever traded for a player like Suzuki regardless of where the team was at that point.

[Guest]

I don't see why Suzuki would have any more value than now and now a prospect like Mejia is a pipedream.

 

You can infer all that you want about Ryan but that doesn't mean that anything good was or would have been offered. Suzuki is a player with fairly minimal trade value. This board for example would be justifiably irate if a player like Gonsalves or Mejia was ever traded for a player like Suzuki regardless of where the team was at that point.

This discussion about two years ago isn't too relevant, although we could probably continue arguing about whether or not the value of a catcher who just played in the All-Star game is minimal. The main issue is that, looking to 2017, Suzuki could be the best option for the Twins, based on the status of players in Rochester and Chattanooga and the other options in the free agent market, as well as the possibility that he may take a "hometown" discount so he doesn't have to move his family again.

 

By the way, I'm not inferring anything about Ryan; by 2014, he was pretty vocal that he didn't think a rebuild was needed.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Nah. The above is for the "normal" outright type waivers that happen during the season. There are special waivers this time of year. Trade waivers. Primer here. Different kinds of waivers...

Read the link I provided. It covers trade assignment waivers. You can't request them a second time for 30 days after revocation.

 

Quite literally: "If a player is claimed but not traded and the waiver request is subsequently withdrawn, the player cannot be placed on Trade Assignment Waivers or Optional Assignment Waivers for at least 30 days from the date the waiver request is withdrawn"

[Richie the Rally Goat]

They have until tomorrow to trade him or keep him, no? I am not sure, and looking for clarification...

48 hours until he clears, so Tuesday pm I believe

[Mr. Brooks]

Two years ago, Suzuki only had a bad arm, now it's a liability.

Also, less emphasis was placed on pitch framing then.

I would say it's highly likely he had more value then. Now he has almost no value as his defense would be completely unacceptable in a playoff game, IMO.

If we could get a Drew Butera type return (someone's 18 to 25 range prospect), I'd be ecstatic.

 

If you really think we need him next year, we can resign him, I can't see anyone else offering him much more than a minor league contact with an opt out date or something similar.

Personally, I'd rather move on. I think he's a detriment to our pitching staff. I'd rather have an all glove, no hit receiver with this pitching staff.

[old nurse]

 

Read the link I provided. It covers trade assignment waivers. You can't request them a second time for 30 days after revocation.

Quite literally: "If a player is claimed but not traded and the waiver request is subsequently withdrawn, the player cannot be placed on Trade Assignment Waivers or Optional Assignment Waivers for at least 30 days from the date the waiver request is withdrawn"

Every other site that describes trade waivers says differently  that yours. So every other site has it wrong? 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Every other site that describes trade waivers says differently that yours. So every other site has it wrong?

I am not sure every other source tries to explain the rule in the same detail. My source agrees with all others that the second request in irrevocable, it just adds that the second request must be 30 days after the first waiver request is withdrawn.

 

If you think there is no 30 day requirement, can you point to an example of a player being pulled back from trade assignment waivers (this is commonly reported), then being claimed or traded after going on trade assignment waivers a second time in August?

[gil4]

 

...you will have to accept a "buy him a steak dinner" like to your reply!
 

I miss those "steak dinner" likes, but I guess they were getting expensive.

[old nurse]

 

I am not sure every other source tries to explain the rule in the same detail. My source agrees with all others that the second request in irrevocable, it just adds that the second request must be 30 days after the first waiver request is withdrawn.

If you think there is no 30 day requirement, can you point to an example of a player being pulled back from trade assignment waivers (this is commonly reported), then being claimed or traded after going on trade assignment waivers a second time in August

Wes Chamberlain 1990

 

from mlb.com

Trade Waivers & August 31 "Deadline"
Definition

Players can still be traded following the non-waiver Trade Deadline -- which falls at 4 p.m. ET on July 31, except in rare cases -- but they must first clear revocable trade waivers. A player placed on revocable trade waivers can be claimed by any club; waiver priority is determined by reverse standings (worst to best record) in the player's league, followed by reverse standings in the other league.

The player's original club has three options when a waiver claim is placed: It can either work out a standard trade with the claiming club (the two sides have 48 hours to agree to a deal), allow the player -- and all money remaining on his contract -- to go to the claiming club with no return or pull the player back off waivers. A player who is pulled back off waivers can be placed on trade waivers a second time, but at that point the waiver request becomes irrevocable. If a player passes through waivers unclaimed, he can then be traded to any club, free of restriction (though all 40-man-roster players in the trade must clear waivers before being dealt).

Clubs will typically place the vast majority of their Major League roster on waivers once during August, as it can allow them to gauge interest for the upcoming offseason.

 

No mention of a time restriction  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Wes Chamberlain 1990

Interesting example, thanks.  

 

However, no contemporary source says it was Chamberlain's second time on trade waivers that month.  Rather, they only say he was mistakenly put on irrevocable waivers (which would include other types of waivers, such as release waivers and outright assignment waivers).  They also say the mistake was made while the GM "juggled his 40-man roster" which suggests maybe it was indeed the wrong type of waivers requested -- trade assignment waivers have nothing to do with the 40-man roster.

 

http://articles.philly.com/1990-08-31/sports/25931994_1_phillies-scouts-outfielder-wes-chamberlain-waiver-claims

 

It could also be the 30 day rule was quietly added after the Chamberlain incident, to prevent other teams from making the same mistake.

 

Either way, whether it is forbidden by rule or not, as a practical matter a player pulled back from trade waivers will not get traded within the next 30 days.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Here's another site that seems to cover waiver rules pretty comprehensively, and which also lists the 30 day requirement (note that they refer to trade waivers as "Major League Waivers"):

 

http://wiki.soxprospects.com/Rule+10

 

 

If a request is withdrawn, waivers may not be requested on the same player for 30 days, excepting Unconditional Release Waivers.

 

Unfortunately MLB does not publish their full and complete transaction rules.  (I guess they figure, what would be the fun in that? )

[old nurse]

Only true for revo

 

Here's another site that seems to cover waiver rules pretty comprehensively, and which also lists the 30 day requirement (note that they refer to trade waivers as "Major League Waivers"):

 

http://wiki.soxprospects.com/Rule+10

 

 

Unfortunately MLB does not publish their full and complete transaction rules.  (I guess they figure, what would be the fun in that? )

Only true for revocable  waivers.  You can place the player on revocable waivers once in a 30 period. That does not mean the  team has to keep the player for 30 days.  The trade waiver period extends to the end of the season. September trades are still made, though infrequent. They are still waiver trades. If a player is placed on waivers again in that 30 days  another team can claim,then  work out a trade or pay a fee.  With Chamberlain, additional players were exchanged and the Phillies saved some money.  A GM would normally be very careful to protect assets  and not place a player on trade waivers and risk losing them for a small transaction fee. That is why you do not see it. Although ove priced, under performing  veterans may go unclaimed twice as the claiming team would have to pick up the contract. Alex Rios comes to mind. How many others were dangled that way is impossible to know.

[Comrade Bork]

So when do we find out if he cleared? Should be sometime this afternoon right?

[Shaitan]

Maybe never. It's "confidential."