Scott Blewett, MLB’s DFA Problem, and Potential Solutions

[Cody Christie]

The league office and the MLBPA have an issue that needs to be addressed in the next collective bargaining agreement. Players can’t continue to be thrown around the waiver wire. Let’s examine the problem, and some potential solutions.

Image courtesy of Brad Rempel-Imagn Images

A series of rapid-fire transactions involving righthander Scott Blewett have laid bare MLB’s growing roster‑management dilemma. In barely over a week, he joined three clubs, each expecting him to contribute on the mound. Beyond wins and losses, the human cost of such churn (frequent relocations, housing hunts, uprooted families) often goes unseen. This revolving‑door reality is baked into the collective bargaining‑era waiver rules, but it’s time for the league to consider guardrails that balance team flexibility with players’ welfare.

Blewett’s Whirlwind Week 
On April 12th, the Twins designated Scott Blewett for assignment, to open a roster spot for left‑hander Kody Funderburk. Blewett, 29, had logged two scoreless outings early in the season, but he became the odd man out with the Twins reshuffling their bullpen.

Baltimore pounced on April 14th, claiming Blewett off waivers and immediately adding him to its 40‑man roster. Manager Brandon Hyde viewed him as low‑leverage depth, and Blewett responded by tossing two innings over two games, striking out three and walking none. It wasn’t enough to keep him on the roster. 

Despite his solid performance, the Orioles designated Blewett for assignment after just one week, trading him to the Braves on April 20th for cash considerations. Atlanta, seeking bullpen stability, activated him on April 21st, making them the third team to count on his arm in eight days. Each claim and DFA moved Blewett through a new clubhouse, new coaching staff, and new expectations almost overnight. This roster shuffling is just one example of something that happens regularly in baseball. 

The Human Toll
The grind of constant exposure to waivers and trades extends beyond stat lines. Each new designation forces players to find temporary housing, navigate club‑arranged apartments or hotels, and often relocate children and spouses on short notice—or leave their families behind. 

While MLB has improved minor‑league housing guarantees, big‑league call‑ups and players floating on the fringes of rosters still shoulder relocation costs themselves or rely on precarious team assistance. This upheaval can fracture family routines, disrupt schooling, and erode mental health, especially for journeymen who know it's a cycle that is likely to last as long as their career does. Scott Blewett’s week‑long tenure in three cities is emblematic of a system that values roster flexibility over player stability.

The DFA Conundrum
So, how do these moves work? Designating a player for assignment removes him from a club’s 40‑man roster, giving the team seven days to trade, release, or place him on waivers. If another club claims him, he joins the new team’s 40‑man roster. If not, he can be outrighted to the minors or released. (If a player has been outrighted before, upon clearing waivers again, they have the right to elect free agency.)

Waiver claims follow a reverse‑order priority based on winning percentage, meaning struggling teams have first dibs. But when a player like Blewett is in demand, multiple teams can place a claim on him. Whichever is in worst shape will get him, only to put him through the wringer again when their roster needs shift. This churn benefits front offices seeking short‑term depth, but it leaves players in limbo.

Solutions and Potential Reforms
Mandatory retention window: Requiring teams to keep a claimed player on the 40‑man roster for a minimum span (like 10 days) would discourage quick turnaround claims aimed purely at depth. A retention rule could reduce hurried moves and give players time to settle in. The rule against recalling a player within 15 days of optioning them to the minors is a good precedent. 

Waiver‑claim bonus: Instituting a modest bonus, perhaps prorated per day each time a player is claimed, could offset moving costs and acknowledge the player’s contribution. For example, a $10,000 stipend upon each claim would help cover travel and housing expenses. The CBA already requires teams to pay amounts ranging from $1,200 to $2,200 (depending on the distance between the player's old and news teams' home cities) to players who change teams via waiver claim or trade between mid-March and the trade deadline, but a more robust amount would more fairly reflect the upheaval involved in these types of moves.

Centralized relocation assistance: While MLB now guarantees minor‑league housing, big‑league journeymen still face gaps. A central fund administered by the Players Association could provide interest‑free relocation loans, short‑term furnished apartments, and counseling services to those shuttling between clubs.

Cap on claims per season: Limiting the number of waiver claims a player can incur in one season, akin to service‑time protections, could prevent endless carousel cycles and encourage teams to commit more fully to each claimed player. The latest CBA is the first to stipulate that a team can only option a player to the minor leagues five times within a season. Next, a similar (hopefully, even more restrictive) rule should protect players from being shuttled between big-league teams without the right to elect free agency.

Blewett’s recent odyssey underscores a growing tension between roster agility and player well‑being in modern baseball. As teams exploit DFA rules for competitive advantage, the league and union should collaborate on reforms that temper roster churn and shield players from the whirlwind. Balancing organizational needs with humane considerations will stabilize players’ lives and enrich the game’s integrity and spirit.

---

What other solutions can MLB offer players facing the same situation as Blewett? Leave a comment and start the discussion. 

View full article

[bean5302]

Looking for a problem to solve, here. There is no real issue here. Blewett is a AAAA pitcher who is getting the opportunity to play in MLB.

You're misleading people by making up impacts that don't exist. MLB players do not move their families when they get traded mid season, and players like Blewett have their family (if they have the wife/kids situation) based in a singular location. It boils down to him having a job where he travels a lot. Maybe we need to address this catastrophic travel situation with airline pilots who are away from home and they have to move their family to every location they spend the night. It's tragic. Every night, Delta Airlines pilot, John Smith, is forced to relocate his family to another random city Delta has him flying to. Think of the children!!!!!

Blewett can choose to quit baseball any time he wants. Scott Blewett is a 29 year old chasing his dream of playing MLB. He gets paid $750k / year while he's on an MLB roster. At AAA, housing, meals, per diem, travel, and $50k per year is provided by the team.

With the kind of guard rails you want to put into place, Blewett would never make anybody's 40 man roster, and you would have killed his dream.

[Jocko87]

What til he gets a load of the real tough problems with the CBA.

Suicidal empathy is a concept everyone should at least have passing knowledge of.

[rdehring]

Will second bean's comments above, thanks.

If my math is correct, the minimum salary is over $4,500 per game.  For all those out here reading this who make about that much each month, its hard to feel his pain. 

[mikelink45]

I agree with you.  It reminds me of Curt Flood and the lack of respect for the individual's personal needs.  This has nothing to do with what they are paid - all professional athletes in the majors are overpaid, but rather the human aspect.  

[chpettit19]

You absolutely don't want a cap on the number of times a guy can be claimed during a season. Unless you want that guy to stop making MLB teams that season. Because it won't stop a team from DFAing him and now all you've done is stop him from having any chance of getting claimed and making the majors. You haven't helped him you've completely destroyed his chances of making the majors. This rule would not go the way you're picturing it. It would go the other way. You wouldn't be forcing teams to keep Blewett in the majors, you'd be forcing them to keep him in AAA.

Raising the stipend from roughly 2k to 10k? So, is it about their family and mental health, etc. or money? Because they're already getting more money simply by getting claimed and getting that shot with the next MLB team instead of being sent to the minors. As @bean5302 points out, the difference between being DFA'd and sent to the minors and claimed and bouncing between MLB clubs is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Does that extra 8k really make up for the extra stress of being bounced around away from their family?

Is a 10-day window really that impactful? Maybe. I don't know. But it may be even more frustrating. Now I have to spend a week and a half here and be used twice and then be shipped out instead of being used twice in 3 days and being shipped out? Now I'm actually starting to feel a little settled and you're pulling the rug out from under me again? I don't think an extra week in the city is really making any kind of difference. And it's probably making it harder for some guys to get shots in MLB as teams are less likely to take chances on guys they aren't sure on if they have to carry them for 10 days. You may cut down on the DFAs, but you're also cutting down on the number of guys who get shots because teams won't risk carrying guys they can't use for a week and a half.

Is the DFA game ideal? No. But would Scott Blewett rather be bouncing between multiple MLB teams the rest of the season than sitting on 1 AAA team? Probably. Would he rather be bouncing between multiple MLB teams than sitting in a cube somewhere "working for the man?" I'd bet a "yes" to that one. This is part of the deal. It's not perfect, but this is what these guys sign up for. He's fighting for his dream and he knows it's not all rainbows and puppies. And his family knows it, too. He makes a prorated $760,000 salary for his time in the Majors to throw a baseball. He gets to stay in the best hotels, eat the best food, watch baseball every day, and live a pretty darn awesome life. It's stressful and not perfect. But he can quit if he doesn't like it. I'm pretty sure there's a town ball team out there somewhere that would take him and he can sell insurance or real estate like AK sadly has to do now. Anybody on here not willing to bounce between a few different MLB teams for 760k a year?

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, rdehring said:

Will second bean's comments above, thanks.

If my math is correct, the minimum salary is over $4,500 per game.  For all those out here reading this who make about that much each month, its hard to feel his pain. 

$4,691.36 to be a little more exact.

[DJL44]

Any problems you have outlined can be solved by raising the minimum salary. You don't need to get cute with waiver claim bonuses or extra housing. Just raise wages. The MLB minimum should be closer to $1M.

[Mike Sixel]

Why are we getting another article about this? Have we heard a player complain? Most of your ideas hurt the player. Seriously, we just had this discussion. Look at Atlanta.....

[DJL44]

18 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

would Scott Blewett rather be bouncing between multiple MLB teams the rest of the season than sitting on 1 AAA team?

Yes. The pension alone is worth it. Every minor leaguer should be striving to get 43 days on an MLB roster to get the minimum pension.

[Linus]

My issue with it is that the roster churn allows teams to have a 15 or 16 man pitching staff. This means starters can go fewer innings and throw harder in those inning meaning more three true outcomes baseball which I hate. MLB put a limitation on the number of pitchers for a reason. This essentially negates that rule. 

[The Mad King]

Who wants a reliever named Blewit?

[IndianaTwin]

Have a friend who was a backup catcher, the other common spot for roster churning, particularly in response to injury. His baseball-reference.com has 33 lines of transactions and he ended up in more than a dozen systems, several on multiple occasions. 

From talking to him, I very much get the toll that it takes on family, etc., but he recognized the rules are what they are and seems to be grateful that he had the chance to keep turning a boyhood dream into what ended up being a little over five years of service time.

(I also suspect that in the big scheme of things, this "problem" is going to be somewhere outside the top 20 on the list of MLBPA negotiating issues for the next CBA.)

[Parfigliano]

I don't think the MLBPA cares at all about the plight of AAAA barely hanging on players like Blewitt.  Their concern is the regulars.

[Road trip]

I tend to agree it is a minor problem, but one option not addressed is something I have been pondering:   The 40-Man roster is too small.

Look, there is an injury epidemic in MLB.  I don't know why, and don't have a solution, but it is what it is.  Players are getting hurt far more frequently than they did a decade or two ago.  Yet the 40 man roster limit has been in place for a CENTURY.  The rules have changed around the edges regarding DFA's, waiver claims, and options, but it has been a 40 man limit since 1921.  

Once you put a half dozen players on the shorter IL list the 40-man roster gets very tight.  And pretty much every MLB team has several guys on the 10 or 15 day IL at this point in the season (6 for the Twins currently if you count Miranda and Martin who are technically in the minors), taking up a 40-man spot but being unavailable to play.  Bump that 40-man roster up to 42 or 44 to account for the modern game having more injuries and I think you would see fewer fringe players getting DFA'd, allowing them to stay with an organization that they signed with.

[chpettit19]

8 minutes ago, Road trip said:

I tend to agree it is a minor problem, but one option not addressed is something I have been pondering:   The 40-Man roster is too small.

Look, there is an injury epidemic in MLB.  I don't know why, and don't have a solution, but it is what it is.  Players are getting hurt far more frequently than they did a decade or two ago.  Yet the 40 man roster limit has been in place for a CENTURY.  The rules have changed around the edges regarding DFA's, waiver claims, and options, but it has been a 40 man limit since 1921.  

Once you put a half dozen players on the shorter IL list the 40-man roster gets very tight.  And pretty much every MLB team has several guys on the 10 or 15 day IL at this point in the season (6 for the Twins currently if you count Miranda and Martin who are technically in the minors), taking up a 40-man spot but being unavailable to play.  Bump that 40-man roster up to 42 or 44 to account for the modern game having more injuries and I think you would see fewer fringe players getting DFA'd, allowing them to stay with an organization that they signed with.

Scott Blewett isn't being DFA'd because of lack of 40-man space, he's being DFA'd because he's out of options. You could make it an 80-man roster and he'd still have to be DFA'd to send him to AAA. 

And adding more spots to the 40-man doesn't necessarily help players. The 40-man is paired with DFA, option, and Rule 5 draft type rules to stop teams from hoarding players in the minors. The more spots you add to the roster the more players the teams can stash and the fewer guys available for other teams to "steal" and add to their roster. It limits the number of opportunities a player has to get to the majors. And that's all of their ultimate goal. It's not about getting there with the team that drafted or signed you originally, it's about getting there at all. If you expand the roster to 42 or 44 there would be essentially nobody taken in the Rule 5 draft because everybody would be able to be protected. Now you've taken a dozen or so opportunities a year away from guys. If you make it a 44-man roster I can add 4 more players to my roster that I can sit on for 3 years without ever having to give a shot in the majors before I DFA them. It makes it harder for guys to get their shot. Players, generally speaking, want more opportunity to move between teams so they can find a path to the majors, not less. The more spots on 40-man rosters where teams can stash them the harder it is for them to earn service time or burn options and earn their freedom to move about the league.

[jkcarew]

1 hour ago, Parfigliano said:

I don't think the MLBPA cares at all about the plight of AAAA barely hanging on players like Blewitt.  Their concern is the regulars.

Their concern has been and will continue to be the STARS.

[jkcarew]

Tread very carefully here. The laws of unintended consequences here are significant…from allowing teams to stash guys on 2-way deals, to enabling even more pitchers to churn on active rosters (if you look to expanding 40-man).

[Road trip]

41 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Scott Blewett isn't being DFA'd because of lack of 40-man space, he's being DFA'd because he's out of options. You could make it an 80-man roster and he'd still have to be DFA'd to send him to AAA. 

 

Correct if you are talking specifically about Blewett.  I was addressing the issue more generally.  Specific examples of players NOT out of options who were DFA'd from the Twins 40 man this year would include Darren McCaughan and Matt Canterino (perhaps because he will forever be injured...but at the time he was DFA'd they needed the 40-man spot).  

Meanwhile, they picked up Bride, who will be happy to spend the next few days in the majors I guess before he gets sent back to AAA as soon as somebody is healthy.

Being on a 40 man roster does have financial benefits for the players.  They get a major league contract, with higher minimums than what most minor leaguers make.  They are more likely to get called up to the majors when the inevitable injuries occur to the MLB club because no corresponding 40 man move is needed.  Sure, they might get "stuck" in a deep minor league system when they are younger... that's always a risk, but it's also present now. 

I'm not certain what players would prefer, but in general its some combination of opportunity and money.  Making it a 42 man roster is moving things around at the margins.  After all, the Twins used about 55 players last year... guys are getting added and dumped from the 40 man at a rather astounding rate compared to 20 or 30 years ago.  For context, I randomly looked up the '94 Twins.  They only used 34 different players.

[Patzky]

2 hours ago, The Mad King said:

Who wants a reliever named Blewit?

I'd like him to be on the Twins tonight.

[Jocko87]

11 minutes ago, Road trip said:

Meanwhile, they picked up Bride, who will be happy to spend the next few days in the majors I guess before he gets sent back to AAA as soon as somebody is healthy.

 

Bride will be DFAd when the time comes as well.  He has no options. I suspect he’s just fine with his role and if he has a marginally decent agent he knows the plan.  He will likely get a minor league deal and another chance to make a big league roster.  They know the deal, and it’s a good one.

I’m sure many others have a similar story as this but here’s mine-I went from a tiny town in North Dakota to Sigonella, Sicily in a matter of 9 months with a couple random stops on the way.  In a time of no internet or cell phones, yeah mom just had to trust the gubment that everything was cool.  No news is good news.

I’m really not trying to be the old guy yelling at clouds here (mostly because I’m not that old) but this article just pisses me off.  Stop giving me your toughest battles meme. 

Frankly, I’ve never seen so much unity on this board.  Proud of you guys. 

[Jocko87]

2 hours ago, IndianaTwin said:

Have a friend who was a backup catcher, the other common spot for roster churning, particularly in response to injury. His baseball-reference.com has 33 lines of transactions and he ended up in more than a dozen systems, several on multiple occasions. 

From talking to him, I very much get the toll that it takes on family, etc., but he recognized the rules are what they are and seems to be grateful that he had the chance to keep turning a boyhood dream into what ended up being a little over five years of service time.

(I also suspect that in the big scheme of things, this "problem" is going to be somewhere outside the top 20 on the list of MLBPA negotiating issues for the next CBA.)

I would be curious from his point of view if the multiple organizations might actually help someone build contacts and a network that can lead to an actual non-playing career in baseball.  Especially catchers that seem to become coaches at a higher rate.  In my professional career, changing organizations has opened my eyes to many things a gold watch would never do.  It wasn’t intentional but incredibly valuable. 

There’s a lot of opportunity in baseball outside playing.  Many of these guys probably know they don’t quite have it but there is still a chance to never have to punch a time clock, so to speak. 

[Trov]

The solutions, to this possible problem, proposed have a lot of holes that could hurt players more.  For example, if you have a minimum amount of time a player needs to be on roster before DFA, this would lead teams to placing players on IL more frequent, then DFA when they get off.  If you limit the amount of claims a team can make that will limit the MLB chances a player will get, because a team will be less likely to make a claim.  Sometimes those guys that get claimed via the waiver wire work out well, look at Rooker, if a team had to risk not being able to make claims later on they may pass. 

The league did look at the pitching shuttle guys issue a few different ways, expanding the roster, and pitcher on IL being on for 15 days versus 10 for position players. Also, if you limit the number of options per year that does that.  However, teams will continue to manipulate the rules to get pitchers with fresh arms rotated through.  

You need to balance the players interest of getting chance to find a team that wants them, but the teams ability to get rid of players they feel are not going to help them.  This happens to mostly fringe pen pitchers.  Sometimes though they find a team to stick with.  

If the players do not like it they can choose to not play the game too.  They can go get a different job and not be forced to move around.  They could just say I am done.  If Blewett wants to not be bounced around he can retire. 

[chpettit19]

29 minutes ago, Road trip said:

Correct if you are talking specifically about Blewett.  I was addressing the issue more generally.  Specific examples of players NOT out of options who were DFA'd from the Twins 40 man this year would include Darren McCaughan and Matt Canterino (perhaps because he will forever be injured...but at the time he was DFA'd they needed the 40-man spot).  

Meanwhile, they picked up Bride, who will be happy to spend the next few days in the majors I guess before he gets sent back to AAA as soon as somebody is healthy.

Being on a 40 man roster does have financial benefits for the players.  They get a major league contract, with higher minimums than what most minor leaguers make.  They are more likely to get called up to the majors when the inevitable injuries occur to the MLB club because no corresponding 40 man move is needed.  Sure, they might get "stuck" in a deep minor league system when they are younger... that's always a risk, but it's also present now. 

I'm not certain what players would prefer, but in general its some combination of opportunity and money.  Making it a 42 man roster is moving things around at the margins.  After all, the Twins used about 55 players last year... guys are getting added and dumped from the 40 man at a rather astounding rate compared to 20 or 30 years ago.  For context, I randomly looked up the '94 Twins.  They only used 34 different players.

McCaughan does not have any options left or they would have used it. Canterino hasn't thrown a pitch in a regular season game in 3 years. And Bride doesn't have any options left so he won't be sent back to AAA unless he makes it through waivers after being DFA'd.

Couldn't one make the argument that the fact that they used 55 players last year mean that the 40-man isn't holding guys back? That means the Twins gave 55 guys time in the majors and also gave numerous guys an opportunity to be picked up by other teams and be given more opportunities to play in the majors. Isn't that the best of both worlds for players? They're still getting to the majors and the 40-man rule is forcing teams to give them the chance to be picked up by other teams before they can send them back to the minors. Isn't that what the players should want? Expanding it to 42 just means you're making it easier for teams to stash 2 more of those players without forcing teams to expose them to other teams first.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, The Mad King said:

Who wants a reliever named Blewit?

Apparently everybody and nobody at the same time.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Players in DFA limbo during the season already earn MLB salary AND service time, while no longer reporting to the team. Even for a minimum-salary player like Blewett, that's ~$4153 per day just to stay at home, plus the future pension benefits. (According to this financial advisor, Blewett's current $6,875 annual pension at age 62 will jump to $27,500 if he can reach 172 days of service time. He entered the year with 102 days and is now up to 121, thanks to both roster and DFA time.)

With a 48 hour waiver period, plus the $1,200 to $2,200 reassignment bonus mentioned in the article, there is already an effective minimum $10k waiver claim bonus.

And as others have alluded to, Blewett owes his entire MLB career so far to roster churn. Reducing roster churn will simply reduce Blewett's MLB career.

[Unwinder]

The problem here, if there is a problem, is teams trying to artificially inflate their MLB rosters by shuttling fringe relievers up and down for fresh arms. I don't think that it's necessarily cruel (theoretically more guys are getting big league innings this way) but it feels like they're gaming the system to use more pitchers than they're actually allowed to roster, and there's something aesthetically wrong about seeing a reliever pitch well and get sent down anyway.

[Jacksson]

Your proposed "solutions" are just band-aids and do nothing to fix the root cause(s) of the DFA problem.  The game has evolved, injuries are becoming more frequent and the rules that have been in place since time began are no longer viable in today's environment.  Compounding matters is the deep pockets of some teams that allows them to freely spend on adding of free agents to their teams which renders teams that rely on the draft, trades and development to being "feeder" clubs of players to the high revenue clubs.

The 40 man roster is no longer viable and should be raised.

The 26 man roster is no longer viable and should be raised. 

The team roster should be at least 30 players till May 1st due to the frequency of "Spring" injuries that seem to befall players.

The number of option years for players is inadequate, counter productive and not in the best interests of both organization and player.  Too many decisions on the status of players are being driven by the fact that the player is "out of options".  Shouldn't the player have some say so if he is optioned?  And how many years he is willing to be optioned?  Players are people and do develop their skills over different increments of time.  A set limitation of time cannot realistically be applied like it was peanut butter.

Lower revenue teams should have a higher(Currently 40 man roster limit) that high revenue teams to allow them greater flexibility when it comes to developing and retaining players.

Reform of these above factors will help in reigning in the problem.

 

[Fire Dan Gladden]

5 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Looking for a problem to solve, here. There is no real issue here. Blewett is a AAAA pitcher who is getting the opportunity to play in MLB.

You're misleading people by making up impacts that don't exist. MLB players do not move their families when they get traded mid season, and players like Blewett have their family (if they have the wife/kids situation) based in a singular location. It boils down to him having a job where he travels a lot. Maybe we need to address this catastrophic travel situation with airline pilots who are away from home and they have to move their family to every location they spend the night. It's tragic. Every night, Delta Airlines pilot, John Smith, is forced to relocate his family to another random city Delta has him flying to. Think of the children!!!!!

Blewett can choose to quit baseball any time he wants. Scott Blewett is a 29 year old chasing his dream of playing MLB. He gets paid $750k / year while he's on an MLB roster. At AAA, housing, meals, per diem, travel, and $50k per year is provided by the team.

With the kind of guard rails you want to put into place, Blewett would never make anybody's 40 man roster, and you would have killed his dream.

I to feel like this is a list of solutions looking for a problem.

That being said, how many players does this really effect over the course of a season. I mean REALLY effect? I am talking the DFA, claim, DFA, claim in a short period of time? Maybe 5-7 over the course of the year? Do you really think the MLBPA is going to force changes on something this minor that effects so few?

[bean5302]

54 minutes ago, Unwinder said:

The problem here, if there is a problem, is teams trying to artificially inflate their MLB rosters by shuttling fringe relievers up and down for fresh arms. I don't think that it's necessarily cruel (theoretically more guys are getting big league innings this way) but it feels like they're gaming the system to use more pitchers than they're actually allowed to roster, and there's something aesthetically wrong about seeing a reliever pitch well and get sent down anyway.

They're using the system rather than abusing it in my opinion. The system is working great for players because it gives them a chance to catch on with any team that has an injury issue. After all, injuries are the reason guys like Blewett get service time since they don't earn a 26 man spot out of camp or get MLB offers thrown their way. The blunt way of putting it is he is not good enough for an MLB contract or a long term spot on the 26 man roster, but MLB teams are not allowed to take advantage of his AAAA status by shuttling him back and forth between AAA and MLB forever and with no risk.

What if the Twins didn't have any injuries this year? Would Blewett have gotten a 40 man and then 26 man spot? Nope. He'd have spent the entire year in MiLB. This is exactly the discussion the forums have had about Randy Dobnak.

Instead, because of injuries, Randy Dobnak & Scott Blewett got their numbers called and opportunities to pitch at the MLB level to showcase their skills to every other team in MLB. The Twins then DFA the players when the immediate injury need has passed or another need comes up. On the waiver wire, any other team in baseball who has an injury need can make a claim and have the player pitch in the big show. Rinse, repeat. It means a guy like Dobnak or Blewett or Tonkin gets chances to fill an emergency need for all 30 teams at pretty much any time. If there is any team with an injury need, the Dobnaks and Blewetts of the world get a shot at it. Basically like independent contract employees.