Team A wants to remove a player from their 40-man but would like to keep him in their minors. They waive/DFA him. Team B makes a claim and gets him. Some weeks/months later, they want to remove him from their 40-man but would like to keep him in their minors. My view is that Team A ought to have first claim on keeping him in the minors and off their 40-man; when the dust settles, why should Team B get their wishes granted for a player that nobody evidently has actual room on their 40-man for? And if the player is made a free agent, then Team B has caused Team A some harm that would not have occurred if Team B had just minded their own business. Undoing the claim as though it had never happened and reverting to that original moment, subject to other teams possibly having put in a claim too, seems fairest, if the player has not been kept for some fixed threshold of time (which I could be persuaded should be shorter or longer). I view claims like Team B here to be somewhere on the spectrum of spurious/nuisance/dishonest, and this takes away the incentive of getting free roster filler for their minors. And I find it especially regrettable that "my" team has gotten itself into this pattern of retaliatory bottom-feeding.