chpettit19

Always appreciate the thoughtful back and forth! Will be fun to see how it plays out today and in years to come. It's what keeps us coming back for more picinic baskets!

That is definitely the worst case scenario playing out. And I wouldn't be happy. But that's what sports are all about to me. The "what's going to happen" is why I tune in. I'd by no means argue anyone is crazy for taking the title in this hypothetical. Especially as a MN sports fan. It's what makes this such a fun thought exercise. It's reasonable to choose either side. No hope for 10 years would be too much for me.

I guess my point is that outside of 3 or 4 dudes, 3 of which came from the Angels, the other guys waived are basically Luplow type players. Carrasco has a 6.80 ERA in 20 starts. Cisnero has a 5.36 ERA in 54 appearances. Bader has a 77 OPS+ in 82 games. Renfroe has a 94 OPS+ in 124 games. Grichuk has a 94 OPS+ in 90 games. Those guys are pretty typical waiver cuts at this time of year anyways. I mean we've all been calling for a Gallo DFA for months and he has a better OPS+ (99) than any of those guys. Giolito has been terrible with the Angels, but he's a big name so he stands out. Moore and Lopez are legit playoff arms so they stand out. Clevinger is a bit of a wildcard with his buyout making him a really expensive 1 month rental. The free puppy bin is still full of mostly guys that it doesn't matter that they're there. Nobody is tripping over themselves for those first 5 names. The better names available almost all come from an outlier situation that isn't likely to repeat itself. 1 team being able to snag all 4 of those arms is a concern, and I'd bet that's the hole that gets filled after the season. But none of the rest of this is new. I think without the Angels we aren't even talking about this. And I don't see their situation coming up too often.

Mangels for sure. Not even a question.

There's always a risk of someone doing something crazy within the rules. I just think teams have been well aware that they can waive guys now and maybe save money, but definitely clear a spot for a young guy when they're out of the race. There's a reason we were almost all upset with the Twins carrying Simmons the entire season. There wasn't some drastic rule change that lead to these guys getting waived. The rule change is 1 team being able to claim them all. The question, to me, is how big is the risk that a bunch of teams do what the Angels do and cut numerous players that numerous teams would want on a playoff roster? I don't see a big risk. I think they're a special circumstance. But we'll see!

Eh, I think most teams have 6 40-man moves they could make without breaking a sweat if they thought they were significantly upgrading their playoff chances. I'm willing to bet Cincinnati and Miami have 6 guys on their 40-man that aren't vital parts of their futures. Those pitching staffs have a ton of holes so I can't imagine their non-26-man pitchers on the 40-man would cause them to lose sleep if they dropped them for Moore, Lopez, and Clevinger. There's a lot of "eh" on 40-man rosters. There's certainly a cost to claiming someone, but not an overly expensive one.

But the White Sox, Mets, and Tigers were sellers at the deadline to start with. A bad August didn't change their game plan. They're just hoping they can save a couple bucks of 1 individual player they couldn't get a prospect for at the deadline. Those teams aren't an example of a change in any team management strategy. The Yankees and Angels are the only 2 teams that match the "fell apart in August so waived guys" box. And the Yankees only waived 1 guy. Then Angels are the outlier and their motivation is to get below the tax threshold to get a better pick when Ohtani leaves. The Angels are the only team I see that did anything outside the norm. It's not like teams didn't waive guys in August and September before. This only caught headlines like it did because of the Angels going crazy with things. But their situation is not something that is going to happen very often. No team is going to waive Snell or Hader to save a couple bucks at the end of this year and not take their shot at a compensation pick. That would be horrid asset management. The league was not ready for the Angels to do what they did, no. And the likely change is to make it so you can only claim 1 guy before cycling to the back of the line so one team can't grab everyone. The free puppy giveaway has always been around, though. I mean the Twins just got Jordan Luplow from the Blue Jays in August. Harrison Bader and his 75 OPS+ isn't a whole lot different than Jordan Luplow and his 67. 34 year old Jose Cisnero and his 5.22 ERA/4.23 FIP isn't Josh Hader. Outside of the Angels there was nothing significantly different with the other guys getting waived than any other year. I just don't see some big sweeping change that occurred outside of the worst run team in the sport going crazy after realizing they made a massive mistake in July.

Always an interesting idea to think about. I always come around to "no." Of course the WS is the goal, but a decade of losing teams is brutal. I'll take my chances and "mystery box" over the guaranteed title and 10 seasons I don't care about. I'd rather be a Dodger or Yankee fan than a Royal or Marlins fan. I'd rather have a shot every year and not win it all (sorry, that 2020 Dodgers title isn't the same thing as a normal title) than have my 1 flash in a pan amongst the misery and destruction every other year.

I also find it fascinating, and will be quite surprised if they don't change the waiver claim rules to move teams to the back of the order after they claim someone to avoid one team being able to claim everyone in this sort of situation. The problem with saying "if the Twins completely tanked in August look at all the guys they could waive" is that if the Twins tanked in August it's likely that a number of those guys would be the reason why they tanked, and thus, nobody would claim them. And we already know the Twins don't cut veterans at the end of the year to look at young guys. It's a pretty universal complaint around here. But, yes, other teams could do that. For a whole bunch of teams to jump on this bandwagon, and be able to waive numerous players like you're suggesting the Twins could, you need a whole bunch of teams to tank AND have numerous players playing well meaning other teams would want them AND have those players be on expiring deals AND have those players not be good enough for a QO. How many teams match that description? It's a pretty fine needle to thread to think you're a playoff contender at the start of August, have numerous players on expiring deals playing well enough to get claimed, but not well enough to get a QO, and then completely fall apart by the end of August. It will be really interesting to see how today turns out, and what teams do moving forward. But I think there's a reason the non-Angels teams only waived a guy or 2. I think that's much more likely the norm than teams wiping out 25% of their roster in 1 day. You're right, though, we'll all learn together how teams handle this moving forward.

Sure, they should've added "per at bat" to avoid this argument.

It's really about the scope through which you interpret the statement, right? Per AB vs overall. My understanding from reading their post is that they're talking per AB. You're trying to refute their per AB idea by using overall type stats. They're 2 separate things. With the lack of opportunities the Twins have frustratingly given Jeffers there's a lot of guys who've been "more impactful" than him while not being as good of hitters. The question is are we talking per AB or overall. I think it's pretty obvious they were talking per AB, but you latched onto the words "more impactful" and wanted to get in some praise for the counting numbers that you feel a number of us wrongly diminish.

Oh I'm sure teams will continue to drop single guys here and there in the future. But most of them are going to be "eh" type players. Carrasco and Bader types. But those guys aren't swinging playoff races. But most teams will want more than salary relief, they'll want prospects. So they trade their truly valuable players at the deadline. I'm just saying I don't see a wave of waived players coming every year. There aren't that many guys that playoff teams will truly want that teams will hold past the deadline just to cut a month later hoping somebody eats a mil for them. Clevinger is actually a really interesting case to see if someone eats the 5 mil or whatever it'll actually cost them. I assume they're not allowed to reach out to him about picking up his option before he's officially claimed by someone so the White Sox are hoping someone claims him knowing he's likely opting out of his end of the mutual option and you're paying him 4 mil next year, too. Will be interesting to see if teams are willing to pay that price for a month+ of someone. That'll change things far more than what the Angels did, I'd think.

No, I don't believe there were any controllable assets waived, but my point was that that's all that rebuilding teams would have left. They trade all their other guys at the end of July because they want talent back in return, not just salary relief. I just think the Angels are an outlier. They're quite possibly the worst run team in baseball and I don't think we need to make drastic changes to any rules because they're terrible at what they do. The other guys that were waived were one offs from a couple different clubs. I don't think it's a sign of things to come. Trading top prospects for guys you're going to waive in a month isn't a great team building strategy. Harrison Bader isn't significantly better than Jordan Luplow who the Twins got off waivers earlier in the month. The Angels are the only weird thing here, and I don't see them being trend setters.

I don't think that rule changes what the Angels are doing. They're trying to get under the tax threshold. This is just straight up financially motivated. They'd have done this even if they could call up all 40 guys. This kind of thing is a bit of an unintended consequence of that rule change, though. But I'm happier with a handful of waiver guys hitting the market on Aug 31 than the team I'm directly battling with playing a AAA team at the end of September while I have to play a real MLB team. The Angels are an outlier, I think. Bader, Carrasco, Cisnero being waived is probably closer to what we'll see moving forward. Even rebuilding teams aren't going to shed a bunch of controllable assets at the end of August. And they likely traded all their free agents to be in July.

How many opportunities has each had to drive in or score runs? Don't need to get into the "counting numbers don't tell the whole story" discussion again, but Arraez has those 108 runs in 532 PAs. Jeffers has his 50 in 261. They're almost identical when you do that very simple way of looking at opportunities. I'm not going to lookup who's had more runners in scoring position, etc., but "108 vs 50" is almost completely useless when describing who's been "more impactful" with their ABs if you don't account for their opportunities.

According to The Athletic, yes, Oakland could claim all of them and get all of them. Waiver order is based strictly on current winning% (as of tomorrow, so today's games still matter) and nothing else effects them.

Less pissed than if somebody above us in the standings gets them...

Not an overly important thing by any means, but I disagree that this is a "classy move" by the orgs placing guys on waivers. It's 100% just a salary relief hope. The reason they put them on waivers now is that it significantly raises the likelihood that somebody claims them. This isn't the teams doing the players a solid by giving them a chance to get on a playoff roster, this is the teams increasing their odds of having their guys claimed. The Angels weren't going to waive them at the beginning of August because they just got a number of them and were trying to compete. Same with the Yankees. The deadline for playoff eligibility just created a sense of urgency for the other teams to put in claims now that these teams are out of contention. If the guys weren't playoff eligible you'd significantly lower the chances that they're claimed, and you get salary relief. The Angels don't care if Giolito gets on a playoff roster, they just care that he gets off their payroll. And that's why the made the moves yesterday instead of today.

Very interesting. There goes our "catch and release" theory. I wonder what the timeline is for being able to release them again is? You're surely not forced to keep them for the entire season so I wonder when you're allowed to release them. Thanks for this resource!

I think 1 team being able to claim them all is something that will piss off other teams. They won't be pissed at the Marlins (or whoever did all the claiming), but they'll definitely be pissed that it's something that could happen. The FOs don't get mad at other teams for playing within the rules, they get mad that the rules can give 1 team an advantage that they didn't have the opportunity to take advantage of.

I think there is a very small chance anyone else would claim them if somebody tries a catch and release maneuver, but it's possible somebody who needs a part-time injury filler would make the move just to get them to October, or to a division win instead of a wild card birth. Their appeal goes way, way down if they can't be on your playoff roster, but there's plenty to play for still in September for teams and you have to add 2 guys who won't be on your playoff roster anyways, so it's possible somebody would still claim them. Just a much smaller chance.

I think the Twins could snag a number of these guys without any real problem. Would anyone lose sleep over Moore or Lopez replacing Floro? Anyone going to be distraught if they drop Celestino from the 40-man (that may happen this offseason anyways)? As you mention, Gallo and Luplow are low hanging fruit. I don't expect Farmer back next year so switching him out for a righty outfielder (sorry, I don't see Buxton in CF everyday when he's back) instead may make sense. Ronny Henriquez is intriguing, but is it franchise altering to drop him from the 40-man? They could claim everyone, and keep them for a while at least, if they wanted to. I'd claim Moore and Lopez without thinking twice. They're both playoff quality relievers, and we need more of those even if the plan is likely to move a number of starters to the pen for October.

I'm pretty sure you could claim them all tomorrow and immediately waive them (if you don't want them) to get their waiver date beyond September 1 and make them ineligible for the playoffs. Wouldn't actually have to make any 40-man moves. If another team claims them you'd have to deal with them being on your competitor for the rest of September, but not October. I don't know if that'd deter other teams from picking them up at all or not. You'd run the risk of taking on a solid chunk of salary that you're stuck paying this year, but you'd keep them off playoff rosters so you wouldn't have to deal with them in October. I'd think the relievers are the ones teams would do this with. But I'm pretty sure every team has a reliever worse than Moore or Lopez they could easily option. The bats aren't really playoff caliber guys so not sure you'd risk the salary to keep them away from other squads. But you could.

That would be the cutthroat thing to do. Not very player friendly as you'd probably piss off whichever player you screwed out of a playoff roster chance, but if you're willing to sacrifice some guys off the bottom of your 40-man it's a solid strategy. Will be interesting to see how it plays out tomorrow. Really hope we don't watch the relievers go to teams above us in the standings.

It's not the MN nice way, but a truly cutthroat competitor could argue they should put in a claim on a bunch of these guys if they have a 40-man spot they're willing to sacrifice even if they don't want the player just to keep them away from other playoff teams. Especially the relievers. They absolutely have to claim Moore. No way you can let an AL playoff team get their hands on a lefty reliever you'd have to face in the playoffs when you're this bad against lefties. I'd guess Moore and Lopez are going to be the 2 most claimed players, and the Twins 100% need to claim them both and see if they get one.