Master Index of Archived Threads
METS ON WAIVERS
Rotblatt Aug 17 2005 10:06 AM |
According to the FAN yesterday, Gammons had a column about who's been put on waivers and what's happened.
|
Rotblatt Aug 17 2005 10:10 AM |
|
Apparently, Looper, Glavine & Pedro (!?) cleared waivers as well, making them eligible to trade. Why would we put Pedro on waivers at all? Any ideas?
|
Elster88 Aug 17 2005 10:18 AM |
I would hypothesize that there is no reason to try and read into Matsui's name being on this list, or Piazza's, or anyone else. My reasoning is that David Wright's name is on this list.
|
Edgy DC Aug 17 2005 10:21 AM |
This just shouldn't be publicized.
|
Johnny Dickshot Aug 17 2005 10:33 AM |
Do you really believe Piazza would leave a game because his name appeared on a waiver list?!? Or that he'd been traded mid-game?
|
Frayed Knot Aug 17 2005 10:47 AM |
Newsday's Sunday sports section also had a list of (leaked and presumably - though not neccesarily - accurate) names of Mets & Yanx that had cleared waivers. I didn't save it but it's prolly in their archives if you want to dig.
|
PatchyFogg Aug 17 2005 10:54 AM |
This was always supposed to be private info. Has the Balco grand jury testimony leaking and leaking of Palmeiro's well, leaking, lowered the bar? I'll leave the obvious Judith Miller stuff for another forum.
|
Rotblatt Aug 17 2005 12:09 PM |
Thanks for the info, everyone! When I first heard the report, they only mentioned Piazza & Matsui and they said it like it was something significant, and then I remembered that he'd been pulled from the game . . .
|
TheOldMole Aug 17 2005 12:17 PM |
It's not uncommon to put an entire roster on waivers - sometimes in order to try and sneak one name through.
|
MFS62 Aug 17 2005 12:23 PM |
When Bill Veeck bought the St. Louis Browns, the first thing he did was put the entire team on waivers to see if there was any interest among other teams in his players.
|
Mark Healey Aug 17 2005 12:32 PM |
I don't think it's so terrible that this kind of thing goes public.
|
Edgy DC Aug 17 2005 12:46 PM |
I don't see grist for rumor mills as a good thing.
|
MFS62 Aug 17 2005 01:00 PM |
|
Bartenders at watering holes where such things are hotly discussed might disagree with you. Later
|
Frayed Knot Aug 17 2005 02:42 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 17 2005 03:46 PM |
|
Keep in mind that the whole Boston/Ramirez thing (winter '03/'04) was: - a completely different type of waivers: those were IRrevocable as opposed to those that can be recalled, so that ANYONE daring to claim MR back then would have assumed his entire contract no questions asked! - at a completely different time in the season: there are different "waiver periods" at different times of the year - done for far different reasons: the Sox wanted someone to claim him - even knowing they'd get nothing in return - so they could get that contract off their books during the off-season while there were still options to spend it elsewhere. Essentially they decided that, although Manny's a great player, his contract was bloated and out-of-date and they could do better with the remaining (then) 5yrs x $20mil/per (something we oughta think about before trading players in addition to assuming his remaining 3x$20mil/yr)
|
Mark Healey Aug 17 2005 02:51 PM |
did my post get deleted?
|
Elster88 Aug 17 2005 02:54 PM |
Click on your name, and then click on "Find All Posts".
|
Johnny Dickshot Aug 17 2005 03:43 PM |
|
It was claimed on waivers by Cincinnati. (actually, it's right where you left it, above)
|
MFS62 Aug 17 2005 03:51 PM |
|
|
ABG Aug 17 2005 04:10 PM |
What's baffling to me is, if true, why on earth we'd ever pull Matsui back. The purpose of pulling a guy back is so you can keep him--if someone had claimed Kaz, they'd be stuck with his salary and overall shittiness, right?
|
MFS62 Aug 17 2005 04:13 PM |
But it may have been a team on his "no trade" list. I think I read that he can only be traded to a few teams.
|
soupcan Aug 17 2005 05:05 PM |
|
Even so - how about having a conversation with Kaz before pulling him back and assuming he'd veto a trade? Because we all know what happens when you assume.
|
MFS62 Aug 17 2005 05:09 PM |
I agree.
|
Edgy DC Aug 17 2005 07:07 PM |
|
So, then, why assume they didn't? We're making judgments based on a whole lot of assumtions here.
|
seawolf17 Aug 17 2005 07:42 PM |
Mike & the Dog had a thought on this... first, who the hell would claim him, with $7 million left next year, and second, if he was claimed, why would they pull him back? Doesn't make sense.
|