Matusz, de Aza, McFarland, Lavarnway

[canonfaz]

Matusz has looked great this spring. I almost hate to give up on him now. If we get a decent chip back though, I still think it's worth it.

[weams]

Left Handers who can start in the major leagues are golden. There is always a shortage of them.

And they are always better that Arrietas.

[mdbdotcom]

And they are always better that Arrietas.

Should we trade Chen and move Matusz to the rotation?

[Number5]

They're describing a different scenario in that sentence. (As I understand it).

The first 3 sentences describe the drafting clubs options / outcomes. They can keep the player on the 25 man all year or put him on waivers. If they put him on waivers another team can claim him, if that team claims him they have the same restrictions. If the player clears waivers they have to be offered back to the original club.

The final sentence is basically a 'BUT' for the preceding ones. A team also has the option of working out a trade with the original club to keep the player and avoid the 25-man requirement.

R.A Dickey would be a good example for when this has happened before.

Perhaps, but I don't think so. I read it that first, the player must clear waivers before being offered back to the player's former team. In lieu of offering the player back, the drafting team may agree to a trade with the former team. That seems pretty clear to me. Reading top to bottom, left to right, it appears to say what I take it to be saying. Now, Cots certainly could have worded it better.

Yes, I know that there have been trades. That is not in question. My point is that the player clears waivers prior to completing the trade.

[El Gordo]

Perhaps, but I don't think so. I read it that first, the player must clear waivers before being offered back to the player's former team. In lieu of offering the player back, the drafting team may agree to a trade with the former team. That seems pretty clear to me. Reading top to bottom, left to right, it appears to say what I take it to be saying. Now, Cots certainly could have worded it better.

Yes, I know that there have been trades. That is not in question. My point is that the player clears waivers prior to completing the trade.

Not right IMO. What would be the point of requiring the player to be waived before trading for him?

[Frobby]

Perhaps, but I don't think so. I read it that first, the player must clear waivers before being offered back to the player's former team. In lieu of offering the player back, the drafting team may agree to a trade with the former team. That seems pretty clear to me. Reading top to bottom, left to right, it appears to say what I take it to be saying. Now, Cots certainly could have worded it better.

Yes, I know that there have been trades. That is not in question. My point is that the player clears waivers prior to completing the trade.

Per MLB.com:

A team that selects a player in the Rule 5 Draft pays $50,000 to the team from which he was selected. The receiving team must then keep the player on the Major League 25-man roster for the entirety of the next season, and the selected player must remain active (not on the disabled list) for a minimum of 90 days. If the player does not remain on the Major League roster, he is offered back to the team from which he was selected for $25,000. If his original team declines, the receiving team may waive the player.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/minorleagues/rule_5.jsp?mc=faq

[Number5]

Not right IMO. What would be the point of requiring the player to be waived before trading for him?

Same point as requiring him to be waived before being sent back. The trade is in lieu of being sent back, not in lieu of the waiver requirement.

[Number5]

Per MLB.com:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/minorleagues/rule_5.jsp?mc=faq

This is certainly wrong. The waiver period precedes the offer back. I think MLB.com misspoke there. They undoubtedly meant to say that if the original team declines to pay $25,000 to get the player back, the receiving team may either outright the player to the minors, or release him. Waive is simply the wrong word there.

[mdbdotcom]

Same point as requiring him to be waived before being sent back. The trade is in lieu of being sent back, not in lieu of the waiver requirement.

I believe you are incorrect. The point of putting him through waivers before he is returned is to increase the opportunity to be on a major league roster. If he goes back to his original team, he's suddenly a minor leaguer again. With a trade, he's at least on the 40-man roster and making a good bit more money, even if not on the active roster. So, a guy who has been in the minors for a while gets a nice pay bump. That's what the players are interested in.

[Number5]

I believe you are incorrect. The point of putting him through waivers before he is returned is to increase the opportunity to be on a major league roster. If he goes back to his original team, he's suddenly a minor leaguer again. With a trade, he's at least on the 40-man roster and making a good bit more money, even if not on the active roster. So, a guy who has been in the minors for a while gets a nice pay bump. That's what the players are interested in.

If he was being kept on the major league roster, there would be zero need for a trade.

[mdbdotcom]

If he was being kept on the major league roster, there would be zero need for a trade.

Once the trade is complete they can option him, but he is on the 40 man and making a good bit more money than when he was on a minor league deal.

[Number5]

Once the trade is complete they can option him, but he is on the 40 man and making a good bit more money than when he was on a minor league deal.

Well, as I said before, I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Certainly nothing that anyone has posted indicates anything that would make me think that the Cots paragraph is incorrect.

A trade does not put a player that is not on the original team's 40 man roster on the acquiring team's 40 man roater. If that were the case, there would be far fewer trades of minor league players.40 man roster

[weams]

This is certainly wrong. The waiver period precedes the offer back. I think MLB.com misspoke there. They undoubtedly meant to say that if the original team declines to pay $25,000 to get the player back, the receiving team may either outright the player to the minors, or release him. Waive is simply the wrong word there.

I was always with Frobby on this as most of you know.

[weams]

I believe you are incorrect. The point of putting him through waivers before he is returned is to increase the opportunity to be on a major league roster. If he goes back to his original team, he's suddenly a minor leaguer again. With a trade, he's at least on the 40-man roster and making a good bit more money, even if not on the active roster. So, a guy who has been in the minors for a while gets a nice pay bump. That's what the players are interested in.

That was always my understanding.

[Frobby]

This is certainly wrong. The waiver period precedes the offer back. I think MLB.com misspoke there. They undoubtedly meant to say that if the original team declines to pay $25,000 to get the player back, the receiving team may either outright the player to the minors, or release him. Waive is simply the wrong word there.

OK, I've gone straight to the source: the rules themselves. I think they support your position that a player must pass through waivers before he is offered back to the original team. The procedure is found in Rule 6(a):

From the date of selection to the close of the subsequent Major League championship season, no player selected in the Major League phase of the Rule 5 Selection Meeting shall be released or directed to perform for or otherwise transferred to any Minor League Club until:

(1) the player has received a 15-day trial period during spring training;

(2) Outright Assignment waivers have first been granted on the player's contract in accordance with Rule 10 (Major League Waivers) (see, e.g., Rule 10(e)(5) (Restrictions on Waiver Requests)); and

(3) outright assignment of the player has then been offered to and rejected by the Major or Minor League Club from which the player's contract was selected.

http://bizofbaseball.com/docs/MajorLeagueRules-2008.pdf

My only caveat is this is the version that existed in 2008. I can't find a current version.