Matusz, de Aza, McFarland, Lavarnway

[Number5]

I don't agree. There are no waivers needed to trade for a player on the 40 man roster during the off season up until July 31st. Show me one Rule that says there is.

The Major League Rules on right there on Cots Contracts.

Again, Verrett is not, and never has been on the Mets' 40 man roster. You are mixing apples and oranges.

[weams]

I don't agree. There are no waivers needed to trade for a player on the 40 man roster during the off season up until July 31st. Show me one Rule that says there is.

The Major League Rules on right there on Cots Contracts.

I'm not showing you anything. I am clarifying.

[weams]

Again, Verrett is not, and never has been on the Mets' 40 man roster. You are mixing apples and oranges.

But he is on the Orioles 40 man roster. And would remain so.

[weams]

But he is on the Orioles 40 man roster. And would remain so.

The only advantage gained by trading would be the ability to remove from the 25 man roster. And that is a big advantage.

[weams]

As we have now determined, the player must pass thru outright waivers. If you think about it, you will see that if a trade is being worked in lieu of his being sent back to the original team after passing thru waivers, the acquiring team is trading for the payer (and his status) from the originating team.

He does not actually go back to the Mets. If he were returned to the Mets and then traded ... you may well be right.

[wildcard]

I was not clear. If the team that traded for the player then wished to remove him from the 40 man roster, waivers would have to be asked. Without restriction.

Yes, once he is a part of the O's without being a Rule 5 player it would require waivers to remove him from the 40 man roster. However, the O's don't want to remove him from the 40 man roster. They want to keep him on the 40 man roster and use one of his options to send him to the minors.

[weams]

Yes, once he is a part of the O's without being a Rule 5 player it would require waivees to remove him from the 40 man roster. However, the O's don't want to remove him from the 40 man roster. They want to keep him on the 40 man roster and use one of his options to send him to he minors.

I am totally agreeing with you. No argument. I have been told what the deal is and you knew all along on this subject. Cots is not definitive though. It just happens to be right.

[mdbdotcom]

The only advantage gained by trading would be the ability to remove from the 25 man roster. And that is a big advantage.

It's as if the trade is not to acquire the player himself, but to get the original team to give up their option to take the player back. "We'll give you player X if you agree to not take back player Y."

[weams]

Yes, once he is a part of the O's without being a Rule 5 player it would require waivers to remove him from the 40 man roster. However, the O's don't want to remove him from the 40 man roster. They want to keep him on the 40 man roster and use one of his options to send him to the minors.

This is quite complex. I will tell you this. The front office that lost Chris Gomez on a rule 5 claim would NEVER have figured this out.

[weams]

It's as if the trade is not to acquire the player himself, but to get the original team to give up their option to take the player back. "We'll give you player X if you agree to not take back player Y."

Absolutely. Exactly that.

[weams]

Now Almanzar? We actually traded FOR him.

[Number5]

The only advantage gained by trading would be the ability to remove from the 25 man roster. And that is a big advantage.

OK, so it would be considered an option, rather than an outright assignment, right? Seems a bit odd, given that he just passed thru outright waivers, but if that's what you've been told, I won't argue the point.

Clearly, that being the case, they aren't going to waive him a second time, since they just gave up something in trade for him.

In any case, it now seems clear that Verrett must pass thru waivers before either sending him back to the Mets or trading for him.

[weams]

In any case, it now seems clear that Verrett must pass thru waivers before either sending him back to the Mets or trading for him.

Absolutely. It is 100% clear. And he can never be taken off the 40 man roster, unless the Orioles will expose him.

[weams]

Andy MacPhail tried to explain all the different types of waivers to me one time. But I am certain that I did not catch all the nuances. And it changes all different times during the year.

[wildcard]

Absolutely. It is 100% clear. And he can never be taken off the 40 man roster, unless the Orioles will expose him.

Where does it say that Verrett has to pass through waivers to be traded for?