Jump to content

Matusz, de Aza, McFarland, Lavarnway

wildcard

By wildcard
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

Number5 Hangout Grand Counsel

Number5

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcard Hangout Grand Counsel

wildcard

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdbdotcom Hangout Grand Counsel

mdbdotcom

Posted
Posted
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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Number5 Hangout Grand Counsel

Number5

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • DrungoHazewood
      Gunnar/ Adley . Would Gunnar have been a good choice at 1-1?

      By DrungoHazewood · Posted

      Adley was a nearly finished product when picked, if not for tradition and service time stuff he could have been in the majors shortly after he left college. Gunnar needed 1000+ minor league plate appearances as a high school pick. Ask this same question about the 1990-2017 Orioles with their development system. They certainly could have found a way to screw up Gunnar, would have been harder with Adley.
    • Sports Guy
      2024 NFL Draft Discussion

      By Sports Guy · Posted

      I don’t think it was weird at all.  EDC said it but I thought it unfolded as expected.  You knew the QBs would go. You knew tons of OT and WR would go.   This was always going to be an offense dominated first round. The Oline and WR depth is in every round. I suspect that they go Oline twice or Oline/WR tonight.  Obviously you never know how the board falls but I think that’s what is likely.   This is mainly going to be an offense draft. EDC said a few weeks ago that they will draft a RB.  My guess is that the RB goes sometime in day 3. They will come out of this draft with at least 2 more Olineman, one WR and one RB.  I suspect they take a safety at some point as well. The question will be do they take 9 players.  The Ravens didn’t feel this was a draft with as many draftable players as years past, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they make some kind of a trade. 
    • emmett16
      Colton Cowser 2024

      By emmett16 · Posted

      1:2 is good.  Elite is a player like Arraez who is 1+:1.  
    • Roll Tide
      2024 NFL Draft Discussion

      By Roll Tide · Posted

      https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/40027950/ravens-pick-nate-wiggins-nfl-draft-dabo-swinney-text  
    • Roll Tide
      2024 NFL Draft Discussion

      By Roll Tide · Posted

      Was reading Wiggins write up on ESPN. He appears to be more of a home run threat than Koolaid. He had a pick 6 each of the last 2 years.  
    • Filmstudy
      Colton Cowser 2024

      By Filmstudy · Posted

      Starting point has changed.  Given the fact he has approx 1/7th of his season in the books at 1.139, to OPS just .780 for the season, he'd have to drop off to under .730 the rest of the way.  That sort of drop off wouldn't be acceptable to me. I'd like him to OPS .800 the rest of the way for roughly .850 for the season.  The more they use him in a platoon role, the better I think that number might be.
    • Filmstudy
      Time Gunnar's triple

      By Filmstudy · Posted

      Can I ask how you timed it vs the DVR?  Did you use a stopwatch or count click with pause/FF, or something else?

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...