Matusz, de Aza, McFarland, Lavarnway

[El Gordo]

Well, that seems to go against what Weams was told.

To the best of my understanding Weams has gone against what Weams has told. :laughlol:

[weams]

Well, that seems to go against what Weams was told.

Remember, that is just a reported translating what they understand as well. As I stated, it is very complex. That writer may have simple gotten it wrong. OR I may have misunderstood the 40 man roster status. Which would irrelevant. We are just trying to get him off the 25 man roster anyway. Either way the player would need to be added back to the 40 man roster for the off season. You would be trading for the rights to not have him sitting in the bullpen until September. If you trade for him and option him, you could bring him up and send him down throughout.

[foxfield]

Yes, but as the preceding sentence clearly states, he must first clear waivers. Hey, I could be wrong. After all, I've been married since 1974, and have a lot of experience being wrong. I'm pretty sure about this, though.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/transactions-glossary/

Number 5, must spread rep. For the hilarious quote and for sparking such lively discussion.

I'll be shocked if the O's can trade Matusz for anything, and not without kicking in a million+ in cash.

The idea of Matusz as a starter is a fantasy, and I doubt there is a GM/team in the majors who would put him in a rotation.

The last time he was a starter he set the all time MLB record for worst starting pitcher. He wasn't just bad he was all time historically bad.

I haven't seen him break 90 with his fastball all Spring, his curve ball in not deep and will get hammered in the zone. His changeup is only a few mph less than his FB which allows hitters to easily react to both.

He is an expensive but serviceable LOOGY.

He was historically bad. The Orioles were also historically bad. The Orioles are better. I am not saying that Brian is too, but it's foolish to base his value on what he did several years ago.

D

Hahaha. You will get a rep for this my friend. I've been married a long time too. Found out early on that I could either be right or be happy. I'm a happy guy.

I'm happy someone else noted the quote.

Absolutely. And we can trade either of them without passing through waivers. We just can't trade for either of them. Without. And if Garcia is returned, he does not get returned to Houston. He goes back to the Red Sox.

So, just to summarize all of this. If a train was leaving a station in Chicago for Boston and was traveling at a speed of 92 mph, it would take how long to get to LA? Man my head hurts.

[El Gordo]

Remember, that is just a reported translating what they understand as well. As I stated, it is very complex. That writer may have simple gotten it wrong. OR I may have misunderstood the 40 man roster status. Which would irrelevant. We are just trying to get him off the 25 man roster anyway. Either way the player would need to be added back to the 40 man roster for the off season. You would be trading for the rights to not have him sitting in the bullpen until September. If you trade for him and option him, you could bring him up and send him down throughout.

The question is: in order to trade for the rights to option him do you have to expose him to waivers first? I think not.

[weams]

The question is: in order to trade for the rights to option him do you have to expose him to waivers first? I think not.

You would be wrong. As I was for a long time on this. Done talking about it. Waivers first then the trade. Not my research. Or speculation.

[Frobby]

Houston drafted Jason Garcia in the Rule 5 draft this year. They traded him to the O's for cash. He didn't need to pass through waivers to be traded.

So what? The Orioles have to keep Garcia on their 25 man roster all year. The whole point of trading for Verrett is to avoid that requirement. It can't be avoided unless all 28 other teams don't claim him on waivers.

[Ripken]

So, I've been away... is Matusz likely to be dealt? I really don't want him on the roster any more.

[Can_of_corn]

So, I've been away... is Matusz likely to be dealt? I really don't want him on the roster any more.

Yea, he looked pretty rough out there today.

[weams]

Yea, he looked pretty rough out there today.

What did he lower his ERA to 0.89?

[Can_of_corn]

What did he lower his ERA to 0.89?

.87...

[wildcard]

So what? The Orioles have to keep Garcia on their 25 man roster all year. The whole point of trading for Verrett is to avoid that requirement. It can't be avoided unless all 28 other teams don't claim him on waivers.

There is no supporting evidence to say that Verrett has to go through waivers to be traded for. I have seen none. The MLBTR example doing not show it. Nothing in the Major League Rules that I read say that he needs to go through waivers to be traded for.

The only way waivers are needed is if the O's are sending him back. And that is not what we are talking about here.

[weams]

There is no supporting evidence to say that Verrett has to go through waivers to be traded for. I have seen none. The MLBTR example doing not show it. Nothing in the Major League Rules that I read say that he needs to go through waivers to be traded for.

The only way waivers are needed is if the O's are sending him back. And that is not what we are talking about here.

You don't need supporting evidence. It is true though. He must pass through to be traded for. Or returned. This is not from research. Or my opinion. 100 percent. I know. It seems weird. But it's true.

[wildcard]

You don't need supporting evidence. It is true though. He must pass through to be traded for. Or returned. This is not from research. Or my opinion. 100 percent. I know. It seems weird. But it's true.

From where?

[eddie83]

How many teams claim a Rule 5 plate from another team who exposes then to waivers ? I am sure it has happened but I don't remember any player. You are asking a team right before the start of the season to not only drop a player off their 40 man but also 25 man roster for a player they know nothing about. I really doubt Verrett would be claimed.

[mdbdotcom]

There is no supporting evidence to say that Verrett has to go through waivers to be traded for. I have seen none. The MLBTR example doing not show it. Nothing in the Major League Rules that I read say that he needs to go through waivers to be traded for.

The only way waivers are needed is if the O's are sending him back. And that is not what we are talking about here.

There also is nothing in the rules that states that a team can trade for the rights to a Rule 5 player they have selected without him first clearing waivers.

The rules simply are not clear.