Jump to content

Tell me again why we didn't claim Verlander


bird watcher

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Why claim him?  Just to mess with the Tigers?

Does anyone actually think that:

  1. Angelos would have signed off on that contract.
  2. We would give up the prospects needed.
  3. Verlander would waive his trade protection.

All claiming him would have accomplished would have been assuring he would have stayed a Tiger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Why claim him?  Just to mess with the Tigers?

Does anyone actually think that:

  1. Angelos would have signed off on that contract.
  2. We would give up the prospects needed.
  3. Verlander would waive his trade protection.

All claiming him would have accomplished would have been assuring he would have stayed a Tiger.

Exactly.  And we would have finished fourth...maybe 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Why claim him?  Just to mess with the Tigers?

Does anyone actually think that:

  1. Angelos would have signed off on that contract.
  2. We would give up the prospects needed.
  3. Verlander would waive his trade protection.

All claiming him would have accomplished would have been assuring he would have stayed a Tiger.

What Corn is saying is they were revocable waivers. The Tigers would simply pull him back.  Andy MacPhail once told me " There are all kinds of waivers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, weams said:

What Corn is saying is they were revocable waivers. The Tigers would simply pull him back.  Andy MacPhail once told me " There are all kinds of waivers."

And once a player is put on revocable waivers, claimed, and pulled back, he can't be put on revocable waivers again until the next season. By claiming Verlander, all we would have done is keep the Tigers from trading him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

And once a player is put on revocable waivers, claimed, and pulled back, he can't be put on revocable waivers again until the next season. By claiming Verlander, all we would have done is keep the Tigers from trading him.

Thereby making it easier for the Yankees to win the WS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claim him. Make a palatable offer to the tigers. If they say no, they can keep him. We would have held all the leverage. They had their chance to trade him without losing the leverage before the Aug deadline.  The only reason is if the O's were unwilling to pay his salary which is a much bigger/deeper issue that will haunt them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bird watcher said:

Claim him. Make a palatable offer to the tigers. If they say no, they can keep him. We would have held all the leverage. They had their chance to trade him without losing the leverage before the Aug deadline.  The only reason is if the O's were unwilling to pay his salary which is a much bigger/deeper issue that will haunt them. 

And how exactly would you have enticed Verlander to accept the trade?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bird watcher said:

Claim him. Make a palatable offer to the tigers. If they say no, they can keep him. We would have held all the leverage. They had their chance to trade him without losing the leverage before the Aug deadline.  The only reason is if the O's were unwilling to pay his salary which is a much bigger/deeper issue that will haunt them. 

How exactly do you figure the O's would have had all the leverage?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

How exactly do you figure the O's would have had all the leverage?

 

Exactly the point.  The Tigers could have just said he is yours  (if he had waived his  no trade clause) for $28Million over the next two years and have a good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thezeroes said:

Exactly the point.  The Tigers could have just said he is yours  (if he had waived his  no trade clause) for $28Million over the next two years and have a good day.

Actually I was making the opposite point.

They could have just said, "no thanks" and put him on the market during the offseason.

If he had pitched the same for Detroit (and he was trending up at the time of the trade) they would have had no problems trading him in the offseason, where they would have had multiple suitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...