Tell me again why we didn't claim Verlander

[thezeroes]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

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.

I was speaking to the "Leverage" that the Orioles did not have.  By making a claim, they accept the terms and agreements of the contracts that they are claiming.  Houston traded  for the contract and accepted the $8 million added to the contract payoff per year.  The Tigers could have allowed the Orioles to take on the whole contract if they had made a claim and not been compensated with a player in exchange.  Basically the Orioles could have had him in a salary dump by Detroit.  The Orioles had zero leverage if they made a claim.

 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, thezeroes said:

I was speaking to the "Leverage" that the Orioles did not have.  By making a claim, they accept the terms and agreements of the contracts that they are claiming.  Houston traded  for the contract and accepted the $8 million added to the contract payoff per year.  The Tigers could have allowed the Orioles to take on the whole contract if they had made a claim and not been compensated with a player in exchange.  Basically the Orioles could have had him in a salary dump by Detroit.  The Orioles had zero leverage if they made a claim.

 

Yea, I guess, but Verlander had value in excess of his contract so "dumping" him on the O's would have been a best case scenario for the O's.

[bird watcher]

45 minutes ago, thezeroes said:

I was speaking to the "Leverage" that the Orioles did not have.  By making a claim, they accept the terms and agreements of the contracts that they are claiming.  Houston traded  for the contract and accepted the $8 million added to the contract payoff per year.  The Tigers could have allowed the Orioles to take on the whole contract if they had made a claim and not been compensated with a player in exchange.  Basically the Orioles could have had him in a salary dump by Detroit.  The Orioles had zero leverage if they made a claim.

 

I gladly accept him and his contract with not cash coming back if I don't have to give anything up. I guess the O's weren't, which I find objectionable. 

[bird watcher]

43 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Yea, I guess, but Verlander had value in excess of his contract so "dumping" him on the O's would have been a best case scenario for the O's.

Exactly. A scenario that we had no chance of getting because we didn't claim him. So where was the downside of making a claim?

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, bird watcher said:

I gladly accept him and his contract with not cash coming back if I don't have to give anything up. I guess the O's weren't, which I find objectionable. 

Yes, you guess.

You have no evidence to support your assertion.

I have already given two good reasons, beyond his salary, why it wouldn't have made sense to claim him.

[bird watcher]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

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

If he declines the trade then so be it. No harm. We end up exactly where we are now. 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, bird watcher said:

Exactly. A scenario that we had no chance of getting because we didn't claim him. So where was the downside of making a claim?

Fostering ill will with the other teams.

There is zero chance the Tigers would have just handed Verlander to the O's.  There is close to zero chance Verlander would have just accepted the trade.

If a deal isn't going to happen why block other teams?

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, bird watcher said:

If he declines the trade then so be it. No harm. We end up exactly where we are now. 

Not true.  Right now we have Verlander in Houston.  Which in my book is better than Verlander in New York or Boston.

And of course, at the very least the Tigers would be annoyed with us.  Probably the Astros as well.

[bird watcher]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Yes, you guess.

You have no evidence to support your assertion.

I have already given two good reasons, beyond his salary, why it wouldn't have made sense to claim him.

You gave two reasons why we may not have ended up with him neither of which to my view would have hurt the O's. 

The only downside, if you to believe it to be a downside is the assuming of his contract. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, bird watcher said:

You gave two reasons why we may not have ended up with him neither of which to my view would have hurt the O's. 

The only downside, if you to believe it to be a downside is the assuming of his contract. 

And annoying other teams who are actually trying to get things done.

Maybe next year the Tigers claim a guy they don't want, just to keep him from the O's?

If there is no chance for gain there is no reason to antagonize.

[bird watcher]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Fostering ill will with the other teams.

There is zero chance the Tigers would have just handed Verlander to the O's.  There is close to zero chance Verlander would have just accepted the trade.

If a deal isn't going to happen why block other teams?

[bird watcher]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

And annoying other teams who are actually trying to get things done.

Maybe next year the Tigers claim a guy they don't want, just to keep him from the O's?

If there is no chance for gain there is no reason to antagonize.

If the Tigers are going to be upset about a claim (within the rules) because they think we are being vindictive then so be it. That didn't stop us from claiming Santander which rubbed some people raw. 

I would have claimed him because I wanted him on my team and because the Tigers Waived him. Simple as that. Nothing personal.  if it is personal then why does anyone ever claim a player?

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, bird watcher said:

If the Tigers are going to be upset about a claim (within the rules) because they think we are being vindictive then so be it. That didn't stop us from claiming Santander which rubbed some people raw. 

I would have claimed him because I wanted him on my team and because the Tigers Waived him. Simple as that. Nothing personal.  if it is personal then why does anyone ever claim a player?

But the thing is, they got something when they claimed Santander.

There is NO CHANCE the O's would have ended up with Verlander.  It was not a viable scenario. 

What reasonable scenario can you postulate that would have the O's ending up with Verlander?

Maybe the Angels put Trout on waivers, should the O's have put a claim in on him as well?

Non-contending teams don't waste everyone's time by claiming players away from contenders when they have no reasonable chance of acquiring them.

[Tx Oriole]

4 hours ago, bird watcher said:

He was put on waivers this season and we did not put a claim in. Why?  I understand they were revocable waivers but why not try?

Why claim him? I believe he had a no trade clause. The O's weren't going into the playoffs. I am glad he went to Houston. The Stros may get to the WS. 

[bird watcher]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

But the thing is, they got something when they claimed Santander.

There is NO CHANCE the O's would have ended up with Verlander.  It was not a viable scenario. 

What reasonable scenario can you postulate that would have the O's ending up with Verlander?

Maybe the Angels put Trout on waivers, should the O's have put a claim in on him as well?

Non-contending teams don't waste everyone's time by claiming players away from contenders when they have no reasonable chance of acquiring them.

I don't believe anyone can know what the Tigers would have done if we placed a claim and gave them a chance to shed his entire salary.  Offer a midlevel prospect if you must. 

And yes, I claim Trout if they put him on waivers.