No.
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 14, 2008 3:17 PM PDT
in Seattle Mariners News, Awful
Email
PrintTime expired on Thursday afternoon on waiver claims made on two Mariners, left fielder Raul Ibanez and left-hander Jarrod Washburn. Both players will be remaining with Seattle.
SI.com has learned that the Tigers won the claim on Ibanez and the Twins won the claim on Washburn. However, neither team was able to work out a trade with Seattle within the allotted 48 hours after making the claim.
...
...sources indicate that there were trade discussions ongoing between Minnesota and Seattle. However, the teams couldn't agree on a trade before the Thursday afternoon deadline.
I am going to let this sit and stew for a little while.
Matthew's Addendum: This appears to be confirmed now by the Seattle Times. Our last hope is that the Mariners put Washburn back on waivers this month. Yes, they still can do that. If a player is put on revocable waivers and is claimed, there is two days to work out a trade. If no trade was made, such as in this case, the player can be put on waivers one more time, but is automatically on irrevocable waivers. That is, if Washburn hits waivers again this month and is claimed, that's it. He's gone without even a chance for the Mariners to fuck it up. Please put him back on waivers.
107 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It might not be true.
It might not be true.
It might not be true.
It might not be true.
It might not be true.
It might not be true.
It might not be true.
Great job, Lee
This was purely a blocking move by Minnesota, I’m sure of it. Which is why it was dumb to allow this thing to get to a place where the team was subject to the waiver process.
Now we get to pay Washburn $10 million (missing out on getting RRS in the rotation with likely equal production for a fraction of the cost), AND a rotation spot is burnt up.
No question we’re dumber than the Dodgers…
So what if it was just a blocking move?
We could’ve dumped Jarrod on the Twins right then and there and wiped our hands clean.
We didn’t.
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 14, 2008 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Because
Lee was going to try to get something for Washburn, no matter what. At least he had a bit more flexibility before the deadline.
At least the Dodgers are able to develop players
Loney, Kemp, Billingsley, Kershaw, Broxton, Beimel, Kuo, Martin are all big contributors to that team, all young and all developed in house.
If it wasn't for college football I'd probably have given up on sports.
Coletti has been pretty bad at FA signings
Schmidt, Jones, Loaiza, Pierre, Garciaparra.
But his assistant GM is really good at drafting.
If it wasn't for college football I'd probably have given up on sports.
And hopefully will be the next GM of the Mariners
(not Coletti)
The ♥ Jose Lopez ♥ Watch - 147 H, 16 BB, 42 G Left
by seattlebruin on Aug 14, 2008 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Sort of a Bavasi/Fontaine thing, huh?
by eponymous_coward on Aug 14, 2008 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Kinda sorta
albeit Coletti loves shorter contracts with more money on them instead of spreading the money out. Hence Schmidt’s 3 years $47 million, and Jones 2 years $18 million or whatever. Juan Pierre is the only really long term deal he’s given out.
If it wasn't for college football I'd probably have given up on sports.
I hate to sound like that guy...
…but given what you know about how the M’s do business, is this really that big of a surprise? I’m not saying it’s not a bad thing, but I’m beyond caring at this point. Thanks, Mariners, you’ve officially made me apathetic.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
I became apathetic in February.
My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11
by PositivePaul on Aug 14, 2008 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I have long been apathetic about 2008.
This takes the rug out from under 2009. To this I have not yet developed an immunity.
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 14, 2008 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Good point. Thanks. Now I gotta go kill myself.
Where’s all my Morrissey records?
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
Buried under all the Cobain suicides and coffee cups
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 14, 2008 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh, there they are.
right by my book of Billy Corgan poems.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
I'm sorry
I love Billy Corgan, but that book was awful. =(
I don't love Billy Corgan
so I wasn’t surprised that it was awful.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
We're facing a rotation that could feature Silva and Washburn and potentially Batista.
It could be a 2008 repeat and that’s just depressing.
I could imagine
one or two of them getting cut in spring training.
>:(
by eponymous_coward on Aug 14, 2008 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Remember when the Kenji extension did this earlier in the year?
And then we were given a bit of a reprieve with this? And then no.
Bailing and becoming apathetic are entirely different things
The ♥ Jose Lopez ♥ Watch - 147 H, 16 BB, 42 G Left
by seattlebruin on Aug 14, 2008 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Here it is
19. Once you choose a team, you’re stuck with that team for the rest of your life … unless one of the following conditions applies:
The owner of your favorite team treated his fans so egregiously over the years that you couldn’t take it anymore — you would rather not follow them at all then support a franchise with this owner in charge. Just for the record, I reached this point with the Boston Bruins about six years ago. When it happens, you have two options: You can either renounce that team and pick someone else, or you can pretend they’re dead, like you’re a grieving widow. That’s what I do. I’m an NHL widow. I don’t even want to date another team.
As does this one
9. It’s OK to root against your team, if they’re hopelessly out of the playoff race and you want them to keep losing so A) they’ll get a better draft pick, or B) you’re hoping the coach and/or GM will get fired. Don’t feel bad about it.
Free Stephen Awesome Strasburg!
If this is true in any way
Chris Larson had better be our savior this off season.
Washburn has a no-trade clause (possibly limited)
If it’s a full no-trade clause, or if it’s a limited no-trade clause with the Twins as one of the teams, isn’t it possible Washburn invoked it to prevent himself from being claimed off waivers by the Twins?
That doesn’t excuse the team completely, since if they had done this before the non-waiver trade deadline they would have been able to find a match with someone Washburn would waive his no-trade clause for, but it would explain not just letting him be claimed purely as a salary dump.
Don't believe NTC clauses protect against a waiver claim, which is what this could've/should've been
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 14, 2008 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions
NTC veto over waiver claims seems like somthing the player's union would fight for.
Otherwise it would significantly reduce the leverage of a no trade clause. Hmmm….
I think they do...
http://mlb.mlb.com/content/printer_friendly/mlb/y2008/m08/d13/c3302506.jsp
“A player with a no-trade clause who is claimed on Major League waivers must be pulled back if the player’s no-trade clause allows him to block a deal to the claiming club. However, the player may waive the no-trade clause and join the claiming club.”
We can still put him on irrevocable waivers...
… as many times as we want, I think, until/unless he clears. It looks like you can do it multiple times, unlike revocable waivers. So, unless the Twins were real a-holes and kept claiming him (or if a previous claimer isn’t eligible to re-claim, or something), teams with lower priority would have a chance to claim him, possibly someone who he can’t block.
And if he were to clear, we could trade him, maybe for partial salary relief.
I don't think irrevocable waivers work like that.
If the Twins grabbed Wash off irrevocable waivers, they just pay the M’s $20,000 and a pro-rated portion of the league minimum. The M’s would still be responsible for the rest of his salary.
From Cot’s:
Outright waivers are not revocable, so a player claimed on outright waivers may not be pulled back by his original club. When a player in the middle of a guaranteed contract is claimed on waivers, the claiming club pays $20,000 and a pro-rated portion of the league minimum salary, with the original club remaining responsible for paying the rest of the money due under the contract.
This wouldn't be irrevocable outright waivers, I don't think...
… that’s for removing a major league player from your 40 man roster and sending him to the minor leagues. I believe this would be called irrevocable “major league” or “trade assignment” waivers, which are the same as the regular post-trade-deadline waivers, except the team sending the player can’t pull him back if he’s claimed.
Correct.
The Mariners would not be outrighting Washburn.
Thanks for the clarification, guys.
I didn’t know there were two different types of “trade assignment” waivers.
And here's the sentence I missed:
Once a player on major league waivers has been claimed and the waiver request revoked, any subsequent request for major league waivers during the same waiver period is irrevocable.
They're just practicing their "Stand Pat" for Gillick's inevitable return.
This is currently my signature.
There are few teams that would like deal with Washburn and his contract.
Unfortunately, one of those teams is the Mariners….
Fuck.
That is all.
I'm back to liking midgets too much.
Of course nothing was going to happen.
Things like this shows there is always a gap between what we see and what they see.
I actually would have been surprised if waiver deals for either player were completed.
Ownership does not want to finish the season with a young/make shift
rotation. These morons actually think that fans will stop going to games if Feierabend and Dickey round out the rotation, as opposed to Washburn and Dickey..
It’s ridiculous, but this is how these clowns think.
“We cant possibly trade a veteran starter, the fans will think we’re giving up”, says the Owner of a team 30 games under .500.
It's not that
They don’t mind unloading Washburn. They simply think Washburn has more value than he actually does and thus refuses to offload him for nothing.
Lee is a big pussy
Afraid to do anything drastic, no matter how much it helps the team.
either that or he’s a pawn to Linstrong
I know, I'm totally shocked.
"All I’ve ever done is be Juan Pierre when I wear this jersey. They’re sticking it to me this year for whatever reason. "
.280/.324/.316
~Juan Pierre
Sitting and letting it stew?
No thanks. I’ll post angry instead.
There aren't enough capital letters on the USSM post, Dave.
I’m thinking you aren’t really that angry.
by Graham MacAree on Aug 14, 2008 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Nice.
I live in georegia but i dont see rusia no where not even sound but they says theres tanks should i be worrie-Yahoo Answers
by Phil Hatzenbuehler on Aug 14, 2008 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Everyone remember
The Seahawks were in a million times worse situation than the M’s are in 12 months before they went to the Super Bowl
Things were shitty for the Rays and Rockies three years ago.
9 = 8
by JI on Aug 14, 2008 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions
The Seahawks didn't have a GM at the scouting combine,
Were conducting a GM search with people who had no football background, 3 best players/ most important players were unrestricted free agents and were generally internally considered the laughing stock of the NFL. If there was a floor, the seahawks were close to it.
We need a GIF of some guy with a Mariners hat on putting a gun in his mouth and pulling the trigger
I’m sure South Park would be a good resource for this
Look on the bright side, friends.
At least I’m happy.
The pup that laughs when you're down on your luck.
by Scrappy the Scapegoat on Aug 14, 2008 5:23 PM PDT reply actions
Raging Egomania
I remember after Destro was fired, LP said on TV (and this is pretty close to a direct quote as it burned itself in to my mind at that instant):
“Blah blah…well basically things will continue on as they have been, you know….major decisions still go through Chuck and Howard blah blah….”
It isn’t like the best of trades for Washburn will net some king’s ransom. There is just a myopia about these men. They paid top $ for Jarrod and therefore they won’t be swindled into just giving away some one of such value. They thought he was valuable enough to give all that long term cash to, so therefore he is valuable.
To just let him go with ONLY the relief of his salary from the ledger would be somehow admitting they misunderestimated the greatness that is Jarrod Washburn, starting LHP!
It was clearly a blocking move by the Twins. Imagine the look on that skinflint billionaire Carl Pohlad’s face if he got stuck with that contract. Priceless.
"When I'm a evaluating a player the first three things I look at are: Character, character, and character."
-Charles Armstrong esq.
Its gonna be ok guys
Imagine you are Lee and you put Washburn on waivers. The Twins claim him and say they aren’t gonna give anything for him. You are like..“Fuck that, I almost got a shit ton from the Yankees at the deadline. There is no way I’m gonna send Washburn and cash to you for Nick Punto.” You say call back when you grow half a brain. You sit by the phone like a teenage girl with low self-esteem. They never call.
But its ok. They weren’t gonna give you shit and thats fine. You tried your best to get something decent for him. Now its to plan B where you place him on waivers the second time just trying to dump the player and his salary. Nothing was lost from trying to get something interesting by giving the Twins a chance to give you something good.
As long as he is placed on waivers the 2nd time everything will be fine. Don’t fuck it up Lee!
Yes but if you can't complete the deal then you could just not pull him back
by Graham MacAree on Aug 14, 2008 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, this.
also, Nick Punto would have been a decent return as long as the twins pay 100% of the remaining contract.
9 = 8
by JI on Aug 14, 2008 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe the Twins wouldn't trade for him unless the M's picked up a lot of his salary.
by Edgar for Pres on Aug 14, 2008 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Except they are obliged to take it on if the Mariners pull him back off waivers.
by Graham MacAree on Aug 14, 2008 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah true. Should have thought about that just a little more.
Maybe since the M’s are so PR centered they were gonna do everything possible to avoid the “salary dump” since most casual fans don’t like those type of moves. Now that they tried to get something back for him and failed maybe they will move onto Plan B which is a straight salary dump.
by Edgar for Pres on Aug 15, 2008 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions
So yea,
I guess Lee wasn’t kidding when he said he wasn’t interested in salary dumps.
Oh hey, Rays won. Now there’s a team that has a FO that knows what it’s doing.
Judging by the reporting, it looks highly unlikely,
but is there any chance that the M’s tried to give Washburn away and his no-trade clause kicked in? Are we 100 percent sure that this was the M’s being insanely dumb?
I’m not skeptical or anything, but I want to make sure I’m in the right before I burn something down.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lookout Landing
Related FanShots on Lookout Landing
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
