No.
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 14, 2008 3:17 PM PDT
in Awful News
105 comments
Time 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.
0 recs |
105 comments
Email
Print
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.
by Matthew on Aug 14, 2008 3:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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…
by tait644 on Aug 14, 2008 3:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by bluemax on Aug 14, 2008 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As baffling as some of the Dodgers' moves have been
they’ve got nothing on the Mariners.
by tait644 on Aug 14, 2008 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by bluemax on Aug 14, 2008 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
Sort of a Bavasi/Fontaine thing, huh?
by eponymous_coward on Aug 14, 2008 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by bluemax on Aug 14, 2008 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by pdb on Aug 14, 2008 3:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I became apathetic in February.
My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11
by PositivePaul on Aug 14, 2008 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by pdb on Aug 14, 2008 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Buried under all the Cobain suicides and coffee cups
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 14, 2008 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, there they are.
right by my book of Billy Corgan poems.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
by pdb on Aug 14, 2008 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry
I love Billy Corgan, but that book was awful. =(
by katal on Aug 14, 2008 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by pdb on Aug 14, 2008 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by BrianL on Aug 14, 2008 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
Definitely Silva and Washburn
Batista will be our $9 million reliever…
by tait644 on Aug 14, 2008 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by Matthew on Aug 14, 2008 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
$40 million of FAIL
Awesome.
by eponymous_coward on Aug 14, 2008 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't Bill Simmons
come up with a list of reasons why you could bail on your team a few years ago?
by tait644 on Aug 14, 2008 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by tait644 on Aug 14, 2008 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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!
by thejew4u on Aug 14, 2008 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You found my original!
the other angels fan
by Eyebrows on Aug 14, 2008 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank Howard Lincoln...
My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11
by PositivePaul on Aug 14, 2008 3:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If this is true in any way
Chris Larson had better be our savior this off season.
by BrianL on Aug 14, 2008 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't hold your breath.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
by pdb on Aug 14, 2008 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well fuck a pterodactylus
It’s like we’re stuck with Randy Meyers man.
by Frosty Raptor on Aug 14, 2008 3:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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.
by saltydog75 on Aug 14, 2008 3:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
Brian Giles?
Or was he able to veto it because it was a trade?
by Teej on Aug 14, 2008 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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….
by FWombat on Aug 14, 2008 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.”
by saltydog75 on Aug 14, 2008 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by saltydog75 on Aug 14, 2008 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by Teej on Aug 14, 2008 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by saltydog75 on Aug 14, 2008 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correct.
The Mariners would not be outrighting Washburn.
by Matthew on Aug 14, 2008 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the clarification, guys.
I didn’t know there were two different types of “trade assignment” waivers.
by Teej on Aug 14, 2008 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by Teej on Aug 14, 2008 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They're just practicing their "Stand Pat" for Gillick's inevitable return.
This is currently my signature.
by kevin_ess on Aug 14, 2008 3:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
There are few teams that would like deal with Washburn and his contract.
Unfortunately, one of those teams is the Mariners….
by ThundaPC on Aug 14, 2008 3:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Fuck.
That is all.
I'm back to liking midgets too much.
by Thingray on Aug 14, 2008 3:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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.
by Gomez on Aug 14, 2008 4:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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.
by DarkLou on Aug 14, 2008 4:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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.
by Gomez on Aug 14, 2008 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Washburn's not gone?
Weird, who saw that coming?
by Sec 108 on Aug 14, 2008 4:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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
by Scrupio on Aug 14, 2008 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by Goose on Aug 14, 2008 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sitting and letting it stew?
No thanks. I’ll post angry instead.
by davidcameron on Aug 14, 2008 4:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
There aren't enough capital letters on the USSM post, Dave.
I’m thinking you aren’t really that angry.
by Graham on Aug 14, 2008 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Listen to Graham, Dave
Turn your aggression up to 11.
by Gomez on Aug 14, 2008 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Too much emotion for an M's fan in August.
the other angels fan
by Eyebrows on Aug 14, 2008 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by Robert on Aug 14, 2008 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by Robert on Aug 14, 2008 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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
by Scrupio on Aug 14, 2008 4:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by Big Jared on Aug 14, 2008 5:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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!
by Edgar for Pres on Aug 14, 2008 7:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes but if you can't complete the deal then you could just not pull him back
by Graham on Aug 14, 2008 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
But dumping him because of the claim
9 = 8
by JI on Aug 14, 2008 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except they are obliged to take it on if the Mariners pull him back off waivers.
by Graham on Aug 14, 2008 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by ThundaPC on Aug 14, 2008 7:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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.
by Teej on Aug 14, 2008 7:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Judging by Jarrod's comments, I'm going to go ahead and say no.
Pitchforks!
by Teej on Aug 16, 2008 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
