Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Devils Beat Rangers, Head To Stanley Cup Finals

And Now We Know The Real Reason Ryan Garko Was Waived(?)

Update: and now Geoff Baker says this isn't true, and that Garko could've been optioned at any time. You know what? I don't care. I don't even care. This story is too confusing and I'm done with it.

-----

As suggested by G_ in the comments and confirmed by Dave, there's a rule in place stating that, if it's been more than three years since a player's debut, he must be passed through waivers before being optioned. Ryan Garko debuted in late 2005.

It's a rule that doesn't come up very often, but it's a rule nonetheless. Here's the good news: the waivers are revocable, and this process is considered something of a formality, as teams seem to have an agreement not to claim other teams' players. As one example, Brandon McCarthy just cleared a few days ago, and he's a starter with decent promise. So, even though Garko's been waived, the odds are that he clears, at which point the M's could either option or outright him to Tacoma. In the event that he's optioned, another spot would have to be opened up on the 40-man. They could also just dump him, I guess, if they're that unimpressed, but, ehhh

I hope you enjoyed yesterday's latest edition of Blogging Without All The Facts. The post was brought to you by our sponsor, I Don't Work In Baseball And Roster Rules Are Really Really Complicated And I'll Never Even Know About Half Of Them. It was also brought to you by our wonderful sponsors at Comcast and CBSSports.com! Don't hesitate to count on Comcast and CBSSports.com for all your cable, internet, and fantasy baseball needs in the upcoming year!

I still like Garko more than Sweeney.

Comment 41 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from Lookout Landing

Ryan Garko Claimed by Texas

Apr 2010 by Matthew - 92 comments

Comments

Display:

much better

Then if someone doesn’t follow the gentleman’s agreement, we can always pull him back off waivers, and ditch Sweeney instead

by crushingyourhead on Mar 31, 2010 9:46 AM PDT reply actions  

It's six years, not three

I seem to recall from previous cases that a player can be optioned up to three times in their first six years without clearing waivers. Garko is within those limits. Sounds like the “gentlemen’s agreement” procedure. If he does clear, they can take him off the 40 man roster to make room for somebody else (like whoever is going to take French’s slot in the BP)

by New England Fan on Mar 31, 2010 11:07 AM PDT reply actions  

Hokay, so Garko is getting outrighted after clearing waivers, right?

This removes him from the 40-man roster so Sweeney can join the 40-man (and thus the 25-man) and hug some more. This makes sense now. Unless we’re wrong again.

by Sukafish on Mar 31, 2010 12:37 PM PDT reply actions  

Tried to make this info more readily available by making a fanpost about it

SBNation threatened to ban me before I even finished writing it, citing a preexisting Ryan Garko thread. Anyone know WTF that’s all about? I assume they were referring to this thread, and though this article does mention my point, there’s a lot of ambiguity and confusion. I think it’s supremely uncool to threaten to ban someone for trying to clear up a confusing situation for people who don’t read the comments on a regular basis.

Anyways, here’s a link that explains the situation (or at least the rule behind it). Two sections of interest are “Waivers” and “Assignment to a minor league team”.

by Sukafish on Mar 31, 2010 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

You posted about Ryan Garko in a thread about Cliff Lee.

You were warned, not “threatened to ban” to not do that again.

by Matthew on Mar 31, 2010 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

So, less threatening than I thought.

The fact that the warning was issued while I was condensing all we know about the Garko situation into a couple paragraphs via fanpost is merely coincidence. I’ll accept that. Makes more sense than admins having access to an unfinished post. There would definitely be less freaking out on my end if the warning came with a link to the offending post, or with the post itself attached.

Any chance one of the senior writers will clear the air on this waiving Garko thing? I think I know the front office’s grand plan, but the possibility of being wrong outweighs the joy of retyping my post.

by Sukafish on Mar 31, 2010 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

By reading a game thread of your own volition you agree to accept all liability for any and all damage done to your delicate sensibilities.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Starlin Castro's fit with Seattle
Kawasaki80_small
Lists! So many lists!
M_s_hat_copy_small
OT -- May 22nd In Memoriam
Ichiro_small
Why do managers and media members hate walks?
Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Small
Dustin Ackley BP swing vs game swing
Beastquakerwallpaper_small
More on the Struggles of Smoak
Randy2_for_sbn_small
Albert Pujols 2012: Three Retrospectives
Small
On Batting Orders
Niehaus_small
More on Dustin Ackley and the strikezone

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Sexy People

Wbc_029_small Jeff Sullivan

Small Matthew

Claw_small JY