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.
41 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Comcast was a one-time thing (I think)
But don’t forget to sign up for your 2010 fantasy baseball league at CBSSports.com!
by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 31, 2010 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
I can't wait for icanhascheezburger to start sponsoring this site.
angels fan in seattle
by Eyebrows on Mar 31, 2010 9:44 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Has, Jeff.
You HAS a teeshurt. Better get used to it if you want those sweet lolcat dollars.
angels fan in seattle
by Eyebrows on Mar 31, 2010 9:46 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 7 recs
I can't wait till June 3rd for JeffHAZchezzBurger 2!
Plus a bobblehead!
by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 31, 2010 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Okay that makes me feel a little better
But yeah, still dumb.
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
Maybe it's three full years
I think Hardy only had like 2.85 or something
by seattlebruin on Mar 31, 2010 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Don't believe this to be the case
But then, who knows? I hate roster rules.
by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 31, 2010 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions
But Milwaukee owned his options (so to speak).
Garko signed as a free agent with an option left over. I would think that is the difference.
I don't understand why that would matter
by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 31, 2010 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Only thing that makes sense is that Hardy passed through waivers.
If they’re revokable, it’s not like another team could actually GET him, they’d just be pulling what’s known in GM circles as ‘a real dick move.’
After reading parts of the CBA, all I can think of is that Garko had it written in his contract that if he did not land on the 25-man roster, the team would have to place him on waivers before using his option.
If it’s not that, then Hardy must not have reached the required amount of playing time to qualify for the 3-year benchmark.
"Baker denies the Garko/waivers issue. This is so confusing."

by Janic on Mar 31, 2010 10:52 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
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
Sweeney takes Garko's 40-man spot if it opens up
Sweeney’s taking someone’s 40-man spot, anyway.
by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 31, 2010 11:09 AM PDT up 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.
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”.
You posted about Ryan Garko in a thread about Cliff Lee.
You were warned, not “threatened to ban” to not do that again.
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 
















