Levine: Cubs will try for Church through waivers p.18

[OleMissCub]

Great. If the Cubs acquire Church, we can all look forward to articles about how Church will turn his attitude around and finally realize his potential in a new environment. Love that a player is defined by his OPS and not what he brings to the table as a member of a clubhouse.

 

Perhaps the local media can get a family package deal on stories about how members of the Church family weren't ever given a fair shake if and when Staggs gets cut from the Bears.

 

It is painful enough having to watch Church routinely and consistently disappoint his defenders at RFK. I have no desire to see him anywhere near the Cubs franchise.

 

Since you're in the eye of the storm, what about him is controversial or confrontational, etc. What makes him the proverbial cancer in the clubhouse.

 

Asking because I have no clue about the guy.

[seanimal]

Clubhouse cancer's with a good OPS are the best kind of cancer.

 

There's no way he makes it through waivers.

Edited July 31, 2007 by seanimal

[David]

Great. If the Cubs acquire Church, we can all look forward to articles about how Church will turn his attitude around and finally realize his potential in a new environment. Love that a player is defined by his OPS and not what he brings to the table as a member of a clubhouse.

 

Perhaps the local media can get a family package deal on stories about how members of the Church family weren't ever given a fair shake if and when Staggs gets cut from the Bears.

 

It is painful enough having to watch Church routinely and consistently disappoint his defenders at RFK. I have no desire to see him anywhere near the Cubs franchise.

 

 

Wow.. that's about as obscure as it gets.. Just curious, how'd you know that Jay Staggs was Ryan Church's cousin? (just looked it up)

[SouthSideRyan]

Remember when we got rid of all our cancers before the '05 season. That was awesome.

[oldcubsfan]

Remember when we got rid of all our cancers before the '05 season. That was awesome.

Yep, we didn't need Alou, because we had the great Jason Dubois waiting.

[Electron Blue]

Remember when we got rid of all our cancers before the '05 season. That was awesome.

 

finally chip and stoney could no longer drag us down!!

[weis21]

ok, correct me if i'm wrong, but church probably won't make it through waivers, but with washington's bad record, maybe one of our players could be claimed by them. I'm thinking that if we waive murton, wouldn't washington have the second shot at him behind pittsburgh? maybe murton and jones with the cubs picking up half of jone's salary? the waiver wire confuses me and this is probably apparent, but is something like that possible?

[Rob]

ok, correct me if i'm wrong, but church probably won't make it through waivers, but with washington's bad record, maybe one of our players could be claimed by them. I'm thinking that if we waive murton, wouldn't washington have the second shot at him behind pittsburgh? maybe murton and jones with the cubs picking up half of jone's salary? the waiver wire confuses me and this is probably apparent, but is something like that possible?

 

Every single person traded now has to pass through waivers if they're on the 40 man roster.

[Soul]

Acquiring Church all the way through waivers is a pipe dream.

[E.J.]

Acquiring Church all the way through waivers is a pipe dream.

 

There is a 0% chance of this happening with Church basically making the minimum salary. It's bad reporting on Levine's part.

[Wheelimus]

Well, lets not forget that in some cases the whole team is pretty much "waived" tomorrow to see who gets through and who doesn't. Of course, since the cat is out of the bag he'll probably get claimed.

[davearm]

Acquiring Church all the way through waivers is a pipe dream.

 

There is a 0% chance of this happening with Church basically making the minimum salary. It's bad reporting on Levine's part.

I dunno about that. There seems to be a sort of gentleman's agreement that discourages GMs from placing frivolous claims on guys that they have no hope or intention of acquiring.

 

As I understand it, the common courtesy is that if you see a guy on waivers that you'd like to have, and who would clearly be pulled back if you put in a claim, a GM first places a call to see if a deal can be arranged before formally filing a claim. If a deal's there to be made, then the claim is made. If not, then the guy is allowed to pass.

 

Now to be sure, that gentleman's agreement is not always followed, and over the years teams have certainly gone against this little piece of GM etiquette. Steve Phillips infamously placed claims on hundreds of players one year. Nevertheless, it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that a guy like Church would never make it through to the Cubs.

[IWU_CUBS_FAN]

steve phillips being a jag bag....no way

[CubColtPacer]

Acquiring Church all the way through waivers is a pipe dream.

 

There is a 0% chance of this happening with Church basically making the minimum salary. It's bad reporting on Levine's part.

I dunno about that. There seems to be a sort of gentleman's agreement that discourages GMs from placing frivolous claims on guys that they have no hope or intention of acquiring.

 

As I understand it, the common courtesy is that if you see a guy on waivers that you'd like to have, and who would clearly be pulled back if you put in a claim, a GM first places a call to see if a deal can be arranged before formally filing a claim. If a deal's there to be made, then the claim is made. If not, then the guy is allowed to pass.

 

Now to be sure, that gentleman's agreement is not always followed, and over the years teams have certainly gone against this little piece of GM etiquette. Steve Phillips infamously placed claims on hundreds of players one year. Nevertheless, it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that a guy like Church would never make it through to the Cubs.

 

I agree with this completely. If the Cubs pass the Brewers in the standings before they tried to make a deal, the Brewers would block the Cubs, but I'm not sure if any other teams would or not (possibly a team or two in the WC race).

[nilodnayr]

Acquiring Church all the way through waivers is a pipe dream.

 

There is a 0% chance of this happening with Church basically making the minimum salary. It's bad reporting on Levine's part.

I dunno about that. There seems to be a sort of gentleman's agreement that discourages GMs from placing frivolous claims on guys that they have no hope or intention of acquiring.

 

As I understand it, the common courtesy is that if you see a guy on waivers that you'd like to have, and who would clearly be pulled back if you put in a claim, a GM first places a call to see if a deal can be arranged before formally filing a claim. If a deal's there to be made, then the claim is made. If not, then the guy is allowed to pass.

 

Now to be sure, that gentleman's agreement is not always followed, and over the years teams have certainly gone against this little piece of GM etiquette. Steve Phillips infamously placed claims on hundreds of players one year. Nevertheless, it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that a guy like Church would never make it through to the Cubs.

 

I agree with this completely. If the Cubs pass the Brewers in the standings before they tried to make a deal, the Brewers would block the Cubs, but I'm not sure if any other teams would or not (possibly a team or two in the WC race).

 

Really? I can't think of any examples of this, but I can think of examples where players are claimed to block him from getting to other teams. Anyone know of any?

 

Also, whoever we'd trade for Church would have to pass by the reds and pirates.

[JeffH]

Also, whoever we'd trade for Church would have to pass by the reds and pirates.

 

Only players on a 40-man roster would have to pass through waivers.

[nilodnayr]

Also, whoever we'd trade for Church would have to pass by the reds and pirates.

 

Only players on a 40-man roster would have to pass through waivers.

 

Good point.

[CubColtPacer]

Acquiring Church all the way through waivers is a pipe dream.

 

There is a 0% chance of this happening with Church basically making the minimum salary. It's bad reporting on Levine's part.

I dunno about that. There seems to be a sort of gentleman's agreement that discourages GMs from placing frivolous claims on guys that they have no hope or intention of acquiring.

 

As I understand it, the common courtesy is that if you see a guy on waivers that you'd like to have, and who would clearly be pulled back if you put in a claim, a GM first places a call to see if a deal can be arranged before formally filing a claim. If a deal's there to be made, then the claim is made. If not, then the guy is allowed to pass.

 

Now to be sure, that gentleman's agreement is not always followed, and over the years teams have certainly gone against this little piece of GM etiquette. Steve Phillips infamously placed claims on hundreds of players one year. Nevertheless, it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that a guy like Church would never make it through to the Cubs.

 

I agree with this completely. If the Cubs pass the Brewers in the standings before they tried to make a deal, the Brewers would block the Cubs, but I'm not sure if any other teams would or not (possibly a team or two in the WC race).

 

Really? I can't think of any examples of this, but I can think of examples where players are claimed to block him from getting to other teams. Anyone know of any?

 

Also, whoever we'd trade for Church would have to pass by the reds and pirates.

 

I'm just saying there aren't many teams that are so concerned about the Cubs that they would block the deal. The Brewers if they are in position to block definitely would. The Cardinals? possibly. Braves? I doubt it. The NL West teams? Hard to say.

[Soul]

Acquiring Church all the way through waivers is a pipe dream.

 

There is a 0% chance of this happening with Church basically making the minimum salary. It's bad reporting on Levine's part.

I dunno about that. There seems to be a sort of gentleman's agreement that discourages GMs from placing frivolous claims on guys that they have no hope or intention of acquiring.

 

As I understand it, the common courtesy is that if you see a guy on waivers that you'd like to have, and who would clearly be pulled back if you put in a claim, a GM first places a call to see if a deal can be arranged before formally filing a claim. If a deal's there to be made, then the claim is made. If not, then the guy is allowed to pass.

 

Now to be sure, that gentleman's agreement is not always followed, and over the years teams have certainly gone against this little piece of GM etiquette. Steve Phillips infamously placed claims on hundreds of players one year. Nevertheless, it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that a guy like Church would never make it through to the Cubs.

 

I agree with this completely. If the Cubs pass the Brewers in the standings before they tried to make a deal, the Brewers would block the Cubs, but I'm not sure if any other teams would or not (possibly a team or two in the WC race).

 

Really? I can't think of any examples of this, but I can think of examples where players are claimed to block him from getting to other teams. Anyone know of any?

 

Also, whoever we'd trade for Church would have to pass by the reds and pirates.

 

I'm just saying there aren't many teams that are so concerned about the Cubs that they would block the deal. The Brewers if they are in position to block definitely would. The Cardinals? possibly. Braves? I doubt it. The NL West teams? Hard to say.

 

It's more because Church would be an economical, decent pickup for someone. Teams don't have to claim him just because they're trying to foil the Cubs' plans. They can do it just because Church works for them and their own plans. And that opens up pretty much every team in the league under us.

[E.J.]

Acquiring Church all the way through waivers is a pipe dream.

 

There is a 0% chance of this happening with Church basically making the minimum salary. It's bad reporting on Levine's part.

I dunno about that. There seems to be a sort of gentleman's agreement that discourages GMs from placing frivolous claims on guys that they have no hope or intention of acquiring.

 

As I understand it, the common courtesy is that if you see a guy on waivers that you'd like to have, and who would clearly be pulled back if you put in a claim, a GM first places a call to see if a deal can be arranged before formally filing a claim. If a deal's there to be made, then the claim is made. If not, then the guy is allowed to pass.

 

Now to be sure, that gentleman's agreement is not always followed, and over the years teams have certainly gone against this little piece of GM etiquette. Steve Phillips infamously placed claims on hundreds of players one year. Nevertheless, it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that a guy like Church would never make it through to the Cubs.

 

I agree with this completely. If the Cubs pass the Brewers in the standings before they tried to make a deal, the Brewers would block the Cubs, but I'm not sure if any other teams would or not (possibly a team or two in the WC race).

 

Really? I can't think of any examples of this, but I can think of examples where players are claimed to block him from getting to other teams. Anyone know of any?

 

Also, whoever we'd trade for Church would have to pass by the reds and pirates.

 

I'm just saying there aren't many teams that are so concerned about the Cubs that they would block the deal. The Brewers if they are in position to block definitely would. The Cardinals? possibly. Braves? I doubt it. The NL West teams? Hard to say.

 

It's more because Church would be an economical, decent pickup for someone. Teams don't have to claim him just because they're trying to foil the Cubs' plans. They can do it just because Church works for them and their own plans. And that opens up pretty much every team in the league under us.

 

Exactly. I'm sure there are some teams below us in the standings who'd like to have a player with a decent bat who can play CF and is only making $400,000 on the season.

[davearm]

Acquiring Church all the way through waivers is a pipe dream.

 

There is a 0% chance of this happening with Church basically making the minimum salary. It's bad reporting on Levine's part.

I dunno about that. There seems to be a sort of gentleman's agreement that discourages GMs from placing frivolous claims on guys that they have no hope or intention of acquiring.

 

As I understand it, the common courtesy is that if you see a guy on waivers that you'd like to have, and who would clearly be pulled back if you put in a claim, a GM first places a call to see if a deal can be arranged before formally filing a claim. If a deal's there to be made, then the claim is made. If not, then the guy is allowed to pass.

 

Now to be sure, that gentleman's agreement is not always followed, and over the years teams have certainly gone against this little piece of GM etiquette. Steve Phillips infamously placed claims on hundreds of players one year. Nevertheless, it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that a guy like Church would never make it through to the Cubs.

 

I agree with this completely. If the Cubs pass the Brewers in the standings before they tried to make a deal, the Brewers would block the Cubs, but I'm not sure if any other teams would or not (possibly a team or two in the WC race).

 

Really? I can't think of any examples of this, but I can think of examples where players are claimed to block him from getting to other teams. Anyone know of any?

 

Also, whoever we'd trade for Church would have to pass by the reds and pirates.

 

I'm just saying there aren't many teams that are so concerned about the Cubs that they would block the deal. The Brewers if they are in position to block definitely would. The Cardinals? possibly. Braves? I doubt it. The NL West teams? Hard to say.

 

It's more because Church would be an economical, decent pickup for someone. Teams don't have to claim him just because they're trying to foil the Cubs' plans. They can do it just because Church works for them and their own plans. And that opens up pretty much every team in the league under us.

 

Exactly. I'm sure there are some teams below us in the standings who'd like to have a player with a decent bat who can play CF and is only making $400,000 on the season.

So they make a call to Bowden and see if they can put a deal together.

 

If they can't, then there's no point in making the claim. It would just piss off the other GMs around the league, especially Bowden. Why would the GM of a team out of contention harm their reputation for nothing?

 

Now the GM of a team in contention is another story. That guy could make a legit strategic argument for not letting a guy pass, and presumably there would not be hard feelings if he did.

 

The bottom line is that there are probably only a few teams the Cubs would have to be concerned about... not a dozen.

[C.C.]

Why didn't Jim just make the deal? Why worry about passing through waiver wires and crap. It's just seems silly.

[CubColtPacer]

Acquiring Church all the way through waivers is a pipe dream.

 

There is a 0% chance of this happening with Church basically making the minimum salary. It's bad reporting on Levine's part.

I dunno about that. There seems to be a sort of gentleman's agreement that discourages GMs from placing frivolous claims on guys that they have no hope or intention of acquiring.

 

As I understand it, the common courtesy is that if you see a guy on waivers that you'd like to have, and who would clearly be pulled back if you put in a claim, a GM first places a call to see if a deal can be arranged before formally filing a claim. If a deal's there to be made, then the claim is made. If not, then the guy is allowed to pass.

 

Now to be sure, that gentleman's agreement is not always followed, and over the years teams have certainly gone against this little piece of GM etiquette. Steve Phillips infamously placed claims on hundreds of players one year. Nevertheless, it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that a guy like Church would never make it through to the Cubs.

 

I agree with this completely. If the Cubs pass the Brewers in the standings before they tried to make a deal, the Brewers would block the Cubs, but I'm not sure if any other teams would or not (possibly a team or two in the WC race).

 

Really? I can't think of any examples of this, but I can think of examples where players are claimed to block him from getting to other teams. Anyone know of any?

 

Also, whoever we'd trade for Church would have to pass by the reds and pirates.

 

I'm just saying there aren't many teams that are so concerned about the Cubs that they would block the deal. The Brewers if they are in position to block definitely would. The Cardinals? possibly. Braves? I doubt it. The NL West teams? Hard to say.

 

It's more because Church would be an economical, decent pickup for someone. Teams don't have to claim him just because they're trying to foil the Cubs' plans. They can do it just because Church works for them and their own plans. And that opens up pretty much every team in the league under us.

 

Basically what davearm just said. If they know the Nationals are going to just pull the claim back (which they definitely would) why would somebody who wasn't trying to block the Cubs try to claim him? It would be a waste of time for a bad team to claim him-there's no positive and a definite negative (Cubs aren't happy with that team) in it.

[SCCubbieFAN]

Why didn't Jim just make the deal? Why worry about passing through waiver wires and crap. It's just seems silly.

 

Perhaps because it is harder to make a trade when players have to pass thru waivers therefore, Hendry's bargaining position is better. Just a thought.

[gflore34]

I may be wrong but, isn't the intra-league waiver deadline August 31? If so, Hendry has until the end of month to aquire Church before having to get him by waivers.