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

[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.

 

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.

 

OK. That does mitigate it somewhat. I still think it's a possibility that another team could claim him, and just call them up and make a decent deal to get the guy since he seems like a pretty good option.

 

Yes, you can say why didn't they do this in the first place? But then again, you could ask the same of Hendry. Maybe in the next couple weeks a club realizes they need a decent CF option for the future and are now willing to throw a few prospects out to get one.

[SCCubbieFAN]

It is my understanding that in waiver deals, typically a deal is worked out between 2 teams prior to placing the players on waivers so the only hitches the 2 teams need to worry about are from teams that might put in a claim to block the trade, not from teams who think they can make a better offer for one or more of the players placed on waivers.

[jersey cubs fan]

It is my understanding that in waiver deals, typically a deal is worked out between 2 teams prior to placing the players on waivers so the only hitches the 2 teams need to worry about are from teams that might put in a claim to block the trade, not from teams who think they can make a better offer for one or more of the players placed on waivers.

 

The story I've always heard is many players are passed through waivers long before any trades are put together. And teams put guys on waivers to light a flame under the potential trade market.

 

Bottom line is post July 31 trades are much more difficult and complicated to pull off, and rarely result in any meaningful transactions.

[brinoch]

My understanding is that most, if not all, players are put through the revocable waiver process.

[Derwood]

correct. The Nationals, for example, could put Church, Young, Belliard, Rauch, Guzman and Cordero on waivers all at once, though Church is the only one they want to deal. Smoke screens galore.

[NCCubFan]

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.

Not true (I think it may have been, years ago); now waivers are needed for any trades after July 31. The significance of Aug. 31 is that's the last day a player can be added to a team's roster for postseason eligibility.

[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.

Not true (I think it may have been, years ago); now waivers are needed for any trades after July 31. The significance of Aug. 31 is that's the last day a player can be added to a team's roster for postseason eligibility.

 

Thanks, now that you mention it, I knew that, nevertheless, thanks.

[maandig]

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.

 

I don't have any inside knowledge of the Nationals clubhouse and hope never to pretend to, nevertheless beat-writers and bloggers in the DC area have tended to be fairly polarized in their thoughts on Church. His apologists chalked up his surly behavior and poor attitude to being managed by Frank Robinson. I'm not sure what this year's excuse will be.

 

Last year Church reacted poorly to not making the major league roster. That happens. The previous year he was rumored to have been the source of quite a bit of acrimony in the clubhouse. This year he proclaimed that he would turn it all around. Here are his exact words:

 

"I can't wait," Church said yesterday by phone. "This is the year I prove everybody wrong."

 

And he has done just that, or at least he's proved Manny Acta wrong:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402197.html

 

When Ryan first came up, the fans here, such as they are, really took to him. That enthusiasm has waned and is now, for most, tepid at best. Last year, the question was Ryan Church or Marlon Byrd (or some other similar fill-in) and everyone answered Church. This year, I'm not sure that would be true.

 

This has been a disappointing year for Nats fans, even though expectations were already low. Zimmerman, Kearns, and Lopez have also disappointed, but each one of them, at least, has validated people's optimism about them at the major league level.

 

I have come to really dislike Church -- the game he cost Cordero against the Phillies is what I've come to expect from him, so I am certainly not objective about this. The Cubs would be better off without him.

[katway]

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.

 

I don't have any inside knowledge of the Nationals clubhouse and hope never to pretend to, nevertheless beat-writers and bloggers in the DC area have tended to be fairly polarized in their thoughts on Church. His apologists chalked up his surly behavior and poor attitude to being managed by Frank Robinson. I'm not sure what this year's excuse will be.

 

Last year Church reacted poorly to not making the major league roster. That happens. The previous year he was rumored to have been the source of quite a bit of acrimony in the clubhouse. This year he proclaimed that he would turn it all around. Here are his exact words:

 

"I can't wait," Church said yesterday by phone. "This is the year I prove everybody wrong."

 

And he has done just that, or at least he's proved Manny Acta wrong:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402197.html

 

When Ryan first came up, the fans here, such as they are, really took to him. That enthusiasm has waned and is now, for most, tepid at best. Last year, the question was Ryan Church or Marlon Byrd (or some other similar fill-in) and everyone answered Church. This year, I'm not sure that would be true.

 

This has been a disappointing year for Nats fans, even though expectations were already low. Zimmerman, Kearns, and Lopez have also disappointed, but each one of them, at least, has validated people's optimism about them at the major league level.

 

I have come to really dislike Church -- the game he cost Cordero against the Phillies is what I've come to expect from him, so I am certainly not objective about this. The Cubs would be better off without him.

 

In a way, Church has been the Nats version of Corey Patterson light. Sometimes he looks like an all-star. But, most of the time, he looks lost out there. I wouldn't mind picking him up because if he can get his head strait, he may be an excellent outfielder. But, that's a huge IF and the Cubs certainly shouldn't over pay for him.

 

A lot has been brought up about him being able to play center. However, from the Nats games I've been to and observed, he's a notch below average as a center fielder.

[Brendan]

speaking of waivers, how do they determine waiver priority? current standings? and how does that apply to interleague trades?

[CubinNY]

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.

 

I don't have any inside knowledge of the Nationals clubhouse and hope never to pretend to, nevertheless beat-writers and bloggers in the DC area have tended to be fairly polarized in their thoughts on Church. His apologists chalked up his surly behavior and poor attitude to being managed by Frank Robinson. I'm not sure what this year's excuse will be.

 

Last year Church reacted poorly to not making the major league roster. That happens. The previous year he was rumored to have been the source of quite a bit of acrimony in the clubhouse. This year he proclaimed that he would turn it all around. Here are his exact words:

 

"I can't wait," Church said yesterday by phone. "This is the year I prove everybody wrong."

 

And he has done just that, or at least he's proved Manny Acta wrong:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402197.html

 

When Ryan first came up, the fans here, such as they are, really took to him. That enthusiasm has waned and is now, for most, tepid at best. Last year, the question was Ryan Church or Marlon Byrd (or some other similar fill-in) and everyone answered Church. This year, I'm not sure that would be true.

 

This has been a disappointing year for Nats fans, even though expectations were already low. Zimmerman, Kearns, and Lopez have also disappointed, but each one of them, at least, has validated people's optimism about them at the major league level.

 

I have come to really dislike Church -- the game he cost Cordero against the Phillies is what I've come to expect from him, so I am certainly not objective about this. The Cubs would be better off without him.

 

In a way, Church has been the Nats version of Corey Patterson light. Sometimes he looks like an all-star. But, most of the time, he looks lost out there. I wouldn't mind picking him up because if he can get his head strait, he may be an excellent outfielder. But, that's a huge IF and the Cubs certainly shouldn't over pay for him.

 

A lot has been brought up about him being able to play center. However, from the Nats games I've been to and observed, he's a notch below average as a center fielder.

 

He is also extremely militant in his religion from what I remember. Being devout is fine and all, but one cannot expect every one to think like oneself.

 

I think that is where some of the clubhouse problems stem from.

[SouthSideRyan]

He is also extremely militant in his religion from what I remember. Being devout is fine and all, but one cannot expect every one to think like oneself.

 

I think that is where some of the clubhouse problems stem from.

 

Is that solely based on the story about his Jewish ex-girlfriend, or is there more to it?

[nilodnayr]

In regards to claiming a guy to block, and the gentlemans agreement between GMs, that may be true for guys who are just going to be rentals, but a guy like Church doesn't just factor into the race for the rest of the year, he will be on your team for 3 more years.

[reggiemiller rules]

I dont see anyway that Church makes it to the Cubs. A team like Florida has been looking for a CF all season, I would assume they would put a claim in on a 28 year old CF making very little money that would be under their control for a few years.

[jersey cubs fan]

He is also extremely militant in his religion from what I remember. Being devout is fine and all, but one cannot expect every one to think like oneself.

 

I think that is where some of the clubhouse problems stem from.

 

Is that solely based on the story about his Jewish ex-girlfriend, or is there more to it?

 

There have been rumblings that he fought in the crusades.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

the p. 18 part of the title is quite misleading

[CubinNY]

He is also extremely militant in his religion from what I remember. Being devout is fine and all, but one cannot expect every one to think like oneself.

 

I think that is where some of the clubhouse problems stem from.

 

Is that solely based on the story about his Jewish ex-girlfriend, or is there more to it?

 

There have been rumblings that he fought in the crusades.

 

I think it was the children's crusade.

 

No, I read that he was postheletizing in the clubhouse or something.

 

I'll see if I can dig it up

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-06-faith-edit_x.htm

[Soul]

He is also extremely militant in his religion from what I remember. Being devout is fine and all, but one cannot expect every one to think like oneself.

 

I think that is where some of the clubhouse problems stem from.

 

Is that solely based on the story about his Jewish ex-girlfriend, or is there more to it?

 

There have been rumblings that he fought in the crusades.

 

I think it was the children's crusade.

 

No, I read that he was postheletizing in the clubhouse or something.

 

I'll see if I can dig it up

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-06-faith-edit_x.htm

 

Yeah, not wise. I would imagine if Church tried that in a locker room full of vets like Lee, Floyd, Soriano, and ARam.......he would find himself getting the verbal smackdown awfully quick.

[IWU_CUBS_FAN]

He is also extremely militant in his religion from what I remember. Being devout is fine and all, but one cannot expect every one to think like oneself.

 

I think that is where some of the clubhouse problems stem from.

 

Is that solely based on the story about his Jewish ex-girlfriend, or is there more to it?

 

There have been rumblings that he fought in the crusades.

 

I think it was the children's crusade.

 

No, I read that he was postheletizing in the clubhouse or something.

 

I'll see if I can dig it up

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-06-faith-edit_x.htm

 

Yeah, not wise. I would imagine if Church tried that in a locker room full of vets like Lee, Floyd, Soriano, and ARam.......he would find himself getting the verbal smackdown awfully quick.

 

or a physical smackdown from a certain pitcher

[VanceJergins]

He is also extremely militant in his religion from what I remember. Being devout is fine and all, but one cannot expect every one to think like oneself.

 

I think that is where some of the clubhouse problems stem from.

 

Is that solely based on the story about his Jewish ex-girlfriend, or is there more to it?

 

There have been rumblings that he fought in the crusades.

 

I think it was the children's crusade.

 

No, I read that he was postheletizing in the clubhouse or something.

 

I'll see if I can dig it up

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-06-faith-edit_x.htm

 

Yeah, not wise. I would imagine if Church tried that in a locker room full of vets like Lee, Floyd, Soriano, and ARam.......he would find himself getting the verbal smackdown awfully quick.

 

or a physical smackdown from a certain pitcher

 

Is it just me or is there nothing in that article about Church proselytizing in the club house? It just makes a reference to the quote that is brought up every time Church's name is mentioned. It seems like the incident was clearly the chaplain's fault, people need to give it a rest already.

 

Also, I think people need to make a distinction between talking about one's faith and proselytizing. Nobody has said this but it seems like some people think you shouldn't be allowed to talk about it, which is ridiculous.

[SCCubbieFAN]

I dont see anyway that Church makes it to the Cubs. A team like Florida has been looking for a CF all season, I would assume they would put a claim in on a 28 year old CF making very little money that would be under their control for a few years.

 

Again, if Church is placed on waivers so he can be traded to the Cubs because the Cubs & Nats have worked out a deal, a team like Florida won't claim him since the Nats will simply pull him back. Florida really has no insentive to block the trade by claiming Church since it is out of the race this year.

[jersey cubs fan]

Also, I think people need to make a distinction between talking about one's faith and proselytizing. Nobody has said this but it seems like some people think you shouldn't be allowed to talk about it, which is ridiculous.

 

You should not talk religion in the workplace, ever.

[XZero771679666304]

Also, I think people need to make a distinction between talking about one's faith and proselytizing. Nobody has said this but it seems like some people think you shouldn't be allowed to talk about it, which is ridiculous.

 

You should not talk religion in the workplace, ever.

 

Agreed. Potentially divisive subject matter isn't good for the workplace environment.

[Banedon]

Also, I think people need to make a distinction between talking about one's faith and proselytizing. Nobody has said this but it seems like some people think you shouldn't be allowed to talk about it, which is ridiculous.

 

You should not talk religion in the workplace, ever.

 

Agreed. Potentially divisive subject matter isn't good for the workplace environment.

 

Politics and Religion are big no-no's for me.

[jersey cubs fan]

Also, I think people need to make a distinction between talking about one's faith and proselytizing. Nobody has said this but it seems like some people think you shouldn't be allowed to talk about it, which is ridiculous.

 

You should not talk religion in the workplace, ever.

 

Agreed. Potentially divisive subject matter isn't good for the workplace environment.

 

Politics and Religion are big no-no's for me.

 

Politics, religion and money should never be discussed in mixed company.