Shannon Stewart?

[jersey cubs fan]

Can't they also deal a PTBNL (someone on the 40-man that may not have cleared waivers, but would be transferred to Oakland's roster after the season)? Then a spot for Stewart on the 40-man roster could be opened by transferring Blanco to the 60-day DL.

 

I'm not sure you can included somebody on the 40 man roster as a PTBNL.

[UMFan83]

But there is no way Murton makes it through waivers to Oakland. It'd have to be for players who are not on the 40-man or as a PTBNL.

 

Let's carry this thought forward. Oakland has three choices here:

 

(1) Pull him back from waivers.

(2) Just let him go to the Cubs - Cubs would assume the remaining contract.

(3) Make a trade.

 

If I understand waivers correctly with item 3, the Cubs can only trade 3 types of players: (a) player(s) from the Cubs 40-man who has (have) cleared waivers; (b) a player from the Cubs 40-man, who was claimed on waivers first by Oakland; © player(s) who is (are) not on the 40 man roster.

 

If it's scenario 3a or 3b, there would be no impact on the 40-man roster; however, if it's scenario 2 or 3c, the Cubs would have to remove somebody from their 40 man roster to add Stewart. That would be either a player who has cleared waivers or somebody the Cubs would have to DFA.

 

Interested to see how all this unfolds.

 

Are we assuming the Cubs are the highest priority team to put in a claim?

 

From what I heard they were. The ESPN 1000 broadcast said that the Cubs put claims on 3 other players but were denyed by higher waiver teams. Stewart, however, fell to the Cubs and is available to be traded.

[Electron Blue]

I guarantee ohman is in this deal. his cubs career is over.

 

Are you saying you know that Ohman has cleared waivers or that Oakland has claimed him first?

 

I would guess his "guarentee" is not as literal as it sounds . . .

 

FWIW, I think Ohman is still too good/cheap to pass waivers (or get to Oak.). He's making, what, less than a million? He's been rocky lately, but he's not trash by any means, especially to a team looking for a MLB bullpen arm on the cheap (i.e. a last place team).

[Electron Blue]

But there is no way Murton makes it through waivers to Oakland. It'd have to be for players who are not on the 40-man or as a PTBNL.

 

Let's carry this thought forward. Oakland has three choices here:

 

(1) Pull him back from waivers.

(2) Just let him go to the Cubs - Cubs would assume the remaining contract.

(3) Make a trade.

 

If I understand waivers correctly with item 3, the Cubs can only trade 3 types of players: (a) player(s) from the Cubs 40-man who has (have) cleared waivers; (b) a player from the Cubs 40-man, who was claimed on waivers first by Oakland; © player(s) who is (are) not on the 40 man roster.

 

If it's scenario 3a or 3b, there would be no impact on the 40-man roster; however, if it's scenario 2 or 3c, the Cubs would have to remove somebody from their 40 man roster to add Stewart. That would be either a player who has cleared waivers or somebody the Cubs would have to DFA.

 

Interested to see how all this unfolds.

 

Are we assuming the Cubs are the highest priority team to put in a claim?

 

From what I heard they were. The ESPN 1000 broadcast said that the Cubs put claims on 3 other players but were denyed by higher waiver teams. Stewart, however, fell to the Cubs and is available to be traded.

 

I would really be interested to know who those other 3 were... any speculation anywhere?

[Balsa]

Don't we already have like 3 Shannon Stewarts on this team?

[moorecg]

Don't we already have like 3 Shannon Stewarts on this team?

Good average, decent power, solid OBP...who?

[WindyCity]

Can't they also deal a PTBNL (someone on the 40-man that may not have cleared waivers, but would be transferred to Oakland's roster after the season)? Then a spot for Stewart on the 40-man roster could be opened by transferring Blanco to the 60-day DL.

 

I'm not sure you can included somebody on the 40 man roster as a PTBNL.

 

I believe the only restriction is that can't have played in the same league in the same season they are traded as a PTBNL.

[jersey cubs fan]

Don't we already have like 3 Shannon Stewarts on this team?

Good average, decent power, solid OBP...who?

 

He's got a .399 SLG.

 

At the very least, Murton is similar. But Floyd's numbers are extremely similar as well. DeRosa fits the bill offensively too.

[Post Count Padder]

Stewart's always been a good hitter, but he has no power. Sounds like some of the guys on this team already.

[anabiono]

mmm...is this actually a possibility?

[USSoccer]

There's no point in trading for Shannon Stewart. We have 3 of him already. Why waste a prospect or the money?

[cubweiser03]

How about doing this as a block. Did the Cubs do this to block him from going to the Brewers?

Mench or Stewart?

Yeah, ill take Stewart.

[JeffH]

While Stewart doesn't have the kind of power that we really need, I believe Oakland is a pretty tough place to hit.

 

If he winds up taking Murton's place in the non-Soriano outfield, I don't much see the point, but if he were used in place of Clifford, then I think it may be worth it.

[frostwyrm]

Stewart was crummy in 2005 and 2006. His 2007 numbers are a little better thanks to a fantastic June(1.005 OPS), but otherwise he hasn't done anything. I think those June numbers have got Jimbo wanting to play that lightning in a bottle game like he did with Randall Simon and Neifi.

[Southpaw191679666239]

Let's carry this thought forward. Oakland has three choices here:

 

(1) Pull him back from waivers.

(2) Just let him go to the Cubs - Cubs would assume the remaining contract.

(3) Make a trade.

 

According to the newspaper article (and Rotoworld), option 2 is not an option. Not sure if that's not how waivers work or not.

 

The A's can either negotiate a trade with the Cubs or pull back Stewart from the waiver wire.

[CubColtPacer]

Let's carry this thought forward. Oakland has three choices here:

 

(1) Pull him back from waivers.

(2) Just let him go to the Cubs - Cubs would assume the remaining contract.

(3) Make a trade.

 

According to the newspaper article (and Rotoworld), option 2 is not an option. Not sure if that's not how waivers work or not.

 

The A's can either negotiate a trade with the Cubs or pull back Stewart from the waiver wire.

 

The A's do have that option, but I think the newspaper is just assuming that Oakland won't give him away. There would really be no reason for them to do that.

[jersey cubs fan]

Let's carry this thought forward. Oakland has three choices here:

 

(1) Pull him back from waivers.

(2) Just let him go to the Cubs - Cubs would assume the remaining contract.

(3) Make a trade.

 

According to the newspaper article (and Rotoworld), option 2 is not an option. Not sure if that's not how waivers work or not.

 

The A's can either negotiate a trade with the Cubs or pull back Stewart from the waiver wire.

 

The A's do have that option, but I think the newspaper is just assuming that Oakland won't give him away. There would really be no reason for them to do that.

 

Other than saving a couple bucks, right. I assume that's what the paper meant as well.

[italianocubsfan7]

Buster Olney of ESPN is now reporting that the A's and Cubs will probably not be able to agree on a trade.

[C.C.]

Buster Olney of ESPN is now reporting that the A's and Cubs will probably not be able to agree on a trade.

 

GOOD! No reason for this trade.

[pitchcs]

Buster Olney of ESPN is now reporting that the A's and Cubs will probably not be able to agree on a trade.

 

I'm pretty indifferent.

[UMFan83]

I'm disapointed, I thought this could be a decent move for the club.

[JeffH]

You know what this means?

 

More Cliff Floyd, baby!

[wilk]

But there is no way Murton makes it through waivers to Oakland. It'd have to be for players who are not on the 40-man or as a PTBNL.

 

Let's carry this thought forward. Oakland has three choices here:

 

(1) Pull him back from waivers.

(2) Just let him go to the Cubs - Cubs would assume the remaining contract.

(3) Make a trade.

 

If I understand waivers correctly with item 3, the Cubs can only trade 3 types of players: (a) player(s) from the Cubs 40-man who has (have) cleared waivers; (b) a player from the Cubs 40-man, who was claimed on waivers first by Oakland; © player(s) who is (are) not on the 40 man roster.

 

If it's scenario 3a or 3b, there would be no impact on the 40-man roster; however, if it's scenario 2 or 3c, the Cubs would have to remove somebody from their 40 man roster to add Stewart. That would be either a player who has cleared waivers or somebody the Cubs would have to DFA.

 

Interested to see how all this unfolds.

 

Right. When I said it'd "have to" be for players who aren't on the 40, I was jumping a step and assuming no one Oakland would want from the roster would clear 20 teams in waivers to make it to Oakland. The Cubs would have had to already put them on waivers or did it within the hour their Stewart claim was accepted and it's possible someone made it through, but who? Jacque Jones? Koyie Hill? Neal Cotts? That was my point of the impact of the 40-man roster. It'd more likely be players who are not on the 40-man that would be traded -- which makes guys like Mitch Atkins and some low-A pitchers vulnerable. I don't think they reach a deal, personally.

[RegulusBlue]

You know what this means?

 

More Cliff Floyd, baby!

 

I could easily get by with a Pie/Murton/Patterson OF. I could care less about Floyd starting, and I actually hate Jones and Pagan, so its easy for me.

 

Somebody mail Floyd to another continent.

[moorecg]

You know what this means?

 

More Cliff Floyd, baby!

 

I could easily get by with a Pie/Murton/Patterson OF. I could care less about Floyd starting, and I actually hate Jones and Pagan, so its easy for me.

 

Somebody mail Floyd to another continent.

 

What...2 HRs and 4 doubles in the last two and a half months don't cut it?