How did Patterson clear waivers?

[dalgreen]

I know he had too much service time just to be sent down, so he had to first clear waivers. How did he do that? Generally after July 31st, trades that occur after that time must be done with guys that have cleared waivers. And I know in the past, teams have had to wait days for guys to clear waivers. Can anyone explain Patterson's process or offer up a suggestion on what happened? Did he clear waivers in an hour or was he already on the list? And why didn't any team claim him?

[Derwood]

I know he had too much service time just to be sent down, so he had to first clear waivers. How did he do that? Generally after July 31st, trades that occur after that time must be done with guys that have cleared waivers. And I know in the past, teams have had to wait days for guys to clear waivers. Can anyone explain Patterson's process or offer up a suggestion on what happened? Did he clear waivers in an hour or was he already on the list? And why didn't any team claim him?

 

Someone in the big Patterson to AAA thread suggested that it's common courtesy for major league teams to not claim players off of revocable waivers prior to July 31st. Had he been claimed, Hendry could have pulled him back. Plus someone stated that he has one option left despite his service time.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

I thought it said that Corey was optioned to AAA.

[NCCubFan]

Patterson still has options remaining, so he had to clear revocable players (as opposed to irrevocable waivers, which would have been required if he were out of options). Revocable waivers are the type required to trade a player after July 31. Many teams place many players on revocable waivers as a matter of routine, and it isn't very common for another team to claim a player placed on revocable waivers. Perhaps the Cubs also placed some other players on revocable waivers and other teams therefore wouldn't have realized the intent. I don't think placing a player on revocable waivers is public information, so we don't know if Patterson was the only one or not.

[JeffH]

I don't understand the surprise expressed in Patterson clearing waivers.

 

Right now, he's one of the worst players in MLB.

 

Any team claiming him would, unless the Cubs pulled him back, have to pay the remainder of his 2005 salary (~$1.4) and place him on their active 25-man roster. It's not like some team could claim him then send him to the minors.

[E.J.]

I don't understand the surprise expressed in Patterson clearing waivers.

 

Right now, he's one of the worst players in MLB.

 

Any team claiming him would, unless the Cubs pulled him back, have to pay the remainder of his 2005 salary (~$1.4) and place him on their active 25-man roster. It's not like some team could claim him then send him to the minors.

 

I don't doubt that if Corey had been placed on irrevocable waivers, some team would have taken a chance on him and would have been willing to pay his salary to get him. He made it through waivers because he was placed on revocable waivers. Hendry could have just pulled him back if someone tried to claim him.

[LuckyPup]

One thing I have noticed is we really value Corey TOO much-He unfortunately has shown flashes of being a 5 tool star but has never been-What we as Cub fans have our greatest asset-Hope, It is our hope that builds patterson into Barry Bonds-and completly overvalues him-He is a good player but his shortcomings at the plate will ALWAYS restrict him at the plate-

 

The Cubs Org. also overvalues/overvalued Corey- they put their eggs in that basket and they are going to stick withhim and have stuck with him as long as possible.

-who would claim him? Sure a few of your basement dwellers might but does everyone realize Corey is making nearly 3M this year? Not team is going to pony up almost 2M for the remander of the year for a player hitting .230 with an OBP in the .200's- We have made our bed and now we must lay in it-I hope Corey can go down and learn to be a servicable ML player-if not he is probably one of the biggest busts of all time-fair or not.

[Wheelimus]

Eh, at 25 and only being owed $1.5 mil, if another team thought the Cubs would just give him away, make no mistake, he's claimed.

 

Problem is, people know they're just sending him down to work on stuff, and if he's claimed, will just pull him off and let him rot on the bench.

 

So nobody is going to claim him, because anyone who may be interested in him wants him to get his act together, so it makes no sense to claim him UNLESS you're ready to make a trade that The Cubs will go for at this point.

 

I mean, if the A's really want him and claim him and offer Kotsay in trade, then fine, good move. Else, just let him go, you aren't getting him for free regardless.

[dalgreen]

Eh, at 25 and only being owed $1.5 mil, if another team thought the Cubs would just give him away, make no mistake, he's claimed.

 

Problem is, people know they're just sending him down to work on stuff, and if he's claimed, will just pull him off and let him rot on the bench.

 

So nobody is going to claim him, because anyone who may be interested in him wants him to get his act together, so it makes no sense to claim him UNLESS you're ready to make a trade that The Cubs will go for at this point.

 

I mean, if the A's really want him and claim him and offer Kotsay in trade, then fine, good move. Else, just let him go, you aren't getting him for free regardless.

 

And that is what I didn't know -- if he had to go through irrevocable or revocable waivers.

[JC]

Patterson still has options remaining, so he had to clear revocable players (as opposed to irrevocable waivers, which would have been required if he were out of options). Revocable waivers are the type required to trade a player after July 31. Many teams place many players on revocable waivers as a matter of routine, and it isn't very common for another team to claim a player placed on revocable waivers. Perhaps the Cubs also placed some other players on revocable waivers and other teams therefore wouldn't have realized the intent. I don't think placing a player on revocable waivers is public information, so we don't know if Patterson was the only one or not.

 

I'm thoroughly confused then. Lets say Cedeno is sent down, does he have to pass revocable waivers? How about Mitre or any of the other players with options?

 

It looks like I need to retract my argument earlier with 10 man.

[E.J.]

Patterson still has options remaining, so he had to clear revocable players (as opposed to irrevocable waivers, which would have been required if he were out of options). Revocable waivers are the type required to trade a player after July 31. Many teams place many players on revocable waivers as a matter of routine, and it isn't very common for another team to claim a player placed on revocable waivers. Perhaps the Cubs also placed some other players on revocable waivers and other teams therefore wouldn't have realized the intent. I don't think placing a player on revocable waivers is public information, so we don't know if Patterson was the only one or not.

 

I'm thoroughly confused then. Lets say Cedeno is sent down, does he have to pass revocable waivers? How about Mitre or any of the other players with options?

 

It looks like I need to retract my argument earlier with 10 man.

 

The difference between Cedeno/Mitre and Cpatt is that Cpatt has a ton more service time than they do. Cedeno and Mitre can just be optioned down because they don't have enough service time. I don't know the specifics of it though, i.e. how much service time you have to have.

[JeffH]

3+ years.

[SCCubbieFAN]

Where is MPeel when we need him. I believe if a player still has "options", he can be optioned/sent to the minor leagues without having to go through waivers. It's when a player is out of options that he must be placed on waivers to send him down. If I am misinformed, please staighten me out.

[10man]

According to a Cubs employee, Patterson has 4.007 years of MLS which means that the Cubs can still option him to the minors without his consent once. Had he been past 5 MLS then the Cubs would have needed to get his consent to be sent down.

 

Another part of it is since Corey has passed the 3 years MLS sending him down required that he clear major league (revocable) waivers. The most likely scenario is that Patterson along with several other players were placed on waivers days before this. Teams often place their players on waivers in groups so as to disguise from the other teams which player will be moved.

 

After Corey cleared waivers, then Hendry was free to either trade him or option him to the minors. Of course, the next time the Cubs bring Corey up, they will no longer be able to send him down again without his consent.

[Derwood]

Of course, the next time the Cubs bring Corey up, they will no longer be able to send him down again without his consent.

 

Which won't be an issue since they'll probably deal him

[Diffusion]

Of course, the next time the Cubs bring Corey up, they will no longer be able to send him down again without his consent.

 

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

 

You're thinking of when a player is outrighted for the second (or third or fourth etc) time.

 

Corey's just been optioned. And you can't refuse an optional assignment unless you have 5 years or more of service time.

 

So if the Cubs recall Corey and then option him again before he has 5 years of service time, Corey still can't refuse.

[wilk]

After this, Corey still has 1 option left. At that point, when he IS out of options, he would have to be outrighted and clear irrevocable waivers. We would not need his consent until he has 5 years of ML service - and right now he's at something like 4.01. The rest of what you said is pretty much accurate. We requested waivers for the May3 - July 31 period, so he can now be freely sent down until July 31. As you mention, revocable waivers are used all the time by teams to simply gauge interest in players, even if they have no interest in trading or demoting the player. I'd guess that there's a fair chance that the better portion of our roster has at one point been on the waiver wire during this season.

[CubFanPhilly]

Time to post a link to this again:

 

Rob Neyer's Transaction Primer

 

Of course Mark Peel can tell you about the 1,000,014 specific circumstances this blurb glosses over. :)

[CubFanPhilly]

btw - I think (as others have said in various threads about this) that there's a gentleman's agreement that you don't snatch another GM's guy off revocable waivers. There's really no point except to tie the other GM's hands. If you do that you can expect retaliation when it comes time to move your guy through.

 

CFP

[wilk]

btw - I think (as others have said in various threads about this) that there's a gentleman's agreement that you don't snatch another GM's guy off revocable waivers. There's really no point except to tie the other GM's hands. If you do that you can expect retaliation when it comes time to move your guy through.

 

To some degree, yes, but you also put in a claim often to set up a trade scenario. Patterson could have been claimed, talked to Hendry and Hendry didn't like the trade proposal, pulled back the waiver request, then put him back through again. At THAT point, it's gentleman's agreement to not claim the guy again to simply block a move. It's possible Corey WAS claimed and Hendry didn't like the offers - you know, right about the point at which it was "leaked" that Corey is "available"? ;) And of course there's the possibility that he requested waivers on the majority of the team, and was simply "snuck" through. August waivers are a whole new story, however.

[CubFanPhilly]

btw - I think (as others have said in various threads about this) that there's a gentleman's agreement that you don't snatch another GM's guy off revocable waivers. There's really no point except to tie the other GM's hands. If you do that you can expect retaliation when it comes time to move your guy through.

 

To some degree, yes, but you also put in a claim often to set up a trade scenario. Patterson could have been claimed, talked to Hendry and Hendry didn't like the trade proposal, pulled back the waiver request, then put him back through again. At THAT point, it's gentleman's agreement to not claim the guy again to simply block a move. It's possible Corey WAS claimed and Hendry didn't like the offers - you know, right about the point at which it was "leaked" that Corey is "available"? ;) And of course there's the possibility that he requested waivers on the majority of the team, and was simply "snuck" through. August waivers are a whole new story, however.

 

But I believe the second time a player goes on waivers (in a given season) they're irrevocable - meaning if another club steps in and snatches that guy you're SOL. The GMs will generally know (or pick up the phone and find out) what the intention is. Hendry wasn't going to lose Corey to waivers and every GM knows it.

 

The only guys that get claimed off waivers are guys the washed-up, over-priced, and under-performing players that the GM wants to cut loose anyway.

 

CFP

[wilk]

You are exposed to irrevocable waivers if you are out of options, or removed from the 40-man roster. You can attempt to request revocable waivers multiple times if you want as long as he has options - only outright waivers are irrevocable.

[CubFanPhilly]

You are exposed to irrevocable waivers if you are out of options, or removed from the 40-man roster. You can attempt to request revocable waivers multiple times if you want as long as he has options - only outright waivers are irrevocable.

 

Thanks.

[mlpeel]

Where is MPeel when we need him. I believe if a player still has "options", he can be optioned/sent to the minor leagues without having to go through waivers. It's when a player is out of options that he must be placed on waivers to send him down. If I am misinformed, please staighten me out.

 

Somebody call?

 

Your statement is not completely true, SC, though it is usually correct. The qualifier that determines the need for waivers is *not* major league service time, as some in this thread have stated, but a.) how long it has been since the date the player first reported to the active list of the major league team, and b.) how many option years he had remaining at that time. In the current instance, Patterson made his major league debut on September 18, 2000 (I believe Patterson reported the same day he made his debut; the date isn't more than a day or two off at most, so I'll use it as though it was the reporting date); he had all 3 options remaining at that time (actually, he was technically eligible for a fourth option year under MLR 11©; but since his callup occurred after the end of the 2002 minor league seasons, there was no time window to exercise that fourth option and it evaporated with the end of the 2002 season). Since he had 3 option years, he did not have to clear waivers to use an option until 3 *calendar* years had passed; that is, as of September 18, 2003, Patterson had to clear waivers before he could be optioned to the minors. Prior to that date, he could be optioned freely -- and he was in the 2001 season. Please note that Patterson did *not* have 3 years of major league service until midway through the 2004 season; under the Basic Agreement, 3 years of service time affects outright assignments to the minors but not optional assignments (see below).

 

Just to recap, the clock for waivers starts ticking on the day the player first reports to the big league club (so it's July 8, 2005, for both Matt Murton and Adam Greenberg, even though Murton made his major league debut and Greenberg didn't) and the clock expires after the number of calendar years elapsed equals the number of option years the player had remaining at the time he reported. After the clock expires, it doesn't matter how many options the player still has remaining: he must clear waivers first before a remaining option (if any) can be used.

 

The purpose of this rule is to prevent clubs from optioning established players to the minors as punishment. Obviously, a productive player will not clear waivers (not usually, anyway): another major league club will put in a claim, preventing the optional assignment, on the theory that if the waiving club is dumb enough not to want this guy, we'll take him (which is the point of the waiver rule in the first place: if a player is good enough for the league, the other clubs will decide that by claiming him rather than letting him leave the league).

 

 

And yes, when a player has no more options, he must clear waivers before his contract can be assigned to the minors. This is called an outright assignment: the player is transferred from the major league club's 40 man reserve list to the minor league club's reserve list (35-38 players, depending on the level), though the major league club is still on the hook for any guaranteed clauses in the major league contract. When waivers (including special waivers) are requested for the purposes of outrighting a player to the minors, they can't be withdrawn: if another team claims him, the player will stay in the majors with the claiming team (or the team with the highest waiver priority when more than one team puts in a claim).

 

 

The Basic Agreement grants players rights against being outrighted to the minors. A player who has at least 3 years of major league service (Patterson) or who has been outrighted to the minors before (Dubois) can refuse the assignment and become a free agent; in both cases, if the player accepts and goes to the minors, he gets another chance at free agency after the season unless the team adds him back to the major league reserve list. Note this applies only to outright assignments: Corey had no ability to refuse an optional assignment.

 

Also under the Basic Agreement, a player who has 5 years of major league service cannot be assigned to the minors at all (either outright or optionally) without his prior written consent. If Patterson returns to the big leagues soon, then in about a year the Cubs (or the team he's traded to) won't have the option of optioning Corey to the minors even though he'll still have an option left: he completed his fourth year of major league service before the end of June, so he's less than a year in the bigs from having the right to refuse any kind of minor league demotion.

Edited July 9, 2005 by mlpeel

[mlpeel]

I'm thoroughly confused then. Lets say Cedeno is sent down, does he have to pass revocable waivers? How about Mitre or any of the other players with options?

 

Of the players who were originally signed by the Cubs (I don't know the detailed transaction history of guys like Barrett or Ramirez to say for certain), Ohman, Wood, and Zambrano are the only ones with options who would have to clear waivers for an optional assignment. Well, check that: Maddux still has 2 option years left...