nilodnayr

Pagan to the DL with a strained oblique.

Hell, Tejada just did. I know Dunn is younger and cheaper, but I don't think it's completely impossible. And someone lumped Dunn in with all the others as a "miserable option?" Right. From what I understand, Tejada did not clear waivers, but was claimed from them by the White Sox. Right, but as bad as the Sox are, aren't there teams below them that could have put in a claim first? My point is that if the teams have a "gentleman's agreement," it seems unlikely that people just swoop in and bust up the deail unless it's some kind of superstar player. But look whos worse than the sox and find me a team that can absorb Tejadas contract and has an opening at SS.

BoSox's Murton maybe? Basically, although at least Murton's been able to get consistant playing time in Iowa. Poor Wily Mo is out of options.

He was the main part of the propsed Jermain Dye deal at the dealine, but it fell apart. Hes been horrible this season, however, when with Cincy, he was a notorious Cub killer, and basically homered every time he stepped foot in Wrigley. Hes been horrible, but hasn't been put in a situation to succeed at all. To Windy's point, it must be that the BoSox let it be known around the league that Wily Mo wouldn't be had for cheap / gentleman's agreement.

How in the heck does he clear waivers? No team wanted to take the risk that the Red Sox would just give him away?

That really has nothing to do with anything.

I don't know for sure, but I would imagine it's the records at the completion of all of the previous day's games. So, say the Reds want to try to trade Dunn to the Brewers, they can wait until (hopefully) we overtake the Brewers for first place and then place Dunn on waivers so the Brewers can claim him and have priority. But what if the Brewers put a claim in and then they win the next day and we lose and then wen put in a claim for him. This whole "as of current standings" is very nebulous.

My only question is that priority is based on "current standings". Is that current standings the second the player is officially put on waivers. Or standing at the time the teams put a waiver claim on in, or is it some specifict point? For that matter, is there any specific time teams are supposed to put guys on waivers. Or is it pretty much any time after July 31st? It seems as though with a bunch of teams close to each other and flip flopping in the standings on a nightly basis, this is pretty important.

I'll play this game. Imagine a lineup of: Theriot Murton Lee Ramirez Floyd DeRosa Soto Pie vs a lineup of: Theriot Cedeno Lee Ramirez Floyd Jones Pagan Kendall Which one consists of 4 players that are completely useless, with no upside, and which one has 4 players in their place that at least have the potential to be better, and can't possibly be worse. Try again. Both of those lineups have a mix of young and old. Put a lineup together using Lee and ARam as the only vets, and I'll be happy to show you an older and much better one. See TT's post above...you've gone off the deep end.

All italics is from MLB Traderumors

OPS 2007/career Floyd: .749/.843 Pagan: .750/.724 Jones: .664/.781 Kendall: .729/.770 Fontenot: .820/.821 And you missed DeRosa, .783/.743. Not a lot of support for your theory that the group will combine for a .600 OPS from here on out. This group seems much more likely: Pie: .617/.617 Cedeno: .446/.614 Soto: .393/.441 Patterson: n/a Murton: .674/.803 I'm all for Murton in LF. But beyond that, I think there's a whole ton of wishful thinking going on with those other guys. I'm sure you know that TT was using hyperbole in regards to the 600 OPS from the vets. I'm also sure you know that using the OPS from the rookies from like 60 ABs of playing time this year might have some sample size issues.

Depends on what stats you need, but I'd do it. The giants suck and especially after Bonds hits it hes going to be sitting out probably a decent amount so Cain's going to continue to have a slim chance of getting wins. Hafner has struggled a lot (relatively speaking) and with the Yanks offense on fire Giambi will accrue some good counting stats.

I'm not sure, it sounded like they wanted someone who is a top of the order guy, not a middle of the order guy. And that statement in and of itself shows how idiotic this team is.

Because Dopirak is on the 40-man, the Cubs had to DFA him just as they would anybody else. They've got 10 days to trade him. Failing that, if he clears waivers, they can outright him to the minors, taking him off the 40-man. Miller was on the 60-day DL and not on the 40-man. Right. the 40-man move with Dopirak created a spot for E-Patt. The Miller move was a cutting-ties type sito, and didn't affect the 40 man. What I'm wondering is why was Patterson's clock started, he being another infielder, when bringing up Pie was the obvious choice? This team is an OF short, at the very least. is Cedeno still on the 25 man? Patterson is going to be playing some OF. They aren't worried about starting his option years because they believe hes basically major league ready. They aren't worried about starting his service clock because they aren't the Devil Rays.

Yeah because horrible organizations like Boston, Oakland, Cleveland, and Atlanta utilize platoons.

Just read from Will Caroll that Morris' contract is not insured. So the risk is even that much bigger. Yikes.

Wouldn't shock me to see 1 or 2 on that list being moved Glaus or Burrell; long shots would be Griffey, Vasquez. Why would the Phillies want to get rid of Burrell now? He hates it in Philly, they hate him in Philly, they have an inhouse cheap replacement, and ohh yeah, 13 million other reasons. They've been trying to give him away for free for years. It's a valid question. The Phillies are still in the playoff chase. Hated or not, under those circumstances you don't dump a productive player without getting something in return. Also, I don't recall Burrell ever saying anything about hating to play in Philly. Victorino on the DL and Bourn nicked up definitely hurts the immediate situation. It will all really depend on how they do the next week. Philly however, is definitely not an only this year team and they will be thinking of having that $ to do something (possibly at 3B) for next year.

Wouldn't shock me to see 1 or 2 on that list being moved Glaus or Burrell; long shots would be Griffey, Vasquez. Why would the Phillies want to get rid of Burrell now? He hates it in Philly, they hate him in Philly, they have an inhouse cheap replacement, and ohh yeah, 13 million other reasons. They've been trying to give him away for free for years.

I think it's going to be hard for Zambrano to sit around and wait for this to get worked out. From the way I understand this, I don't like the chances of Zambrano signing, or the Cubs being able to much of anything in the free agent market. Ohh Brian, you're so pessimistic. Zito didn't sign until 12/28 last year.

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.

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

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.

Exactly what I was about to post.

Not Juan mateo? Just want to check...

Well I assume Kemp would be the one that they could settle on since Kershaw is untouchable and they don't need Loney with Barton ready to come up. Also, ironically, Kemp is somewhat expendable with Ethier on the team. I wonder if Beane is not hot on Hu because hes had no success in the past. But unfortunately, he really didnt get a great look at Crosby this year to decide if he needs to do something with SS.