- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DAT 8/2: Rays (Pruitt) @ Astros (Keuchel), 7:10 CDT
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:37 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:37 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
i had the yankees in mind. i dont think the tigers are that big of a risk to just let him go but its definitely something to keep like the fricking royals from claiming him
3
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:38 pm to WestCoastAg
and in case anyone was wondering, the priority goes by league, and then win loss record
so now every AL team will have a chance to claim him before any NL team. so the astros are like 15th on the list
so now every AL team will have a chance to claim him before any NL team. so the astros are like 15th on the list
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:40 pm to WestCoastAg
Yeah or Cleveland, who spent some dough this offseason and isn't traditionally a high payroll team. It will be interesting to see what happens
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:40 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
i dont think the tigers are that big of a risk to just let him go but its definitely something to keep like the fricking royals from claiming him
If the Royals claimed JV and the Tigers said "fine, keep him," the KC owner would have a heart attack.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:45 pm to Jwho77
quote:
If the Royals claimed JV and the Tigers said "fine, keep him," the KC owner would have a heart attack.
With revocable waivers, neither team is forced into anything. That's why teams put a lot of their players on waivers and then just pull them back I'd they're claimed. And why teams make claims just to block the competition.
In that case, the Royals just don't come to an agreement and the Tigers revoke their claim.
If the Tigers put Verlander on waivers a 2nd time and a team claims him, they MUST make a trade or the claiming team assume the contract. There's no pulling the player back.
This post was edited on 8/2/17 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:49 pm to Lsuhoohoo
quote:
In that case, the Royals just don't come to an agreement and the Tigers revoke their claim.
If the Tigers put Verlander on waivers a 2nd time and a team claims him, they MUST make a trade or the claiming team assume the contract. There's no pulling the player back.
From what I understand the Tigers can absolutely just let him go for free if the Royals claim him if they want to. I don't know how Verlander's no trade clause factors in though
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:50 pm to Lsuhoohoo
That's bullshite, if you claim him to block someone else from making a trade you should be stuck with his money if Detroit lets him go
This post was edited on 8/2/17 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:51 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
Verlander's no trade clause factors in though
He can't block a team from picking him up through waivers, only through a trade
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:53 pm to dhav14
They would. If the royals claim him, and the tigers don't work out a trade or take him off waivers with 48 hours, the rangers would then have him for nothing and be responsible for his contract
This post was edited on 8/2/17 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:54 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:Royals should totally do that to frick the Rangers then IMO
They would. If the royals claim him, and the tigers don't work out a trade or take him off waivers with 48 hours, the rangers would then have him for nothing and be responsible for his contract
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:54 pm to dhav14
quote:
Notably, Crasnick reminds that Verlander’s no-trade protection would allow him to even veto a claim in the unlikely event that a club places a claim and the Tigers were willing to let him go for nothing.
Ill admit could be wrong on the Tigers ability to just say goodbye and dump the whole contract on a claiming team rather than try to work out a trade.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:55 pm to Lsuhoohoo
Hmm, I read the opposite somewhere a couple weeks ago
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:55 pm to dhav14
Don't know why i out rangers there
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:57 pm to Lsuhoohoo
I am pretty sure they can. Otherwise nobody would pass through waivers and get dealt. If you're the lowest end contending team why wouldn't you just claim every player being passed through then pull it back if there's no risk.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:58 pm to Lsuhoohoo
quote:they can
Ill admit could be wrong on the Tigers ability to just say goodbye and dump the whole contract on a claiming team rather than try to work out a trade
Posted on 8/2/17 at 5:00 pm to WestCoastAg
They can trade him, take him off waivers, or just release him to the claiming team
Posted on 8/2/17 at 5:01 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
I am pretty sure they can. Otherwise nobody would pass through waivers and get dealt. If you're the lowest end contending team why wouldn't you just claim every player being passed through then pull it back if there's no risk.
So other than "just don't make a claim" what's the protection for a claiming team that the waiver team doesn't act in bad faith, refuse to agree to a trade and then just dump the whole contract in order to get completely out from under it.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 5:03 pm to Lsuhoohoo
You don't have to claim him to make a trade though right? If he goes unclaimed for the 47 hours then they can negotiate with anyone for 2 days?
Posted on 8/2/17 at 5:03 pm to Lsuhoohoo
There is none. That's the risk. However, most teams don't like giving away players away for nothing
This post was edited on 8/2/17 at 5:05 pm
Posted on 8/2/17 at 5:03 pm to dhav14
Yes
Page 4 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News