With the news that Alex Rios was claimed off waivers, it seems a good time to explain the actual procedure for how a player is claimed. The process is a bit confusing. I’ll use Rios as the example:
* The Jays decide to place Rios on revocable waivers. Most players will be placed on this list at some point this month. The controlling team (Jays in this case) may do one of three things if the player is claimed: (1) pull him back, (2) work out a trade within 48 hours with the claiming team, or (3) allow the claiming team to take the player’s contract.
* Once claimed, the claiming team is “on the hook.” They can’t pull it back, so even if a team wants to work out a trade and doesn’t, they could still use option (3) above.
* When a player is waived, his name goes onto a list maintained by MLB. It’s on a computer system that goes out to all 30 teams. The claim procedure is nothing more than hitting a button. While all 30 teams must not claim, there’s no actual “pass” procedure. “Passing” is merely not claiming and is an absence of action. A player clears when no one claims for the 48 hour period.
* While the winning claim is decided by league, then record, teams do not wait for other teams to claim. They just say “yep, I want him.” Once there are multiple teams claiming a player, they’ll go by league, worst current record to best, to decide who wins the claim. In Rios’ case, all AL teams would have a shot before the Nats (worst NL record) would be awarded the claim.
* If a player clears waivers, he can be traded during the waiver period (which goes through the end of the World Series) without again going through waivers. There is not a deadline at any point. There is a “playoff roster” deadline of September 1, but there’s an injury loophole that has been exploited in the past.
Will, thanks! One additional question if you have the time to answer: who pays the contract? My understanding is that when a player is released, the team that picks him up only has to pay the minimum while the releasing teams pays everything else. With revocable waivers, my understanding is that the claiming team pays everything that's left on the contract. I'm not sure if that's right, though, and the stories I've read on the Rios situation haven't shed any light on it.
Your scenario applies to players under contract who are released (not claimed frmo waivers). Once a player is released, he is a free agent who can sign with any team at any price. His former team is on the hook for the difference between his old salary and his new salary. So, of course, everyone pretty much signs for the minimum.
But it is trickier where incentive clauses are involved, no? The base salary is earned per each day of service time, but it's unclear whether incentive clauses are deemed to be earned at the moment each incentive threshold is achieved, or prorated across the days over which it was achieved. And yes, I am talking about Pavano.
According to one source, the standard is that incentives in baseball are all triggered. Once an event occurs (the 3d out in the 200th inning of a 200 IP incentive, for instance), the incentive is paid out at the next scheduled pay period. There is no pay or liability prior to the trigger.
Crap - hit enter and it submitted rather than lined down.
The confusion can exist because if a guy is about to hit an incentive that's big, a team can negotiate to have the other team take on part of that, like anything else.
My question is whether being claimed on waivers is the same as being traded. As I understand it, Rios has a no trade clause. Does he have to waive it to be taken by the White Sox? Since the Jays would get nothing in return from the Sox if he is claimed, would that constitute a 'trade?'
And what about Rule V and the expansion drafts? If there was a case of a player who had 5 and 10 rights, or had a no trade clause, what happens if he's left unprotected?
Being claimed on waivers is not at all like a trade (other than a player changes teams). I do not believe a no-trade clause (or 5 and 10 rights) preclude a waiver claim at all (though it would make it harder for a waiving team to pull him back and work out a trade, particularly given the 48-hour timeframe).
None of these apply to the Rule V draft; only players not on the team's 40-man major-league roster are eligible for the Rule V draft. By definition, a player with 5-and-10 rights is on the 40-man.
Really good question. He does have a no-trade, so if a trade is worked out, he'd have to approve it. If he's just handed through waivers, I don't know. I'll try and find out.
The answer - confirmed by Joe Kehoskie (an agent) and by Jeff Euston (former BP Idol contestant and keeper of MLB contract secrets) - is that a no-trade clause takes precedence. It's essentially a "no move" clause if a team is blocked. If it's a limited no-trade, it's the same for waivers. In 09-10, Rios has a complete no-trade, so any deal or dump could be blocked.
Well, your sources seem pretty credible, so I may have simply asked mine the wrong question. I don't recall how clear I was on revocable versus irrevocable waivers, and I was not completely sure I understood the priority. At any rate, it looks like I posted bad information, for which I apologize. Perversely, it appears that a player with a no-trade still needs to clear waivers in order to be traded (with the player's permission), so the player is on waivers with no rights attaching whatsoever. Only baseball can be this convoluted.
I've seen that Robinson Cano cleared waivers; how can this be? Surely there are plenty of teams that would want a 2B posting a .310/.346/.495 line while entering the prime of his career - and his contract isn't bad at all ($9m 2010, $10m 2011, $12m net option 2012, $13m net option 2013).
Even if most teams figured they wouldn't be able to work out a trade with the Yankees and that he would just be pulled back, it seems worth it to at least deny NY the option of trading him when there is no cost to your team - who knows what *might* happen that could allow the Yanks the opportunity to improve by trading Cano down the line?
For the claim order ranking by record is it the record when the player is placed on waivers or when the 48 hour period ends? I doubt it makes a difference very often, but I'm curious.
Having trouble replying ... but FallenPhoenix there does appear to be a charge for making a claim; however it's just $1.
"Upon receipt of waiver request, any other Major League Club may claim assignment of this contract at a waiver price of $1.00, the priority of claims to be determined in accordance with the Major League Rules."
Okay... so let me see if I get this straight...(hypothetical) the Twins put Michael Cuddyer on waivers, Seattle, Boston, New York and the LA Angels claim him. Seattle, via worst record then has 48 hours to work out a trade or failing then, take on the contract? If they work out a trade, don't they have to take on the contract anyway? Does this mean a team 'putting players on waivers' is essentially trying to leverage $$$ into minor leaguers? For this case, why would Seattle work out a deal with the Twins when they can get Cuddyer for no players and just the contract?
Also, if the Twins bring Cuddyer back from waivers, surely they can't put him on waivers again at a later point can they?
They can't put him back on revocable waivers. They could place him on irrevocable (release) waivers.
If they work out a trade, they do take the contract, but maybe the original team takes on some of the salary or doesn't just pull him back if the claiming team really needs him.
hyprvypr
You answered your own question more or less in the last sentence. If Seattle doesn't offer the Twins what they consider reasonable compensation, the Twins could just withdraw (pull back) Cuddyer, and then Seattle would not get him. That's the leverage for Seattle to make a trade.
A player can only be "pulled back" once in any given waiver period. In your example, if the Twins pulled back Cuddyear, They could still places him on waivers again before the end of the regular season (which is end of this waiver period also): however, they could not pull him back if he was claimed. The team making a wining claim would get him for nothing just as you posed in your situation.
Question: Can teams see whether other teams have placed a claim? In other words, the Yankees claim Rios, the Red Sox see that, and decide to claim Rios as well, in order to "block" him from going?
I think that teams are in the dark on other claims, but just want to make sure. Thanks!
You mention an injury loophole for the September 1 deadline for playoff rosters.
I know there have been minor leaguers that have been put on the postseason roster such as K-Rod in 2002 after making his major league debut in mid-September.
Is there an example of a player that came from another organization after September 1 that ended up on a postseason roster? I'm betting there's not.
I've read about too many September deals over the years that specifically mention the traded player will not be eligible for postseason play with his new team. I seriously doubt that the loophole includes them.
I've always wondered about the physical pay procedure after a trade &/or waiver claim. If a player is obtained on waivers by team A from team B, his salary, I assume, would now come from team A's front office. If the waiver claim results in a trade of the player from team B to team A, and team B offers to sweeten the pot by picking up, say, 25% of the player's remaining 2009 salary, how does the money get to the player?
"Joe, here's your check from Team A for this (week?/month?)
in the amount of $8000...and here is your check from team B in the amount of $2000" ??
or does team B, at the time of the trade, send team A's front office a payment of 25% of the players's remaining contract ?
or is there a central clearing house which sends $10000 to the player for that period, and then bills team B $2000 while billing team A $8000 ?
30 comments have been left for this post.
Will, thanks! One additional question if you have the time to answer: who pays the contract? My understanding is that when a player is released, the team that picks him up only has to pay the minimum while the releasing teams pays everything else. With revocable waivers, my understanding is that the claiming team pays everything that's left on the contract. I'm not sure if that's right, though, and the stories I've read on the Rios situation haven't shed any light on it.
Your scenario applies to players under contract who are released (not claimed frmo waivers). Once a player is released, he is a free agent who can sign with any team at any price. His former team is on the hook for the difference between his old salary and his new salary. So, of course, everyone pretty much signs for the minimum.
Yes - the claiming team is claiming the contract. It's in force and nothing changes except who's paying. The player just tags along behind it.
But it is trickier where incentive clauses are involved, no? The base salary is earned per each day of service time, but it's unclear whether incentive clauses are deemed to be earned at the moment each incentive threshold is achieved, or prorated across the days over which it was achieved. And yes, I am talking about Pavano.
According to one source, the standard is that incentives in baseball are all triggered. Once an event occurs (the 3d out in the 200th inning of a 200 IP incentive, for instance), the incentive is paid out at the next scheduled pay period. There is no pay or liability prior to the trigger.
Crap - hit enter and it submitted rather than lined down.
The confusion can exist because if a guy is about to hit an incentive that's big, a team can negotiate to have the other team take on part of that, like anything else.