Wow. I didn't know they couldn't do that. How much of a show of intent to keep the guy is required? Where's the line? A month? A week? Where?

Is the actual waiver rule language online? I can only seem to find descriptions, not the rules themselves.

The actual waiver rules are not public. They're not really secret, they're just not available anywhere.

Ok, somebody needs to explain this to me: who exactly is the injured party warranting the overturning of this waiver claim? Why is it a problem that the Devil Rays took Livingston with the intent of trading him?

who exactly is the injured party warranting the overturning of this waiver claim?

I think that would be the Reds. I haven't read the article, but I assume the reasoning is that it's in the best interests of baseball not to allow the top waiver team from claiming and selling everyone useful that comes through. That probably wasn't the intent of the waiver system.

Ok, somebody needs to explain this to me: who exactly is the injured party warranting the overturning of this waiver claim? Why is it a problem that the Devil Rays took Livingston with the intent of trading him?

The Reds. The idea of waivers is to assign a player from a team that doesn't want him to a team that does want him, with the weaker teams getting first preference. Tampa Bay trading him to the Phillies circumvents the spirit of the system.

This is, of course, yet another (tiny) reason to scoff at Bill Bavasi. If I understand the sequence here, he waived a guy that Philadelphia was willing to pay more than the waiver price for. Philly (with Gillick, ex of Seattle (of course)), realizing that someone would beat them to the punch, used Tampa Bay to jump the line.

I assume the reasoning is that it's in the best interests of baseball not to allow the top waiver team from claiming and selling everyone useful that comes through. That probably wasn't the intent of the waiver system.

Well, the intent of the waiver system is to act as a talent-redistribution mechanism, to give the worst teams first crack at the surplus players of the best teams. And if the top waiver team is clever enough to manage to claim and sell everyone useful that comes through, isn't that a good thing? Isn't that a way in which that weak team is using the players available to them on waivers as a means to improve their circumstances?

Every transaction requires (at least) two parties, both of whom are entering into the transaction willingly and for the purpose of improving themselves. The Phillies clearly value Livingston enough to pay more than the waiver price to get him, and the Devil Rays clearly see it differently. I don't see how it's in MLB's interest to ensure that the Reds get the bargain on Livingston instead of the Devil Rays.

If I understand the sequence here, he waived a guy that Philadelphia was willing to pay more than the waiver price for. Philly (with Gillick, ex of Seattle (of course)), realizing that someone would beat them to the punch, used Tampa Bay to jump the line.

Exactly. Why should it be the Reds who benefit because the Mariners were too slow on the uptake to understand that the Phillies were willing to purchase Livingston for more than the waiver price? The Devil Rays were brighter than the Mariners; why shouldn't they be allowed to take the benefit?

Every transaction requires (at least) two parties, both of whom are entering into the transaction willingly and for the purpose of improving themselves. The Phillies clearly value Livingston enough to pay more than the waiver price to get him, and the Devil Rays clearly see it differently. I don't see how it's in MLB's interest to ensure that the Reds get the bargain on Livingston instead of the Devil Rays.

They're probably trying to be consistent with waiver pick trading as they are with draft pick trading. They're trying to protect the bad teams, whether they are actually doing so is debatable.

They're probably trying to be consistent with waiver pick trading as they are with draft pick trading. They're trying to protect the bad teams, whether they are actually doing so is debatable.

Well, yeah. The interest of the worst team has just been thwarted here.

And I've never understood the logic of disallowing the trading of draft picks, either. If a bad team sees more value in trading their high draft slot (potential future value) for a more proven player or players (actual current value), why should they be forbidden from doing so? I fail to see how disallowing the trading of draft picks empirically works to advance parity. It sure seems to be one of the things that fosters parity in the NFL.

They're probably trying to be consistent with waiver pick trading as they are with draft pick trading. They're trying to protect the bad teams, whether they are actually doing so is debatable.

Rather, they're trying to protect the stupid teams.

Why should it be the Reds who benefit because the Mariners were too slow on the uptake to understand that the Phillies were willing to purchase Livingston for more than the waiver price?

Well, because the Reds are supposed to benefit from having been worse than the Phillies last year. Once a player is put on waivers, teams are supposed to get a crack at a player in THAT order, if they are willing to pay the waiver price. Allowing this would effectively raise the "real" waiver price, allowing the first team in line to set itself up as a clearinghouse by offering waived players for the waiver price -- plus a fee. That puts the poorer teams at a disadvantage.

They're probably trying to be consistent with waiver pick trading as they are with draft pick trading. They're trying to protect the bad teams, whether they are actually doing so is debatable.

I don't know if that's the rationale for not allowing trading draft picks, but that the waiver system is nothing like the draft. Tampa Bay doesn't go to the end of line waiver line now; they get first crack all winter.

But if the Devil Rays are poorer then what they most need is cash.

Allowing this would effectively raise the "real" waiver price, allowing the first team in line to set itself up as a clearinghouse by offering waived players for the waiver price

Only to the extent that there are actual buyers willing to pay that price for those actual players. And to the extent that there are, the team allowing them to get away for the waiver price is being idiotic, and the team claiming them and selling them is being smart.

I think the empirical likelihood of this kind of thing happening very often is very low, so disallowing it on theoretical grounds is an overreaction. And the rare time in which it does happen, it serves the interest of the worst team, the one getting the first waiver pick -- and that's what the waiver system is supposed to do!

But if the Devil Rays are poorer then what they most need is cash.

But the Reds shouldn't have to PAY more in order to outbid the Phillies, simply because the Devil Rays have set themselves up as "Open for Business." They should be ahead of the Phillies simply because they were worse, and be able to pay the waiver price.

So what if three months from now Cincinati trades him to philly?

Rather, they're trying to protect the stupid teams.

For draft picks, it really is to protect the weaker teams. Baseball does not allow for a John Elway - Eric Lindros type situation where the crappy drafting team is forced to trade a particular draftee to a particular team (thereby reducing the potential bounty). The draftee can always hold out, but then he still goes back in the draft.

It's actually a good rule that way.

But the Reds shouldn't have to PAY more in order to outbid the Phillies, simply because the Devil Rays have set themselves up as "Open for Business."

Why not? Every team is pretty much always "open for business" with most of the players on its roster. Why is it good for MLB to disallow the Devil Rays, the team that has the most need for improvement, to sell a player they wish to sell to the highest willing bidder? Why is it crucial that this particular player was only on their roster for a very short period? How long would they have to keep Livingston before it became permissible for them to offer him in a deal?

I think the empirical likelihood of this kind of thing happening very often is very low, so disallowing it on theoretical grounds is an overreaction. And the rare time in which it does happen, it serves the interest of the worst team, the one getting the first waiver pick -- and that's what the waiver system is supposed to do!

The system is supposed to give the worse teams an advantage over the better teams, not to give the single worst team all the power and leave the rest of the teams with equal power.

The draftee can always hold out, but then he still goes back in the draft

The JD Drew situation, right -- except in that case the Phillies got nothing at all for the joy of drafting him. Why not trade him and get something? And this does not really apply to waived players, who would most likely be happy to play absolutely anywhere they don't have to ride a bus.

Unless the Devil Rays ride buses everywhere ...

The system is supposed to give the worse teams an advantage over the better teams, not to give the single worst team all the power and leave the rest of the teams with equal power.

Well, look, the only power the Devil Rays exercised here was that which was ceded to them by the Mariners, who placed a player on waivers for whom there was a market price higher than that. If the Mariners had a clue, they would have simply sold Livingston to the Phillies themselves.

The Mariners didn't have a clue, but the Devil Rays did. I say, good for the Devil Rays, and it would behoove every team putting a player on waivers to do their homework on his trade market value. The notion that allowing this deal to go through will somehow open the floodgates to lots of transactions of this type strikes me as quite far-fetched.

How long would they have to keep Livingston before it became permissible for them to offer him in a deal?

That's the real issue here, and it indicates that this voiding by MLB doesn't make much sense. If you think the Drays shouldn't be allowed to claim this player and trade him for cash, then why is it appropriate for any team to trade any other player for cash?

I don't think it would have set a bad precedent for the league to let this go through. What, are the Drays going to start claiming every waived player and then setting up a bazaar? I think they would quickly end up with a bunch of players nobody wants cluttering up their payroll, and then they would waive them, and then the waiver process would begin again.

The notion that allowing this deal to go through will somehow open the floodgates to lots of transactions of this type strikes me as quite far-fetched.

Why? Seems like an easy way to make a quick buck or C-level prospect to me. Why wouldn't the Devil Rays, or whomever is on "top," keep doing it?

What Crispix said.

What, are the Drays going to start claiming every waived player and then setting up a bazaar? I think they would quickly end up with a bunch of players nobody wants cluttering up their payroll, and then they would waive them, and then the waiver process would begin again.

Exactly.

Seems like an easy way to make a quick buck or C-level prospect to me. Why wouldn't the Devil Rays, or whomever is on "top," keep doing it?

Well, they should keep doing it. But in order to do it they require some other team to let a player go on waivers for whom there is a higher market price. Just how often do we suppose this happens?

"Why wouldn't the Devil Rays, or whomever is on "top," keep doing it?"

They'd have to constantly keep a spot open on the 40-man, for starters.

Why? Seems like an easy way to make a quick buck or C-level prospect to me. Why wouldn't the Devil Rays, or whomever is on "top," keep doing it?

There's already what's called a "waiver price" for the player. If the Drays claim every waived player, they have to pay all those waiver prices, which they wouldn't want to do unless they know they can re-sell the player for a higher price.

Presumably the Drays claimed Livingston because Pat Gillick called them up and said "Hey dudes, if you claim this guy I'll give you some money for him." This wouldn't happen too often because ordinarily the waiving team is on the ball enough to realize that they could trade the player for money themselves.

Plus, it wouldn't be any worse than the current practice of claiming players on revocable waivers to prevent them from being claimed by better teams who actually want them.

If the Mariners had a clue, they would have simply sold Livingston to the Phillies themselves.

Steve, I think you're too fixated on the Mariners' dumbness. They are dumb regardless of who gets Livingston. I grant you that allowing this kind of deal has the upside of revealing the dumbness of teams that pull players on waivers when those players are then immediately traded/sold.

But the fact remains: once a player IS put on waivers, a team is supposed to be able to get him if they want him, so long as the teams worse than them last year don't want that player. The Devil Rays didn't want Livingson; the Phillies did. But the Reds had first shot at him (ahead of the Phils), and the Phillies and Devil Rays conspired to circumvent that. I can't support that.

Tampa Bay trading him to the Phillies circumvents the spirit of the system.

It circumvents the letter, perhaps, but not the spirit. The team who had the worst record got the player, and once they owned him did what they thought was best with him---which is the rule that governs every player in baseball except 1) guys within a year of being drafted and 2) guys who have recently signed FA contracts.

I don't see why a team should have it's options restricted with guys they claim on waivers.

But the Devil Rays wanted Livingston enough to pay the waiver price, leave a space for him on the 40-man roster and risk the non-zero possibility that the Phillies would say "Oops, sorry, this is a bad time for us, we forgot we already had Matt Smith. Good luck with him."

But the Devil Rays wanted Livingston enough to pay the waiver price, leave a space for him on the 40-man roster and risk the non-zero possibility that the Phillies would say "Oops, sorry, this is a bad time for us, we forgot we already had Matt Smith. Good luck with him."

Weak, Crispix. Gillick has one of the strongest reps in the game for integrity. No way he would've done that. Maybe there were some teams they wouldn't have trusted to keep the bargain, but not the Phillies.

Well, the intent of the waiver system is to act as a talent-redistribution mechanism, to give the worst teams first crack at the surplus players of the best teams. And if the top waiver team is clever enough to manage to claim and sell everyone useful that comes through, isn't that a good thing?

I completely agree - and to be quite honest, I had no idea this rule even existed. To me - this is exactly what a 'bad' team should be doing.... acting as a waiver wire clearinghouse. Picking up what they want/need, recycling the rest.

Allowing this would effectively raise the "real" waiver price, allowing the first team in line to set itself up as a clearinghouse by offering waived players for the waiver price -- plus a fee. That puts the poorer teams at a disadvantage.

I don't think so -- even the poorer teams can float the nominal waiver fee... it's what, 25K? So if your at the bottom of the standings/top of the wire list, why not spend the 25K on everyone that's worth 25K to someone. If the player catches the team's eye - keep 'em. If he's got some value to some other team, flip him immediately for something. The claiming team still, I believe, has to stick the player on their own 40 man roster --- or else put him right back out on the wire where any other team could claim him. Ultimately, you've either added a player worthy of a 40 man spot in your estimation, or, you're just loaning the league office 25k (or whatever) for another 3? days.

I mean -- let's not forget,too -- it's fringe players and journeymen that generally hit the wire (excepting the usual high priced star that hits the wire every August). You're rarely going to see a young hotshot prospect bounce on and off the 40 man roster... When it happens, it's almost always a player the team has generally given up on or has simply fallen out of favor -- and they're usually valuable enough (Brandon Phillips, etc) that the claiming team is quite likely to be interested in keeping the player.

Although --
the Phillies and Devil Rays conspired to circumvent that.

This is a very good point -- and certainly the best argument against. If the Rays claimed Livingston with no intention of keeping him, but had worked out a deal with the Phillies before the Rays claimed Livingston, then I think this pretty textbook tampering, isn't it? If that's the reasoning for this trade being cancelled, then I think it was the right call... and I also think the Phillies should be penalized in some way.

They'd have to constantly keep a spot open on the 40-man, for starters.

In the offseason, that's very easy to do, especially if you're a bad team.

There's already what's called a "waiver price" for the player. If the Drays claim every waived player, they have to pay all those waiver prices, which they wouldn't want to do unless they know they can re-sell the player for a higher price.

Thanks for the condescension. I was, of course, only referring to players for which the claiming team knew there was a market for. I'm not saying it would happen constantly, but surely it would happen consistently; imagine if the Yankees desperately wanted a player that they knew the Red Sox were going to grab. I mean, this situation arose out of a desire for Bobby Livingston; better players than that pass through waivers all the time.

I wonder what shape this debate would have if it were the Mets who bought him.

Seems like if you allowed this sort of thing, any time a player was waived the D-Rays could just 'open the phone' lines' and see if anyone out there would pay to jump the line. Certainly they wouldn't have to actually claim everyone but could take offers to see if it was profitable to claim someone. I'm all for helping the weaker teams but that seems like a little too much power for the absolute worst team.

Other than the D-Rays, the teams that would benefit the most are the teams with money to throw around. I'm not sure baseball needs another way for the 'money' teams to have an advantage.

Why not? Every team is pretty much always "open for business" with most of the players on its roster. Why is it good for MLB to disallow the Devil Rays, the team that has the most need for improvement, to sell a player they wish to sell to the highest willing bidder

But the idea behind the waiver system is not to generically improve the worst teams. Otherwise, MLB could itself auction off all the waiver players and distribute the money among the worst teams. The idea is to redistribute players.

From a pure business standpoint, sure a player is an asset just like a team-owned car or a bucket of balls. But the MLB does not always operate as a pure business, nor should it.

I wasn't being condescending, just saying that because it's money that provides the incentive to claim a player and flip him, there's also a monetary amount that you have to risk in order to claim the player in the first place.

If the Rays claimed Livingston with no intention of keeping him, but had worked out a deal with the Phillies before the Rays claimed Livingston, then I think this pretty textbook tampering, isn't it? If that's the reasoning for this trade being cancelled, then I think it was the right call...

The thing is that it doesn't make any sense for the Phillies to work out this deal with the Drays beforehand. Why wouldn't they just call up the Mariners and say "We hear you don't want this guy anymore, we'll trade you some cash considerations for him so you don't have to bother with waiving him."

The amount they're paying the Drays is presumably more than the amount they'd have paid the Mariners, because the Drays have to be compensated not only for Livingston's value but for the waiver price.

This might have come out of some bad blood between the Phillies and Mariners, because otherwise why not deal directly with the Mariners?

Seems like if you allowed this sort of thing, any time a player was waived the D-Rays could just 'open the phone' lines' and see if anyone out there would pay to jump the line. Certainly they wouldn't have to actually claim everyone but could take offers to see if it was profitable to claim someone. I'm all for helping the weaker teams but that seems like a little too much power for the absolute worst team.

That sounds plausible. Why hasn't it happened before, if that's the situation that would logically develop?

This might have come out of some bad blood between the Phillies and Mariners, because otherwise why not deal directly with the Mariners?

I think that's exactly right. And bad blood is what leads to teams doing strange things with the waiver process (see, e.g. Millar on release waivers en route to Japan)

The bad precedent here is MLB inquiring into the motivations behind routine, insubstantial transactions. How is this any more of an abuse than a second-place team putting in an August claim on a potentially impact player solely to prevent the division leader from picking him up? What level of culpability is the commissioner's office going to require from now on?

If Tampa was smart enough to read the market for Livingston better than Seattle did, that should be to their benefit, not detriment.

I'm sorry, but it's finals week and I don't quite have the time to read every comment so if I repeat I apologize.

But I do think that a potential bonus (even if it isn't a reason for the original rule) for disallowing immediate trades on waiver picks (especially for money like this situation), and the trading of draft picks within the year, is that it doesn't allow a money-eating owner to trade for dough. In this situation, Tampa Bay is getting money, which is good, but there is no salary cap. It isn't like they're getting cap space, they're just picking up an extra tab to put in their owner's pocket -- meanwhile, the process of waivers becomes an auction instead, where the highest bidder gets the product, rather than the worst team. It may not be hurting the D-Rays, but it is hurting the Reds.

I was interested enough that I DID read the thread, and I saw the perfect comment preceeding mine (and one that was better worded):

But the idea behind the waiver system is not to generically improve the worst teams. Otherwise, MLB could itself auction off all the waiver players and distribute the money among the worst teams. The idea is to redistribute players.

From a pure business standpoint, sure a player is an asset just like a team-owned car or a bucket of balls. But the MLB does not always operate as a pure business, nor should it.

My apologies.

meanwhile, the process of waivers becomes an auction instead, where the highest bidder gets the product, rather than the worst team. It may not be hurting the D-Rays, but it is hurting the Reds.

Yeah, I think the best argument against this is that it gives too much benefit to ONE bad team rather than to bad teams in general. If there are a bunch of rich teams wanting to buy waived players, every one of them has to deal with the Drays, and other bad teams have no chance at the players despite their place near the head of the line.

(of course, they couldn't do more than a couple of these transactions at a time - that would be silly)

Well, the intent of the waiver system is to act as a talent-redistribution mechanism, to give the worst teams first crack at the surplus players of the best teams.

Well, no. Danny has it right. Its not meant to be a commodities market to reward "geniuses" MLB ain't strat, and players aren't securities, no matter how much you want it to be.

Well, they should keep doing it. But in order to do it they require some other team to let a player go on waivers for whom there is a higher market price. Just how often do we suppose this happens?

Well, we know it happened one too many times.

I think the empirical likelihood of this kind of thing happening very often is very low, so disallowing it on theoretical grounds is an overreaction. And the rare time in which it does happen, it serves the interest of the worst team, the one getting the first waiver pick -- and that's what the waiver system is supposed to do!


As stated many times before, empiracle or otherwise, that is not what the system is designed to do. The system from its origination was designed to get players to teams that wanted the player. In the early incarnations of the rule, if multiple teams claimed the player, the player could choose which team he went to play for.

Waiver rules have been modified many times to prevent abuse. The last major modification occurred because teams would place their entire roster on waivers at the same time just to shop players like the commodities you think they are. MLB is not spreadsheet ball.

This <a href="http://mysite.verizon.net/brak2.0/waivers.htm"> site </i> has a WIP history on waivers. I don't know his sources nor can I vouch for its authenticity, but its an interesting read.

I wonder what shape this debate would have if it were the Mets who bought him.

Well, duh:

God, Selig's a tool. Why should the Mets be penalized here? They were:

a) smart enough to realize that there was no way a claim on Livingston would win, because someone else with a worse record would claim him; and

b) clever enough to think of this -- call the D-Rays and have them act on the Mets' behalf and pick up some pocket change for their trouble. Another team COULD have done the same thing, but didn't. Smart, resourceful action should be rewarded, not punished!

How's that? ;-)

(And by the way, the Devil Rays still OWE the Mets. Does that work?)

(And by the way, the Devil Rays still OWE the Mets. Does that work?)

But that one was a legal swindle.

OOPS.

Try that one again:

This site has a WIP history on waivers. I don't know his sources nor can I vouch for its authenticity, but its an interesting read.

How's that? ;-)

Pretty good. This is also an acceptable answer:

P3WNED

The system is supposed to give the worse teams an advantage over the better teams, not to give the single worst team all the power and leave the rest of the teams with equal power.

This is the key point and it trumps all other points. The people arguing against this are being deliberately obtuse in order to mkae some other, imaginary, point.

So, if teams can't trade draft picks or waiver claims, why can they trade Rule 5 picks? Isn't the concept the same?

This is the key point and it trumps all other points. The people arguing against this are being deliberately obtuse in order to mkae some other, imaginary, point.

Is this a joke?

Yes, the first-in-line team has some advantage, but the fact remains that if there is a market for the waived player, that should be ascertainable by the waiving team as well as the claiming teams. It makes no sense from an efficiency standpoint for the waiving team to receive only the modest claim fee when another team is willing to a premium on top of that for perceived value.

This has been a quite interesting discussion. I'd like to re-ask the basic question I asked in the intro, which was "Has this ever happened before?"

If not, is it because there's some unwritten rule that teams shouldn't do this, which Tampa's new hotshot management tried to violate or were not aware of? Or is it because this situation turns out to be very rare?

It makes no sense from an efficiency standpoint for the waiving team to receive only the modest claim fee when another team is willing to a premium on top of that for perceived value.

It makes all the sense in the world, if the waiving team is too dumb to know that another team is willing to do that, or too lazy to make some phone calls to find out. Which brings us back to Bill Bavasi.

It makes all the sense in the world, if the waiving team is too dumb to know that another team is willing to do that, or too lazy to make some phone calls to find out. Which brings us back to Bill Bavasi.

Bingo!

It makes all the sense in the world, if the waiving team is too dumb to know that another team is willing to do that, or too lazy to make some phone calls to find out. Which brings us back to Bill Bavasi.

That's exactly what I'm saying. By not rewarding such incompetence, MLB would incentivize teams to do their due diligence and test the market before exposing a valued player via waivers. To the extent baseball is penalizing teams for properly exploiting market conditions, it suppresses the value of superior information and management, and that's not a good thing.

By not rewarding such incompetence, MLB would incentivize teams to do their due diligence and test the market before exposing a valued player via waivers.

Well, the current system doesn't "reward such incompetence," any more than allowing Tampa Bay and Philly to play their game would. Under either scenario, Seattle gets the waiver fee, and only the waiver fee. How is Seattle "rewarded" by Livingston being given to Cincinnati? The only way they'd be rewarded is if Livingston was given back to the Mariners, and Bavasi were allowed a do-over.

Granted, Tampa Bay is NOT being rewarded for being smarter. But that's different from Seattle being rewarded for its incompetence.

By not rewarding such incompetence, MLB would incentivize teams to do their due diligence and test the market before exposing a valued player via waivers. To the extent baseball is penalizing teams for properly exploiting market conditions, it suppresses the value of superior information and management, and that's not a good thing.

Precisely.

That's exactly what I'm saying. By not rewarding such incompetence, MLB would incentivize teams to do their due diligence and test the market before exposing a valued player via waivers. To the extent baseball is penalizing teams for properly exploiting market conditions, it suppresses the value of superior information and management, and that's not a good thing.

I don't see how. The Mariners come out the same whether Tampa's claim stands or not.

It would probably incentivize teams (like the Phillies, in this case) to not deal with the Mariners since there's a chance they can pay Tampa Bay less than they'd have to pay the Mariners.

Granted, Tampa Bay is NOT being rewarded for being smarter. But that's different from Seattle being rewarded for its incompetence.

Okay, but the primary point remains. By disallowing these transactions, MLB has penalized a smart team.

Nobody's been able to answer the basic question, because there is no good answer: how long is a team supposed to be able to own a player's contract before it's all right for them to offer him to another team in a deal?

So, if teams can't trade draft picks or waiver claims, why can they trade Rule 5 picks? Isn't the concept the same?

Not quite. The purpose of the Rule V draft isn't specifically to help bad teams, it's to help players by ensuring they can get to teams that will play them. Sure, the draft is in reverse order of record, since you need some order, but it's not a talent redistribution method like the draft or waivers.

Yes, the first-in-line team has some advantage, but the fact remains that if there is a market for the waived player, that should be ascertainable by the waiving team as well as the claiming teams. It makes no sense from an efficiency standpoint for the waiving team to receive only the modest claim fee when another team is willing to a premium on top of that for perceived value.

If this were true, there would never be a waiver pick up. A player would either be traded, or waived because he had no value.

By disallowing these transactions, MLB has penalized a smart team.

I don't think so. Tampa Bay didn't get a player they never wanted in the first place, and the extra value for him they were thus not entitled to. Philadelphia was penalized, but I don't think they were smart as much as they . . . well, cheated Cincinnati.

how long is a team supposed to be able to own a player's contract before it's all right for them to offer him to another team in a deal?

Twice as long as the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.

I'm talking about forward-looking efficiency, here. Obviously Seattle gets the same result either way in this instance. But letting the original sale to Philly affirms the notion that the dumber at team is, the more likely it will be exploited by a smarter team. That's a quality so fundamental to baseball (and general corporate) management that I'm actually a bit surprised it's being disputed here.

Nobody's been able to answer the basic question, because there is no good answer: how long is a team supposed to be able to own a player's contract before it's all right for them to offer him to another team in a deal?

Like I mentioned above, this is the real problem with MLB's decision: this type of regulation is completely inadministrable. From what evidence is the commissioner's office going to infer intent? What's to stop a team with room from sitting on a waived player for a month before consummating the transaction? This is completely standardless, and it's the type of oversight that's ill-advised.

To make another fantasy baseball analogy, this isn't like where an owner decides to bow out of the league and put his entire team on waivers, this is simply one team undervaluing an asset relative to the market, which should be allowed to proceed without interference absent some conflict with the rules or fundamental interests of the game.

This might have come out of some bad blood between the Phillies and Mariners, because otherwise why not deal directly with the Mariners?

Maybe Phils lack the information of M's intention. Will teams inform the others before they put some guys on waivers?

Another question is: What if Reds trade Livingston to Phils for cash consideration then?

So, if teams can't trade draft picks or waiver claims, why can they trade Rule 5 picks? Isn't the concept the same?


No. The Rule 5 draft was set up to basically run the independent minor leagues out of business so that the cost of talent was lower to major leagues. (Uncorrobrated cite noting this guy has some good sh1t).

In the case of a waiver claim, you are dealing with a Major League Player (one on the 40 man roster). If they clear waivers, are assigned to the minors, and/or given their outright release, then they are subject to the shenigans of Rule 5 or they are subject to free market controls.

The very nature of Rule 5 is that you are dealing with a different type of player. One who has moved past a point of some evaluation and training and one who has not been a major league roster participant. When you get to the Minor League Phase of Rule 5, then you are really talking about a different class of player.

In fact, most of the changes to the Rule 5 system, such as increased protection times, mandates for the AAA player to remain in the MLs where due to people trying to do commoditization shenigans In fact, I wish they would tighten up that control. A team should not be making money or prospering by dealing in portfolios of human capital.

Moreover, there really didn't need to be too much enforcement on Rule V because for the most part, people didn't play the game that often. For you to participate in the major league phase, you had to have an open slot on your ML roster, and you could only participate to the extent of open spots you had on your roster. Anyone and everyone can participate in the amateur draft and waiver process, and you can make room for the player with a subsequent transaction.

The increased protection time was thought to cut participation down even smaller, but this new breed of roto-MBA's are still trying to commoditize players, so many did jump in so they could "win trades."

Finally, the Rule 5 player from the Major League Session carries a pretty nasty Rule 5 restriction that runs with the player even after he's traded. Its going to guarantee at least 90 days of service time.

Then you also have to consider the politics of the situation. Rule 5 helps players somewhat escape from serfdom. As the antitrust exception started to erode, this became a face saving measure to show that players do have mobility and aren't totally locked down into the reserve system.

The intents and purposes as well as the class of players vary widely between these mechanisms.

Like I mentioned above, this is the real problem with MLB's decision: this type of regulation is completely inadministrable. From what evidence is the commissioner's office going to infer intent? What's to stop a team with room from sitting on a waived player for a month before consummating the transaction? This is completely standardless, and it's the type of oversight that's ill-advised.

I don't think it's that difficult at all. Forcing a team to sit on a player even for a month would be a substantial disincentive, because it would have important implications for roster flexibility. You could also look for other evidence of the team's genuine intent to claim & keep the player: did it make roster moves at the time it claimed him, or did it merely slot him into a vacant spot on the 40-man? Did the team receive a player in return for the guy when it subsequently dealt him, or just more money? Was the acquiring team substantially further down the waiver list, giving rise to an inference of trying to "jump" the standings?

It doesn't seem to me it has to be standardless at all. This one stunk to high heaven.

Tampa Bay didn't get a player they never wanted in the first place, and the extra value for him they were thus not entitled to.

Huh? They wanted the player, for the purpose of deriving value from him in the trade market. Teams own player contracts, from which they are free to derive value either by playing the player or by trading/selling him. How would it be OK for Tampa Bay to trade/sell this player next year or next month, but not OK for them to trade/sell him today? What is it that's important about the time lag, and what constitutes a sufficient time lag?

Twice as long as the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.

Since you can't answer the question, the notion that MLB acted properly in disallowing this parlay is based on ... what, again? Vapor?

Forcing a team to sit on a player even for a month

There has never been such a requirement in the history of the sport. Teams have traded players immediately upon receiving them in trade many, many dozens of times throughout the decades. There is no rational basis upon which having acquired a player through a waiver sales instead of a trade or non-waiver sale makes any difference.

There is no rational basis upon which having acquired a player through a waiver sales instead of a trade or non-waiver sale makes any difference.

Yes, there is. The rational basis is to protect the integrity of the waiver rights of the teams below Tampa Bay. There is no such reason to care about the other teams in other transactions, and thus to ask questions about the intent of the "middle man" team.

It would probably incentivize teams (like the Phillies, in this case) to not deal with the Mariners since there's a chance they can pay Tampa Bay less than they'd have to pay the Mariners.


I'm starting to become a fanboy of Danny. He nails another consideration. The team desiring to acquire can game the system by dealing with other teams in the waiver order.

Like I mentioned above, this is the real problem with MLB's decision: this type of regulation is completely inadministrable. From what evidence is the commissioner's office going to infer intent? What's to stop a team with room from sitting on a waived player for a month before consummating the transaction? This is completely standardless, and it's the type of oversight that's ill-advised.


That is not even remotely true. It is administerable the same way any set of codes is administerable, at least in the western world. Decisions are made and the rule evolves from those decisions. And you infer intent the same way you do with anything that has a mens rea element, with the evidence that is in front of you. Although I haven't seen anything that says intent is an element. The Drays could have had the best intent in the world and the comm could have still overturned it on the actus rea.

In fact, most of these rules that deal with all these time lines weren't handed down in a burning bush, and they weren't delayed or not enacted for inordinate periods of time b/c somebody kept going "whatabout, whatabout, whatabout" They were issued with some thought that they would proscribe enough conduct to make the system fair. When someone did either try to cheat the system or obtained an unfair advantage (what these youngsters call "market inefficiencies") they adapted the rule.

If the player is on the team for thirty days, its a horse of a different color. The commissioners office will either act again, do nothing, or get their eggheads together and posit a rule with more clarity.

This action is not believed to be ultra-virus to the Commissioners office's authority (I don't have the ML Rules so I can't make a complete opinion) and it does appear to be in the best interest of baseball. And if they do draw a bright line at some time, its likely this action will be well on the other side of the line.

I think it would behoove them to go ahead and draw the line now. You certainly have some people kicking and screaming for it (but in some cases it may just for obtuse purposes).

The unfortunate thing is that when they do draw the line, most everyone won't know for a long time, because the Major League Rules aren't going to be generally available.

Teams own player contracts, from which they are free to derive value either by playing the player or by trading/selling him.

No, that is not true. Teams have rights in personal services contracts, and one is a limited right to assign the contract. That right of assignment is heavily, heavily proscribed. It makes up the bulk of the CBA and the bulk of the Major League rules. It is such a far cry from "own the contract" and being free to "selling him." In fact, I really can't believe I just read those words "selling him". Where is the baseman when you need him.

The rational basis is to protect the integrity of the waiver rights of the teams below Tampa Bay.

The teams below Tampa Bay have no waiver rights on players claimed by Tampa Bay. Their waiver right of each team on a particular player begins only when all the teams ahead of them have declined to claim the particular player.

There is no such reason to care about the other teams in other transactions, and thus to ask questions about the intent of the "middle man" team.

And what was the intent of Tampa Bay here? To acquire a player at price X, and exchange him in the trade marketplace for price X+. There is no basis at all in which this is any different from acquiring a player in a trade, and including him in a separate trade the same day, which has been a common occurrence since time immemorial. Nor is it any different from acquiring a player and dealing him a week or a month or a year later.

And what was the intent of Tampa Bay here? To acquire a player at price X, and exchange him in the trade marketplace for price X+. There is no basis at all in which this is any different from acquiring a player in a trade, and including him in a separate trade the same day, which has been a common occurrence since time immemorial.

We're talking past each other here, Steve, because you want to render Philadelphia's intent irrelevant, and it just isn't. And Tampa Bay was complicit in Philadelphia accomplishing its goal of circumventing Cincinnati's rights. Tampa exploited its position for a purpose NOT intended by the waiver rules, and it got caught. Whether you want to focus on its acts, or on the joint intent it shared with Philly, the conclusion is the same. That has NOT been a "common occurrence," and what has been a "common occurrence" does not share the critical feature of the intervening and superior rights of the clubs between Tampa Bay and Philadelphia. That is different.

This action is not believed to be ultra-virus

Make that ultra vires. Although with Bud, the first way may be better.

And Tampa Bay was complicit in Philadelphia accomplishing its goal of circumventing Cincinnati's rights.

No. Cincinnati had exactly the same right Philadelphia did, which is to make their best offer in the trade/sale marketplace to acquire Livingston from whatever team was currently holding his contract. They had the right to offer more for Livingston to Tampa Bay than Philadelphia offerred.

What's to prevent Cincinnati from selling Livingtston to the Phillies now? Should they be prohibited from doing so? If not, why are they allowed to do this while Tampa Bay wasn't? If so, why is Livingston's contract treated differently in this regard from every other contract on Cincinnati's roster?

What's to prevent Cincinnati from selling Livingtston to the Phillies now?

The Commissioner's Office of Major League Baseball.

Should they be prohibited from doing so?

They probably will be, at least for some peroid of time.

If not, why are they allowed to do this while Tampa Bay wasn't?

I doubt they will be allowed or that they are going to try.

If so, why is Livingston's contract treated differently in this regard from every other contract on Cincinnati's roster?


Every contract is treated the same, its just that every contract also has different provisions. As already pointed out in excrutiating detail, and as I am sure everyone knows that is not intentionally being obtuse, depending on service time; the provisions of the contract; and the nature on how the contract was signed or negotiated, then there will be a multitude of rights and restrictions that will come into play.

I'm curious, do you really come close to believing that all personal service contracts will have the exact same restrictions on assignability.

Cincinnati had exactly the same right Philadelphia did, which is to make their best offer in the trade/sale marketplace to acquire Livingston from whatever team was currently holding his contract. They had the right to offer more for Livingston to Tampa Bay than Philadelphia offerred.

Again, you are rendering the circumstances of Philadelphia's acquisition of Livingston irrelevant, and we just don't agree on that. I don't believe Philadelphia had any right whatsoever to acquire him -- by any means at all -- before every team that actually wanted him as a player, not as a conduit, had the shot at him. Do you honestly have ANY doubt that Tampa Bay claimed him as part of a pre-arranged deal with Philadelphia, a deal they arranged specifically because the Phillies knew it would block the teams ahead of them in the queue? I don't. Not a whit.

The waiver system is set up to put Philly BEHIND Cincinnati. They used this little gimmick to get AHEAD of Cincinnati. They should not be able to use their willingness to pay MORE than the waiver price to acquire a player who, under the rules, should have been available to Cincinnati FOR the waiver price. No one who actually wanted Livingston had a superior right to him. The fact that Philly was smarter, or willing to pay more, did NOT give them a superior right. It might have had he been a tradeable commodity. He wasn't. He was (via the stupidity of Bavasi) a waived commodity. So Philly loses.

that actually wanted him as a player, not as a conduit

Every player is a conduit. This is the basis of the trades and sales that occur all the time between all teams.

Do you honestly have ANY doubt that Tampa Bay claimed him as part of a pre-arranged deal with Philadelphia

None. So what? Cincinnati (and every other team) had the same opportunity that the Phillies did to make their best deal with Tampa Bay.

The waiver system is set up to put Philly BEHIND Cincinnati. They used this little gimmick to get AHEAD of Cincinnati.

It wasn't a little gimmick. It was a transaction in the player marketplace. Philadelphia paid a price they thought reasonable to acquire Livingston. If in so doing they offered more than Cincinnati, and/or were quicker on the draw in making the offer to Tampa Bay, then bully for them.

No one who actually wanted Livingston had a superior right to him.

Tampa Bay actually wanted Livingston. By the waiver rules, they had first right to him. Once they got him, his contract was theirs to dispose of as they saw fit, which included dealing him to another team willing to offer a price.

They should not be able to use their willingness to pay MORE than the waiver price to acquire a player who, under the rules, should have been available to Cincinnati FOR the waiver price. No one who actually wanted Livingston had a superior right to him.

Moreover, if such a system were desired than it could have easily been implemented. We just had a few threads on that subject surrounding Dice-K. The waiver system has been tinkered with to reduce that type of output. I'm afraid your going to have to teach a couple of first year classes on this one. Most of what you are saying is being ignored and responded to with interrogatories.

This is a good discussion, Sam. I'm off to slumberland now.

The teams below Tampa Bay have no waiver rights on players claimed by Tampa Bay. Their waiver right of each team on a particular player begins only when all the teams ahead of them have declined to claim the particular player.


That is not true either. The right is vested. Its inalienable, but it is vested. The value of the right fluctuates, but it is still vested.

More important, even if its a non-vested right, you still can't indiscriminately defease a non-vested right. Normally, its just hard to calculate damages. In this case, it was pretty easy to make everyone whole.

What would people say if this happened in a fantasy league, if a team grabbed a player of waivers and immediately traded him? Obvoiusly the leagues aren't analogous, but I do wonder.

This has been an interesting discussion, and I'm not sure where I stand.

None. So what? Cincinnati (and every other team) had the same opportunity that the Phillies did to make their best deal with Tampa Bay.

Not if the other 28 teams, believing this action to be illegal, did not attempt to negotiate with TB.

From an economist's point of view, Tampa Bay's only cost in this equation is the opportunity cost of having to place one more person on their 40 day roster (ie one less spot if some really good deal comes along.)

So there should be a simple rule that if you pick someone up off waivers, you have to keep them on your 40-man for 30 days (arbitrary number, change as needed.)

Major League Rule 10(f) says, "No Club . . . shall solicit another Club, directly or indirectly, to claim or not to claim a player on waivers . . .
nor shall a Club otherwise act in concert with any Club or Clubs in the operation of the waiver system."

Just by Philly asking, they were in violation. You would think Gillick would know better.

Major League Rule 10(f) says, "No Club . . . shall solicit another Club, directly or indirectly, to claim or not to claim a player on waivers . . .
nor shall a Club otherwise act in concert with any Club or Clubs in the operation of the waiver system."


Thanks Eddie. That pretty much puts a bow around the whole issue.

Stealing from many others, I'm for Livingston going to Philadelphia on this one.
I see the transaction as a loophole.
I prefer not guessing at intent. It's not like MLB is consistent in enforcements.
TB dotted the i by making the waiver claim and putting Livingston on their 40-man.
TB crossed the t by making an ordinary trade.

The Incavilgia trade was legit.
MLB didn't like it, so the made the Incavilgia Rule. But Incavilgia trade was not cancelled.

The Livingston trade was legit.
MLB didn't like it. So they should make a Livingston Rule. But Livingston trade should not have been cancelled.

I'm totally in sympathy with Sam M.'s "clearinghouse" argument, but I like the shrewdenss of TB's thinking, so I think a good compromise would be to allow one such transaction per team. Then you're not penalizing KC for being suck-ass, but not quite so suck-ass as TB.

We play games like this all the time in bond-land. Nobody whines, although many players take steps to cover their tracks. You get outfoxed, take it like a man and learn from it.

The Livingston trade was legit.
MLB didn't like it. So they should make a Livingston Rule. But Livingston trade should not have been cancelled.

Eddieot just posted that Philly asked and Rule 10(f).

MLB doesn't need a "Livingston Rule" because they already have one. Backlasher is right - the bow is already there.

This is a good discussion, Sam. I'm off to slumberland now.

That's gratuitous and offensive.

We play games like this all the time in bond-land. Nobody whines, although many players take steps to cover their tracks.

Please elaborate. I'd love to hear about the games and the covering of tracks.

The games part is too complicated to type. The covering of tracks generally involves using a broker's broker, which is hiring another firm to execute trades for you to stay anonymous to the street.

A few years ago I bought a piece from the dealer desk of a major firm and sold it an hour later to their asset management desk. That would be sorta like picking up a player waived from a team's AAA affiliate and later that day trading him to the big league club.

"Anonymous to the street" is a pretty good description of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

Interesting conversation.

On another note, is Bobby Livingston any good?

The Livingston trade was legit.
MLB didn't like it. So they should make a Livingston Rule. But Livingston trade should not have been cancelled.

Eddieot just posted that Philly asked and Rule 10(f).

MLB doesn't need a "Livingston Rule" because they already have one. Backlasher is right - the bow is already there.

Doesn't this assume facts not in evidence?

Sam asks "Do you honestly have ANY doubt that Tampa Bay claimed him as part of a pre-arranged deal with Philadelphia?"

Well, I think more proof is required than just "I am sure..." I at least think there should be.

TB claims Livingston. As soon as the claim goes through, Philly calls TB. "Hey, we were going to claim him, but we'll give you X for him". TB, "Well, OK, we liked him, but not as much as X".

That to me is every bit as likely - GIVEN WHAT THIS INFO ALLOWS. If the Commisioners office knows there was tampering, then fien, there is a rule, but AFAICT, without assuming that there was a pre-arrangement, the deal was legit.