I can't find page 2. I know it was here a minute ago...

Philly Inquirer

The Phillies made what assistant general manager Ruben Amaro Jr. called a "procedural mistake" Tuesday when they acquired lefthander Bobby Livingston from the Tampa Bay Devil Rays for cash.

And the Cincinnati Post:

"I put in a call, but I don't think I was the only one," Krivsky said. "I had no idea what they were going to rule and I had no idea we were the next team in line. Whether we got him or not, I think they made the right call."

I don't see anything there that really says they had a "pre-deal". I'm certain if Amaro was told he did something wrong, he's not going to exacerbate teh situation. He may well have had a pre-deal. My point is more that, if there were not a pre-deal, this is a bit much.

I'm glad Cincy cried "fowl." I'm not sure if that "good for Cincy" or if it is too "Phil Fulmer-like".

I'm glad Cincy cried "fowl." I'm not sure if that "good for Cincy" or if it is too "Phil Fulmer-like".

If they cried fowl, that would be fulmar-like.

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.

Depends on the league- I'm in a roto league where this type of waiver/pickup/trade is allowed- I'm also in a DMB league where it's not-

It becomes an issue in the DMB league ALL THE TIME- no one is dumb enough to do what Philly did- pick up a guy and immediately trade him- they'll wait a day or two- and then you get 2-3 owners calling each other names for awhile. What's really fun is when the orignal owner who waived the wanted player chimes in, "what the hell is this- I offered this guy for a bag of peanuts and a can of diet Pepsi two weeks go and no one wanted him!!!" [of course when the original owner never offered the player in trade because he thought he had no value they generally keep quite out of embarrassment]

I only did one season of roto/fantasy ball, about 15 yrs ago. We cooked up 1 day and 1 week repo trades all the time. A few guys #######, citing "fairness" and "purity" but methinks they were just piseed that they didn't think of it themselves.

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.

Sure the DRays wanted him. So they could trade him to Philly.

This hasn't been a good discussion. This has been a horrible discussion because one side is completely wrong and incapable of clear thought. Danny said it all with a quiet simplicity. Then Sam spelled it out in excruciating detail that I will quote.

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.

From a logical point of view this is an irrefutable argument.

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.

Oh, puh-leaze. MLB, like all professional sports (at least in this country) is built upon "prospering by dealing in portfolios of human capital." That's all a team is. If you want to abolish player transactions (other than free agency) entirely, that's one thing. And that would be a consistent argument -- but assuming that isn't your argument, this is silly. Trading or selling a waiver pick is no different than trading or selling any other player.

As a 'legal' question, the 10(f) citation settles the matter. As a factual question, Chris is right in part -- the mere fact that there was a trade is not proof that the rule was violated -- but the rules empower the commissioner to make that factual determination, and he apparently did so here.

As a moral question, I think the arguments against this are silly. Cinci didn't lose anything it should have been entitled to. Tampa had primary entitlement to benefit from the player; why on earth should it matter whether Tampa benefits by using the player on its own roster or by trading the player to another team?

From a logical point of view this is an irrefutable argument

Well, legally, people have explored the issue and it seems that TB and Philly broke the rules, so you're right.

But it's still a free country. You're allowed to argue that the rule is wrong. In fact that's where most interesting arguments start. I just gave a final exam on some scraps of Lincoln-Douglas debates, where Douglas thinks that Lincoln should simply STFU because the Supreme Court decided the Dred Scott case and there's no appealing such a decision. Lincoln points out that sure, you have to obey the Court, but decisions get reversed, and there's nothing wrong with working toward reversing them.

Actually Douglas did not use the exact term STFU, IIRC.