BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Rosenthal: Sources: M’s Washburn, Ibanez claimed on waivers

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Rosenthal: Sources: M’s Washburn, Ibanez claimed on waivers

New Robothal parts…HEXBUG-BRAVO!

If the Mariners were looking for another chance to trade left-hander Jarrod Washburn and outfielder Raul Ibanez, this is it.

Both Washburn and Ibanez were claimed on waivers Tuesday, according to major-league sources.

The claiming teams are not yet known, but Mariners have until 1:30 p.m. ET Thursday to work out a deal with those respective clubs.

The Yankees were not the team that claimed Washburn, sources say. They had interest in the pitcher before the July 31 non-waiver deadline, but consider their hitting to be a greater problem than their starting pitching. The White Sox, another team in need of starting pitching, have indicated that they do not consider Washburn a fit.

As for Ibanez, the Rays are looking for a hitter after losing both left fielder Carl Crawford and third baseman Evan Longoria to injuries, but the extent of their interest in Ibanez is not known.

Repoz Posted: August 13, 2008 at 08:01 PM | 37 comment(s) | Login to Bookmark
Related News: General, Seattle

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. Crispix Attacks Posted: August 13, 2008 at 08:10 PM (#2901791)

Ibanez would make total sense for the Drays.

2. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: August 13, 2008 at 08:16 PM (#2901798)

The Mets too, who had a chance to claim him before Tampa.

3. I Am Not a Number Posted: August 13, 2008 at 08:21 PM (#2901803)

The Mets too, who had a chance to claim him before Tampa.

Would Ibanez not have to get past all the AL teams before the NL teams had a crack? Or is there no league distinction?

4. Raskolnikov Posted: August 13, 2008 at 08:25 PM (#2901807)

Mets should pass on Ibanez.

5. EvilBoWeevil Posted: August 13, 2008 at 08:26 PM (#2901808)

The Mets too, who had a chance to claim him before Tampa.

Actually I do not believe that is true. Since Ibanez plays in the AL all the AL teams would get a crack at him first. So the only way the Mets can get him is if Tampa and no other AL team submitted a claim, even though they have a better record then the Mets.

Strange the Yankees are rumored to have not submitted a calim on Washburn. Their starting rotation is falling apart. I guess they are hoping Joba, Hughes, and possibly Pavano come to the rescue. I beleive Kennedy won't be seen in the Bronx again for the rest of this season.

6. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: August 13, 2008 at 08:28 PM (#2901811)

I thought the one-league-at-a-time waiver claim rule was a thing of the past, no? If not, it would seem to be an anachronism from the old days of two distinct leagues with separate rules, management structures, etc.

7. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: August 13, 2008 at 08:29 PM (#2901812)

Astros claimed Washburn?

8. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: August 13, 2008 at 08:40 PM (#2901821)

FWIW, Wikipedia says I'm wrong:

Any player under contract may be placed on waivers at any time. If a player is waived, any team may claim him. If more than one team claims the player from waivers, the team with the weakest record in the player's league gets preference. If no team in the player's league claims him, the claiming team with the weakest record in the other league gets preference.

9. Esoteric Posted: August 13, 2008 at 09:04 PM (#2901834)

I would have a hard time believing any team can make the price be right for Ibanez. The M's won't resign him (not unless they're dumb or get a great deal), but he'll be a Type A free agent and will thus be worth two first round picks for a farm system that desperately needs help. Whichever team made the claim on Ibanez - and he would be a great help to many teams, so long as they could hide his glove - will have to pony up good players to get the M's to play ball.

10. RJ in TO Posted: August 13, 2008 at 09:11 PM (#2901840)

The Mets too, who had a chance to claim him before Tampa.

Given that the Mets have had four months to do something about their LF situation, I'm just going to assume that it was someone other than the Mets who claimed Ibanez.

11. A Random 8-Year-Old Eskimo Posted: August 13, 2008 at 09:13 PM (#2901842)

Wouldn't the Jays be the logical guess for the team that put in a claim for Ibanez? They were willing to give up value (the rumours were Litsch plus a second player, possibly League) to acquire him, so why wouldn't they want him for free or at least to get a second chance to trade for him?

Or is this one of those unwritten rules about a team not in contention not claiming players like that? (Then again, JP thinks the Jays are still in contention...)

12. flournoy Posted: August 13, 2008 at 09:19 PM (#2901846)

Wasn't it the Blue Jays who broke the unwritten rule about any team claiming players on waivers in these situations? (With Pat Gillick and Kelly Gruber.)

13. Esoteric Posted: August 13, 2008 at 09:26 PM (#2901853)

Apparently Tampa Bay radio is saying that it was the Rays that got the waiver claim on Ibanez. This is third-hand information gleaned from www.draysbay.com, FWIW, so take it with a grain of salt.

14. RJ in TO Posted: August 13, 2008 at 09:27 PM (#2901857)

Wasn't it the Blue Jays who broke the unwritten rule about any team claiming players on waivers in these situations?

Wasn't Gruber a Rule 5, not an in-season waiver claim?

15. Crispix Attacks Posted: August 13, 2008 at 09:32 PM (#2901863)

Kelly Gruber was a Rule 5 pick who had never been in the majors before. You must be thinking of some other Blue Jays transaction.

16. Mudpout Posted: August 13, 2008 at 09:41 PM (#2901870)

Didn't the Jays have a guy, about ten years ago, who was claimed in August and they just let the team have him? I thought it was Randy Myers and the Padres, but after checking that looks like a waiver trade. Any noteworthy cases of teams getting stuck with a guy they claimed specifically to block a trade?

17. CFBF Hates Hyphens Posted: August 13, 2008 at 09:44 PM (#2901874)

Any noteworthy cases of teams getting stuck with a guy they claimed specifically to block a trade?

The Yankees and Jose Canseco? The Padres and Randy Myers?

18. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: August 13, 2008 at 09:45 PM (#2901875)

19. smokhaus Posted: August 13, 2008 at 09:49 PM (#2901881)

I, too, recall Randy Myers being stuck on a team that claimed him to block. Maybe the Jays took someone back to ease the Pads' pain?

20. buddy Posted: August 13, 2008 at 09:55 PM (#2901884)

for the record it's the Tampa Bay Rays (Not Devil Rays) and they play in St. Petersburg (not Tampa).

and they could really use Ibanez

21. Crispix Attacks Posted: August 13, 2008 at 09:55 PM (#2901886)

Wasn't that how the Dbacks ended up with Byung-Hyun Kim just last year? They certainly didn't seem to want him.

22. RJ in TO Posted: August 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM (#2901889)

I, too, recall Randy Myers being stuck on a team that claimed him to block. Maybe the Jays took someone back to ease the Pads' pain?

Even though they got someone back, it was a waiver dump. Essentially, the Padres claimed him to block, the Jays offered to trade him to the Padres, the Padres offered a low-ball "No way in hell will they take this" offer, and the Jays said "OK. He's yours".

Basically, the Padres guessed wrong and assumed that the Jays wanted to keep him, when the Jays were most interested in acquiring a lack of Randy Myers and the $12M he was owed for the two following seasons. The Jays would have given him away for nothing.

23. CW hits the pinata for the candy Posted: August 13, 2008 at 10:06 PM (#2901895)

The Cubs were interested in Ibanez before the trading deadline, and Lou has publicly threatened to bench Fukudome recently. I'm not saying. I'm just saying.

24. NTNgod Posted: August 13, 2008 at 10:09 PM (#2901900)

Wasn't that how the Dbacks ended up with Byung-Hyun Kim just last year?

...and Jeff Cirillo
...and the late Joe Kennedy

Not one of Byrnes' finest hours.

25. Crispix Attacks Posted: August 13, 2008 at 10:29 PM (#2901936)

I thought the Red Sox'z acquisition of Dante Bichette from the Reds was also a mistake.

But maybe I just thought that because Dante Bichette was an internet whipping boy at the time.

26. andrewberg Posted: August 13, 2008 at 10:36 PM (#2901955)

after 94, everything involving Dante Bichette was a mistake.

27. RJ in TO Posted: August 13, 2008 at 10:38 PM (#2901960)

But maybe I just thought that because Dante Bichette was an internet whipping boy <strike>at the time</strike>.

I honestly can't remember a time when he wasn't an internet whipping boy.

28. Greg Franklin Posted: August 13, 2008 at 10:56 PM (#2902011)

Good memory, NTNgod. I did not recall that Kennedy had the fatter 2007 salary than B.H. Kim ($2.8M compared to $2.5M). In terms of wins and leverage, Kim was far costlier. Cirillo was the cheapest of the bunch at $1.5M and he was able to last on the roster.

TNT linkage to The Post-Trading-Deadline Waiver Rules

29. Greg Pope Posted: August 14, 2008 at 01:02 AM (#2902363)

Is there a limit to the number of claims that a team can make? What's the commitment for making a claim? There's always talk about "how did team X let team Y get that player?" But teams can't claim everyone, can they? If the Yankees want to block the Red Sox and the Rays from getting players, they'd have to put in claims for a dozen guys. But they can't possibly get 12 guys onto their 40-man roster. So maybe that's why some players get through.

30. Dan Posted: August 14, 2008 at 01:30 AM (#2902399)

There is no limit to the number of claims you can make.

31. Darren

Posted: August 14, 2008 at 01:44 AM (#2902413)

Is it really news when a player is claimed? I don't remember this being a breaking news story in past years.

32. Craig in MN Posted: August 14, 2008 at 02:31 AM (#2902454)

...and Jeff Cirillo[/]

You know, I had totally forgotten that Cirillo played for the Twins last year, and that the Dbacks picked up his contract for them.

But they can't possibly get 12 guys onto their 40-man roster. So maybe that's why some players get through.

In theory, if you get stuck with a contract that you don't want or can't fit, you should be able to just designate them immediately. You'd look like an idiot and it could cost you a lot, though.

33. ian Posted: August 14, 2008 at 02:46 AM (#2902467)

FWIW, Wikipedia says I'm wrong:

Don't worry, I'll fix wikipedia for you.
34. Dan Posted: August 14, 2008 at 02:50 AM (#2902477)

Hmmm Fixed?

35. AJM Posted: August 14, 2008 at 02:52 AM (#2902480)

Steve Phillips says he claimed 300 players his first year.

36. Harmon "Thread Killer" Microbrew Posted: August 14, 2008 at 01:09 PM (#2902774)

Wilt Chamberlain claimed 10,000.

37. Ray Lebowski Posted: August 14, 2008 at 01:55 PM (#2902841)

Hope this helps explain the train they call the waiver wire. Ibanez must pass through all the American League teams first, then National League, since he played for the AL.

If more than one club claims a player, the club with the lower winning percentage has priority, but American League clubs have priority for AL players, and National League clubs have priority for NL players. Once a player on Major League waivers has been claimed and the waiver request revoked, any subsequent request for Major League waivers during the same waiver period is irrevocable.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Rosenthal: Sources: M’s Washburn, Ibanez claimed on waivers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics