Wow, I guess the Orioles really didn't want him (or his salary) very much.

Wow, I guess the Orioles really didn't want him (or his salary) very much.

Under the waiver rules, wouldn't National League teams in this instance get the first bite at the apple?

Apparently the dodgers claimed Lee too.

That would be sort of funny if some major league team went mad with power and just claimed everybody.

If they want to claim Alfonso Soriano that is fine by me.

I meant the trade rumors all last week. If he ended up on Waivers, the Phils couldn't have been asking TOO much.

A lot of veterans get placed on waivers. Most of them pass through because most teams don't want to deal with the salary on the off chance the original team decides to dump them on it.

This is not the issue with Lee. The Dodgers would gladly pay Lee if all they have to do is pay the salary. They're looking to contend now and into the next 3 or 4 years.

I meant the trade rumors all last week. If he ended up on Waivers, the Phils couldn't have been asking TOO much.

It's not that the Phillies waived Blanton that's key, since these were revocable waivers.

The issue, instead, is that the Phillies traded Blanton for a PTBNL or cash - basically for nothing. The Orioles could have had Blanton if they'd agreed to pay his whole salary. So clearly, as you said, the O's didn't want Blanton that much. (Or Angelos didn't want to pay the salary?)

The Phillies appear to have been intent on cutting payroll. They made the Dodgers and Giants take over in full the contracts of Victorino, Pence, and Blanton.

The Dodgers would gladly pay Lee if all they have to do is pay the salary.

You sure about that? His remaining salary (plus what's left this year) is 3/$87 or 4/$102. That's a lot of money to gamble on Cliff Lee still being CLIFF LEE for (most of) ages 34-37. If the Dodgers claimed Lee, the Phils have to be quite tempted to just let him go. What's the likely return in trading Cliff Lee and $30 M to the Dodgers? Can't be good. On the other hand, if the Phils just let him go, they're kinda writing off the next few years given the limited pitchers available in the next few FA markets. On the third hand, if they keep him, they're taking the Lee gamble.

The issue, instead, is that the Phillies traded Blanton for a PTBNL or cash - basically for nothing. The Orioles could have had Blanton if they'd agreed to pay his whole salary.

Actually no they couldn't (at least in theory). If the Phils just wanted to get rid of Blanton's salary, they'd have just let the waiver claim operate. Instead they traded Blanton, all of his salary and got some small extra return. Frankly it seems kind of a silly risk for the Phils to take -- a meaningless extra return vs. the risk the Dodgers decide not to trade for Blanton.

Actually no they couldn't (at least in theory). If the Phils just wanted to get rid of Blanton's salary, they'd have just let the waiver claim operate. Instead they traded Blanton, all of his salary and got some small extra return.

The reports around the Blanton trade were that the hang-up was money. I really doubt the Orioles refused to offer a PTBNL/cash - that's the least that a team can offer. By far the most likely interpretation of events is that the Phillies wanted to shed all of Blanton's salary, and the O's weren't willing to take it on.

(If the PTBNL turns out to be someone good, I'll take this back, but if it was someone good, there almost certainly wouldn't be the "or cash" option.)

The issue, instead, is that the Phillies traded Blanton for a PTBNL or cash - basically for nothing. The Orioles could have had Blanton if they'd agreed to pay his whole salary.

I think either you misunderstand something, or I do. From my understanding, the Orioles couldn't have had Blanton, regardless. The Dodgers claimed him, and their claim had priority over the Orioles' claim (if the Orioles even claimed him). Therefore, the Phillies' options were to either let the Dodgers have him, pull him off waivers and make a trade with the Dodgers, or pull him off waivers and keep him. The Orioles aren't a factor at all.

The Orioles were a factor last week, before the non-waiver deadline, when they were rumored to be interested in trading for Blanton, but only if the Phillies paid some of his remaining salary.

The Phillies appear to have been intent on cutting payroll. They made the Dodgers and Giants take over in full the contracts of Victorino, Pence, and Blanton.

I believe that, like the Yankees, they want to get under the luxury tax amount before the Multiplier of Death kicks in for "repeat offenders." (I think this might be two years from now?)

The Phillies have never paid luxury tax, so they don't have to worry about repeat offender kickers until they offend repeatedly. They might have been over the limit this year before the recent trades, but it would have been only by a few million. They have $97.5M committed to five players for 2014, but that still leaves them $86M to fill out the roster.

I think we're mincing over details.

I agree the Phils will get next to nothing in return but ...

The Phils not only wanted to get rid of all of Blanton's salary, they wanted a little something extra in return too. I agree that if the O's had been willing to do that deal, it presumably would have happened.

But if all the Phils wanted to do was get rid of Blanton's salary, they would have just let the waiver process run and they'd have shed all his salary. They apparently were OK with retaining Blanton if they couldn't trade his salary and get a little something back.

Why they would be sticklers on wanting something trivial back I can't say. (as you say, unless the PTBNL is significant which presumably would mean the "cash considerations" would be significant.)

Maybe the quality of the PTBNL depends on how well Blanton plays down the stretch.