This takes me back to the days when teams would place expensive players on waivers in hope that they'd be claimed (e.g. the Jays and Randy Myers).

So no August trade waiver deadline, and teams are releasing all these players. In addition to the Angels players listed, the following players are on waivers:

Mike Clevinger
Harrison Bader
Carlos Carrasco
Jose Cisnero

Am I wrong that Giolito, Lopez, and Bader all have a final arb year left?

I am wrong.

Mea culpa.

If I'm the Cubs, I'd still be claiming any of the pitchers save for Carasco and Cisnero (both of whom I'd expect to go unclaimed).

Pass on the OFers unless maybe you want Bader for a CF caddy.

So no August trade waiver deadline, and teams are releasing all these players.

As I understand it, these players aren't really released yet - they haven't been DFAed, if nobody claims them they'll be staying with their current teams.

Yes. Grichuk and Renfroe are in the lineup tonight.

If the Angels want to save money, why not Trout or Ohtani?

Well, they only want to save money right now, this year, to get under the tax threshold. And they presumably still entertain dreams of re-signing Ohtani.

Plus they'll at least give the qualifying offer to Ohtani and get a draft pick if he leaves that way.

I'm with Buck, I thought it was pretty common for players to be placed on waivers near the end of the season. It was a big deal one season when Manny Ramirez was placed on waivers, for example. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily changing teams, unless something in the CBA has changed.

I think it’s the absolute prohibition on trades after 8/1 that’s changed. While I suppose the waivers may still be revocable, there’s no longer any reason to put a player on waivers except in the hopes they get claimed and taken off your hands.

unless something in the CBA has changed.

While I suppose the waivers may still be revocable,

Waivers are no longer revocable.

Waiting for a team to grab a player, hold them until 9/2 and then waive them again just to keep them off someone else's playoff roster.

It was a big deal one season when Manny Ramirez was placed on waivers,

Irrevocable waivers! The Sox wouldn't have been able to keep him if *anyone* claimed him.

Can one team claim all those players? Ie. The Reds have lost half their lineup, and haven't had enough pitching all year. If all of those Angels made it to when the Reds get to claim, can they claim them all? Not that they would do this, as it would cost money, but, they could use all those guys at the moment.

Can one team claim all those players? Ie. The Reds have lost half their lineup, and haven't had enough pitching all year. If all of those Angels made it to when the Reds get to claim, can they claim them all? Not that they would do this, as it would cost money, but, they could use all those guys at the moment.

From The Athletic today:

So, could one team snag all these guys?
In theory, yes. Because one waiver claim does not impact another, the waiver order remains intact. For example, all 30 teams could put in claims for each player, but the A’s would get all of them by virtue of having the No. 1 waiver claim. The A’s getting the first guy does not change their odds of getting the others. See, waivers are fun right?

Thanks.

Being an Angels fan is fun.

I am assuming the cream of this group is taken by the Marlins and Reds but am wondering if the Twins will get someone. The D-backs, Red Sox, Giants and Twins are all sitting at 69 wins. Is the waiver order based on the record yesterday (when they went on waivers), today or tomorrow (when the waiver period expires)?

Waivers are no longer revocable.

Ah, okay, so in the past if someone was claimed, Team 1 could (a) revoke the waiver and keep the player, or (b) work out a transaction to send the player to Team 2.

Now if Team 2 makes a claim, the player goes to Team 2. Do I have that right?

That is correct.

It is a bit difficult in that you have to make a claim, without knowing who you're going to win the bid on. So you don't want to bid on everyone unless you're prepared to clear the roster space.

I am assuming the cream of this group is taken by the Marlins and Reds but am wondering if the Twins will get someone. The D-backs, Red Sox, Giants and Twins are all sitting at 69 wins. Is the waiver order based on the record yesterday (when they went on waivers), today or tomorrow (when the waiver period expires)?

From the Athletic again:

It will be determined based on records through Wednesday’s games.

And the waiver period is 48 hours, so the winning bids will be announced then.

If I'm Cleveland I'm probably claiming Giolito and maybe one or two other guys and hoping to catch lightning in a bottle.

I'm a Cleveland fan and resigned for this season. But that said, Grichuk would instantly be the third or fourth best hitter on the team.

I'm betting Preller gets all the pitchers and maybe takes a flyer on Bader.

Fangraphs has his Padres playoff odds doubling and an increase of one win to projections. The cost is about $5 million for the pitchers (plus Luxury tax issues )

The padres will select before any of the playoff bound teams so they'll have the pick of the litter

What's the odds of rules changes to waivers after this?

The rule change could be simple in that they only allow X number of waiver claims after the deadline or X number of claims per day. One team should not be able to claim 6 guys good players in one day

Bring back waiver trades. If six teams claim then the highest bidder gets the player.

What's the odds of rules changes to waivers after this?

What exactly is the problem, do you think?

I think there's two problems. A capped team could agree with a non-capped team to "take on " salaries (in exchange for something down the line, wink wink nod nod)

The wholesale waiving of players and claiming of players alters the betting odds over night (ie games the system).

I think the league should want to avoid the appearance of non sporting behavior

What's the odds of rules changes to waivers after this?

Unlikely before the next Collective Bargaining Agreement, since the MLBPA would have to agree, unless the owners offer the players something to make it worth their while to do some interim carve out, which seems unlikely.

A capped team could agree with a non-capped team to "take on " salaries (in exchange for something down the line, wink wink nod nod)

Aren’t such wink-wink nod-nod undocumented sidebar agreements already against the MLB rules?

. A capped team could agree with a non-capped team to "take on " salaries (in exchange for something down the line, wink wink nod nod)

So...a trade? I don't see what's wrong with trades if both teams are getting something.

The wholesale waiving of players and claiming of players alters the betting odds over night (ie games the system).

Odds change all the time due to injuries. There's nothing gaming the system anymore than trades on July 31. I don't see why MLB should care about odds anyway.

I think if there is a problem, it's that teams lower in the standings get first crack at players on waivers, which can be perceived as a competitive disadvantage. So maybe you set up an auction system or determine some other way to decide who gets what. But even that I think is a solution looking for a problem. If the Reds get all these players and the Braves don't get any, so what? Could make for a more competitive pennant race!

I'm a Cleveland fan and resigned for this season. But that said, Grichuk would instantly be the third or fourth best hitter on the team.

At this point you might even take Manny back.

One team should not be able to claim 6 guys good players in one day

I'm less worried about a bad team having to clear roster space to make room for 6 good players all at once than I am about the incentive for teams to just waive a bunch of impending free agents near the end of the season for luxury tax incentives.

As someone with no rooting interest, I think it would be cool if the Marlins claimed 6 players. They'd have to dump 6 guys from the 40-man

The problem is that some of these guys are good players who can substantially impact Sept and, if added soon enough, postseason. The point of getting rid of waiver trades was to get rid of this sort of maneuver and now it's not even a trade it's just a straight sale. Giolito is an improvement for almost any contending team. Now he's also fairly cheap so some lower WC contender might grab him but suppose Verlander or Scherzer were in the last year of their contracts and the Dodgers decided it was worth $7 M. Does it look good for MLB if the Dodgers are adding AS-quality players on Aug 31 because their teams wanted to save a few million?

It will only matter for (a) goods player not eligible for a QO or (b) average players the team won't give a QO but those still aren't players you want going to teams in a purely financial transaction. That's not good for competition and it's not good for a sport where the perception is teams buy championships (which is not as true as the perception but obviously isn't exactly false either). The Dodgers recently put Tony Gonslin on the 60-day IL, surely they'll grab Giolito if they can, he might be their 3rd-best starter.

Bader has been so bad since coming back from injury that he might be done (or still hurt) but for the last few years he's been at least an average CF when healthy and should still at least be good for a PR/defensive replacement roster expansion guy. I'm not sure any team thinks that's worth the $800 K or whatever he's owed from this point but they will if they think he's still a starting quality CF.

Regardless, current average-good players going on waivers is a clear sign of a glitch in the system. Giolito isn't even overpaid. (Neither is Bader the average CF but Bader the fast guy who can't hit a lick is.)

Trades are not allowed after the Aug. 1 deadline for players who have appeared in the majors this season

I wasn't aware of that caveat ... or really I'd never thought of it. I'm not sure it's ever mattered. But this would also seem to a loophole that should be closed so that August minor-league trades don't impact pennant races and the postseason. That would be rare but why allow it? Suppose team A has a K-Rod type and team B, which failed to land the relievers they wanted at the deadline, are willing to trade a top prospect for him. It's a fair enough long-term trade but if you can't trade for the Angels' top reliever right now (assuming they have one), why should you be able to trade for a ML-ready prospect? But at least it's not a strictly financial transaction.

And yes, July 31, Aug 15, Aug 31, etc. are all just arbitrary dates, there's no "natural" reason why it's OK for a July 31 trade to be allowed to impact a race but an Aug 31 transaction not allowed to. But these seem the sorts of shenanigans that MLB was trying to get rid of by eliminating waiver trades.

I guess the fix is to say that any player claimed after the trade deadline, the old team is still on the hook for the salary. Gets rid of the incentive to dump a guy.

I mean - what's happening here IS the fix. It used to be a much better idea to put your guys on waivers after the trade deadline, it's now been disincentivized.

Before - the Yankees put Bader on waivers, and either a)no team claims him, so the Yankees can trade him anywhere, or b)a team claims him, and the Yankees get to work out a trade with that team, or c)a team claims him, and the Yankees can decide to just dump his contract onto that team, or d)a team claims him, and the Yankees can decide to keep him for the rest of the year after all.

Now - the Yankees put Bader on waivers, and either a)no team claims him, and the Yankees can't trade him, or b)a team claims him, and the Yankees are forced to dump his contract onto that team.

Teams have much less incentive to put guys on waivers in August than they used to!

I mean - what's happening here IS the fix.

Yeah, I don’t see a problem. A relatively few fairly expensive players who are playing poorly are available on waivers. Grab them at your own risk, no big deal. It isn’t like the Angels are trying to save money by waiving Trout & Ohtani, per my tongue-in-cheek suggestion in #7.

MLB could ban all trades after the seasons starts, but why is trying to improve your team something to be discouraged?

We're potentially looking at waiver claims awarded by percentage points for the third NL wild card and the AL West. It would be a shame for a team to be given a winning hand because games played differed because of rainouts.

A capped team could agree with a non-capped team to "take on " salaries (in exchange for something down the line, wink wink nod nod)

Aren’t such wink-wink nod-nod undocumented sidebar agreements already against the MLB rules?

Explicitly, no, since wink-wink, nod-nod deals kind of defy thorough definition in the rules. But such deals are against the rules in that the Commissioner has the authority to prohibit any transaction perceived as violating the good-faith transaction rules.

#38 is on the mark. IT might affect the playoff picture a little, but only in order of worst record. That's not so bad if the truly bad teams get first right of refusal on these guys. It's not like the Yankees can direct Bader to some other team if the order is determined by record, and any egregious winking can just be nullified to penalize the poorer teams taking part, which will make it super hard for the rich guys to find dance partners.

I think the league should want to avoid the appearance of non sporting behavior

LOL.

I mean, I'm waiting for the draft kings parlay on who will win the Giolito and Lopez claims...

Kind of curious that sis many of the waiver guys were in the lineup during these 48 hours…. Risk is minimal, I guess, but if the whole point is to shed guys via claims, why do you risk said guys pulling up lame with a stretched hammy or something?

Teams have much less incentive to put guys on waivers in August than they used to!

I think it is clear there is still an incentive now. You can save money. In the waiver trade era, guys would get pulled back all the time because they couldn't work out a deal or whatever. Now it seems clear teams are like "whatever, just take him, it'll save us a million."