crisper57
Open the Roof!
SD put Heath Bell on waivers and he was claimed by San Fran. Waiting to see if the Padres pull him back or try to work out a trade.
-per AM 1060
-per AM 1060
Heath Bell Claimed on Waivers by SF
- Thread starter crisper57
- Start date
He can hit for them!
Only downside of being ahead of them...
Matt L
formerly known as mattyboy
I saw that Carlos Pena was also claimed on waivers.
I really think we should have made a claim on him.
I really think we should have made a claim on him.
OP
OP
crisper57
Open the Roof!
Why did they do this?
Was it because they can never have enough good pitching?
Is Wilson's injury worse that reported?
To block the D-Backs from acquiring him?
I bet the Padres torpedo the deal by asking for too much, but that is just me speculating.
Was it because they can never have enough good pitching?
Is Wilson's injury worse that reported?
To block the D-Backs from acquiring him?
I bet the Padres torpedo the deal by asking for too much, but that is just me speculating.
AZ Native
Living is Easy with Eyes Closed
Everyone knows they need more pitching, not hitting.
JS22
Say Vandelay!
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
- Posts
- 5,791
- Reaction score
- 211
Heard on the radio today that they did this (mainly) to block the Dbacks. Apparently the Dbacks were going to try to work out a trade. I doubt anything would have gotten done. But it's at least a little interesting that they were going to try.
OP
OP
crisper57
Open the Roof!
Heard that too. On Doug and Wolf, Derrick Hall claimed that the Giants were pretty much blocking all pitchers on waivers from getting to the D-Backs. Wolf thinks it is because we are in their heads.
I think it is bush league.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 37,233
- Reaction score
- 17,284
It's a pretty standard tactic. This kind of thing happens all the time and it's part of what lends real teeth to the actual trading deadline. Nobody really wants the best team in the league to pad their roster with late season waiver claims. I know it feels bush league when you're in a position like we're in but without this, every big name waiver player with a large price tag would end up playing for the Yankees.
Steve
azsportsfan01
Registered
This happens all the time. Sometimes it backfires. It did to the D-Backs in 2007 when we claimed Joe Kennedy and Jeff Cirillo in an attempt to keep them away from the Rockies.
OP
OP
crisper57
Open the Roof!
I guess I think if you claim a person, you should have to take them or drop your claim. If you can't consumate a trade with his team, they should continue to move through the waiver process. But it seems like the Giants are just putting out claims with no intention of actually acquiring the guy.
azsportsfan01
Registered
That is the exact purpose. A team can place a guy on trade waivers once. If he clears he is able to be traded to any team. If he gets claimed he can only be traded to that team or pulled back. If the team places the guy on waivers again he automatically goes to the team that claims him for nothing. Teams do this all the time to stop their competition from getting players they need. You are in the middle of a competition, why would you let the team you are chasing get help when you are able to stop them?
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 37,233
- Reaction score
- 17,284
Again, that's what often happens. If the team that waived him is prepared to let the guy go for the price of his contract, the claiming team is stuck with him but that's not what usually happens. The rule is designed to let teams move expensive contracts after the trading deadline. You could have some real questionable deals go through late in the season if the post-trade deadline waiver rule wasn't in force. I guess they could just drop the late season waiver option completely but other than that I don't see a way to improve this situation.
Steve
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 37,233
- Reaction score
- 17,284
I didn't think this was allowed. It used to be that once the team rescinds the waiver, they have two days to arrange a trade and failing that the player can't be placed on waivers again that season. Has this changed or am I misremembering?
Steve
Edit: If I read it correctly, it looks like a team can place a player on waivers again but they have to wait at least 30 days.
Last edited:
OP
OP
crisper57
Open the Roof!
I agree it is saavy. As a fan of the D-Backs, it is frustrating, so I am mostly venting. I kinda wish there was an NFL-challenge type rule with waiver claims. Teams only get so many in a season, so they have to use them wisely. It'd add a bit of strategy to the front office moves, instead of just having a team deciding to carpet-bomb the waiver market.
JS22
Say Vandelay!
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
- Posts
- 5,791
- Reaction score
- 211
I don't have a problem with this. Otherwise the trade deadline would be pretty meaningless.
azsportsfan01
Registered
Here is an old article that explains the rules. I had it a little bit wrong.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=1860265
OP
OP
crisper57
Open the Roof!
AM 1060 is reporting that Bell will remain a Padre. They have pulled him back after failing to reach a deal with SF.
OP
OP
crisper57
Open the Roof!
If we're leading in the late innings, it won't matter.
TJ
Frank Kaminsky is my Hero.
+1
Because the Giants are a crappy offensive team averaging 3.4 runs per game, the only thing keeping them alive in the division race is their pitching. Any damage to their rotation or bullpen is a big break for us, especially seeing Brian Wilson out for a period of time. Them acquiring Bell would have brought them back to status quo and have made that bullpen nearly indestructible after Wilson came back from the DL.
