Andruw Claimed On Waivers

Judging by the number of fans at Atlanta games, I don't think there would be that much of a riot. Maybe a little get together between a few fans.

You know, the team just set a single gam attendance record last weekend and drew 144,000 fans to a single series.

You would assume. Although, I believe the Red Sox are toward the bottom of the waiver order, so maybe it was someone else.

It was actually highly unlikely to be the Red Sox. The entire National League and most of the American League would have had a chance to put in a claim on Jones before Boston.

who has the money to pay him?

ESPN reported that multiple teams actually placed a claim and Boston is low on the order so, while they probably placed a claim, it's unlikely that they won.

So we can agree he'll be wearing sox :-)

They have to make a trade with the team that awarded the claim or pull him off of waivers. If they pull him off, he cannot be put back on; he'll be in Atlanta until the end of the season no matter what.

What I'm not sure about is what players the other team involved can choose from, if it has to be someone they put on waiver or if it can be anyone on the team.

Oh! Oh! Aaron Boone for Andruw Jones! Go Tribe! :-)

The McCarthy/Anderson trade actually sounds like it could happen. If I were the Sox, I wouldn't be so quick to trade a talent like McCarthy.

But then, if I were the Braves, I wouldn't be so quick to trade a talent like Jones.

waiver trades are mostly about dumping salaries...the chance you'll get fair market value went out hte window at the trade deadline. Keep this in mind, about 90% of all players get placed on the waivers list, but very few get claimed by other teams and even fewer get traded. Often, teams claim players to block teams with better records from getting them. Maybe that's what is happening here. The fact that they haven't mentioned a team means that a trade might not be so simple, or might not happen...otherwise they would report a deal in the making with the team that claimed him first.

Actually, the name of a team that claims a guy off waivers is almost always kept strictly confidential until the deal is done, Manny. You should know that. :)

Then why did we know the Orioles were dumping Lopez on the Red Sox two days ago, yet the trade was just finalized today?

seriously X, can we just have a showdown? We can argue/debate ANY topic you want. Loser gets his comments rights revoked!

Well, Manny, on this one I'm backed up by Gordon Edes of the Boston Globe: ""My advice is not to get too excited about superstar players put on waivers this time of year ... just about everybody and his Papi gets put on waivers at this time of year, because waivers are revocable and a player can be pulled off by the team that listed him. This stuff is supposed to be relatively hush hush, so no, I don't know if the Sox made a claim, but I'd be surprised if Andruw got all the way through NL and most of the way through the AL to the Sox." -- http://www.b...ras/thebuzz/

The reason we knew about the Javy Lopez deal before it was officially finalized, but don't know who claimed Andruw (if indeed anyone did), is that there were trade terms agreed to between Boston and Baltimore before Lopez was put on waivers and claimed by Boston, while for Andruw Atlanta merely put him on waivers in the hopes that anyone would claim him, and no specific trade with another team was finalized or even discussed. They were essentially two different types of waiver transactions, in other words.

So to sum it up: Basically Xinoph, you regurgitate your info in aspects that are irrelevant in order to make yourself feel smart? Dude, this ALL started when you wrote "Theo stands pat" and I asked you about waivers. CLEARLY waivers ARE important this time of year. Your link doesn't pertain to anything you and I are arguing about. Maybe there aren't BLOCKBUSTER trades, they do happen, and they DO affect pennant races - Larry Walker 2003? Remember when the Yankees blocked Canseco from your BELOVED Red Sox in 2000??? Maybe you can go look up some more and link me with them... seriously, And I apologize to everyone that has to read this comment claptrap!

"So to sum it up: Basically Xinoph, you regurgitate your info in aspects that are irrelevant in order to make yourself feel smart?" Umm, no. I was answering your question, about why the two deals were different. You remember that? Actually, Manny, that's really a better summary of what *you* do. Good explanation of your behavior, by the way, thanks. I understand it all now.

Maybe my link doesn't pertain to anything you're talking about Manny. I know I'm talking about waiver deals, so that directly applies, given that was what Gordon Edes was talking about, as well. In fact, he was even talking about this very deal, what we're discussing. What exactly are *you* discussing, pray tell? UFOs? Atlantis? The JFK Conspiracy? It's becoming more and more difficult for me to tell. Ahh. So you're referring, Manny, to that sentence in that article where I wrote, 'Theo will make no more major trades this season, and the Red Sox roster as it is will be unchanged for the rest of the year, and even if there is a waiver trade, it will be irrelevant'? Oh wait, I never wrote anything like that. All that article was about was Theo failing to make a blockbuster trade at the deadline. I never wrote that he wouldn't do a waiver deal, or that waivers didn't exist. The concept of waivers were irrelevant to thte article about Theo failing to make a move on deadline day, much in the same way that, say, the Colorado Rockies aren't relevant to an article about the St. Louis Cardinals. I don't expect you to understand this - cleary the complex idea of relevance is beyond you - but hopefully others reading this pointless discussion (driven largely by your inability to be wrong or give up a point) will gain some level of understanding as to why I don't mention waivers in every single article I write. Why don't you grow up, drop this argument, and move on? I know I have. I will not carry on this meaningless discussion any further with you. If you want to make wiseass comments about waivers in every article I write, and minus every comment I make, you go right ahead. I'm going to move on to interesting discussions that the rest of the site might actually care about.

And how about from now on, Manny, instead of apologizing to "everyone", behave so you don't have to apologize for a change.

I don't give out negatives, X... they cause cancer. the whole +/- thing doesn't mean isht to me, since I have tangible ways to inflate my sense of self-esteem...

OK, ok... I can understand that you don't always read before you respond, but do you ever read your own comments???

I like the line "Why don't you grow up, drop this argument, and move on? I know I have. I will not carry on this meaningless discussion any further with you" you wrote before you continued on...

You know the old saying about not arguing with an idiot because people won't be able to tell you apart? I think people can tell us apart...

No, Manny, I don't read my own comments before writing them. Do you ever write anything that makes any sense at all?

I do find it interesting that you apologized for your behavior up above, then continued that bad behavior by continuing this pointless discussion. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at this point. But never mind. This is certainly going to be the last comment I have in a pointless discussion about nothing with someone who is not mature enough to ever admit that he might be wrong about anything.

I didn't apologize for ME, I apologized for you.

"This is certainly going to be the last comment I have in a pointless discussion about nothing with someone who is not mature enough to ever admit that he might be wrong about anything." ummm...how was I 'wrong' by asking "Ever heard of waivers?"

If you would have never responded to my waivers comment, this thread would never have happened, chew on that...

And you never responded to my showdown challenge where the loser can't add comments on articles anymore... 'fraid? No matter who loses, Armchair wins!

You have to have the last word and I'm a topper. Let's see who'll win?

I can't? Bet I know how it works better than you do, big guy :)

Oopsies, that was a misread, my bad. You bet I can. In fact, I taught Manny everything he knows :)

do you even read comments before responding to them?

do you read comments before you post them?

I do, but apparently I don't read everything perfectly all the time like the One And Only Manny Stiles :)

That was in response to Manny, not the AF, BTW, in case that's not totally clear. :)

[] sums this up well...

I forgot to tell you, Manny. I have a copywrite license on that fan box. You owe me $50 now. :-)

put it on my tab.

Well, the Braves sidestepped the rule anyway. If other franchises follow suit, how much effect will the rule really have?

A lot, still; this move probably won't work for the Braves, and most of the time won't apply in exactly the same way. This is actually a fairly unique situation, but certainly the rule plays into a team's desire to trade people from time to time.

We should make a page on Armchair which explains it.

found this about Jones specifically and waivers in general... not much else on MLB.com

AnonFan #3 -- go ahead :)

sign in or sign up

sign in or sign up

wrong again JGov! zzzap!@

Good point, ASWaff (and refreshingly relevant to the article at hand). Houston could definitely have been the team. Any other theories?

Gee, how about the Red Sox? They obviously are 'familiar' with waiver deals, and have the money! Maybe Lopez and Jones are pining to be teammates again...

That's a good point, Manny. With a whole game under his belt, I think Javy is in the position to get players to his new team.

Anyone who understood the waiver process would have to conclude that the Red Sox would have been an unlikely team to have claimed Jones, since the entire National League and most of the American League would have a chance before the Red Sox, as noted above. However, it appears moot, as it seems no trade was agreed to or Jones wasn't actually placed on waivers.