Waiver rule might need some tweaking-RC needed

[rcankosy]

The A's should be aware of that. 

"player is considered to moved" changed to "player's contract is considered to moved"

The RC thought this was obvious a year ago.

I would check with the A's on that.  He would have to clear $6.5m of cap room this year alone if there is no trade, and the Reds don't cancel the waiver. 

[h4cheng]

Nope... just the one player.

So wait, so I can trade Howard/Stanton/Gould for Zobrist/Reyes as long as Gould is exposed on the waiver? That doesnt seem right...

[Colby]

So wait, so I can trade Howard/Stanton/Gould for Zobrist/Reyes as long as Gould is exposed on the waiver? That doesnt seem right...

Good point.

[Daniel]

I would say that either the main pieces of a trade need to be exposed to waivers or all players need to be exposed.

[h4cheng]

I propose only those with major league experience have to be exposed to waivers in a trade.

[Corey]

Also if no trade is made, the team who makes the claim, does not inherit the player.... Thats not realistic at all.

[Colby]

Also if no trade is made, the team who makes the claim, does not inherit the player.... Thats not realistic at all.

RC needs to make a decision upon this.  These rules were set a while ago without question.

[Corey]

So example. The mets put player A on waivers.

Dan Wood claims player A.

I try to trade him to the Reds. Dan says NO, i am not trading, because i can just have the player if we cant agree........ Why the heck would any team put a guy on waivers then?

[Colby]

Ben needs to chime in on this one.  In MLB, nearly every player is put on waivers with most waivers pulled back.  Every once in a while, a trade does happen.

[Corey]

If we cant agree and then I can remove my claim, that sounds way way more normal.

I read it as If we cant agree then the claiming team just gets the player.


As long as the claiming team can pull back if a deal cant be worked out then its all good