Waiver rule might need some tweaking-RC needed

[Colby]

The claiming team does not have to pull back though...

[Corey]

Ok, but in noway does the claiming team get the player for free unless both sides agree to that. Or it wouldnt make sense.

[rcankosy]

Ok, but in noway does the claiming team get the player for free unless both sides agree to that. Or it wouldnt make sense.

It's not for free.  The claiming team has to absorb the contract which is some cases was the sole reason why the player was put on waivers. 

[rcankosy]

I'm posting the real-life rules as a comparison.

Any player under contract may be placed on waivers ("waived") at any time. After MLB's July 31 trade deadline and through to the end of the season, however, a team must place a player on waivers if that player is to be eligible to be traded. The National League (NL) was the first of the two major leagues to adopt this rule in 1917. Originally it was enforced after August 1.[3]

If a player is waived, any team may claim him. If more than one team claims the player from waivers, the team with the weakest record in the player's league gets preference. If no team in the player's league claims him, the claiming team with the weakest record in the other league gets preference. In the first month of the season, preference is determined using the previous year's standings.

If a team claims a player off waivers and has a viable claim as described above, his current team (the "waiving team") may choose one of the following options:

    * arrange a trade with the claiming team for that player within two business days of the claim; or
    * rescind the request and keep the player on its major league roster, effectively canceling the waiver; or
    * do nothing and allow the claiming team to assume the player's existing contract, pay the waiving team a waiver fee, and place the player on its active major league roster.

If a player is claimed and the waiving team exercises its rescission option, the waiving team may not use the option again for that player in that season. If no team claims a player off waivers after three business days, the player has cleared waivers and may be assigned to a minor league team, traded (to any team), or released outright.

As you can see, there is a provision for the claiming team to get the player for "free" if they assume the player's existing contract.

[Corey]

Roy, I see and know that. But im saying the claiming team has to agree to absorb the contract if a deal cant be worked out. If they choose not to absorb it, then they can remove the claim.

Im making sure that is how it is.

[Colby]

Roy, I see and know that. But im saying the claiming team has to agree to absorb the contract if a deal cant be worked out. If they choose not to absorb it, then they can remove the claim.

Im making sure that is how it is.

That is part of the risk of claiming a player on waivers.  There is a team every year that gets screwed by this.  It is usually the Red Sox or Yankees trying to steal a claim from each other.

[rcankosy]

Only the team that originally placed the player on waivers can cancel the claim.  As Colby said, that is the risk you take when you put a claim on a player.  You will get stuck with the player AND his existing contract if a deal can't be worked out.  That is certainly true in real life and appears to be that way in this league as well.  There is no provision in our rules for the team claiming the player to "cancel" the claim if a deal can't be worked out.   

[Daniel]

Corey, I do think that the possibility of just letting a guy and his crappy contract go to another team is the whole point of waivers, so the rule should be fine as it is regarding that topic, because the waiver can cancel the waiver if the claimer does not agree to a trade. I think the conflicting issues are the topic regarding clearing waivers and trades and whether or not an unclaimed waiver can also be cancelled. The cap on waivers per team is also an interesting proposal.

[rcankosy]

Nice summary by Buster Olney on the topic today.

But now the work of August starts, and in all likelihood, many teams will begin passing players through waivers today, and more decision-making for general managers gets under way. Should they place a claim on a player in an effort to try to acquire him? Should they place a claim to block a rival team from getting a player -- as the Giants did with Cody Ross last August, when San Francisco believed the Padres might be looking for an outfielder? Or should they let a player pass by, unwilling to take the risk that they'll be stuck with his contract -- while knowing that player might wind up being moved to a rival team?

[Corey]

So to be clear, Daniel if you put a guy on waivers. I claim him, we cant agree, then am i stuck with the guy then?