I don't think I fully understand waiver trades

[Centerfield]

So as I understand it, a player can be traded in August if and only if he clears waivers.

Waivers means he's offered up to every team (who would then have to take on his salary) but then the team gets the player for nothing.

If every team passed on, say Jay Bruce, for nothing, why would they then make a trade and give up anything?

[seawolf17]

Because if you claim a player on waivers, his current team has three options: they can pull him back (in which case he can't be traded at all), or they can let you have him and his contract, or you can work out some kind of deal. If the player CLEARS waivers, then he can be traded for anyone not on the 40 before 9/1.

So what probably happened in this case was that every team passed on him -- Cleveland didn't think they wanted to take on his salary right at that moment -- but then as time went on, they were like "yeah, let's do this."

[Ceetar]

they can trade them after 9/1 too, it's just that that's the deadline to be on the 40 man for playoff eligibility.

[Chad ochoseis]

seawolf17 wrote: Because if you claim a player on waivers, his current team has three options: they can pull him back (in which case he can't be traded at all), or they can let you have him and his contract, or you can work out some kind of deal. If the player CLEARS waivers, then he can be traded for anyone not on the 40 before 9/1. So what probably happened in this case was that every team passed on him -- Cleveland didn't think they wanted to take on his salary right at that moment -- but then as time went on, they were like "yeah, let's do this."

Is there a time limit at all? Cleveland probably didn't need Bruce until Michael Brantley got hurt on August 9. If Bruce cleared waivers on 8/1, did he again have to go through waivers, or is the 8/1 waiver good for the whole season?

Does he have to be traded for someone not on the 40, or is it just that the player obtained in the trade also would have to clear waivers? If, say, Francisco Lindor cleared waivers, could the Indians have traded Francisco Lindor for Bruce?

[Ceetar]

only have to clear once.

can trade for anyone, but yes, they have to clear waivers too if they're on the 40.

When the Mets traded Wagner the guy they wanted from the Red Sox was leaked, and then claimed by the Yankees to fuck with them supposedly, so the Mets didn't get the guy until October.

[Edgy MD]

Also you don't have to trade to the team who put in the claim. You can also deal with teams below them in the standings who didn't put in a claim.

[Guest d'Kong76]

And the 'clearing' goes in team order of crappy to best, right?

[Ceetar]

I think it might start in the other league first.

[seawolf17]

Ceetar wrote: I think it might start in the other league first.

Yes, and worst to best.

[Frayed Knot]

It used to be worst to first in the team's own league and only then shifting to worst to first in the opposite league. But I'm not sure, in this post-Selig era where the lines between NL & AL
have been blurred, whether it's now a straight worst to first regardless of which side of the line you're on.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: It used to be worst to first in the team's own league and only then shifting to worst to first in the opposite league. But I'm not sure, in this post-Selig era where the lines between NL & AL have been blurred, whether it's now a straight worst to first regardless of which side of the line you're on.

Wiki confirms worst to first own league, then opposite league. Whichever team has best claim is the only team in which you can trade to.

[Frayed Knot]

Yeah, the draft used to alternate as worst record in one league got #1 overall one year and then the worst in the other the next, but that's been scratched so I thought waivers might have changed also.
I believe the Nationals were the first to ever have back to back #1s (yielding Strasburg & Harper) since it was impossible under alternating rules. Houston later had a run of three in a row.




The other thing about waiver trades -- and specifically to CF's question of why teams don't just claim guys in order to get around having to give up something for them.
There's sort of an ... agreement is too strong, so maybe just a tradition of NOT claiming everyone you might have an interest in because then nearly everyone will get claimed and trades would trickle down to nothing. So teams are reluctant to put in too many claims because they want their own waivers to go through as well and if GMs sense that a particular club is throwing out claims simply to block deals to better clubs then they're going to gang up and block his as well.

Although I've got no data to back this up, it seems that this laissez faire attitude of 'don't touch mine and I won't touch yours' has become more commonplace in recent years so the August time frame is much more conducive to deals now than it used to be and back in the day teams used to get burned by it occasionally.

Steinbrenner got pissed one time in the last '90s when a good player cleared and got traded to a different AL contender. The Yanx had no use for him but George blew up anyway and screamed that if anyone else got through to a team with a later claim they'd all be fired. That's how the Yanx wound up with Jose Canseco in 2000, they neither needed him nor wanted him but the GM had to obey the standing order and Tampa jumped on the chance to just let him go.

Also back in 1998, the Padres put in a claim on Randy Myers fearing the possible NLCS competitor Braves would get him. Myers had signed a multi-year deal w/Toronto the previous winter but was pitching to a high-ERA so the Jays called the bluff and let the Padres have him. Myers wound up pitching poorly in SD also and wound up getting tagged for 3 runs in 3 post-season innings. He never pitched in the majors against and SD was stuck with the final (two?) years of the contract at big money.