a simple rules question

Not.

if a team makes a waiver claim and then doesn't work out a trade successfully, can another team with a better record claim that player still or is the player off waivers after the first claim?

I believe the player is off waivers.

there must be more to it than that though, right?

otherwise the team with the worst record could claim all the good players on waivers knowing that they're not gonna get them without a trade and thus block any other team from getting them

You actually have to try to make a trade, I think.

I mean the blocking is definitely part of it, but I don't think the Dodgers could have claimed Dunn and then said "okay Reds you can have some pocket lint nyah-nyah-nyah".

josecansecoyankees.jpg

You actually have to try to make a trade, I think.

-- Alex in SF, Monday, August 11, 2008 6:36 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Link

maybe you don't (i mean how would they enforce this?), but doing this:

I mean the blocking is definitely part of it, but I don't think the Dodgers could have claimed Dunn and then said "okay Reds you can have some pocket lint nyah-nyah-nyah".

-- Alex in SF, Monday, August 11, 2008 6:56 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Link

would be a really good way to get blackballed

josecansecoyankees.jpg

I think that happened because Canseco was claimed after being put on waivers a SECOND time. From what I understand about this stuff, a claim made on a player's first go-around on the wire means you negotiate a trade w/ the player's team. If no agreement is reached, and that player is put on waivers AGAIN, whoever claims him gets him (and his contract) outright.

As for waivers, here are two examples. The Red Sox put in a claim on Brian Giles to block him from going to Tampa, and possibly to keep him if they could have him for next to nothing. The Red Sox were required to make a deal with the Padres, but couldn't (mostly because Giles was able to block it, but also because the Sox weren't going to give up enough). So if the Padres decided to put him on waivers a second time, the claiming team would get Giles outright, without having to give anyone up.

Second example: the Padres put in a waiver claim for Randy Myers to block another team. But the team who put him on waivers says "thanks!" and the Padres get stuck with his terrible contract. He basically sucks shit thereafter.

but I don't think the Dodgers could have claimed Dunn and then said "okay Reds you can have some pocket lint nyah-nyah-nyah".

They totally could have, and this happens all the time. But they couldn't risk adding him to the team when they already have all those other dudes in the outfield/1B mix. And Dunn makes a lot of money.

otherwise the team with the worst record could claim all the good players on waivers knowing that they're not gonna get them without a trade and thus block any other team from getting them

The team with the worst record is probably out of the playoff hunt, and therefore probably trying to shed salary, not add salary. Waiver players are usually highly overpaid. If a player can help the team long-term, a bad team would be wise to add players who could help them. But if the player is a free agent to be, why trade anything of value if you aren't going to be competitive in the current season? So most teams don't do this.

this actually isn't a rules question, but this question has been nagging me recently

does anyone know the origin behind the baseball groupthink that your best arm should be in right field? i don't think balls are more likely to be hit to RF, right? were right fields typically deeper in older parks?

Right field sometimes has to make a throw from right field to third base, but left field never has to make a throw from left field to first base. Do you know what I mean?

yeah i do -- i never thought of it that way, was just always thinking from an outfield spot -> home plate perspective

manny had to throw to first base on that high-five play a couple years ago, but that's a lot rarer than having to throw someone out going first to third

it's not groupthink

well i thought it was!

haha. are/were you a psych major? seems like the term gets misapplied a lot outside of the discipline. think you meant received wisdom but whatev. a RF to 3rd on the fly throw for the tagout is such a thing of beauty.

yeah i meant received wisdom

idk what granny is on abt but yeah tradiotnally RF has best arm, because of what polyphonic said

try to follow along here. there's a psychology term "groupthink". Jordan didn't really mean to use that here. There's a lot of psych terms that get misapplied by non-psych people. I was a psych major who never used my education in any way and finally had my chance. What.

the thing along these lines that I've never fully understood is why rt handed batters don't have as much of a disadvantage against rt handed pitchers as lefties do w/lefty pitchers. Is it because rt handers encounter more righty pitchers throughout their lives that they figure them out?

that's what i always assumed

try to follow along here.

Do you know what I mean?

Not really. But if Jordan ever fails to understand the reoccurring themes in the work of Virginia Woolf, I will be ready to pounce.

It wasn't really a question, I just think it's cool to take snippets of someone else's post from upthread and make my own post out of it.

reeeeemix

i only just learned that passed balls can create unearned runs : /

but a run created by a wild pitch would be earned?

correct

the thing along these lines that I've never fully understood is why rt handed batters don't have as much of a disadvantage against rt handed pitchers as lefties do w/lefty pitchers. Is it because rt handers encounter more righty pitchers throughout their lives that they figure them out?

it's because you're not gonna be a major leaguer if you can't hit righties.

the RHP vs RHB thing is mostly a selection effect than an experience effect from what i understand - since there's way more RHP than LHP at the amateur level and in the minors, anyone who doesn't hit RHP well gets weeded out early.