Impeach Friedman - D Rays Lied

sfb

unread,

Dec 15, 2006, 7:57:15 AM12/15/06

to

MLB nullifies Tampa Bay's waiver claim, Livingston goes to Reds MLB
nullifies Tampa Bay's waiver claim, Livingston goes to Reds

December 14, 2006

NEW YORK (AP) -- Major League Baseball voided a waiver claim by Tampa Bay,
ruling Thursday the Devil Rays circumvented rules this week when they took a
pitcher and immediately traded him.

The Devil Rays claimed lefty Bobby Livingston from Seattle on Tuesday, then
sent him to Philadelphia for cash. MLB voided the moves, deciding the Devil
Rays took Livingston with the intent of trading him.

Instead, Livingston was assigned from Seattle to the Cincinnati Reds on a
waiver claim.

Steve Grant

unread,

Dec 15, 2006, 11:48:02 AM12/15/06

to

This has been discussed at length elsewhere. It's not entirely clear
to me, one way or the other, whether or not the Devil Rays were within
their rights to claim Livingston, then trade him. One thing IS clear,
though: Pat Gillick was asleep at the switch.

Tom Nawrocki

unread,

Dec 15, 2006, 2:58:47 PM12/15/06

to

Steve Grant wrote:
>
> This has been discussed at length elsewhere. It's not entirely clear
> to me, one way or the other, whether or not the Devil Rays were within
> their rights to claim Livingston, then trade him. One thing IS clear,
> though: Pat Gillick was asleep at the switch.

It seems relevant to me whether or not the Phillies initiated this or
the D-Rays did. If the Rays claimed Livingston, and the Phillies called
up and said, "Do you guys really want him? Cuz we'll pay you more than
the wiaver fee for him," then that would be OK.

But if the Rays claimed Livingston for the sole purpose of auctioning
him off and went looking for a buyer, that doesn't seem quite kosher.

Tom Nawrocki

Steve Grant

unread,

Dec 15, 2006, 3:55:42 PM12/15/06

to

On 15 Dec 2006 11:58:47 -0800, "Tom Nawrocki" <TJNaw...@aol.com>
wrote:

>But if the Rays claimed Livingston for the sole purpose of auctioning
>him off and went looking for a buyer, that doesn't seem quite kosher.

Because ... ?

Incidentally, wasn't Bavasi supposed to be on the lookout for a team
willing to pay more than the waiver price?

David M. Nieporent

unread,

Dec 15, 2006, 4:19:08 PM12/15/06

to

In article <1166212727.2...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

I don't see why not. No team is worse off under this approach (except the
Phillies -- and that was entirely under their control).

Tom Nawrocki

unread,

Dec 16, 2006, 12:17:59 AM12/16/06

to

Steve Grant wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2006 11:58:47 -0800, "Tom Nawrocki" <TJNaw...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >But if the Rays claimed Livingston for the sole purpose of auctioning
> >him off and went looking for a buyer, that doesn't seem quite kosher.
>
> Because ... ?
>

Because it seems contrary to the intent of the waiver process for the
Devil Rays to bogart all the waived players. YMMV.

Tom Nawrocki

David M. Nieporent

unread,

Dec 16, 2006, 12:55:09 AM12/16/06

to

In article <1166246279.5...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>,

>> Because ... ?

Well, it's not clear to me what you think "the intent of the waiver
process" is, but unless the Devil Rays keep roster spaces open, they can't
do what you fear, anyway.

TheDave©

unread,

Dec 16, 2006, 12:17:02 PM12/16/06

to

I agree it seems contrary to the intent, but how long are they supposed
to keep a player before it is ok to trade them? A day? A month? One
game played?

Dan Szymborski

unread,

Dec 19, 2006, 8:38:06 AM12/19/06

to

In article <un26o2l1csoci39s4...@4ax.com>, ACE1242
@comcast.net says...

It's Bill Bavasi. He'd probably trade a 10 for a 5 because
Lincoln was president and Hamilton wasn't.

--
Dan Szymborski
d...@baseballprimerREMOVE.com

"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is not
a whole-hearted supporter of what is good."

-Robert Schumann