Leury Garcia waiver claim

[Former Orioles GM (Charles)]

I really must apologize that this is coming now in the already well-discussed saga of the Noah Syndergaard trade. It passed my realization at the moment when I looked at the trade (I was traveling and did not pay close enough attention), but I just remembered I had placed a waiver claim on Leury Garcia on 3 February 2018 in response to his waiver posting on 2 February 2018. I do not believe that anyone checked the Waiver account as I was not granted my 72 hour period with Preston to discuss the acquisition of Garcia. The trade was approved on 5 February 2018 during the period that would have been awarded to my exclusive discussion over the player. I would not kick up a storm as Garcia is not really the issue, but if this could reverse the trade that so many in the league feel needs to be reversed I would like to offer up this new development. Additionally, I am strapped for cash and in desperate need of OFs so Leury Garcia actually has significance to my team.


I have attached a screenshot of the timestamped message sent to the Waiver account
  

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

As part of the waiver process, I can always elect to retain the player. I had missed this, but the default when the team doesn’t respond is the player stays with the original team. The “exclusive” time window is only relevant after the trade deadline.

Garcia wasn’t a substantial piece to our trade, so I’d say reach out to the Yanks to try to make a deal.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

As to the other point of your post, I find the suggestion ridiculous. We have the trade panel. The trade panel approved the trade. There was time for anyone who had a problem with the deal to voice their concern to the trade panel before it was approved. If you don’t like the result, run for the trade panel next year.

[Braves GM (Dustin)]

I don't believe a team can trade a claimed waiver player to another team during a negotiating phase. That's a big part of the waiver process. It was missed and should be reversed on the fact I want to trade for Syndergaard. Rules are rules!

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

No, that’s an incorrect interpretation of the waiver system. At any time during the 72 hour window, the team who has the player can proactively elect one of the three options. Plenty of trades have happened to other teams who didn’t win the claim (again, except after the trade deadline when the waiver system is actually relevant). Placing a player on waivers before then is essentially a marketing technique. Why would a team limit the pool of teams from 30 to 1 who can trade for the player?

[Diamondbacks GM (Ethan)]

But shouldn’t the waiver claim be dealt with first before the player can be dealt? I mean, the claiming team should have priority on the player first since he did put in the claim. It’s not his fault the waiver account wasn’t checked, so he shouldn’t (potentially) lose out on the player for another person’s negligence. I mean, you pull him back, you pull him back, simple. But it is kind of rude to simply ignore the claim because it’ll negate your trade

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Feb 10, 2018 12:13:42 GMT -8 Diamondbacks GM (Ethan) said:

But shouldn’t the waiver claim be dealt with first before the player can be dealt? I mean, the claiming team should have priority on the player first since he did put in the claim. It’s not his fault the waiver account wasn’t checked, so he shouldn’t (potentially) lose out on the player for another person’s negligence. I mean, you pull him back, you pull him back, simple. But it is kind of rude to simply ignore the claim because it’ll negate your trade

Sure, those mechanics should have been followed. I don't control the waivers account. If he was awarded and I landed on the same Syndergaard trade, I would have posted my intent to keep Garcia. If I had to wait 72 hours (not the rule, but for the sake of this, let's assume that), then I would have waited for the time to expire and done the same trade. This is why this is a non-issue.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Feb 10, 2018 11:52:02 GMT -8 Braves GM (Dustin) said:

It was missed and should be reversed on the fact I want to trade for Syndergaard. Rules are rules!

You still can!

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

I understand many of you are new, so the confusion is understandable. The O's were always welcome to message me with his interest in Garcia, but didn't. Maybe he thought he had to wait to be awarded a waiver claim, but this was unnecessary for the reasons stated above. Other than its utility after the trade deadline, the only other true benefit to the waiver system is to allow player movement without a trade if the posting team just wants to get rid of the player for nothing.

[Braves GM (Dustin)]

Feb 10, 2018 11:53:29 GMT -8 Nationals GM (Preston - Old) said:

No, that’s an incorrect interpretation of the waiver system. At any time during the 72 hour window, the team who has the player can proactively elect one of the three options. Plenty of trades have happened to other teams who didn’t win the claim (again, except after the trade deadline when the waiver system is actually relevant). Placing a player on waivers before then is essentially a marketing technique. Why would a team limit the pool of teams from 30 to 1 who can trade for the player?

Was any of the three options chosen before trade though?

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Feb 10, 2018 12:22:48 GMT -8 Braves GM (Dustin) said:

Feb 10, 2018 11:53:29 GMT -8 Nationals GM (Preston - Old) said:

No, that’s an incorrect interpretation of the waiver system. At any time during the 72 hour window, the team who has the player can proactively elect one of the three options. Plenty of trades have happened to other teams who didn’t win the claim (again, except after the trade deadline when the waiver system is actually relevant). Placing a player on waivers before then is essentially a marketing technique. Why would a team limit the pool of teams from 30 to 1 who can trade for the player?

Was any of the three options chosen before trade though?

Please refer to my response to the Diamondbacks above.

1. Waivers account did not award Garcia to Orioles.
2. Even if he had been awarded, I could have immediately elected to keep him and done the trade then or waited 72 hours and done the same trade then.

Orioles never evidenced his interest in Garcia to me directly. If he did, maybe I would have traded him to him and perhaps replaced Garcia with a similarly valued player in the Syndergaard trade, but more likely nothing would have changed since discussions with the Yanks had been ongoing for several days.

If you are interested in a player that a team has said they are shopping, you should let the team know you are interested and make an offer.

[Braves GM (Dustin)]

"During the off-season, waivers will reopen on March 1st."

Why are there even players being put on waivers before March 1st?

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Feb 10, 2018 12:32:00 GMT -8 Braves GM (Dustin) said:

"During the off-season, waivers will reopen on March 1st."

Why are there even players being put on waivers before March 1st?

Fair enough. Even us vets miss things every now and then.

Another reason this whole convo is moot.

[White Sox GM (Aidan)]

Man, get sick for a week and called negligent As always, it's hard to keep up with the 72 hour windows when lots of guys are being posted on waivers amidst hundreds of posts each week, if you notice someone hasn't been dealt with just message me and I'll hop on within a few hours. I should have checked them clearly, so apologies, but these aren't irrevocable waivers, guys. The team putting a player on waivers still has full rights to said player, they don't owe any specific negotiating privileges to teams making a claim. If you really want a player, but in a claim and message the owner.

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

Having reviewed all of this, I agree with PB's rules interpretation as stated in this thread. For whatever that is worth.

As to Aidan's alleged negligence, this court finds him guilty of it and fines him $3, to be put towards whatever he so chooses (Such as cold medicine). Don't let it happen again after waivers are actually a thing we should pay attention to, I guess. Or something.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

[White Sox GM (Aidan)]

Feb 10, 2018 20:52:33 GMT -8 Pirates GM (Hollar) said:

Having reviewed all of this, I agree with PB's rules interpretation as stated in this thread. For whatever that is worth.

As to Aidan's alleged negligence, this court finds him guilty of it and fines him $3, to be put towards whatever he so chooses (Such as cold medicine). Don't let it happen again after waivers are actually a thing we should pay attention to, I guess. Or something.

Can the $3 go towards a fund to pay Wily Mo Pena to play in our league?

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

Feb 10, 2018 21:54:14 GMT -8 White Sox GM (Aidan) said:

Feb 10, 2018 20:52:33 GMT -8 Pirates GM (Hollar) said:

Having reviewed all of this, I agree with PB's rules interpretation as stated in this thread. For whatever that is worth.

As to Aidan's alleged negligence, this court finds him guilty of it and fines him $3, to be put towards whatever he so chooses (Such as cold medicine). Don't let it happen again after waivers are actually a thing we should pay attention to, I guess. Or something.

Can the $3 go towards a fund to pay Wily Mo Pena to play in our league?

No, but it can go towards his team housing in an igloo.

[White Sox GM (Aidan)]

Then I'm out. $3 towards liquid cold medicine. Everyone can take 1/3 of a swig