Time expired on Thursday afternoon on waiver claims made on two Mariners, left fielder Raul Ibanez and left-hander Jarrod Washburn. Both players will be remaining with Seattle.
SI.com has learned that the Tigers won the claim on Ibanez and the Twins won the claim on Washburn. However, neither team was able to work out a trade with Seattle within the allotted 48 hours after making the claim.
...
...sources indicate that there were trade discussions ongoing between Minnesota and Seattle. However, the teams couldn't agree on a trade before the Thursday afternoon deadline.
I am going to let this sit and stew for a little while.
Matthew's Addendum: This appears to be confirmed now by the Seattle Times. Our last hope is that the Mariners put Washburn back on waivers this month. Yes, they still can do that. If a player is put on revocable waivers and is claimed, there is two days to work out a trade. If no trade was made, such as in this case, the player can be put on waivers one more time, but is automatically on irrevocable waivers. That is, if Washburn hits waivers again this month and is claimed, that's it. He's gone without even a chance for the Mariners to fuck it up. Please put him back on waivers.
0 recs | 107 comments
It might not be true.
It might not be true.
It might not be true.
It might not be true.
It might not be true.
It might not be true.
It might not be true.
Matthew - August 14, 2008
Great job, Lee
This was purely a blocking move by Minnesota, I’m sure of it. Which is why it was dumb to allow this thing to get to a place where the team was subject to the waiver process.
Now we get to pay Washburn $10 million (missing out on getting RRS in the rotation with likely equal production for a fraction of the cost), AND a rotation spot is burnt up.
No question we’re dumber than the Dodgers…
tait644 - August 14, 2008
So what if it was just a blocking move?
We could’ve dumped Jarrod on the Twins right then and there and wiped our hands clean.
We didn’t.
Jeff Sullivan - August 14, 2008
Because
Lee was going to try to get something for Washburn, no matter what. At least he had a bit more flexibility before the deadline.
tait644 - August 14, 2008
And god that's stupid
Jeff Sullivan - August 14, 2008
At least the Dodgers are able to develop players
Loney, Kemp, Billingsley, Kershaw, Broxton, Beimel, Kuo, Martin are all big contributors to that team, all young and all developed in house.
bluemax - August 14, 2008
As baffling as some of the Dodgers' moves have been
they’ve got nothing on the Mariners.
tait644 - August 14, 2008
Coletti has been pretty bad at FA signings
Schmidt, Jones, Loaiza, Pierre, Garciaparra.
But his assistant GM is really good at drafting.
bluemax - August 14, 2008
And hopefully will be the next GM of the Mariners
(not Coletti)
seattlebruin - August 14, 2008
Sort of a Bavasi/Fontaine thing, huh?
eponymous_coward - August 14, 2008
Kinda sorta
albeit Coletti loves shorter contracts with more money on them instead of spreading the money out. Hence Schmidt’s 3 years $47 million, and Jones 2 years $18 million or whatever. Juan Pierre is the only really long term deal he’s given out.
bluemax - August 14, 2008
I hate to sound like that guy...
…but given what you know about how the M’s do business, is this really that big of a surprise? I’m not saying it’s not a bad thing, but I’m beyond caring at this point. Thanks, Mariners, you’ve officially made me apathetic.
pdb - August 14, 2008
I became apathetic in February.
PositivePaul - August 14, 2008
I have long been apathetic about 2008.
This takes the rug out from under 2009. To this I have not yet developed an immunity.
Jeff Sullivan - August 14, 2008
Good point. Thanks. Now I gotta go kill myself.
Where’s all my Morrissey records?
pdb - August 14, 2008
Buried under all the Cobain suicides and coffee cups
Jeff Sullivan - August 14, 2008
Oh, there they are.
right by my book of Billy Corgan poems.
pdb - August 14, 2008
Go read them in the rain.
seamariners85 - August 14, 2008
I'm sorry
I love Billy Corgan, but that book was awful. =(
katal - August 14, 2008
I don't love Billy Corgan
so I wasn’t surprised that it was awful.
pdb - August 14, 2008
30 million plus for Beluga Tits, Bus and Punchy!
eponymous_coward - August 14, 2008
We're facing a rotation that could feature Silva and Washburn and potentially Batista.
It could be a 2008 repeat and that’s just depressing.
BrianL - August 14, 2008
I could imagine
one or two of them getting cut in spring training.
>:(
eponymous_coward - August 14, 2008
Definitely Silva and Washburn
Batista will be our $9 million reliever…
tait644 - August 14, 2008
Remember when the Kenji extension did this earlier in the year?
And then we were given a bit of a reprieve with this? And then no.
Matthew - August 14, 2008
$40 million of FAIL
Awesome.
eponymous_coward - August 14, 2008
Didn't Bill Simmons
come up with a list of reasons why you could bail on your team a few years ago?
tait644 - August 14, 2008
Bailing and becoming apathetic are entirely different things
seattlebruin - August 14, 2008
Yes,
but at some point that apathy can rightly grow into a full-fledged right to bail.
According to Simmons, if I recall…
tait644 - August 14, 2008
Here it is
I think this applies:
tait644 - August 14, 2008
As does this one
thejew4u - August 14, 2008
eponymous_coward - August 14, 2008
You found my original!
Eyebrows - August 14, 2008
Subject line on images please.
Matthew - August 14, 2008
Thank Howard Lincoln...
PositivePaul - August 14, 2008
If this is true in any way
Chris Larson had better be our savior this off season.
BrianL - August 14, 2008
Don't hold your breath.
pdb - August 14, 2008
This team is so fucking incompetent
UGH
phil333 - August 14, 2008
Well fuck a pterodactylus
It’s like we’re stuck with Randy Meyers man.
Frosty Raptor - August 14, 2008
Washburn has a no-trade clause (possibly limited)
If it’s a full no-trade clause, or if it’s a limited no-trade clause with the Twins as one of the teams, isn’t it possible Washburn invoked it to prevent himself from being claimed off waivers by the Twins?
That doesn’t excuse the team completely, since if they had done this before the non-waiver trade deadline they would have been able to find a match with someone Washburn would waive his no-trade clause for, but it would explain not just letting him be claimed purely as a salary dump.
saltydog75 - August 14, 2008
Don't believe NTC clauses protect against a waiver claim, which is what this could've/should've been
Jeff Sullivan - August 14, 2008
Didn't Giles invoke his to block the move to Boston?
Frosty Raptor - August 14, 2008
Brian Giles?
Or was he able to veto it because it was a trade?
Teej - August 14, 2008
NTC veto over waiver claims seems like somthing the player's union would fight for.
Otherwise it would significantly reduce the leverage of a no trade clause. Hmmm….
FWombat - August 14, 2008
I think they do...
http://mlb.mlb.com/content/printer_friendly/mlb/y2008/m08/d13/c3302506.jsp
“A player with a no-trade clause who is claimed on Major League waivers must be pulled back if the player’s no-trade clause allows him to block a deal to the claiming club. However, the player may waive the no-trade clause and join the claiming club.”
saltydog75 - August 14, 2008
We can still put him on irrevocable waivers...
… as many times as we want, I think, until/unless he clears. It looks like you can do it multiple times, unlike revocable waivers. So, unless the Twins were real a-holes and kept claiming him (or if a previous claimer isn’t eligible to re-claim, or something), teams with lower priority would have a chance to claim him, possibly someone who he can’t block.
And if he were to clear, we could trade him, maybe for partial salary relief.
saltydog75 - August 14, 2008
I don't think irrevocable waivers work like that.
If the Twins grabbed Wash off irrevocable waivers, they just pay the M’s $20,000 and a pro-rated portion of the league minimum. The M’s would still be responsible for the rest of his salary.
From Cot’s:
Teej - August 14, 2008
This wouldn't be irrevocable outright waivers, I don't think...
… that’s for removing a major league player from your 40 man roster and sending him to the minor leagues. I believe this would be called irrevocable “major league” or “trade assignment” waivers, which are the same as the regular post-trade-deadline waivers, except the team sending the player can’t pull him back if he’s claimed.
saltydog75 - August 14, 2008
Correct.
The Mariners would not be outrighting Washburn.
Matthew - August 14, 2008
Thanks for the clarification, guys.
I didn’t know there were two different types of “trade assignment” waivers.
Teej - August 14, 2008
And here's the sentence I missed:
Teej - August 14, 2008
Irrevocable is my new favorite word.
dpseadv - August 14, 2008
Do over?
OlSalty - August 14, 2008
They're just practicing their "Stand Pat" for Gillick's inevitable return.
kevin_ess - August 14, 2008
Die Lee! DIE!!
basebliman - August 14, 2008
There are few teams that would like deal with Washburn and his contract.
Unfortunately, one of those teams is the Mariners….
ThundaPC - August 14, 2008
I wonder how bad things will have to get before an ownership and full front office sweep will take place?
thewyrm - August 14, 2008
Fuck.
That is all.
Thingray - August 14, 2008
Of course nothing was going to happen.
Things like this shows there is always a gap between what we see and what they see.
I actually would have been surprised if waiver deals for either player were completed.
Gomez - August 14, 2008
Ownership does not want to finish the season with a young/make shift
rotation. These morons actually think that fans will stop going to games if Feierabend and Dickey round out the rotation, as opposed to Washburn and Dickey..
It’s ridiculous, but this is how these clowns think.
“We cant possibly trade a veteran starter, the fans will think we’re giving up”, says the Owner of a team 30 games under .500.
DarkLou - August 14, 2008
It's not that
They don’t mind unloading Washburn. They simply think Washburn has more value than he actually does and thus refuses to offload him for nothing.
Gomez - August 14, 2008
Huh?
They’ve tried to trade Washburn twice now in the past month. Why would they put him on waivers if they didn’t want to trade him?
Teej - August 14, 2008
Washburn's not gone?
Weird, who saw that coming?
Sec 108 - August 14, 2008
Lee is a big pussy
Afraid to do anything drastic, no matter how much it helps the team.
either that or he’s a pawn to Linstrong
Scrupio - August 14, 2008
I know, I'm totally shocked.
Goose - August 14, 2008
God diddily dammit you have got to be kidding me
Nick S - August 14, 2008
Sitting and letting it stew?
No thanks. I’ll post angry instead.
davidcameron - August 14, 2008
There aren't enough capital letters on the USSM post, Dave.
I’m thinking you aren’t really that angry.
Graham MacAree - August 14, 2008
Listen to Graham, Dave
Turn your aggression up to 11.
Gomez - August 14, 2008
Dave... David St. Hubbins?
Sports on a Schtick - August 14, 2008
Nice.
Phil Hatzenbuehler - August 14, 2008
Tell us how you really feel
Nick S - August 14, 2008
Good choice.
Teej - August 14, 2008
Sports on a Schtick - August 14, 2008
Too much emotion for an M's fan in August.
Eyebrows - August 14, 2008
Subject line on images please.
Matthew - August 14, 2008
`
Matthew - August 14, 2008
woo hoo!!
MFAN - August 14, 2008
Tim Ruskell is my savior.
BrianL - August 14, 2008
Yes, please.
Teej - August 14, 2008
Subject line on images please.
Spoomeister - August 14, 2008
Look closer.
Teej - August 14, 2008
There is one.
BrianL - August 14, 2008
Nice try.
Only the opposite.
Matthew - August 14, 2008
but football and not baseball
JI - August 14, 2008
Everyone remember
The Seahawks were in a million times worse situation than the M’s are in 12 months before they went to the Super Bowl
Robert - August 14, 2008
Things were shitty for the Rays and Rockies three years ago.
JI - August 14, 2008
The Seahawks didn't have a GM at the scouting combine,
Were conducting a GM search with people who had no football background, 3 best players/ most important players were unrestricted free agents and were generally internally considered the laughing stock of the NFL. If there was a floor, the seahawks were close to it.
Robert - August 14, 2008
We need a GIF of some guy with a Mariners hat on putting a gun in his mouth and pulling the trigger
I’m sure South Park would be a good resource for this
Scrupio - August 14, 2008
Look on the bright side, friends.
At least I’m happy.
Scrappy the Scapegoat - August 14, 2008
Son of a bitch.
Teej - August 14, 2008
Raging Egomania
I remember after Destro was fired, LP said on TV (and this is pretty close to a direct quote as it burned itself in to my mind at that instant):
“Blah blah…well basically things will continue on as they have been, you know….major decisions still go through Chuck and Howard blah blah….”
It isn’t like the best of trades for Washburn will net some king’s ransom. There is just a myopia about these men. They paid top $ for Jarrod and therefore they won’t be swindled into just giving away some one of such value. They thought he was valuable enough to give all that long term cash to, so therefore he is valuable.
To just let him go with ONLY the relief of his salary from the ledger would be somehow admitting they misunderestimated the greatness that is Jarrod Washburn, starting LHP!
It was clearly a blocking move by the Twins. Imagine the look on that skinflint billionaire Carl Pohlad’s face if he got stuck with that contract. Priceless.
Big Jared - August 14, 2008
Jarrod Is Ours...
And You Can’t Have Him
csiems - August 14, 2008
not funny
Scrupio - August 14, 2008
Its gonna be ok guys
Imagine you are Lee and you put Washburn on waivers. The Twins claim him and say they aren’t gonna give anything for him. You are like..“Fuck that, I almost got a shit ton from the Yankees at the deadline. There is no way I’m gonna send Washburn and cash to you for Nick Punto.” You say call back when you grow half a brain. You sit by the phone like a teenage girl with low self-esteem. They never call.
But its ok. They weren’t gonna give you shit and thats fine. You tried your best to get something decent for him. Now its to plan B where you place him on waivers the second time just trying to dump the player and his salary. Nothing was lost from trying to get something interesting by giving the Twins a chance to give you something good.
As long as he is placed on waivers the 2nd time everything will be fine. Don’t fuck it up Lee!
Edgar for Pres - August 14, 2008
Yes but if you can't complete the deal then you could just not pull him back
Graham MacAree - August 14, 2008
Yes, this.
also, Nick Punto would have been a decent return as long as the twins pay 100% of the remaining contract.
JI - August 14, 2008
Maybe the Twins wouldn't trade for him unless the M's picked up a lot of his salary.
Edgar for Pres - August 14, 2008
But dumping him because of the claim
JI - August 14, 2008
Except they are obliged to take it on if the Mariners pull him back off waivers.
Graham MacAree - August 14, 2008
Yeah true. Should have thought about that just a little more.
Maybe since the M’s are so PR centered they were gonna do everything possible to avoid the “salary dump” since most casual fans don’t like those type of moves. Now that they tried to get something back for him and failed maybe they will move onto Plan B which is a straight salary dump.
Edgar for Pres - August 15, 2008
So yea,
I guess Lee wasn’t kidding when he said he wasn’t interested in salary dumps.
Oh hey, Rays won. Now there’s a team that has a FO that knows what it’s doing.
ThundaPC - August 14, 2008
Oh hell.
Aaron Campeau - August 14, 2008
Judging by the reporting, it looks highly unlikely,
but is there any chance that the M’s tried to give Washburn away and his no-trade clause kicked in? Are we 100 percent sure that this was the M’s being insanely dumb?
I’m not skeptical or anything, but I want to make sure I’m in the right before I burn something down.
Teej - August 14, 2008
Judging by Jarrod's comments, I'm going to go ahead and say no.
Pitchforks!
Teej - August 16, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.