We took the unusual step of placing a quality person and pitcher in Juan Nicasio on outright waivers for a variety of reasons
Please note the bold
We acknowledge the minimal amount of money saved (more on this later) by making this move, however, as a result of our decision and Juan's pending free agency, we felt it appropriate to attempt to move Juan to a better situation for him
What I think is being missed, unless NH is using words he doesn't mean to use... is that we're paying Nicasio's contract. That's right. The Phils owe a pro-rated portion of the minor league minimum and we owe the rest.
Unless he's mispeaking or I'm badly misunderstanding, NH put Nicasio and LeBlanc on the standard, run the mill waivers. NOT irrevocable trade waivers (2nd time through) but rather, outright waivers
This means we are paying him the balance of the pro-rated portion of his contract.
Rather than help a direct competitor, and recognizing the claiming order between trade and outright waivers, we chose to take the chance to see if by placing Juan on outright waivers he would end up with a different playoff contender, preferably one in the American league
What different in order NH?? If 8 teams make a claim and 1 of the 8 claiming teams is in the NL, the NL team gets the claim.
If an NL "direct competitor" claimed nicasio on trade waivers and then didn't offer anything (see the Pirates and Kontos) the same NL competitor would have claim rights before ANY AL TEAM. When did this change? Did it change? Please tell me it changed and I can't find it anywhere, because I hope to god our GM actually understands what he's writing.
So here's what I think of his statement:
1) We're either picking up Nicasio's salary (minus a pro-rated portion of the ML minimum) and he's pitching for the Phillies, or NH is calling his waivers by the wrong name
2) The part about the waiver order makes absolutely no sense at all.
3) NH may not understand what he's talking about. One of the "best GM's in baseball" may really not understand what the F he's even talking about.
4) I may be completely confused, but I've double and triple checked because I can't believe what I read when I read NH's statement.
The Predict what Huntington will say about Nicasio thread
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
Bobster21
The Predict what Huntington will say about Nicasio thread
I think he used outright as irrevocable. Nicasio was on irrevocable waivers and Philly must pay the remaining $660,000.
I don't know what difference in the claiming order there would be. The line that they wanted to give Nicasio a chance to get with an AL contender is pure BS. They knew there was no way he was clearing NL waivers and the weakest teams pick first. And as they saw, even a bad team isn't going to pass on a good reliever for little money even if just for a month. Not every team operates like the Pirates.
I don't know what difference in the claiming order there would be. The line that they wanted to give Nicasio a chance to get with an AL contender is pure BS. They knew there was no way he was clearing NL waivers and the weakest teams pick first. And as they saw, even a bad team isn't going to pass on a good reliever for little money even if just for a month. Not every team operates like the Pirates.
The Predict what Huntington will say about Nicasio thread
OK NH is definitely saying that we used outright waivers which would mean we are paying Nicasio's salary to play for the Phillies. (we got back the Waiver fee $20k I believe)
Outright waivers goes by worst overall winning %. Trade waivers goes by worst overall winning % in the same league. So that's what NH means or again, he's mispeaking. I don't believe that exposing a player to trade waivers a 2nd time changes the league-first claim order. Only Outright waivers does this.
I believe he ate Nicasio's contract. Based on his statement anyway. The outright waiver claim order would have bounced back and forth from NL to AL based on who had the worst record. So it may have been possible for him to end up in the AL where he couldn't pass top teams in the NL on revocable trade waivers
IF this is the case, the Phillies claimed him because they're paying him about $80k to pitch for them in September.
Amazing stuff. I can't find anything stating that exposing a player to trade waivers a 2nd time, (after he was claimed the first time) changes the claim order.
Seriously. que up the defenders who are going to spin this into a positive. It's highly possible (I'm saying PROBABLE at this point) We didn't save $600k. We saved about $50k.
I'm convinced I have to be wrong. This CAN'T be right lol
Outright waivers goes by worst overall winning %. Trade waivers goes by worst overall winning % in the same league. So that's what NH means or again, he's mispeaking. I don't believe that exposing a player to trade waivers a 2nd time changes the league-first claim order. Only Outright waivers does this.
I believe he ate Nicasio's contract. Based on his statement anyway. The outright waiver claim order would have bounced back and forth from NL to AL based on who had the worst record. So it may have been possible for him to end up in the AL where he couldn't pass top teams in the NL on revocable trade waivers
IF this is the case, the Phillies claimed him because they're paying him about $80k to pitch for them in September.
Amazing stuff. I can't find anything stating that exposing a player to trade waivers a 2nd time, (after he was claimed the first time) changes the claim order.
Seriously. que up the defenders who are going to spin this into a positive. It's highly possible (I'm saying PROBABLE at this point) We didn't save $600k. We saved about $50k.
I'm convinced I have to be wrong. This CAN'T be right lol
The Predict what Huntington will say about Nicasio thread
Nevermind I'm wrong. It's only if he CLEARS and is released that the team who claims him owes him the minor league minimum.
OK. So what NH said is true. He put Nicasio on Outright waivers, which means the claim order would have gone Philly, Giants, ChiSox, Reds, A's, etc.. Philly is paying his salary and a waiver fee of $50k we get back.
OK. So what NH said is true. He put Nicasio on Outright waivers, which means the claim order would have gone Philly, Giants, ChiSox, Reds, A's, etc.. Philly is paying his salary and a waiver fee of $50k we get back.
The Predict what Huntington will say about Nicasio thread
070C04080D0C175254231A020B0C0C4D000C630 wrote: If NH had traded Nicassio to the Cubs or Cards or Brewers back in early August he would have been lynched. But that doesn't excuse this crazy idea of putting him on outright waivers. There's a good reason teams don't do it- it's stupid!
Would he have? I know we were within 4 games at that point, but I never got a feeling this team was close to being a playoff contender. I don't think he would have been lynched at all, especially since many Pirate fans I know understood we weren't contenders at all. In all reality, this FO said they weren't in a playoff position at the time in trading Watson and bringing in a garbage arm from Philly to replace him. They didn't make a move to help the cause, meanwhile everyone knew status quo wasn't going to get you a chance to gain a wild card or a division title.
Yes, he would have been. You would have been all over him making the Cubs, Brewers or Cardinals better and getting a weak minor leaguer in exchange. Please, don't kid yourself.
You are all over him now on releasing a player when they are out of it? Would keeping Nicasio help the Pirates down the stretch? No matter what Huntington said or did, you were ready to blast him. Again, don't kid yourself.
You continue to kid yourself with your lack of simple facts. No, the Pirates weren't going anywhere with Nicascio, who was the second best arm in the bullpen. Well, it wasn't going anywhere with Watson either, but he got dealt and Tony was a disaster this year. Pittsburgh got two prospects for a disaster that is going to be a free agent. One of those prospects actually could do something.
Fact is this, Pittsburgh isn't going anywhere with Cole, Cutch, Marte and Polanco either. Maybe we should do the same with them too.
I blast idiot GMs that do stupid things. An asset could have been received. Instead he chose to waive a guy for a better situation. He was claimed by Philly, which is not a better situation. His comments are idiotic. You are the only one defending him. Right now, every MLB pundit is scratching his head because of this move. You are sitting on your own island while everyone else things this was dumb. Let that sink in. We aren't talking about a stud here, but we are talking about a reliever that has had a pretty good year on a bad team that had value.
Would he have? I know we were within 4 games at that point, but I never got a feeling this team was close to being a playoff contender. I don't think he would have been lynched at all, especially since many Pirate fans I know understood we weren't contenders at all. In all reality, this FO said they weren't in a playoff position at the time in trading Watson and bringing in a garbage arm from Philly to replace him. They didn't make a move to help the cause, meanwhile everyone knew status quo wasn't going to get you a chance to gain a wild card or a division title.
Yes, he would have been. You would have been all over him making the Cubs, Brewers or Cardinals better and getting a weak minor leaguer in exchange. Please, don't kid yourself.
You are all over him now on releasing a player when they are out of it? Would keeping Nicasio help the Pirates down the stretch? No matter what Huntington said or did, you were ready to blast him. Again, don't kid yourself.
You continue to kid yourself with your lack of simple facts. No, the Pirates weren't going anywhere with Nicascio, who was the second best arm in the bullpen. Well, it wasn't going anywhere with Watson either, but he got dealt and Tony was a disaster this year. Pittsburgh got two prospects for a disaster that is going to be a free agent. One of those prospects actually could do something.
Fact is this, Pittsburgh isn't going anywhere with Cole, Cutch, Marte and Polanco either. Maybe we should do the same with them too.
I blast idiot GMs that do stupid things. An asset could have been received. Instead he chose to waive a guy for a better situation. He was claimed by Philly, which is not a better situation. His comments are idiotic. You are the only one defending him. Right now, every MLB pundit is scratching his head because of this move. You are sitting on your own island while everyone else things this was dumb. Let that sink in. We aren't talking about a stud here, but we are talking about a reliever that has had a pretty good year on a bad team that had value.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
The Predict what Huntington will say about Nicasio thread
4151506771717D120 wrote: If NH had traded Nicassio to the Cubs or Cards or Brewers back in early August he would have been lynched. But that doesn't excuse this crazy idea of putting him on outright waivers. There's a good reason teams don't do it- it's stupid!
Would he have? I know we were within 4 games at that point, but I never got a feeling this team was close to being a playoff contender. I don't think he would have been lynched at all, especially since many Pirate fans I know understood we weren't contenders at all. In all reality, this FO said they weren't in a playoff position at the time in trading Watson and bringing in a garbage arm from Philly to replace him. They didn't make a move to help the cause, meanwhile everyone knew status quo wasn't going to get you a chance to gain a wild card or a division title.
Yes, he would have been. You would have been all over him making the Cubs, Brewers or Cardinals better and getting a weak minor leaguer in exchange. Please, don't kid yourself.
You are all over him now on releasing a player when they are out of it? Would keeping Nicasio help the Pirates down the stretch? No matter what Huntington said or did, you were ready to blast him. Again, don't kid yourself.
You continue to kid yourself with your lack of simple facts. No, the Pirates weren't going anywhere with Nicascio, who was the second best arm in the bullpen. Well, it wasn't going anywhere with Watson either, but he got dealt and Tony was a disaster this year. Pittsburgh got two prospects for a disaster that is going to be a free agent. One of those prospects actually could do something.
Fact is this, Pittsburgh isn't going anywhere with Cole, Cutch, Marte and Polanco either. Maybe we should do the same with them too.
I blast idiot GMs that do stupid things. An asset could have been received. Instead he chose to waive a guy for a better situation. He was claimed by Philly, which is not a better situation. His comments are idiotic. You are the only one defending him. Right now, every MLB pundit is scratching his head because of this move. You are sitting on your own island while everyone else things this was dumb. Let that sink in. We aren't talking about a stud here, but we are talking about a reliever that has had a pretty good year on a bad team that had value.
It's identical to reclassifying top 10 prospects that are given away for nothing as having "no value". All to avoid having to pick up any salary.
It doesn't matter how absurd the situation becomes, the importance of defending Nutting's wallet is the most absurd of all.
Would he have? I know we were within 4 games at that point, but I never got a feeling this team was close to being a playoff contender. I don't think he would have been lynched at all, especially since many Pirate fans I know understood we weren't contenders at all. In all reality, this FO said they weren't in a playoff position at the time in trading Watson and bringing in a garbage arm from Philly to replace him. They didn't make a move to help the cause, meanwhile everyone knew status quo wasn't going to get you a chance to gain a wild card or a division title.
Yes, he would have been. You would have been all over him making the Cubs, Brewers or Cardinals better and getting a weak minor leaguer in exchange. Please, don't kid yourself.
You are all over him now on releasing a player when they are out of it? Would keeping Nicasio help the Pirates down the stretch? No matter what Huntington said or did, you were ready to blast him. Again, don't kid yourself.
You continue to kid yourself with your lack of simple facts. No, the Pirates weren't going anywhere with Nicascio, who was the second best arm in the bullpen. Well, it wasn't going anywhere with Watson either, but he got dealt and Tony was a disaster this year. Pittsburgh got two prospects for a disaster that is going to be a free agent. One of those prospects actually could do something.
Fact is this, Pittsburgh isn't going anywhere with Cole, Cutch, Marte and Polanco either. Maybe we should do the same with them too.
I blast idiot GMs that do stupid things. An asset could have been received. Instead he chose to waive a guy for a better situation. He was claimed by Philly, which is not a better situation. His comments are idiotic. You are the only one defending him. Right now, every MLB pundit is scratching his head because of this move. You are sitting on your own island while everyone else things this was dumb. Let that sink in. We aren't talking about a stud here, but we are talking about a reliever that has had a pretty good year on a bad team that had value.
It's identical to reclassifying top 10 prospects that are given away for nothing as having "no value". All to avoid having to pick up any salary.
It doesn't matter how absurd the situation becomes, the importance of defending Nutting's wallet is the most absurd of all.
-
Bobster21
The Predict what Huntington will say about Nicasio thread
3F363E2F215B0 wrote: Nevermind I'm wrong. It's only if he CLEARS and is released that the team who claims him owes him the minor league minimum.
OK. So what NH said is true. He put Nicasio on Outright waivers, which means the claim order would have gone Philly, Giants, ChiSox, Reds, A's, etc.. Philly is paying his salary and a waiver fee of $50k we get back.
What I read is that the picking order is NL worst to best and then AL worst to best.
OK. So what NH said is true. He put Nicasio on Outright waivers, which means the claim order would have gone Philly, Giants, ChiSox, Reds, A's, etc.. Philly is paying his salary and a waiver fee of $50k we get back.
What I read is that the picking order is NL worst to best and then AL worst to best.
The Predict what Huntington will say about Nicasio thread
Right now, the Pirates aren't good enough to worry about "direct competitors."
They need to clean up their own house first.
They need to clean up their own house first.
-
Bobster21
The Predict what Huntington will say about Nicasio thread
43646F4C010 wrote: Right now, the Pirates aren't good enough to worry about "direct competitors."
They need to clean up their own house first.
I dunno. Some of those Little League World Series teams looked tough.
They need to clean up their own house first.
I dunno. Some of those Little League World Series teams looked tough.
-
ArnoldRothstein
The Predict what Huntington will say about Nicasio thread
6368606C6968733630477E666F6868296468070 wrote: Huntington's full quote and reason can be found on Twitter (many outlets). Sorry, the link isn't working as it comes up as a picture and doesn't provide the whole quote.
Here's the whole statement:
"We took the unusual step of placing a quality person and pitcher in Juan Nicasio on outright waivers for a variety of reasons. Given our recent record and regression in the standings, we intend to give the higher leverage innings to other pitchers that may or will impact our 2018 club. We acknowledge the minimal amount of money saved by making this move, however, as a result of our decision and Juan's pending free agency at the end of the season, we felt it appropriate to attempt to move Juan to a better situation for him.
"We recently requested trade waivers on Juan and he was claimed by a playoff caliber club that indicated to us their primary motivation was to block us from being able to trade Juan elsewhere and that they were not willing to give us more than very marginal value in return if we chose to trade Juan to them. Rather than help a direct competitor and recognizing the difference in claiming order between trade and outright waivers, we chose to take the chance to see if by placing Juan on outright waivers, we chose to take the chance to see if by placing Juan on outright waivers he would end up with a different playoff contender, preferably one in the American League.
"We appreciate all that Juan has done for our team and our organization. We wish him the best."
Here's the whole statement:
"We took the unusual step of placing a quality person and pitcher in Juan Nicasio on outright waivers for a variety of reasons. Given our recent record and regression in the standings, we intend to give the higher leverage innings to other pitchers that may or will impact our 2018 club. We acknowledge the minimal amount of money saved by making this move, however, as a result of our decision and Juan's pending free agency at the end of the season, we felt it appropriate to attempt to move Juan to a better situation for him.
"We recently requested trade waivers on Juan and he was claimed by a playoff caliber club that indicated to us their primary motivation was to block us from being able to trade Juan elsewhere and that they were not willing to give us more than very marginal value in return if we chose to trade Juan to them. Rather than help a direct competitor and recognizing the difference in claiming order between trade and outright waivers, we chose to take the chance to see if by placing Juan on outright waivers, we chose to take the chance to see if by placing Juan on outright waivers he would end up with a different playoff contender, preferably one in the American League.
"We appreciate all that Juan has done for our team and our organization. We wish him the best."