How did we not claim Berkman?

[a3uge]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but can't the Cardinals still have to trade him after someone claims him off waivers? Say the Cardinals waive Berkman, and the Brewers are the only team to claim him. The Cardinals still have to push the buttons on the players, and can make a trade for him. I don't think they'd give him away, and would probably demand something for him.

Even if it was just his salary, I think that would be a lot of money to give to a bench player for a month and the playoffs. To add to the argument, Lance Berkman isn't really a bench player either. He has bad career PH and Substitute numbers. He has 5 career RBI's as a pinch hitter. Casey McGehee has as many this season for crying out loud. The Brewers don't really need a 3B or a right fielder, and I don't think they'd sit Corey Hart at this point, and Corey definitely can't play CF.

If he were to assume a starting role, I would think the move is great, but if they did this and he's used as a pinch hitter I think $1.3 is a bit much when we're trying to re-sign Fielder.

[RockCoCougars]

I guess I can't believe that we're debating the sanity or otherwise of a scenario that would never in a million years have happened.

 

You guys just aren't getting the point. I will agree with you that there is no way that the Brewers would get him under any scenario. Thus this does not come into play....

 

If he were to assume a starting role, I would think the move is great, but if they did this and he's used as a pinch hitter I think $1.3 is a bit much when we're trying to re-sign Fielder

 

The main point here is to block him from Atlanta (regardless of where they are in the waiver pecking order) or Philly. Such a trade is unlikely but possible. Why not render it impossible?

[a3uge]

RockCoCougars wrote:

If he were to assume a starting role, I would think the move is great, but if they did this and he's used as a pinch hitter I think $1.3 is a bit much when we're trying to re-sign Fielder

 

The main point here is to block him from Atlanta (regardless of where they are in the waiver pecking order) or Philly. Such a trade is unlikely but possible. Why not render it impossible?

So I guess you're trying to argue the hypothetical situation where the Phillies or Atlanta claims Berkman off waivers and the Brewers should/shouldn't move to pick him up? I could see Atlanta trying it, since they could use a RF, but there's no way the Phillies try. Pence and Ibanez aren't going to sit the bench, and Howard is staying at 1B. I know this situation is unlikely, but I'm still not sure the Brewers would sign a player for the sole purpose of another team not having him. $1.3 mill (+ waiver fee/prospects) is still a lot for a bench player, even if his sole purpose is for him to not play for the Braves. I don't think a team having Berkman is the be-all end-all for competing against the Brewers. We've beaten Berkman many, many times in his career, and I don't think they're all that worried about him playing for another team.

[Raw Biz]

RockCoCougars wrote:

If he were to assume a starting role, I would think the move is great, but if they did this and he's used as a pinch hitter I think $1.3 is a bit much when we're trying to re-sign Fielder

 

The main point here is to block him from Atlanta (regardless of where they are in the waiver pecking order) or Philly. Such a trade is unlikely but possible. Why not render it impossible?

So I guess you're trying to argue the hypothetical situation where the Phillies or Atlanta claims Berkman off waivers and the Brewers should/shouldn't move to pick him up? I could see Atlanta trying it, since they could use a RF, but there's no way the Phillies try. Pence and Ibanez aren't going to sit the bench, and Howard is staying at 1B. I know this situation is unlikely, but I'm still not sure the Brewers would sign a player for the sole purpose of another team not having him. $1.3 mill (+ waiver fee/prospects) is still a lot for a bench player, even if his sole purpose is for him to not play for the Braves. I don't think a team having Berkman is the be-all end-all for competing against the Brewers. We've beaten Berkman many, many times in his career, and I don't think they're all that worried about him playing for another team.

I think he meant blocking in terms of putting in a claim so that other teams can't. We wouldn't need to actually receive him to block other teams, just putting in the claim accomplishes that.

[BillScottCanRake]

Can Milwaukee really any block anyone at this point? Per Wikipedia:

 

If a player is waived, any team may claim him. If more than one team claims the player from waivers, the team with the weakest record in the player's league gets preference. If no team in the player's league claims him, the claiming team with the weakest record in the other league gets preference. In the first month of the season, preference is determined using the previous year's standings.

 

If a team claims a player off waivers and has a viable claim as described above, his current team (the "waiving team") may choose one of the following options:

• arrange a trade with the claiming team for that player within two business days of the claim; or
• rescind the request and keep the player on its major league roster, effectively canceling the waiver; or
• do nothing and allow the claiming team to assume the player's existing contract, pay the waiving team a waiver fee, and place the player on its active major league roster.

I didn't see any date in this thread as to when Berkman was placed on waivers, but didn't have to happen promptly on August 1. It's only been the last week or so that the Cards have fallen nearly hopelessly behind the Brewers, so they didn't need to place him on waivers until more recently. Depending on when he was place on waivers, it's possible that the Brewers couldn't have "blocked" Berkman from becoming a Brave. If all this went down at a time when Atlanta had an inferior record, all they would have needed to do if they wanted him was put in a claim and work out a trade and their would have been nothing the Brewers could have done about it.

 

As for the consequences of blocking a player you don't really want, ask the Padres how the whole Randy Meyers thing worked out for them. Yes Berkman is owed less money and yes he'd probably be more useful to Milwaukee than Meyers was for the Padres, but there are enough consequences that not making a claim on someone like Berkman is, in my opinion, a reasonable decision on Melvin's part.

[RockCoCougars]

Due to the timing of the leaked info, my guess is this process happened late last week or early this week. At the time, Atlanta was either tied with or ahead of the Brewers (I have no clue how priority goes in the case of a tie). At any rate, this isn't Randy Myers or Rios. Berkman is owed about the cost of one Suppan start, really it's pretty piddly- kind of a moot point since the Brewers aren't getting him anyway. I just don't want the Braves getting him. Think if the roles were reversed and the Brewers were 10.5 back right now with pending free agent Berkman in the fold. I guarantee that there would be a thread 'should we trade Berkman? I'd be surprised if that discussion didn't move towards Atlanta pitching prospects at some point like the Corey Hart thing last year.

[fondybrewfan]

I think team were smart enough to not waste their time on Berkman. STl would have asked for an outrageous return for only about 6 weeks of Berkman. Teams probably just decided to not waste their time. I really don't see what the big deal is here. Sure we could have blocked him from Philly; but every GM in the NL probably knew there was about a 1% chance of him leaving STL and didn't bother even trying.

[GAME05]

At the time, Atlanta was either tied with or ahead of the Brewers (I have no clue how priority goes in the case of a tie).

if i'm not mistaken, it's the team record the year before.

 

don't have any kind of link, but i vaguely remember DM putting almost everyone on waivers, including Fielder, even though he obviously had no intention of trading them. if i remember right (and i don't), DM said there was some administrative/paperwork processes that were eased a little by putting a player into waivers than not.

 

i've always had the impression that what gets released to the public regarding late-season waivers is only 20% of the whole story. GMs end up looking crazy to fans because of it, but we're making judgements based on only a little bit of the whole story.

[MNBrew]

As for the consequences of blocking a player you don't really want, ask the Padres how the whole Randy Meyers thing worked out for them. Yes Berkman is owed less money and yes he'd probably be more useful to Milwaukee than Meyers was for the Padres, but there are enough consequences that not making a claim on someone like Berkman is, in my opinion, a reasonable decision on Melvin's part.

Thank you, BSCR. I've kept thinking of the Randy Myers scenario each time I've caught up on this thread, but I hadn't gotten to typing it yet. THAT is why you don't just puts claims on just about anybody -- because you may actually get stuck with him. It's not like when you sign a guy after he's been released. Rather, you pay every little nickel of his contract.

 

The whole reason the Padres claimed Myers was to block him from going to Atlanta. But Atlanta had no intention of claiming him, and the Blue Jays just let him go to San Diego. The Padres got seriously screwed because they owed him a heinous amount of money ($14M, per Wikipedia) over the remainder of his contract, during which time he played fairly little because of injuries, making the whole thing even worse.

 

If the player's team is just looking to get rid of an ugly contract AND another team is foolish enough to claim that player (think: Vernon Wells, Alphonso Soriano, etc.), the waiving team can just let the guy go & be done with him & be out from under that financial burden. The Myers scenario was a timeless reminder that you don't just claim anybody & everybody because you cannot rescind your claim.

[BillScottCanRake]

if i'm not mistaken, it's the team record the year before.

 

My bad- I see you meant in the case of a tie...

[StearnsFTW]

As for the consequences of blocking a player you don't really want, ask the Padres how the whole Randy Meyers thing worked out for them. Yes Berkman is owed less money and yes he'd probably be more useful to Milwaukee than Meyers was for the Padres, but there are enough consequences that not making a claim on someone like Berkman is, in my opinion, a reasonable decision on Melvin's part.

Thank you, BSCR. I've kept thinking of the Randy Myers scenario each time I've caught up on this thread, but I hadn't gotten to typing it yet. THAT is why you don't just puts claims on just about anybody -- because you may actually get stuck with him. It's not like when you sign a guy after he's been released. Rather, you pay every little nickel of his contract.

 

The whole reason the Padres claimed Myers was to block him from going to Atlanta. But Atlanta had no intention of claiming him, and the Blue Jays just let him go to San Diego. The Padres got seriously screwed because they owed him a heinous amount of money ($14M, per Wikipedia) over the remainder of his contract, during which time he played fairly little because of injuries, making the whole thing even worse.

 

If the player's team is just looking to get rid of an ugly contract AND another team is foolish enough to claim that player (think: Vernon Wells, Alphonso Soriano, etc.), the waiving team can just let the guy go & be done with him & be out from under that financial burden. The Myers scenario was a timeless reminder that you don't just claim anybody & everybody because you cannot rescind your claim.

I don't have any idea who's saying we should claim everybody. Obviously that would be pretty stupid.

 

The White Sox were very dumb to claim Alex Rios. The Padres were dumb to claim Myers.

 

What do either of those cases have to do with this one though?

[bigredrobbo]

I can't believe the Brewers didn't do something that couldn't have happened, to counteract a move that never took place!

 

What were they (hypothetically) thinking?

[Roderick]

Just to verify what others are seem to be saying - if you claim a player you don't get a chance to do a physical - hence there is the risk that the team put the player on waivers because he is hurt. Is that it?

 

Isn't there 24 hours to put in a claim? If so, basically you can see if the player is playing to gauge his health before putting a claim in. Plus with today's media, it would be a pretty big deal for an injury not to leak.

[pretendastronaut]

For the record, Chris Carpenter was placed on waivers today, claimed, and pulled off waivers.

 

That better have been Melvin!

[Invader3K]

For the record, Chris Carpenter was placed on waivers today, claimed, and pulled off waivers.

 

That better have been Melvin!

Since someone is bound to ask:

 

How will Chris Carpenter explain this to his son?

[monty57]

If St Louis was not going to trade him to Milwaukee if they claimed him (in hopes of possibly catching the Brewers), then why on earth would they trade him to Atlanta? They have a better shot at catching Atlanta for the Wildcard then they do of catching Milwaukee for the Central.

 

Isn't there 24 hours to put in a claim? If so, basically you can see if the player is playing to gauge his health before putting a claim in. Plus with today's media, it would be a pretty big deal for an injury not to leak.

 

But I believe the claim is irrevocable and there is a time frame for the teams to "work a deal" before the Cards would have to pull him off waivers. Therefore, they would get an "injury window." Maybe it's not a lot of risk, but it is a risk. All-in-all, these two statements probably sum it up best for me:

 

I think team were smart enough to not waste their time on Berkman. STl would have asked for an outrageous return for only about 6 weeks of Berkman. Teams probably just decided to not waste their time. I really don't see what the big deal is here. Sure we could have blocked him from Philly; but every GM in the NL probably knew there was about a 1% chance of him leaving STL and didn't bother even trying.

 

and

 

don't have any kind of link, but i vaguely remember DM putting almost everyone on waivers, including Fielder, even though he obviously had no intention of trading them. if i remember right (and i don't), DM said there was some administrative/paperwork processes that were eased a little by putting a player into waivers than not.

 

From what I've heard over the years, most players get put on waivers and most don't get claimed. In years past, there was a "gentleman's agreement" not to block trades by placing claims, but I don't think that's "in place" anymore. Teams do place claims to block trades from happening, but they are taking a risk that they'll get stuck with a player they don't want/need.