Skip to content

Cole Hamels claimed on revocable waivers

Aug 6, 2014, 5:34 PM EST

From Ken Rosenthal:

As we noted recently, it’s never a good idea to get worked up over waivers or even waiver claims in August. The practical effect of this is, if the Phillies do want to trade Hamels, they have to deal with the claiming team. Given that the Phillies were asking an arm and a leg for Hamels in July — and rightfully so — it’s highly unlikely one team, bidding against no one else, is going to offer the kind of package the Phillies need to let Hamels go. He’ll almost certainly be pulled back and no deal made. No harm, no foul.

The question I have — and I’ll note that, no, it’s not a terribly important question, just one that popped into my head — is whether the Phillies actually thought one of the better pitchers in baseball would clear waivers, thereby allowing them to deal with any team they wanted? If they didn’t, why bother, for the reasons stated above. If they did think that, well, we’ll just say that we hope they didn’t think that.

  1. clemente2 - Aug 6, 2014 at 5:39 PM

    It’s Amaro. It’s better to think they did hope they thought that but didn’t think it when they thought they had thought it, or hoped to think it when they thought of it.

    • slappymcknucklepunch - Aug 6, 2014 at 11:16 PM

      That was pretty great,Can you do Abbot and Costello next?

    • mkat33 - Aug 7, 2014 at 6:55 AM

      We’re talking about Amaro. There’s no way it could be that logical.

    • dsaverno - Aug 7, 2014 at 8:11 AM

      Anybody else reading that in a Bill Clinton voice?

    • pelumaad - Aug 7, 2014 at 10:28 AM

      Does that make sense in Philly?

  2. paul621 - Aug 6, 2014 at 5:43 PM

    Come on, really? If it came out later that the Phillies didn’t put him out on waivers, we’d be reading about how dumb they were to not even try–there is literally no risk involved here.

    • brainisus - Aug 7, 2014 at 1:43 PM

      I agree. What are the chances that many teams who were pressing the Phillies for a deal kept demanding negotiations on Hamels to the point where Amaro had to put him on waivers just to prove to the those teams that he was essentially unavailable? I do not know enough about how these things work behind the scenes, but this scenario seems the most logical.

  3. eagles512 - Aug 6, 2014 at 5:44 PM

    Amaro is terrible but I don’t see how you can rip him for doing what everyone does. Might as well put him on waivers and see what happens.

    • SocraticGadfly - Aug 6, 2014 at 9:25 PM

      Looking at the NL standings, I see one team that right now would be one of the two WCs, has a GM that likes veterans, has money to burn, and has made late season moves before. And, just had to DL a starter.

      Hello, San Francisco!

  4. wjarvis - Aug 6, 2014 at 5:48 PM

    Why would they not put him on waivers though? Of course he’d get claimed, but that means that there is a chance he can get traded instead of no chance. If the demands haven’t change then it’s probably a dumb and dumber type chance, but that is better than nothing.

  5. sgtr0c - Aug 6, 2014 at 5:54 PM

    What if the mystery team is blocking Hammels from going to a team with a better chance. Until the team that claimed him is known, how can you fault Ruby? He is the current goat but need to know the whole story.

    • rmfields - Aug 7, 2014 at 9:38 AM

      Because you know inevitably he’s going to $^@* it up.

  6. scoutsaysweitersisabust - Aug 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM

    When it costs them NOTHING, why NOT put him on waivers? How many waiver claims/trades do you think go through every year because the primary team never thought it would happen? I’m no Amaro fan, but really it’d be pretty stupid not to put the entire team on waivers at some point. Actually, didn’t you write an article effectively stating this just a few days ago?

    • SocraticGadfly - Aug 6, 2014 at 6:34 PM

      Craig was just trolling fans of all 30 teams by reminding them that their players could be put on waivers.

      More seriously, there’s foolish inconsistency as well as foolish consistency, of course.

      I believe Craig’s word of the day for foolish inconsistency is “derp.”

    • [citation needed] fka COPO - Aug 6, 2014 at 7:21 PM

      When it costs them NOTHING, why NOT put him on waivers?

      Well it does cost the Phillies something. Never mind that he was claimed, so he can only be released/traded to the team that claimed him, it also prevents him from going on irrevocable waivers after this period is over.

      • moooooooooose - Aug 6, 2014 at 8:54 PM

        Seriously, do you think he might he put him on irrevocable waivers?

      • wjarvis - Aug 6, 2014 at 8:54 PM

        I’m confused as to how they lost something? Why would the Phillies want to put Hamels on irrevocable waivers? The only chance the Phillies have to get something for Hamels this year is to put him on waivers. It’s unlikely that they’ll get what they want for him, so then they just rescind the waiver. So they probably won’t gain anything from putting him on waivers, but they haven’t lost anything either.

  7. schmedley69 - Aug 6, 2014 at 6:38 PM

    Hopefully Amaro will remember to pull him back. Nothing would surprise me with that stooge.

    • xmatt0926x - Aug 6, 2014 at 6:57 PM

      That’s true. Sadly. Can someone please send Ruben a text reminding him to pull Cole back?

  8. greymares - Aug 6, 2014 at 7:05 PM

    Unless it’s the Dodgers for the Almighty 3 he will be pulled back

  9. officialgame - Aug 6, 2014 at 8:06 PM

    When you have an imbecile for a GM anything is possible. Amaro would be in over his head managing a Burger King let alone a ML baseball team.

  10. jfk69 - Aug 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM

    The Yankees are the mystery team. Amaro got his sports mixed up. He is taking Jeters and Ichiro’s expiring contracts in the deal.

    • BIGGSHAUN - Aug 6, 2014 at 8:47 PM

      The sad part is he’ll release Jeter so the Yankees can pick him back up, and eat the remainder of his contract just for the heck of it.

  11. Kevin S. - Aug 6, 2014 at 8:34 PM

    • Bob Loblaw - Aug 6, 2014 at 11:23 PM

      Considering Hamels would immediately be the ace of either staff, this is a pretty stupid comment.

      • xjokerz - Aug 7, 2014 at 3:01 AM

        Hamels wouldnt start for the Tigers, he would defiantly be a bull pen piece.

      • Kevin S. - Aug 7, 2014 at 7:02 AM

        The joke
        ————–
        Your heads

      • silverdeer - Aug 7, 2014 at 11:59 AM

        Tigers picked him up and are going to send Scherzer back to Philly. Illitch is pissed that turned down the deal at the beginning of the season and is going to pay Boras back. (Just speculating).

  12. BIGGSHAUN - Aug 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM

    Ah. More maneuvering by Ruin Tomorrow Jr.

  13. chadjones27 - Aug 7, 2014 at 8:29 AM

    Here’s a more important question. If it turns out that the team that claimed him did so only to prevent another team from getting him and then makes absolutely no “fair” attempt to make a trade, can the Phillies petition MLB to disregard the claim altogether? For example, the team offers a utility infielder and some kid from Single A for Hamels and wants the Phils to cover his entire contract. That isn’t making an effort to get a trade done.
    What prevents a team from doing that?

    • otismeanwhile - Aug 7, 2014 at 8:38 AM

      the fact that it would be (is) a waste of time. I mean why even bother?

      • chadjones27 - Aug 7, 2014 at 9:06 AM

        To screw over another team.

    • jred1979 - Aug 7, 2014 at 9:53 AM

      Nothing prevents them from doing that. In fact, the claiming team could make no offer at all, should they choose. That’s the rules, and no, MLB would not disregard the claim. The only “risk” to the claiming team is that the Phillies could just let him go, leaving them with his entire contract but getting nothing back (not gonna happen).

      It is actually quite common for teams to place a blocking claim, and I would be surprised if it isn’t what happened here. For instance: the Pirates cannot afford Hamels, and would not consider trading for him. They also don’t want the Cardinals or Brewers to get him, since that would greatly reduce their odds of making the playoffs. Since there is little risk that the Phillies would give up their ace for no return, the Pirates would place a claim on him, simply to prevent the Cardinals or Brewers from doing so.

      There is a solution, however – if Amara really wants to trade Hamels and get a decent return, he can do so in the offseason. He could have done so during the season, but before the trade deadline (which is actually only the latest day a player can be traded without first clearing revoacable waivers).

  14. philsfan2013 - Aug 7, 2014 at 9:19 AM

    In other news…the Atlanta Braves just lost 8 in a row and Craig has not written a report about it because he is a TROLL!!!!!

  15. drewy44 - Aug 7, 2014 at 10:38 AM

    I’d like to think this is just Ned trolling RAJ.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Maddon has high hopes for Cubs
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. P. Sandoval (5130)
  2. H. Ramirez (4479)
  3. Y. Tomas (4236)
  4. J. Lester (3176)
  5. C. Headley (2855)
  1. Y. Cespedes (2384)
  2. M. Kemp (2277)
  3. A. LaRoche (1797)
  4. C. Hamels (1793)
  5. M. Scherzer (1747)