Waiver claims
Mike Snow · November 20, 2009 at 2:28 pm · Filed Under Mariners
Jakubauskas goes to Pittsburgh, Robert Manuel to Boston, per press releases from their respective destinations. Who knows what it means, but losing those two doesn’t mean much. It could simply be clearing the decks for the 40-man roster additions, or maybe Zduriencik has bigger machinations in store.
Update: According to Geoff Baker, they’ve added to the 40-man everyone Jay covered earlier except for Peguero and Scott, plus J.C. Ramirez who I guess does need to go on after all. Also, Varvaro is going to start in the AFL title game.
Speaking of hard-to-spell names in the organization. Or, well, formerly in the org (unless he gets returned).
Whatever the case, I’m comfortable with it because I’m certain Zduriencik & crew thought this out backwards and forwards.
@joser:
Waiver claims don’t get returned.
C-Jak is probably a little redundant, considering Vargas, French, Silva, and new signee Petit are all long guys. I wish it was something bigger, but I bet they are just thinking about adding positional depth.
I’m surprised that the M’s let Manuel get claimed since they just traded for him a few months ago. I guess he just didn’t fit into the future plans.
Maybe it’s preparations for the blockbuster Randy Johnson signing! Jak I recognize but not Manuel, which probably says a lot right there. So there’s both off the 40 man? What are we at now, 32? 31?
Is Yusmeiro Petit better than Chris Jakabauskas?
If this had happened in the 2007-08 offseason, you’d worry it was on the basis of negligence. It’s so much better to go into the offseason knowing the guy pulling the strings can see three or four chess moves ahead of any of us. We will not miss Jakubauskas (unless, I suppose, you’re Lithuanian or something, oh, right, I am).
Manuel was the reward for holding on to Balentien past his sell-by date.
Then we didn’t “trade for him”, we “got him in a trade instead of getting nothing.”
Or if you’re my 4-year old son who, whenever he heard the name Jakubauskas, would succumb to raging fits of laughter. He probably had 8 or 9 different nicknames for the guy, with “Jackal Baskets†being the real crowd pleaser of the bunch.
I think the moves were made to accomadate Sean White and Ryan Feierabend coming off the 60day DL.
I know there was already room to add White and Ryan but I think they have a plan on who they are going to add from the farm system.
I liked calling him Jakasaurus.
FYI, apparently Jack said they are going to start working Ackley out at 2nd base. Could lead to a permanent switch.
Love it.
Whoa . . . awesome.
Also, finally an end to the confusion at shortstop. With Jack Wilson having signed an extension, Josh Wilson clears waivers and is assigned to AAA.
I see my Buccos never change in picking up crapola. C-Jak ughh we had our version of C-Jak in Jeff Warning Track Karstens. We left Justin Thomas go off the 40 man, Robinzon Diaz (who will be snapped up quickly) and Warning Track Karstens.
Is the Mariner’s BP that good that they can let Manuel go?
He seemed pretty well (2.87 FIP) until he got to the M’s AAA team (5.73 FIP). Why give up on him when he’s only pitched 19 innings?
The reason they let Manuel go was because they didn’t see him as top 40 talent (well top 39, Silva takes a spot because of his contract and nothing else). I’m sure they hoped he’d clear waivers (same with Jak). But they didn’t and that’s the risk you take when you do this 40-man shuffle.
Dave or Mike or whoever, I was curious. Why isn’t Triunfel on the 40-man? Is he still considered to be on the DL?
If Jakubauskas or Manual are better than Carlos Silva, why wouldn’t they just dump Silva? It would be irrational behavior to allow Silva’s contract amount to play a role in decision making. That’s a classic sunk cost fallacy. Your paying that contract whether he’s in your rotation or at home on the couch. His contract (already a fixed cost) is irrelevant.
My guess is either the front office sees more value in Silva than these other guys, or has some kind of plan as to how he is going to be deployed (as a pitcher or in a salary dump trade). I don’t think Jack Z. would allow irrational thinking (ie, keep the worst player because he makes more money) to blur his roster strategy.
Your -> You’re…
!
I can’t believe I did that. I want to crawl into a cave and hide.
There’s worse sins Puffy. Believe it or not, a guy a few years back signed Carlos Silva to a four-year $48 million contract. I think he IS hiding out in a cave in Cincinnati at the moment. OK, I didn’t recognize those names when the mlb.com text message update came across my cellphone. I’ll hve to reread Jay’s post.
Puffy:
One important factor you’re overlooking is that if Silva gets a little better and a little lucky for a while, the M’s might be able to parlay that into someone taking him while paying 20% of his salary, or tossing us a B- prospect or something. That’s not the case with Jakubauskas or Manuel.
(No, I’m not particularly hopeful this will actually happen, but it’s a possible future event with a probability greater than zero by a non-trivial amount)
Why isn’t Triunfel on the 40-man? Is he still considered to be on the DL?
Triunfel doesn’t need to be. As an international player signed in 2006, he doesn’t have to be protected from the Rule 5 draft until next year at the earliest.
I believe I’m actually agreeing with you in a way. I’m saying Jakubauskas and Manuel were let go because Silva still MAY have something to offer the team (even if that is a B prospect in a salary dump situation). I was responding to a comment that implied that Silva was worse than those two guys and only being kept around because of his salary. I don’t think Jack Z. operates that way. I think he judges Silva to be more valuable than Jakubauskas and Manuel, in one way or another.
Say it to yourself loudly and slowly:
“We are stuck with Silva until his contract expires. No one is going to take him off our hands, much less give us anything back for the combination of his bloated self and his bloated contract.”
To be pedantic, we are not stuck with Silva until his contract expires. We are only stuck with his contract; getting rid of Silva himself is an exceedingly simple operation, but nobody yet has mustered the courage to perform it.
You pedant, you!
Anyway, you’re absolutely right, but I don’t see many scenarios where we get rid of one but not the other.
Picker of nits are you? It seems the club only seems to grow…
Much as I hate to think it, let alone admit it, Jeff has it right. The M’s are stuck with the chef’s albatross of a contract.
If only I could figure out how to get the word “seems” into that sentence 7 or 8 more times…