August 2016 Waiver Wire Rumors and Deals

[Lucky_Beagle]

When do we start to hear about players who have been placed on waivers? I know most of the time we never here about them occuring, however some names get leaked for various reasons.

[julio]

When do we start to hear about players who have been placed on waivers? I know most of the time we never here about them occuring, however some names get leaked for various reasons.

The first requests for trade assignment waivers would have been filed yesterday (the first permissible day after the non-waiver trade deadline) any time prior to 2 pm. Requests pend for 47 hours (the claiming period, during which time teams can file waiver claims) before the waiver is granted (if there are no claims), so the earliest a waiver could be granted (or a waiver claim formally awarded) would be at 1 PM tomorrow. Also, teams can request waivers on a maximum of seven players in any one day, so it takes several days if a club wishes to obtain trade assignment waivers on all (or most) of the players on their roster.

News leaks out sometimes, but not on any particular schedule. If we hear, we hear.

[Austinfan]

When you watch Rupp, you notice two things, he's undisciplined as a hitter and has tremendous power, can jack it out anywhere in the ballpark. So there's as much upside (learning how to hit, how to be more selective) as downside. Rupp actually hit well in the minors, solid season at Clearwater in 2012, good start at Reading in 2013, then promoted to Lehigh where he held his own. Basically had one terrible season in 2014, then was a good D, no hit backup in Philly in 2015. In that sense his current season isn't that much different than Rupp circa 2012-13.

What seemed to happen was his swing was too long, he got away with it until AAA, then he had to adjust his swing, did so successfully, and returned to his older form.

What's unknown is whether this year is a fluke or a launch point, since other teams will have the same questions, you're not going to get enough in trade to justify moving him for a year or two - but since the opportunity cost of keeping him is low (since you won't get a lot in trade), you'd be stupid to trade him. At worst he's a solid backup catcher when he loses out to Alfaro, meanhwhile he can shepherd a young pitching staff, at best he's a top five catcher (plus defense and .800+ OPS makes you top five). And if in the winter of 2018 you have a 29 year old Rupp entrenched as the starter and Alfaro, and have to trade one, well, that's an awful situation to be in.

[allentown]

Look, thats part of the techniques that make good GM's great ones, knowing when to move a player who is likely to be enjoying his best season. I happen to believe we are witnessing that in Rupp. I mean, come on, he is 27 years old and I doubt we have ever even had a thread on him since he was drafted and while many of us thought he was a decent pick in the 3rd round, the consensus was always that he might become a solid backup catcher.

Now? He is batting cleanup and having a very good year in an industry where catching is at a premium. Hey, if he turns out to make this season his norm, I am all in for the Ruppies Puppies but I have my doubts and I think he was the Phils best trading chip, I simply do. Some of the wisest moves the Phils have made in my lifetime were trades of players who had great years but never repeated them after being dealt...Gene Freese for Johnny Callison, Don Demeter for Jim Bunning, Wally Post for Tony Gonzalez, Juan Samuel for Lenny Dykstra are some that come to mind immediately.

Again, this is an entirely subjective argument...some very solid posters on this site [fish, Squire come to mind] favored keeping Rupp and I understand it. But I can't help feeling that Rupp is going to be one of those one year wonders who settles back into his norm next year and is replaced by Alfaro/Knapp and eventually moved for 50 cents on the dollar.

We will see and until then, I want and am rooting for Ruppies Puppies to have lots to cheer about!

I see your position on wishing that we had rushed to trade Rupp at the deadline as an unusual burst of pessimism from you, with respect to our minors. It smacks of fear that his very good 2016 MLB season is a mirage, which will be exposed tomorrow. I am lot more optimistic on Rupp. He was never the poor minor league hitter that Ruiz was, prior to turning around his career at Reading. He made steady progress, moving up the ladder at a good pace for a catcher. He isn't a lucky bolt from the blue, he was drafted in the third round after a good major college career.

So, the decision whether to trade him this year or next year or the year after, if room must be made for both Knapp and Alfaro, to me boils down to whether you are afraid that Rupp's 2016 is an unrepeatable fluke. I think it's clear that if he replicates his 2016 season next year that he has very high trade value. If he replicates it again in 2017, he would be among the most sought after trade targets in baseball.

Despite Pete's stupid comments about his calling of games and handling of pitchers, Rupp has caught quite a few great performances by our young starting pitchers. He continues to grow defensively.

[VoteForKalas]

"Stand Pat" jokes aside (and hey, it was just a joke), I think the story of Klentak so far has been one of leaving his options open/flexibility.

Optionality, baby!

[California_Dreamin]

allentown...not fear at all, merely an opportunity. An opportunity to deal a guy having a very good year, who plays a position of need for others, for players that might benefit the team more in the future, especially since said player [Rupp] plays a position that the Phils are particularly deep in.

Look, I have been consistent about the "deal Rupp" thought process from the beginning and I think the Phils missed a golden opportunity because they refused to think outside the box. Why do I say this? Because I believe if they had truly let teams know Rupp was available, he would have been moved.

Texas moved heaven and earth to get Lucroy and they didn't get him till an hour before the deadline. We all know they wanted a catcher and given the outstanding relationship between the Phils and Rangers, I believe there was a deal to be made...and it came when they were discussing VV. I think the Phils should have requested that the Rangers think about expanding the deal [with Rupp involved] and see where that went.

This is a pretty unique year...the pendulum has swung in the direction where prospects are not treated like gold, winning is. A perfect chance for the Phils to make hay. That they didn't could be for several reasons. Klentak said its because he didn't like the offers and I believe him.

But one thing I loved about Paul Owens is that we always knew in the 70's that he would find a way to make a deal at the deadline...be it Bake McBride, Dick Ruthven, Jay Johnstone, or Richie Allen. He found ways by looking outside the box...deal Willie Montanez? Absurd. But not for Garry Maddox. Trade ace closer Gene Garber? Not a chance. Except that Ruthven suddenly became available and was moved.

I hope Klentak develops the "outside the box" way of thinking. Sabean has it. Epstein has it. Beane has it. All the great ones do. And it works. Trading Rupp would have been an outside the box move in my opinion.

[VoteForKalas]

Look, thats part of the techniques that make good GM's great ones, knowing when to move a player who is likely to be enjoying his best season. I happen to believe we are witnessing that in Rupp. I mean, come on, he is 27 years old and I doubt we have ever even had a thread on him since he was drafted and while many of us thought he was a decent pick in the 3rd round, the consensus was always that he might become a solid backup catcher.

Now? He is batting cleanup and having a very good year in an industry where catching is at a premium. Hey, if he turns out to make this season his norm, I am all in for the Ruppies Puppies but I have my doubts and I think he was the Phils best trading chip, I simply do. Some of the wisest moves the Phils have made in my lifetime were trades of players who had great years but never repeated them after being dealt...Gene Freese for Johnny Callison, Don Demeter for Jim Bunning, Wally Post for Tony Gonzalez, Juan Samuel for Lenny Dykstra are some that come to mind immediately.

Again, this is an entirely subjective argument...some very solid posters on this site [fish, Squire come to mind] favored keeping Rupp and I understand it. But I can't help feeling that Rupp is going to be one of those one year wonders who settles back into his norm next year and is replaced by Alfaro/Knapp and eventually moved for 50 cents on the dollar.

We will see and until then, I want and am rooting for Ruppies Puppies to have lots to cheer about!

I see your position on wishing that we had rushed to trade Rupp at the deadline as an unusual burst of pessimism from you, with respect to our minors. It smacks of fear that his very good 2016 MLB season is a mirage, which will be exposed tomorrow. I am lot more optimistic on Rupp. He was never the poor minor league hitter that Ruiz was, prior to turning around his career at Reading. He made steady progress, moving up the ladder at a good pace for a catcher. He isn't a lucky bolt from the blue, he was drafted in the third round after a good major college career.

So, the decision whether to trade him this year or next year or the year after, if room must be made for both Knapp and Alfaro, to me boils down to whether you are afraid that Rupp's 2016 is an unrepeatable fluke. I think it's clear that if he replicates his 2016 season next year that he has very high trade value. If he replicates it again in 2017, he would be among the most sought after trade targets in baseball.

Despite Pete's stupid comments about his calling of games and handling of pitchers, Rupp has caught quite a few great performances by our young starting pitchers. He continues to grow defensively.

Agreed, good post

[flyers19rw]

allentown...not fear at all, merely an opportunity. An opportunity to deal a guy having a very good year, who plays a position of need for others, for players that might benefit the team more in the future, especially since said player [Rupp] plays a position that the Phils are particularly deep in.

Look, I have been consistent about the "deal Rupp" thought process from the beginning and I think the Phils missed a golden opportunity because they refused to think outside the box. Why do I say this? Because I believe if they had truly let teams know Rupp was available, he would have been moved.

Texas moved heaven and earth to get Lucroy and they didn't get him till an hour before the deadline. We all know they wanted a catcher and given the outstanding relationship between the Phils and Rangers, I believe there was a deal to be made...and it came when they were discussing VV. I think the Phils should have requested that the Rangers think about expanding the deal [with Rupp involved] and see where that went.

This is a pretty unique year...the pendulum has swung in the direction where prospects are not treated like gold, winning is. A perfect chance for the Phils to make hay. That they didn't could be for several reasons. Klentak said its because he didn't like the offers and I believe him.

But one thing I loved about Paul Owens is that we always knew in the 70's that he would find a way to make a deal at the deadline...be it Bake McBride, Dick Ruthven, Jay Johnstone, or Richie Allen. He found ways by looking outside the box...deal Willie Montanez? Absurd. But not for Garry Maddox. Trade ace closer Gene Garber? Not a chance. Except that Ruthven suddenly became available and was moved.

I hope Klentak develops the "outside the box" way of thinking. Sabean has it. Epstein has it. Beane has it. All the great ones do. And it works. Trading Rupp would have been an outside the box move in my opinion.

Perhaps Texas is a bit gun shy as far as dealing with the Phillies? They ripped Herrera out from under them at the exact time that Texas needed a CF. Although they obtained Hamels from Philly, the price tag looks to have been exorbitant. Eichoff has probably exceeded what the Rangers thought he would be; Ascher will probably end up as a solid RP which Texas could use; Alfaro has shown that he can stay healthy and is one of, if not the top, catching prospects in the game at a position where the Rangers had to spend plenty to fill in the Lucroy trade; and Williams looks to be a solid to above average OF. Texas might just want to avoid MacPhail/Klentak for a while.

[California_Dreamin]

Huh????? Cole Hamels is something like 19-3 since the trade, and Diekman has been great. Believe me, if ever there was a trade that made both teams happy it was that one. Texas looks to be a good bet to get the WS this year and if they do, they should send the Phils a Thank You card.

[LoneStarPhan]

I have heard nothing but positive remarks on the Hamels trade here in North Texas. Few fans miss any of the prospects traded to the Phillies.

[flyers19rw]

Huh????? Cole Hamels is something like 19-3 since the trade, and Diekman has been great. Believe me, if ever there was a trade that made both teams happy it was that one. Texas looks to be a good bet to get the WS this year and if they do, they should send the Phils a Thank You card.

As far as quality starts go, Eichoff has had about as many as Hamels has had since the trade. Their records are not equal but then neither are their respective teams. JE has far outperformed his pre-trade reputation. I'm not downing Cole. He is a great pitcher but the price was steep and how steep will only be known in the future

[Florida_Sunshine]

Huh????? Cole Hamels is something like 19-3 since the trade, and Diekman has been great. Believe me, if ever there was a trade that made both teams happy it was that one. Texas looks to be a good bet to get the WS this year and if they do, they should send the Phils a Thank You card.

But, aren't you the one that argues that a pitcher is just one pitch away from blowing his arm out?

Come on CD, you have a circular argument going here.

The Rangers ended up with one starter, who in your words is not an Ace. You remember that argument you made, right? Although to be honest, I think you would now argue that he is an Ace. Funny how positions change so quickly.

We ended up with multiple position players and pitchers. I am pretty sure that if put to a vote, we won that trade. It just may work out for the Rangers this year if they win the World Series. But, it will not be all because of that trade.

But, because of that trade, we added a lot of cost controllable future and present starters to our team. All for a guy that is not an Ace, and wasn't going to help our future much.

[donaldorc]

Hamels is an ace, always was an ace.

[California_Dreamin]

No one is ever going to convince me that Texas feels that the Phils won the deal and would undoubtedly make that deal again. It was a great trade for both teams. Precisely the kind of deal that increases trust between two teams, not makes them more leery. Both teams got what they wanted...the Rangers got a top of the rotation starter and a young lefty reliever and the Phils got 5 prospects.

It was a trade that benefited both teams and I don't think it was a coincidence that Texas and Philadelphia were deep in talks for VV, they trust each other.

[allentown]

Huh????? Cole Hamels is something like 19-3 since the trade, and Diekman has been great. Believe me, if ever there was a trade that made both teams happy it was that one. Texas looks to be a good bet to get the WS this year and if they do, they should send the Phils a Thank You card.

But, aren't you the one that argues that a pitcher is just one pitch away from blowing his arm out?

Come on CD, you have a circular argument going here.

The Rangers ended up with one starter, who in your words is not an Ace. You remember that argument you made, right? Although to be honest, I think you would now argue that he is an Ace. Funny how positions change so quickly.

We ended up with multiple position players and pitchers. I am pretty sure that if put to a vote, we won that trade. It just may work out for the Rangers this year if they win the World Series. But, it will not be all because of that trade.

But, because of that trade, we added a lot of cost controllable future and present starters to our team. All for a guy that is not an Ace, and wasn't going to help our future much.

I don't think we won the trade. Texas wanted a healthy #1 starter and they got him and he has pitched like it last year and this year for them. It is very possible that the Phillies harvest more WAR from this deal than the Rangers do, but the Rangers wanted their WAR up front and they have gotten it. The WAR the Phillies got last season and this season is almost beside the point, because the teams were so bad. It is looking like the trade will also serve the Phillies needs with multiple players providing a ton of WAR over the next 4-6 seasons, while the Phillies have team control of the prospects acquired. I also don't think we should overlook the value of Dieckman. This was a good deal for the Rangers. Any time you get what you hoped to get out of a deal, you have done well. Even if they surrender more total WAR than they acquire, it is a win for them. Texas made the 2015 playoffs, winning their division, something they likely don't achieve without the trade.

[julio]

I don't think we won the trade.

Trades are not zero-sum propositions. Much of the time, the idea that "one team wins, one team loses" simply doesn't apply.

Did the Phillies' organization benefit from the trade? Is the organization better off with Williams, Alfaro, Thompson, Eickhoff, Harold Arauz (and Harrison), than they would have been had they kept Hamels, Diekman, and Jonathan Arauz? If the answer to that question is "yes," then whether the Rangers also benefitted - and which team benefitted "more," for that matter - is irrelevant. We're either better off or we're not. Period.

And for what it's worth, I think the answer to that question (are the Phillies better off?) is glaringly obvious.

[California_Dreamin]

Who said the Phillies aren't better off? I haven't seen anyone say that. I responded to the post that suggested the Rangers might be reluctant to deal with the Phillies because of the Hamels deal and my comment was that it was precisely the opposite...here are two teams that probably trust each other very much because they made a win-win deal that both were happy wiht.

I think Owens used to say that the best deals were the ones that made both teams happy. This one certainly qualifies and both teams are better off.

[julio]

Who said the Phillies aren't better off? I haven't seen anyone say that. I responded to the post that suggested the Rangers might be reluctant to deal with the Phillies because of the Hamels deal and my comment was that it was precisely the opposite...here are two teams that probably trust each other very much because they made a win-win deal that both were happy wiht.

I think Owens used to say that the best deals were the ones that made both teams happy. This one certainly qualifies and both teams are better off.

I think we're in agreement, CD. I was commenting on the (silly, IMHO) arguments about whether the Phillies or the Rangers "won" the trade, as if there had to be a "winner" and a "loser."

[LoneStarPhan]

The Hamels trade looks like a win-win deal. Both sides got what they needed and so far, things have gone as they would have hoped.

[California_Dreamin]

julio...got it, my apologies.