Every player might be put on waivers, but not every player gets through waivers. Nope. And some players aren't even put on waivers, because why try? Worthless exercise in some cases. But, your overall point is well-taken. Yes, with the second wild-card it seems to make more sense to move the trade deadline back and then then hold in place rosters. The union doesn't want to limit movement in that way, because movement feeds the market and opens up jobs, but there's a case to be made that waivers at this time are a vestigial tail of transactions times gone by and a mid-August trade deadline, no waivers, would create just as much movement and more clarification in the race.
There is. As mentioned earlier, it could depend on if the Cardinals top choices turn them down or see the market soar behind the Cardinals' interest.
Have not heard the same guarantee on him as I have Diaz, but the Cardinals did see adding Sierra as a boost for pinch-running. Won't have to use Weaver, for example.
We can not agree on that not when they're being lesser teams (as they should) and not when they have the pitching to pull off the division title because it is, today, deeper than the other contenders. Simple as that. Follow the pitching. Always follow the pitching.
I don't think it works that way, no. Teams want players who will help them win, players who will produce at a good value, and anything beyond that is just how they dress up the move in a press release. Now, Piscotty to San Francisco might be a nice fit for them on the field, on the payroll, and then yes geographically, but all three of those reasons are not equal. Two are drivers for a decision, the other is just pleasant benefit.
People have asked for those stats, and I appreciate you including them in your statement.
Of course. No trade clauses aren't some firewall. They are often just as strategic as opt-out clauses and the like. This is why conversations happen. But know this: If Fowler doesn't want to go to the Mets or the Brewers or to the Rays or Miami ... he won't. That's the power he has. The Cardinals had to work the Leake trade backward. They couldn't just find a team that wanted him and then take that team to Leake. No, they had to know what team Leake would accept and then seek that deal out. That's how that worked. And they know what he wanted and tried to find a mutually beneficial deal. The same would be true with any NTC option. Know the player. Know his wishes. Know what he would accept. Find that deal.
The echoes of 2007 should never be forgotten. And those will inform all the questions that come after the season if they should repeat 2006. Two months of hot, streaky baseball does not erase five months of reality.
Not clear. Both have a skill that never sleeps: speed.
Sierra is the better glove. Bader has more power.
Power could be the tiebreaker, today.
Cubs have the lead, so always go with that team.
They also played the other team that was trying to block the Pirates from trading Nicasio. That team got circumvented by the Phillies and a rival ended up with Nicasio -- which that team was trying to stop from happening. So, that's at least two.
It wasn't too long ago that people complained that he did this too much. Sheesh.
Yes. It would simplify things. It makes sense. It's not likely because the union will want to spur movement of players, and waivers does that.
Whatever the answer it will be one too many. That's team policy.
The 60-day DL does not exist in the offseason. Once the season ends, it vanishes and players are on the 40-man roster. The 60-day comes into play in spring training, if needed.
Union would frown on this. If Stanton wants out he can opt-out.
Both. Can I say both? Why can't it be both?
Considering the meandering, difficult-to-love Bears lost their WR for the third time in three seasons, I would suggest that the panic level in Chicago on the north side is still greater then lakefront, and that's saying something considering how panicky things are around the Bears.
Yes. That's the preferred idea.