Angels select Ryan Aguilar and Zack Weiss, DFA Jose Rojas and Steven Duggar

[Slegnaac]

1 hour ago, jsnpritchett said:

No, he's correct. Anyone on outright waivers costs $50K to claim (it was $20K until a few years ago). Anyone on unconditional release waivers costs $1, I think. 

GM: I would really like to claim that Rojas guy the Angels just Designated For Assignment.  They say he is a real Professional Hitter.  If only we didn't have to pay $50K.  Oh well.

[jsnpritchett]

Just now, Slegnaac said:

GM: I would really like to claim that Rojas guy the Angels just Designated For Assignment.  They say he is a real Professional Hitter.  If only we didn't have to pay $50K.  Oh well.

I'm not arguing that $50K is actually a deterrent to claiming a player.  I'm simply saying that it does, in fact, cost $50K for a team to claim someone who's on outright waivers. 

[BTH]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I think you’re thinking of the Rule 5 draft. I don’t think it costs anything to claim a guy on waivers. 

From the MLB Rulebook:

“The consideration for the assignment as a result of an Outright waiver claim of any player contract other than ones described in Rules 8(c)(4)(A) (When Unconditional Release Waivers Are Requested) and 8(c)(4)(B) (Selected or Draft-Excluded Player) shall be $50,000.”

[Jeff Fletcher]

8 hours ago, Trendon said:

From the MLB Rulebook:

“The consideration for the assignment as a result of an Outright waiver claim of any player contract other than ones described in Rules 8(c)(4)(A) (When Unconditional Release Waivers Are Requested) and 8(c)(4)(B) (Selected or Draft-Excluded Player) shall be $50,000.”

I stand corrected. 
 

It’s still an insignificant amount of money with a $180M payroll. 
 

They probably spend that much on baseballs in a month. 

[Angels 1961]

18 hours ago, Trendon said:

From the MLB Rulebook:

“The consideration for the assignment as a result of an Outright waiver claim of any player contract other than ones described in Rules 8(c)(4)(A) (When Unconditional Release Waivers Are Requested) and 8(c)(4)(B) (Selected or Draft-Excluded Player) shall be $50,000.”

50,000 can buy lot of dodger dogs

[BTH]

10 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I stand corrected. 
 

It’s still an insignificant amount of money with a $180M payroll. 
 

They probably spend that much on baseballs in a month. 

I agree with you that it is an insignificant amount of money with a $180M payroll, but Arte hasn’t invested a lot in infastructure, which also is an insignificant amount of money with a $180M payroll.

So if he’s not gonna put the proper funds towards infastructure, which is more important than money for waiver claims, why should we believe he’s gonna put the proper funds towards waiver claims?

[Angel Oracle]

45 minutes ago, Angels 1961 said:

50,000 can buy lot of dodger dogs

[Lou]

22 minutes ago, Trendon said:

I agree with you that it is an insignificant amount of money with a $180M payroll, but Arte hasn’t invested a lot in infastructure, which also is an insignificant amount of money with a $180M payroll.

So if he’s not gonna put the proper funds towards infastructure, which is more important than money for waiver claims, why should we believe he’s gonna put the proper funds towards waiver claims?

How much has Arte put towards infrastructure?

[BTH]

34 minutes ago, Lou said:

How much has Arte put towards infrastructure?

An amount that’s minimal enough that led to issues that sparked Joe Maddon to comment publicly about it.

[Stradling]

14 minutes ago, Trendon said:

An amount that’s minimal enough that led to issues that sparked Joe Maddon to comment publicly about it.

And is Maddon a reliable source since he commented on it after being fired?

[BTH]

38 minutes ago, Stradling said:

And is Maddon a reliable source since he commented on it after being fired?

Considering he worked for the organization, he’s as reliable of a source as we have.

None of us know how much any team spends on infrastructure. But what we do know is that people that were inside or are outside of the organization in MLB believe the Angels infrastructure (or lack thereof) is an issue.

[Stradling]

34 minutes ago, Trendon said:

Considering he worked for the organization, he’s as reliable of a source as we have.

None of us know how much any team spends on infrastructure. But what we do know is that people that were inside or are outside of the organization in MLB believe the Angels infrastructure (or lack thereof) is an issue.

And is that caused by a lack of funding?

[BTH]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

And is that caused by a lack of funding?

What else would it be caused by?

It’s been an issue for nearly a decade across multiple GM regimes, so it can’t be due to a personnel issue.

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, Trendon said:

What else would it be caused by?

It’s been an issue for nearly a decade across multiple GM regimes, so it can’t be due to a personnel issue.

Of course it can be a personnel issue. Oh and it could be solved now.  

[BTH]

14 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Of course it can be a personnel issue. Oh and it could be solved now.  

can you elaborate?

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, Trendon said:

can you elaborate?

Maddon could have been a problem and Minasian could have figured it out and we know that implementation doesn’t equal instant results when it comes to player development. 

[BTH]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Maddon could have been a problem and Minasian could have figured it out and we know that implementation doesn’t equal instant results when it comes to player development. 

But the infrastructure hasn’t just been an issue at the major league level, it’s been from the major leagues on down.

[Stradling]

22 minutes ago, Trendon said:

But the infrastructure hasn’t just been an issue at the major league level, it’s been from the major leagues on down.

And?  

[tdawg87]

Maddon was definitely a problem, but him getting fired didn't serve any point. At least it guarantees he's not managing the team going forward, which is for the best.

[Stradling]

6 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Maddon was definitely a problem, but him getting fired didn't serve any point. At least it guarantees he's not managing the team going forward, which is for the best.

Of course it served a point. He stepped on his own dick a few times the last couple of years. The team was playing like shit. They have to make decisions in real time. They don’t have the benefit of hindsight to see that the team wasn’t as talented as their early record. 

[tdawg87]

17 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Of course it served a point. He stepped on his own dick a few times the last couple of years. The team was playing like shit. They have to make decisions in real time. They don’t have the benefit of hindsight to see that the team wasn’t as talented as their early record. 

I guess what I was trying to say was that it wasn't meant to immediately turn things around. The team wasn't going to win with or without Maddon. But now we can move on and hopefully get a better leader in the clubhouse.

[Inside Pitch]

5 hours ago, Lou said:

How much has Arte put towards infrastructure?