Writing about the post-July-31 trading system has become an annual rite. Not a lot has changed since I explained the process last year, but, I suppose the faces have changed (as have the readers). Thus, it’s worth doing again.

Invariably, the non-waiver trade deadline passes, a bunch of would-be trades don’t happen, and folks start to wonder something they didn’t really openly wonder on July 30: what’s that “non-waiver” part mean?

The short answer is that, before the July 31 non-waiver trade deadline, anyone can be traded to any team. After that date, trades can still happen, but you’ve got to first deal with the sticky issue of “waivers.”

You’ve actually heard that term before. Waivers are not relevant only in August, you see. They’re used throughout the year, for various purposes, and the types of waivers employed vary based on the time of year and the purpose of the waiver. For the purposes of this post, however, I’m focused only on waivers in August, which is the process by which teams make players eligible to be traded. (Perhaps next March, I’ll write up a more complete explanation of waivers, as that’s the next time you’re likely to hear the term thrown around a lot.)

Ok, but what are “waivers”?

In a super shorthanded description: waivers are the way you say to every other team in baseball, “hey, you want this guy?” And, if you want to trade a guy in August, you’ve got to first give every other team a chance to take him (and his contract) for nothing.

If a player is placed on waivers, any team may “claim” him. If more than one team claims the player from waivers, only one team’s claim actually goes through. Priority is given to teams in the player’s league, with the team with the worst record getting highest priority. If no team in the player’s own league claims him, then priority goes to the other league, again, in reverse order of the standings.

If another team claims the player off waivers (and its claim is either the only claim or is the highest priority claim as described above), the player’s current team has three options:

(1) It can allow the claiming team to assume the player’s entire contract, who then places him on its 25-man roster; or

(2) It can trade the player to the claiming team within two business days of the claim; or

(3) It can cancel the waiver by pulling the player back.

If the player is not claimed by any team within 47 hours (business days only), the player is said to have “cleared waivers.” That player is then free to be traded to any team, released, or assigned to a minor league team (subject to various collectively-bargained-for rights about refusing assignments).

One more important piece of the pie, which I’ll just grab from last year’s edition, since I’d mostly be saying the same thing:

Now, I know what you’re wondering: so who has been placed on waivers? The short answer is: no idea. The slightly longer answer is: probably just about everyone.

The complete answer is: unless the information leaks (or a player is ultimately traded to or assumed by another team), you’re not going to find out who is on waivers. This isn’t your fantasy football league. Who has been placed on waivers is a highly secretive business, for reasons that I’d think would be obvious. Every year, it leaks that some superstar has been placed on waivers, and the media erupts. “OMG! YANKEES PLACE AROD ON WAIVERS!!!!1!!LOL!!!!”

Sorry, folks. It’s not a story. And the reason is tied to that “slightly longer answer” up there. Because of the revocable nature of waivers, teams risk almost nothing by placing virtually every player on waivers in August. If there’s even a tiny chance you might want to move a guy, you might as well throw him up on waivers, and see what happens. If he clears waivers, cool. If he’s claimed, you can work out a trade, or just pull him back. No fuss, no muss.

The only risk that I can see is that, if a guy is placed on waivers in August, is claimed, and then is pulled back by his team, that’s it for him. No more waivers that year. But, for the types of players who would be claimed by a bunch of teams (i.e. stars or cheap players), you’re probably not going to want to place that player on waivers later in the year anyway.

So, against that backdrop, let’s take a quick look at the Cubs’ tradable pieces (because of the revocable nature of these waivers, you can safely assume – whether it’s true or not – that all Cubs will be waived).

Hopefully it’s apparent to you at this point that Alfonso Soriano and Carlos Marmol, thanks to their unhealthy contracts, will easily clear waivers. They can be traded as freely in August as they could have been in July. The Cubs will undoubtedly shop them aggressively, and try to save a little money and pick up a prospect or two in the process.

Jeff Baker is a closer call, but he still makes a hair more than a team would probably care to claim ($1.375 million this year). If he is claimed, you can be sure that it will be by a team that actually wants him this year, and the Cubs will try to work out a trade. He won’t net much, but the Cubs could at least save a few hundred thousand in the process. If he clears waivers, the Cubs will continue to shop him.

The story is largely the same for Shawn Camp (despite his implosion yesterday), though I suspect he would get claimed (he makes the minimum). The Cubs will try to work out that deal, and could get a not-totally-forgettable prospect in the process (but not any kind of impact talent). If he clears waivers, like Baker, he’ll be shopped.

A tricky case is someone like Bryan LaHair. No, he isn’t hitting, but neither is he even remotely expensive. Why wouldn’t a team take a chance on him if they could have him for free? Unless there’s some kind of gentleman’s agreement not to claim guys like LaHair unless you really want to work out a deal, I have a hard time seeing LaHair even making it past the crappy teams (none of whom would probably give up much for him in trade, instead submitting the waiver claim as a way of saying, “well, I mean, sure, we’d take him for free”). I would be very surprised if LaHair is dealt in August.

As for someone like a Matt Garza, let me say it as clearly as possible: there is a 0.00000 (and then an infinite number of 0’s thereafter, without so much as a hint of a “1”) % chance that he could make it through waivers. Again, absent some kind of gentleman’s agreement (which I don’t think exists for August waivers the way it does earlier in the year), he wouldn’t even get past the very first team, the Houston Astros.

The injury won’t scare teams off from a waiver claim, because the upside in claiming is more than worth the risk that he’s broken. Since he is arbitration eligible, he’s not “under contract” for 2013 (he’s simply “under control” for 2013). If a team took him (which, by the way, wouldn’t happen either, because the waivers are revocable, and the Cubs would be plenty happy to keep Garza, so they would revoke the waiver and keep him), and he was all broken, they could just “non-tender” him in December, and he’d become a free agent. All they’ve lost is the couple million bucks they paid him in 2012 by taking his contract for this year. That’s chump change when the reward on the other end is getting Garza in 2013, or getting to trade Garza for a bounty of prospects in December.

I don’t think any other other tradable pieces – Darwin Barney, David DeJesus, Manny Corpas, James Russell – will go anywhere in August, for a variety of reasons. Given the explanations above, I imagine you can figure them out.

A final note on September trades – We call the end of August the “waiver trade deadline,” but, strictly speaking, it isn’t a deadline at all. Trades can still go through in September, but here’s the rub: to be eligible for a playoff roster, a guy has to be on your team before September 1. So, although a team *can* acquire a guy in September, in-season trades overwhelmingly tend to involve sending big league pieces to teams in playoff contention. If you can’t use that piece for the playoffs, themselves, how valuable is that piece? Hence, the last batch of important trades tend to happen in August, before the “waiver trade deadline.”

  • BD

    Awesome picture for this topic! (I might have saved it for arbitration :) )

  • Luke D

    Lolz. Waifers.

  • J R

    Great breakdown Brett. Cliff Lee has already been placed on waivers. Man, does that guy have a bad contract…

    • dob2812

      He gets paid a lot of money but he’s also really really good. The contract isn’t that bad.

      • J R

        He’s good but I wouldn’t want him at that price at his age. Maybe I am just a cheap ass…

    • quintz

      Not as bad as Soriano or Marmol’s. It’s conceivable (not likely) that a team like the Dodgers pick up Lee’s contract. Nobody will touch Soriano or Marmol.

      • J R

        Yeah I guess I could see the Dodgers go after Lee and claim him possible. They seem to value their farm system more than money at this point. I wouldn’t be shocked at all if PHilly gave Lee to them for free after the Hamels extension.

  • K

    It’s also worth noting the strategy of claiming a player to block him from rival teams. For example, if Arizona were to claim Cliff Lee to keep him from being claimed by the Dodgers

    • J R

      Yeah, but then Arizona is stuck with that massive Lee contract, unless they’re good with that. Philly could just say he’s yours, we don’t want anything back. It’s a pretty risky move..

      • BD

        I completely agree, and that is important to consider. I would be shocked if Philly lets Lee go for free.

  • J R

    Maybe I missed this as I am working, but if a player is claimed off waivers, say Garza. The players they Cubs would receive back have to go thru waivers too if they are on the other team’s roster? So basically you only can get minor leaguers back who aren’t on the 40 man correct?

  • Packman711

    Phenomenal write up.

  • Oswego chris

    Ok…self proclaimed baseball expert claims ignorance…

    are guys in minors not affected by this…do they not have to clear?

    • hansman1982

      no, I believe this only applies to guys on the 25 man (40 man at most – I know guys not on the 40-man do NOT have to clear waivers).

      I thought you were going to include my tidbits from yesterday. I now haz a sad.

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

        I included the 47 hours bit, which is an update from before. The rest, while very interesting, doesn’t really fit into this piece as I tried to work it in. It became a bit too specific.

        • hansman1982

          BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO – Unfollow and BLOCK

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Only if on 40-man roster.

  • TWC

    I like your website because the articles are short but informative.

    • hansman1982

      I like your comments because they are short and make me feel better about myself.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett


  • thefranchise

    how do no trade guys Soriano work during this waiver period. Can Soriano block trades during this period or does he have to go to a team that claims him?

    • J R

      Yes, thats why trading Sori is so difficult. He makes an assload and has a NTC. Genius Hendry..

      • Drew7

        He’d be 10-5 without it anyway, but I get what you’re saying.

        • J R

          True dat Drew7.. @TheFranchise, like Brett says above no way in hell anyone claims Sori. So the Cubs can negotiate with anyone after he clears. But he is still going to be difficult to move because of the other mentioned aspects.

        • calicubsfan007

          @Drew7: I think that MLB will try to fix the problem in the offseason that is the 10-5, because this is ridiculous!

          • Scotti

            0 in 1,000,000,000,000 odds of happening.

            • Scotti

              Or less.

  • hansman1982

    FYI – the first waiver period ends at 1 P.M. EDT on Friday and another one begins.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett


  • Chris S

    How do players’ 10-5 rights or NTC work in this situation?

  • Eric

    If a team claims a player on waivers, are they locked in at that point? For example, if we put Alfonso on waivers and he is claimed (which we know he won’t be) can we just say “here ya go, bad contract and all” and that team has to take him?

    • J R

      Yes. That’s why no team would risk it. They say they are willing to obtain that contract when they claim the player. So there is risk for the claiming team if they dont like the contract the claiming.

  • J R

    *they’re claiming. Damn edit button.

  • Leroy K.

    Hendry handed out no trade clauses like candy on halloween.

  • Spriggs

    I think I know the answers, but let me ask two dumb quesitons anyway…

    The Cubs put Marmol through waivers. I know they can pull him back if someone claims him. But let’s pretend the Red Sox want to block the Yankees from getting Marmol, so the Red Sox claim him. When the waiver period ends, no one else has claimed him. The Red Sox don’t really want him and cannot work out a deal with the Cubs. The Red Sox have to take Marmol, right?

    • hansman1982

      yup, if a team claims the player they run the risk of taking that player AND all of his salary. In that case Theo would jump for joy, hundreds of times.

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

        Yeah – if Soriano or Marmol were claimed, the Cubs would breakdance and say, “you want him? He’s yours. Enjoy.”

        • hansman1982

          I think Theo would have Randy Bush personally drive each of them to their new teams.

          • Spriggs

            I see you have quite a low opinion of Randy Bush (haha). That made me laugh.

  • Spriggs

    Actually I decided not to ask my second dumb question…

    • Ogyu

      Hey, the first question wasn’t actually dumb, so you might as well take a shot… :)

      • Spriggs

        OK. I’ll give it a shot then. Here’s my 2nd dumb question. Hope I can make it clear…

        Let’s say the Cubs put Garza through waivers and the Astros immediately jump on him. The Cubs say you can have him for the right deal, but the Strohs say, nah, we just wanted him and his contract. So the Cubs would then pull him back and the process ends there, right… or does the waiver process continue and the Cubs deal with the next qualified claimant?

        • Edwin

          I think the process ends right there.

          • Spriggs

            The few new things I learn each year just seem to bump this waiver information from my brain. Every year, while I’m trying to stuff new All-Star game starting lineup trivia into my head, that’s when this waiver stuff must fall out – cause I just forgot who was on this year’s team besides LaHair and Castro.

        • Chris

          If they pull him back, that’s the end of the process. There is always the option to put him on unrevocable waivers, but that essentially means that the Astros could claim him and take him. That won’t happen with a guy like Garza, obviously.

          • Chris

            Irrevocable waivers, not unrevocable.

  • Ben

    I wonder if a guy like Lee will get claimed. That’s a ton of money to take on, but he’s been a really good pitcher. 6 or 7 WAR the past few years, and even this year, he’s at 2.7, and could easily finish at 4.

    Let’s hope some GM is drunk, and accidentally claims Soriano or Marmol. You can have them both for free.

    • Ben

      BTW…I almost hope the Cubs claim Cliff Lee. I know he’s old and expensive, but to add that talent for nothing but money seems like a win. If he finishes the season strong, we could offer him to another contender (aka the Dodgers), who may give us a decent prospect in the process. A risk, for sure, but the Cubs have tons of money coming off the books, and should use every advantage possible.

      • BD

        Interesting thought… but that got me thinking. Is Lee/Garza/Samardzija/Wood/et al a good enough rotation to contend? Granted, we would need at least 1 more bat. But what do you think of that rotation?

        • Mick

          We’d be able to see until next trade deadline at which point we’d eat a chunk of Lee’s salary and ship him off for a boatload of prospects. Our payroll is ridiculously low next season so, that shouldn’t be an issue. It would also show an effort to beef up the talent on our roster to keep the people happy. Also, our record is pretty bad and we’re in the same league as the Phillies so, we’d have almost the best waiver priority.

        • Spriggs

          I see what you’re saying…. Lee is a lot sexier for sure, but he isn’t going to outperform Dempster’s 2012 first half. Plus Maholm is way better than the “et al”, part of your rotation. My point really is that the first half rotation of Dempster, Shark, Garza, Maholm and Wood is probably as good or better than your Lee, Garza, etc…. and they are what 19 games out or so? so they would need more than that and another bat.

        • Frank

          Your point about the bat is well taken–we’d probably need a couple. But–if Lee remains good, and Garza remains good, and Samardzija continues to improve, and Wood doesn’t implode . . . I think with an average #5 that rotation would probably be good enough to contend.

      • sdcoddi

        that’s what i’d do. the new FO isn’t afraid to spend money to get prospects. seems like taking on all of lee’s contract for the rest of this year and taking on some of it in the years to come would be worth a pretty good prospect from someone.

        and if you can’t/don’t trade him, you’ve got an upgrade over dempster, plus the prospects you got from texas.

        not that philly would let him go for nothing, but it’s worth a shot, right?

        • Ben

          Exactly. Worth a shot. And, if you do claim him, but the Phils won’t him go for free, then you force them to keep him and keep someone like the Dodgers from getting him. Then, you can leave the door open for a Garza deal this winter.

          • J R

            Lee still has 25 million the next 3 years and a 4th year at 27.5 that he could easily obtain while pitching 200 innings. And he is 34. I don’t think there is anyway in hell the Cubs take that contract on at this point.

            • Ben

              I’m not saying it’s without risk. I’m just saying the reward is potentially outstanding, and it’s the kind of move that could really jump-start our rebuilding. We are down to one tradeable asset (Garza), and need to gain as many assets as we can. This is just one example of a bold move they could make. The rest of the FA list this winter doesn’t excite me at all.

              • J R

                Yeah I like the idea of signing a pitcher and flip him for prospects, like they did with Maholm. And I am sure they will do it again. But Lee is making sooo much more than a guy you would normally do something like that with. I just think it’s way to risky.

                • Ben

                  Ya, it’s not likely to happen. Just makes for fun talk. I just know the list of FA pitchers this offseason (if Greinke and Sanchez re-sign after their trades) is awful. If we had Lee, that would be one more team looking for a pitcher to trade for. Even if we couldn’t move Lee, it may make the interest (and return) on Garza higher.

                  • J R

                    Yeah, pitching is absolutely the problem with the Cub rebuild. Free agency looks bleak, and our pitching prospects still have a way to go. Thed has their hands full with getting our pitching to where it needs to be.

                • scorecardpaul

                  we wouldn’t get him for free. any team that claims him will have to work out a deal for him. If there is a chance to get him for just his contract I feel quite confident in our front office to do that. (not going to happen)

                  • Ben

                    Most likely true. Even if they wouldn’t, you block other teams from getting him. And, maybe Philly would take a LaHair/Marmol deal or something, if we took the money. If they think a team would take all that money, and give up A/B talent, they are completely insane. The Cubs were offering to eat all of Soriano’s deal (basically) and still couldn’t move him, and he’s having a productive year as well.

          • Mick

            Take a look at the details of Cliff Lee’s salary though and he’s still owed over $95 over the next 3 seasons (includes the remaining salary for this season and the $12.5 million buyout for his 2016 season). That’d be a massive contract to eat just for a few prospects. I’m not so sure Ricketts would be okay with that.

            • Ben

              Ya, it’s a huge contract. However, I think we are sitting around 65 million next year, and so adding Lee’s money to our team wouldn’t break the bank.

            • Ted

              But if Soler is worth $30 million (and completely unproven outside of some scouting reports), flipping Lee for 4/5 prospects essentially allows us to buy 4/5 prospects for $95 million. Not, obviously, the best plan — but when our salary is somewhere around $0 (jk jk, but really it’s stupidly low for a team of our market share) and we’re looking to get hard-to-find prospects, it may not be as crazy as it sounds.

              • J R

                Ha.. I like the way you’re thinking Ted. But Lee is a pitcher with a lot of innings entering his mid 30’s. His arm could fall off too and we would be stuck with that 95 mill. That would make Soriano’s contract look like a cake walk..

              • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                I think this is a fascinating way of thinking about it.

  • BD

    Can Soriano block a waiver claim? Like if somebody dumb (*cough* Kenny Williams *cough*Alex Rios*cough!*) claims Sori, and the Cubs (without a doubt) say “See ya,” can he block that move?

    • Edward

      I’m curious about this too. It won’t happen with Soriano though…

    • http://www.viewfromthebleachers.com Norm

      Rios is hitting 315/348/529 this year with over 3 fWAR and had 3.7 fWAR his first full season with the Sox.

      • BD

        Hindsight is 20/20. At the time a lot of people wondered what he was doing…

  • G_Racin

    With us currently the 4th worst team in the NL, any players that make sense for us to put a claim in on?

  • Daniel

    So how do ntc’s and 10/5 rights guys work in this?

    • Chris

      Anybody know the answer to the 10/5 rights question? How about guys with actual no-trade clauses? I vaguely remember hearing something that players with a no-trade aren’t eligible for August waivers, but I’m not confident that I’m correct.

      • J R

        As far as I know guys with NTC’s and 10/5 rights they can still excercise those rights and block the claim. But we don’t need to worry about that with Sori since he won’t get claimed anyways.

      • MaxM1908

        My understanding is that it functions just the same as during the regular trade period, just you have to clear the other hurdles first. So, let’s say the Orioles claim Soriano off of waivers. He can block them taking on his entire contract if he feels that strongly about NOT playing in Baltimore. So, the waiver process is just a prelim to other trade considerations like No trade clauses.

        Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

        • scorecardpaul

          yes, players still have all of their earned rights

        • Crockett

          Waiver claims cannot be blocked by NTC or 10-5 rights. Only trades. If a team claims a player on waivers and the other team just says “you can have him”, the player has zero ability to block that. He only has the ability to block a TRADE.

          • Pat

            Correct. However if the Cubs were to pull him back to try to negotiate a trade, the rights go back in place.

            • Crockett

              Yep. Or if he cleared waivers, his NTC rights would be in effect again.

              A waiver claim would be a miracle from god.

  • J R

    cool piece on the dodger maybe claiming Lee. I think it’s crazy. But the Dodgers seem a bit crazy at this point. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-dodgers-should-claim-cliff-lee/

    • stillmisskennyhubbs

      Knowing Colletti, it’s probably CARLOS lee.

  • Mick

    Probably Camp, maybe Soriano, and but probably not Baker will be moved.

    I’m more interested in who other teams might place on waivers. It’ll be interesting if a player like Cliff Lee gets placed on waivers and if the Cubs are willing to claim him and his contract to later eat a portion of in a trade that nets really good prospects. This would be an expensive way to buy prospects but could prove to be very effective. Think what a team would pay next off-season or trade deadline to add Lee for 2 playoff runs if they didn’t have to take on much payroll. Probably the same type of yield we expected from Garza this trade deadline, a few top-10 prospects.

  • Mick

    Brett, is there any precedence to a team claiming a player for the intention of trading him later on. Are there any rules about how much a team can actually eat on an acquired contract to net prospects? Is this an outrageous idea that the Cubs claim Cliff Lee, eat a chunk of his salary, and trade him next seaons trade deadline?

    • Mr. Gonzo

      This idea is very intriguing. I’m curious to hear the pros/cons as well.

    • Mick

      Okay, I’m coming back to earth on this issue. Just because the Cubs would possibly win the waiver priority on Lee doesn’t mean the Phillies would have to trade him to the Cubs. The Cubs would have to give up whatever the Phillies wanted otherwise they could just revoke his waiver and keep him. In the end, the net gain probably wouldn’t outweigh the net loss. I guess it will just all depend on how desperate the Phillies are in clearing payroll.

    • Edwin

      They could, but I just think it’d be too much salary to eat. They could probably spend that money better elsewhere.

      • Ben

        Where, exactly? The draft and international signees now have caps on what we can spend. Adding a top 10 MLB pitcher isn’t something that can just be done, let alone for free (no prospects). I think the reward clearly outweighs the risk here, and would be an interesting move. The FA list this winter isn’t all that good (especially if Greinke re-signs with LA). The best FA pitcher would be Anibal Sanchez. If that happens, you could have a decent list of teams interested in both Garza and Lee.

        • Edwin

          I just think they could do a better job spending the money on other Free Agents, similar to the Paul Maholm deal they signed last offseason. Eating a large portion of Lee’s salary would help get prospects, but I think it would hurt their finacial flexability.

        • AB

          how would the Cubs give up no prospects if they claimed Lee??

          The Phillies would want obviously to work out a deal.

          • J R

            Because he makes an assload of money and is getting old. They could spend that 95 mill. on other areas if they got free from that contract.

        • scorecardpaul

          not gonna happen. We don’t get him for nothing.
          If the Cubs could get Lee for just his salary, the front office would send Hansman1982 to pick him up

          • J R

            Scorecard, we obviously disagree but that’s ok. It is fun to talk about!

            • scorecardpaul

              Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see the Cubs put in a claim for Lee

          • Ben

            Nope, most likely not. Still hope we put in a claim, and find out. Worst case, no deal is made. Best case, we get Lee for nothing, then flip him for a Grade A pitching prospect this winter or next season.

    • AB

      I remember hearing one of the reason Steve Phillips was ‘black-balled’, so to speak, from the league is he was constantly claiming high-caliber players on waivers. I think it would be considered bad form.

    • Scotti

      Bud Selig has to sign off on any transactions involving cash over a certain amount ($1 million, IIRC). While his approval in certain situations are, basically, a given, he generally frowns on teams trying to game the system. I think that picking up a toxic contract, eating half then moving the player for prospects falls under “gaming.

      The unintended consequences of him allowing such a move would be for even more teams to make a habit of giving out goofy contracts because there is a decent chance that a NY or LAD or CHIC would eat the contract.

  • Edwin

    Is it true that there is such a thing as Double Secret Waivers that teams will put players on?

  • Tommy

    Another great article – waivers explained so simple even I can understand it! Thanks Brett!

  • stillmisskennyhubbs

    Please clarify for this slow mind: Does the first crack at a waived player go to the team with the worst record in the same league, or the other league?

  • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

    Thanks for the kind words on this one, folks. Glad you enjoyed/found it informative.

  • ChiTown

    Christian Villanueva is off to a good start! Homerun in the first inning

    • anotherjp

      Make that TWO homers in two ABs, Ryan who??

      • OCCubFan

        Dempster gave up 2 runs in the first inning, but Texas scored 5 in the 2nd and he now leads 6 to 2. with 6 runs of support, Dempster must think he died and went to heaven.

        • Flashfire

          6-4 as Dempster celebrates Villaneuva’s home runs by giving up his second home run of the night. (Trumbo and Morales)

          • djriz

            This made me smile. Does that make me bad?

            • Jonski

              Well then him giving up 7 runs in 4 innings should really make you chuckle …guess maybe the prick should have went to Atlanta lol

              • Flashfire

                I’m having a very hard time rooting for him after the last week. I know it’s not the most mature solution, but, yeah, it’s how I feel.

            • fortyonenorth

              Must have gotten some tips from Wood on the way out the door.

  • Mysterious4th


    You do an AWESOME job of explaining the technical, big worded, complicated stuff! I am already very familiar with the waivers and process. But you make it easy for casual baseball fans to understand it all. Always informative as usual!

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Thank you very much.

      • Flashfire

        Second this, Brett. Don’t always agree with you, but when it comes to writing and understanding of all aspects of the game, you’re the best in the biz.

  • Mike S

    Not sure if someone said this but Christian Villanueva’s first 2 at-bats were homeruns

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Need more baseball goodness? Check out BN Baseball - Videos, Plays, and Other Baseball Fun.