PDA

View Full Version : Paul Janish and Edinson Volquez



reds44
07-05-2011, 08:46 PM
Paul Janish:
9 errors
.520 OPS

Edinson Volquez:
5.74 ERA

Meanwhile, in AAA:

Zack Cozart:
.316/.363/.478/.840

Dontrelle Willis:
75 IP
2.63 ERA
67 K/20 BB

Any questions?

kaldaniels
07-05-2011, 08:49 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen...your nightly whipping boy thread!

reds44
07-05-2011, 08:50 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen...your nightly whipping boy thread!
No, no, no. Unlike Drew Stubbs or Jay Bruce, these guys are actually really bad at baseball and there are blatantly obvious replacements for them in AAA.

Superdude
07-05-2011, 08:53 PM
We're happy with what we have. :thumbup:

Plus Plus
07-05-2011, 08:54 PM
Dontrelle Willis has also been "actually really bad at baseball" for the last four years, so he isn't quite the poster child for a frustrated fan looking for an answer. In fact, his recent MLB stats make Volquez a clearly better pitcher between the two (and Volquez hasn't exactly been stellar this year).

reds44
07-05-2011, 08:56 PM
Dontrelle Willis has also been "actually really bad at baseball" for the last four years, so he isn't quite the poster child for a frustrated fan looking for an answer. In fact, his recent MLB stats make Volquez a clearly better pitcher between the two (and Volquez hasn't exactly been stellar this year).
Sure he is. If he comes up and is bad too, then you move on to the next candidate.

He was good at one point and time, and nobody can take that away from him lol

mth123
07-05-2011, 09:04 PM
At the 87 game mark, this team is going to be below .500. Not sure I get the resistance to making changes. Even as one of the doubters of this team's ability to win the division as is, I never imagined they'd be below .500 this late in the season.

edabbs44
07-05-2011, 09:09 PM
No, no, no. Unlike Drew Stubbs or Jay Bruce, these guys are actually really bad at baseball and there are blatantly obvious replacements for them in AAA.

2010 Orlando Cabrera = 2011 Paul Janish.
2010 Paul Janish = 2011 Zack Cozart.

mbgrayson
07-05-2011, 09:10 PM
Sure he is. If he comes up and is bad too, then you move on to the next candidate.

He was good at one point and time, and nobody can take that away from him lol


I have to agree with this.

There needs to be a message sent out: The Reds expect to win this year. If you don't perform, you will be replaced, and we will find someone who will do it.

I am fed up with Dusty's legendary loyalty to whoever holds the position. It is time to shake this team up, and make some serious perfromance based decisions. Otherwise, we are tolerating Mendoza line performances and losing.

Brutus
07-05-2011, 09:11 PM
Janish is fifth among all MLB shortstops in UZR/150 right now. I thought we were beyond using "errors" as the judge of defensive performance, but apparently not.

That said... his offense is woeful and it's giving back any strides he makes as a defensive player. So not suggesting he remain the starter. But if we're going to criticize, I think we should stick to the part of his game meriting the critique.

reds44
07-05-2011, 09:11 PM
2010 Orlando Cabrera = 2011 Paul Janish.
2010 Paul Janish = 2011 Zack Cozart.
That's not true. Paul Janish can't hit, won't hit, has never been able to hit, and is never going to be able to hit. Just because some people here were wrong thinking Janish to hit means nothing when it comes to Zack Cozart.

REDblooded
07-05-2011, 09:14 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen...your nightly whipping boy thread!

You're usually the first to post this type of response in this type of thread.

Out of genuine curiosity: What exactly is it about the current makeup of this team that causes you to feel that criticism and frustration is unwarranted?

I too wish to watch the Reds with some sense of optimism in regards to the 2011 season.

edabbs44
07-05-2011, 09:21 PM
That's not true. Paul Janish can't hit, won't hit, has never been able to hit, and is never going to be able to hit. Just because some people here were wrong thinking Janish to hit means nothing when it comes to Zack Cozart.

It means maybe that, even when the "RZ smart money" is on a certain player, it might not mean squat in the end. If some were so wrong on janish, then why are they so right on Cozart?

reds44
07-05-2011, 09:22 PM
It means maybe that, even when the "RZ smart money" is on a certain player, it might not mean squat in the end. If some were so wrong on janish, then why are they so right on Cozart?
It has nothing to do with that. There was no reason to ever believe Janish was going to hit in the majors. Cozart, different story.

I don't care what redszone says.

reds44
07-05-2011, 09:23 PM
Honestly edabbs, do you not think it's time for Cozart?

If you don't, fine. If not, then you are arguing just to argue.

kaldaniels
07-05-2011, 09:27 PM
You're usually the first to post this type of response in this type of thread.

Out of genuine curiosity: What exactly is it about the current makeup of this team that causes you to feel that criticism and frustration is unwarranted?

I too wish to watch the Reds with some sense of optimism in regards to the 2011 season.

This thread was started due to the performance in this game by these 2 guys. If Janish hit a home run and was errorless tonight I'd bet anything he wouldn't be included in this thread.

Criticism and concern is definetely warranted...but a new thread like this pops up with every loss. And I can't help but comment on it.

reds44
07-05-2011, 09:28 PM
This thread was started due to the performance in this game by these 2 guys. If Janish hit a home run and was errorless tonight I'd bet anything he wouldn't be included in this thread.

Criticism and concern is definetely warranted...but a new thread like this pops up with every loss. And I can't help but comment on it.
Janish has a walk and a double tonight.

Still bad.

edabbs44
07-05-2011, 09:28 PM
Honestly edabbs, do you not think it's time for Cozart?

If you don't, fine. If not, then you are arguing just to argue.

Personally, I think that Janish should be sent down for the next 3 weeks and go with Cozart/Renteria. Then, barring a trade, assess where we stand with those 3 guys.

But I think the issues run a little deeper than SS right now. I wouldn't expect a material bump from the position if they gave Cozart the call. Usually when something this obvious isn't happening, there is a reason.

NJReds
07-05-2011, 09:28 PM
It's time to shake things up a bit, and I agree on both of the moves suggested by reds44. I wouldn't be against giving Alonso a shot in LF. I'd rather see him out there than Gomes.

Honestly, it may be time to find takers for Arroyo (if possible ... a return to Boston?) and Hernandez. If the Reds were in the Phillies division we'd be talking firesale.

kaldaniels
07-05-2011, 09:29 PM
Janish has a walk and a double tonight.

Still bad.

I qualified with the "and errorless".

Blitz Dorsey
07-05-2011, 09:32 PM
IMO, the Reds basically waived the white flag by refusing to do anything to address the problems at SS and LF by the midpoint of the season. An organization that was serious about winning this year would have tried to do something about those obvious holes long ago.

kaldaniels
07-05-2011, 09:32 PM
I agree with you 44....dont get me wrong. But the devil in me finds it funny everytime one of these threads pop up.

reds44
07-05-2011, 09:33 PM
I agree with you 44....dont get me wrong. But the devil in me finds it funny everytime one of these threads pop up.
I find the Stubbs and Bruce ones as bad as you do, but these are just two that can't be ignored.

kaldaniels
07-05-2011, 09:36 PM
I find the Stubbs and Bruce ones as bad as you do, but these are just two that can't be ignored.

But aren't there already PJ and EV threads? And Walt threads?

Boss-Hog
07-05-2011, 09:38 PM
But aren't there already PJ and EV threads? And Walt threads?
Yes

Captain Hook
07-05-2011, 09:39 PM
I have to agree with this.

There needs to be a message sent out: The Reds expect to win this year. If you don't perform, you will be replaced, and we will find someone who will do it.

I am fed up with Dusty's legendary loyalty to whoever holds the position. It is time to shake this team up, and make some serious perfromance based decisions. Otherwise, we are tolerating Mendoza line performances and losing.

Every time I see Dusty's loyalty to his players mentioned it reminds me of this.

http://www.thecubsbrickyard.com/2008/04/25/jacque-jones-lou-piniella-worse-than-dusty-baker-better-than-hitler/

LvJ
07-05-2011, 09:48 PM
For all of those who argue against bringing them up.. I ask this...

WHY NOT? What does it hurt? Nothing. If they are going to suck. Then they are going to suck. It won't be any worse than what we have on the ML roster. Give em' a shot, if they don't succeed then send them packing. Who cares?

kaldaniels
07-05-2011, 09:51 PM
For all of those who argue against bringing them up.. I ask this...

WHY NOT? What does it hurt? Nothing. If they are going to suck. Then they are going to suck. It won't be any worse than what we have on the ML roster. Give em' a shot, if they don't succeed then send them packing. Who cares?

I don't know who is against it.

REDblooded
07-05-2011, 09:57 PM
This thread was started due to the performance in this game by these 2 guys. If Janish hit a home run and was errorless tonight I'd bet anything he wouldn't be included in this thread.

Criticism and concern is definetely warranted...but a new thread like this pops up with every loss. And I can't help but comment on it.


Gotcha... I was hoping you saw something I was missing...

So when things are going well do you respond in the same towards positive threads?

kaldaniels
07-05-2011, 10:02 PM
Gotcha... I was hoping you saw something I was missing...

So when things are going well do you respond in the same towards positive threads?

Ouch man. I have no doubt this thread is being watched carefully so anything further about me personally, send a PM. However I will add, the phenomenom that you mention in your last sentence does not exist nearly to the extent of negative ones.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-05-2011, 10:55 PM
It means maybe that, even when the "RZ smart money" is on a certain player, it might not mean squat in the end. If some were so wrong on janish, then why are they so right on Cozart?

So instead of finding out if Cozart can actually play at this level - which we have no way of knowing for sure but we have a fairly good indicator - we should just continue to let Paul Janish skate by on a free pass?

fearofpopvol1
07-05-2011, 10:58 PM
Can we at least send Volquez down and bring Wood back up?

Ghosts of 1990
07-05-2011, 11:00 PM
I would love to debate the Hamilton for Volquez trade, but I really don't want to get in any trouble.

Superdude
07-05-2011, 11:00 PM
But I think the issues run a little deeper than SS right now. I wouldn't expect a material bump from the position if they gave Cozart the call. Usually when something this obvious isn't happening, there is a reason.

Was there a reason Wily Taveras and Corey Patterson went to the plate almost 800 times in a Reds uniform? This organization is petrified of the unknown. Until a credible person outside the organization says Cozart is a complete fluke, I have every reason to believe this is just another case of the Reds not having the guts to make a bold, necessary move.

Ghosts of 1990
07-05-2011, 11:01 PM
Can we at least send Volquez down and bring Wood back up?

Wouldn't that be nice?

The answer is no. And the reason is because they are still hoping they (Reds brass) can get the egg off their face for trading an MVP for this "future TOR starter". It's the same reason they made the silly decision to start him in game one against Philadelphia in the NLDS I would assume which gave us the predictable start to that one. And yes we got no-hit, but that game was over as soon as Volquez took the bump like so many of his starts.

Screwball
07-05-2011, 11:03 PM
Wouldn't that be nice?

The answer is no. And the reason is because they are still hoping they (Reds brass) can get the egg off their face for trading an MVP for this "future TOR starter". It's the same reason they made the silly decision to start him in game one against Philadelphia in the NLDS I would assume which gave us the predictable start to that one. And yes we got no-hit, but that game was over as soon as Volquez took the bump like so many of his starts.

I doubt it. The GM that traded for Volquez has been out of the organization for years.

Superdude
07-05-2011, 11:04 PM
It's the same reason they made the silly decision to start him in game one against Philadelphia in the NLDS I would assume which gave us the predictable start to that one. And yes we got no-hit, but that game was over as soon as Volquez took the bump like so many of his starts.

The reason could also be the 1.95ERA he put up in September. He's definitely regressed this year, but you count really fault that decision too much at the time.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-05-2011, 11:27 PM
I would love to debate the Hamilton for Volquez trade, but I really don't want to get in any trouble.

There's really no debate anymore. Not even a little one.

Trying to take the EV side in such a debate would be like trying to argue that palm trees naturally grow in Siberia.

OldXOhio
07-05-2011, 11:39 PM
It's time to shake things up a bit, and I agree on both of the moves suggested by reds44. I wouldn't be against giving Alonso a shot in LF. I'd rather see him out there than Gomes.

Honestly, it may be time to find takers for Arroyo (if possible ... a return to Boston?) and Hernandez. If the Reds were in the Phillies division we'd be talking firesale.

But we're not in the Phillies division, haven't you heard? We're only 4 games out!!!

Despite the garbage product that this team runs out there 67% of the time, some will tell you there's reason for hope, that these guys are about to magically become a good baseball team. Forget the inconsistency from some of its "better" hitters, the holes all over its lineup, the below average rotation....we won this division last year so by God we are still a good team that's ready to contend.

Sell Walt...sell now. Don't let the misgivings of a weak NL Central con you into thinking this is anything more than what the these last three months have shown us. There's much work to be done to be a playoff caliber team by next season.

Griffey012
07-05-2011, 11:48 PM
Dontrelle Willis has also been "actually really bad at baseball" for the last four years, so he isn't quite the poster child for a frustrated fan looking for an answer. In fact, his recent MLB stats make Volquez a clearly better pitcher between the two (and Volquez hasn't exactly been stellar this year).

Except Willis has some pretty good numbers in AAA this season, and the scout reports have been positive as well as far as him trimming down, being in shape, and picking up some zip on his fastball. The last few years when he was terrible in the bigs, he was also terrible in the minors.

CTA513
07-05-2011, 11:52 PM
Both shortstops have crappy bats and have combined for 17 errors.

AtomicDumpling
07-05-2011, 11:53 PM
IMO, the Reds basically waived the white flag by refusing to do anything to address the problems at SS and LF by the midpoint of the season. An organization that was serious about winning this year would have tried to do something about those obvious holes long ago.

:clap:

I agree 100%. LF and SS have been glaring holes for 3 years now. The Reds have not made any effort to plug those holes. The Reds did absolutely nothing to improve the team over the offseason and have done nothing yet this year either. The conclusion is clear: Reds management is perfectly content with a mediocre team as long as the profits are rolling in.

The Reds are more likely to be sellers than buyers by the time the trade deadline rolls around.

edabbs44
07-06-2011, 07:09 AM
Was there a reason Wily Taveras and Corey Patterson went to the plate almost 800 times in a Reds uniform? This organization is petrified of the unknown. Until a credible person outside the organization says Cozart is a complete fluke, I have every reason to believe this is just another case of the Reds not having the guts to make a bold, necessary move.

Dave Cameron has basically said that about Cozart. Fwiw.

edabbs44
07-06-2011, 07:11 AM
So instead of finding out if Cozart can actually play at this level - which we have no way of knowing for sure but we have a fairly good indicator - we should just continue to let Paul Janish skate by on a free pass?

God no. I've believed that Janish should be sent down for a while now. But I think the expectations are a little out of line with reality. Cozart could easily come up and get plowed by major league pitching. There's a solid chance of that.

RedLegsToday
07-06-2011, 08:25 AM
God no. I've believed that Janish should be sent down for a while now. But I think the expectations are a little out of line with reality. Cozart could easily come up and get plowed by major league pitching. There's a solid chance of that.

Yep. Cozart seems to be in a little bit of a dry spell. I can see the Reds bringing him up now that he isn't hitting well, giving him 10 games to prove himself, have him hit about .150 and then send him back down, never to return. They should have brought him up while he was hitting close to .500 in June.

bucksfan2
07-06-2011, 08:43 AM
The only reason I would hesitate to DFA Volquez is that the Pirates would be first in line to pick him up. Other than that its good riddance time with him. I have no confidence in him ever being able to put it together in a Reds uniform. Ship him somewhere else and let someone else have the headache of trying to fix him.

As for Janish he got his shot and failed. He is a nice defensive SS but has been error prone this season. His bad is woeful and can't cut it at the big league level. He ripped two balls last night, one the CF took a step in to catch and one hit the gap and failed to reach the wall. Nice hits but it allows the outfielders to play in a step or two which further eliminates his hitting.

Its time to get Wood back up here as well as Cozart. I really haven't been banging the drum for Cozart because he is pretty much an unknown. I thought Wood may have needed a break to get his game back in order, but after seeing Edinson fail to make any adjustments there is no reason he is on the major league roster.

Reds1
07-06-2011, 10:53 AM
I'm all for a try! The Reds need to have a little shake up. Volquez just can't get it done. It's frustrating because he has the stuff, but we have several pitchers and players right now that can't seem to hit and pitch. I mean why is Heisey not playing daily, but we keep running stubbs out there to watch him SO 3-4 times a game. I love Stubbs and think he has ability, but he is hurting the team right now.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-06-2011, 11:25 AM
The only reason I would hesitate to DFA Volquez is that the Pirates would be first in line to pick him up. Other than that its good riddance time with him. I have no confidence in him ever being able to put it together in a Reds uniform. Ship him somewhere else and let someone else have the headache of trying to fix him.

As for Janish he got his shot and failed. He is a nice defensive SS but has been error prone this season. His bad is woeful and can't cut it at the big league level. He ripped two balls last night, one the CF took a step in to catch and one hit the gap and failed to reach the wall. Nice hits but it allows the outfielders to play in a step or two which further eliminates his hitting.

Its time to get Wood back up here as well as Cozart. I really haven't been banging the drum for Cozart because he is pretty much an unknown. I thought Wood may have needed a break to get his game back in order, but after seeing Edinson fail to make any adjustments there is no reason he is on the major league roster.

That would be almost too good to be true. A legitimate win/win situation for the Reds. We get rid of him AND get to face him multiple times before the year is out.

Where do I sign up?

kaldaniels
07-06-2011, 11:28 AM
Why would you DFA him when you can just stick him in Louisville for the rest of this season.

westofyou
07-06-2011, 11:31 AM
Why would you DFA him when you can just stick him in Louisville for the rest of this season.

Assets are assets in baseball, micro moments should not drive knee jerk reactions.

The man has an option, cutting him is throwing something away for nothing.

Not really what I prefer the team I follow to do.

kaldaniels
07-06-2011, 11:31 AM
Assets are assets in baseball, micro moments should not drive knee jerk reactions.

The man has an option, cutting him is throwing something away for nothing.

Not really what I prefer the team I follow to do.

Sanity!

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-06-2011, 11:44 AM
Why would you DFA him when you can just stick him in Louisville for the rest of this season.

Because the longer he is wasting space on this 40-man roster, the more likely it is that Walt/Dusty will start to think that maybe, just maybe, he'll be better later in the year or next year.

And then we'll be watching this junk on Opening Day next year, when it's 4-0 Cubs (we haven't played the Cubs on Opening Day in, oh, about a year or two) after a half-inning.

bucksfan2
07-06-2011, 11:45 AM
Assets are assets in baseball, micro moments should not drive knee jerk reactions.

The man has an option, cutting him is throwing something away for nothing.

Not really what I prefer the team I follow to do.

What would you give up for Edinson?

I don't think he ever gets it figured out in Cincinnati. He may be able to do it with a fresh start next season but IMO mentally he is done this year. Those first inning issues have been a problem all season long and have shown no signs of ending.

Stash him down in AAA sure. I guess he is an asset, although I don't know how much value that asset has.

reds44
07-06-2011, 01:35 PM
If you really want to cut Volquez, you try him in the bullpen first. I understand that doesn't make a lot of sense with his first inning troubles, but he wouldn't be the first stater with a good arm to go to the pen and become successful.

Maybe pitching for only an inning at a time keeps him more focused, maybe pitching out of the stretch only makes his delivery more repeatable, who knows. DFAing him makes no sense though.

Blitz Dorsey
07-06-2011, 02:21 PM
I think why so many Reds fans are frustrated about Janish specifically is many of us said from day one he would never hit well enough to be an everyday player in MLB. His minor league numbers just didn't reflect a future MLB starter. Reds fans could see this, but the front office couldn't? Actually, they knew there might be a problem, or there is no way they would have brought Renteria in as "insurance." If they really had full confidence in Janish as the everyday SS entering the 2011 season, no way Edgar Renteria ever signs with the Reds. That was a clear sign the Reds were not confident in Janish. Yet they give him more than half a season of absolutely killing the team at the plate with an anemic .500 OPS? They have a 25-year-old at AAA that is waiting to be called up. It makes absolutely no sense.

Left field is a bit tougher because there are some legit options on the MLB roster IMO like Chris Heisey. Also, there is not a clear-cut option at AAA since Alonso plays worse defense than Gomes and Adam Dunn. Alonso's bat would be a huge upgrade though and I would like to see him get a shot.

OldXOhio
07-06-2011, 02:31 PM
Anyone see in Fay's chat where he said the Reds brass expected this sort of offensive production out of Janish going into the season?

And he was still awarded the starting job?

IslandRed
07-06-2011, 02:38 PM
I think why so many Reds fans are frustrated about Janish specifically is many of us said from day one he would never hit well enough to be an everyday player in MLB. His minor league numbers just didn't reflect a future MLB starter. Reds fans could see this, but the front office couldn't? Actually, they knew there might be a problem, or there is no way they would have brought Renteria in as "insurance." If they really had full confidence in Janish as the everyday SS entering the 2011 season, no way Edgar Renteria ever signs with the Reds. That was a clear sign the Reds were not confident in Janish. Yet they give him more than half a season of absolutely killing the team at the plate with an anemic .500 OPS? They have a 25-year-old at AAA that is waiting to be called up. It makes absolutely no sense.

You're correct, Renteria was the Plan B in case Plan A failed. And because that contingency plan already existed, they've been allowing some time for that to play out, figuring one of them would get it going at some point. Nonetheless, I'm sure the Reds didn't figure on both of them being sub-.600 OPS this deep into the season. Thus, the clamor for Plan C.

edabbs44
07-06-2011, 03:01 PM
Anyone see in Fay's chat where he said the Reds brass expected this sort of offensive production out of Janish going into the season?

And he was still awarded the starting job?

I did, and in no way believe that.

REDREAD
07-06-2011, 04:16 PM
At this point, Janish is so bad, I would risk outrighting him to AAA (I think Janish is out of options).. If we lose him to another club, no big deal, he's basically another Rafeal Belliard at best, except Belliard played better defense.

Bring up Cozart, let Renturia get some time as well. I am so done with Janish.. He makes me nauseous every time he comes at bat.. And despite what UZR says, he's not that great of a fielder either (not a horrible one, but certainly not gold glove quality).

Homer Bailey
07-06-2011, 04:17 PM
At this point, Janish is so bad, I would risk outrighting him to AAA (I think Janish is out of options).. If we lose him to another club, no big deal, he's basically another Rafeal Belliard at best, except Belliard played better defense.

Bring up Cozart, let Renturia get some time as well. I am so done with Janish.. He makes me nauseous every time he comes at bat.. And despite what UZR says, he's not that great of a fielder either (not a horrible one, but certainly not gold glove quality).

Janish is not out of options.

Brutus
07-06-2011, 04:25 PM
Janish is not out of options.

He's not out of options. However, he would require being cleared through waivers to be optioned, as it's been 3 years since his first option (spring training 2008).

REDREAD
07-06-2011, 04:25 PM
.

Roy Tucker
07-06-2011, 04:44 PM
Assets are assets in baseball, micro moments should not drive knee jerk reactions.

The man has an option, cutting him is throwing something away for nothing.

Not really what I prefer the team I follow to do.

Let's stop all this logic and reason nonsense!

kaldaniels
07-06-2011, 05:11 PM
He's not out of options. However, he would require being cleared through waivers to be optioned, as it's been 3 years since his first option (spring training 2008).

If I may ask (I hardly understand options), but Volquez did not have to clear waivers and surely his first option was used before 2008?

Brutus
07-06-2011, 05:38 PM
If I may ask (I hardly understand options), but Volquez did not have to clear waivers and surely his first option was used before 2008?

I'm fairly certain he did. It's likely we just didn't hear about it. But given my understanding of the rule, he almost certainly would have needed to do so.

I guess it's not surprising he cleared. Arbitration eligible, control issues, coming off major surgery last year and having been busted for PED use... probably not shocking he cleared.

In fact, here's the rule as it's worded in the Major League Rules:

Rule 10(b)(3)


Optional assignment waivers. Optional assignment waivers are required for an optional assignment from a Major League Club to a Minor League Club only if the date of assignment is three or more years after the date the player first reported to a Major League Club during a championship season. One year shall be deducted from the above three-year period for each season in which the player may have been charged with an option prior to the championship season in which the player first reports to a Major League Club. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule 10(b)(3), Optional assignment waivers shall not be required in the following circumstances:

(A) The Major League Club is seeking to assign the player to a Minor League Club on a fourth optional assignment. See Rule 11(c) (Limitations on Optional Assignments) for players subject to a fourth option.

(B) The assignor Club is making an assignment with the right of recall, the assignment is being made within 24 hours of having acquired the player in a trade from another Major League Club, the player had been on an optional assignment at the time the player was recalled by the other Major League Club for the purpose of such acquisition and the acquiring Club does not place the acquired player on its Major League Active List during such 24-hour period.

So basically once a player first reports to a club during a season (in Paul's case, that was May of 2008), they have 3 years to use their options without being exposed to waivers. If the player had already used an option the previous season without reporting to the club, then it would be 2 years. If two options were used, it would be just one year from the time they first report.

As shown above, this rule doesn't apply to players using their fourth option.

kaldaniels
07-06-2011, 05:45 PM
I'm stunned he cleared waivers.

Brutus
07-06-2011, 05:59 PM
I'm stunned he cleared waivers.

I've heard it suggested before there's been some sort of a gentleman's agreement that you don't claim guys on option waivers. I don't know if that's true or not, but I suppose it could be one explanation.

dougdirt
07-06-2011, 06:05 PM
2010 Orlando Cabrera = 2011 Paul Janish.
2010 Paul Janish = 2011 Zack Cozart.

No, 2010 Paul Janish is not 2011 Zack Cozart. 2010 Paul Janish never could have dreamed of having the power that Zack Cozart has.

Brutus
07-06-2011, 06:07 PM
No, 2010 Paul Janish is not 2011 Zack Cozart. 2010 Paul Janish never could have dreamed of having the power that Zack Cozart has.

I read his post in the figurative sense... i.e. last year a lot of people wanted to give Janish a shot, and now everyone wants him replaced and now people want to give Cozart a shot and next year he'll probably not be getting the job done and people will want someone else.

Quatitos
07-06-2011, 06:39 PM
Brutus, in the rules, what is the definition of a "championship season." Would that just mean a season where they were not a September call up or did not stay up for so many days or how is that defined.

Brutus
07-06-2011, 06:41 PM
Brutus, in the rules, what is the definition of a "championship season." Would that just mean a season where they were not a September call up or did not stay up for so many days or how is that defined.

It's defined as the first game of the regular season until the team's last regularly scheduled game. Generally it's about 183 days.

Quatitos
07-06-2011, 06:42 PM
It's defined as the first game of the regular season until the team's last regularly scheduled game. Generally it's about 183 days.

So then it would seem the first day they spend on a major league 25 man roster would start the clock for optional assignment then?

Brutus
07-06-2011, 06:43 PM
So then it would seem the first day they spend on a major league 25 man roster would start the clock for optional assignment then?

Technically it's the day they physically report to the club, but yes. In other words, let's say a player is called up on a Friday but he joins the club on Thursday... technically Thursday is the day of which the 3-year clock (or less if the player had already used up options in seasons prior) begins.

kaldaniels
07-06-2011, 06:46 PM
I've heard it suggested before there's been some sort of a gentleman's agreement that you don't claim guys on option waivers. I don't know if that's true or not, but I suppose it could be one explanation.

That would at least make sense, but it would also pretty much make the issue of passing Janish thru waivers moot.

Quatitos
07-06-2011, 06:46 PM
Technically it's the day they physically report to the club, but yes. In other words, let's say a player is called up on a Friday but he joins the club on Thursday... technically Thursday is the day of which the 3-year clock (or less if the player had already used up options in seasons prior) begins.

There must be some sort of agreement to not pick people off of the options waiver wire then, otherwise teams would be more hesitant about September call ups if you have interpreted the rule correctly.

Something to back you up as well Brutus: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/08/death_taxes_and_1.php

Brutus
07-06-2011, 06:53 PM
edit: nm. let me do some more research on this reply lol

Brutus
07-06-2011, 06:55 PM
That would at least make sense, but it would also pretty much make the issue of passing Janish thru waivers moot.

If indeed that's the case, you're right. I have my doubts as to the veracity of that position, but if it's true you're right it makes the Janish thing irrelevant.

Brutus
07-06-2011, 07:06 PM
There must be some sort of agreement to not pick people off of the options waiver wire then, otherwise teams would be more hesitant about September call ups if you have interpreted the rule correctly.

Something to back you up as well Brutus: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/08/death_taxes_and_1.php

OK so I had to double-check this, and I feel comfortable in posting this now.

It's actually not a reason for teams to be hesitant. Let me explain:

The rule says it's a 3-year clock beginning with the first reporting. One (1) year is shaved off that 3-year clock for each year an option is used *prior* to the season they first report.

So let's use an example:

Player A is added to the 40-man roster in November 2007 when the protection lists are due to the league for the following year.

Player B is also added to the 40-man roster in November 2007

Both players spend the entire 2008 season on optional assignment.

Player A, however, is called up for the first time on September 1, 2009 when the rosters expand.

Player B is not called up. Instead, he's kept in the minors, goes to spring training the following year and makes the active roster. Let's say he reports to begin the season April 1, 2010.

In this case, Player A sees his clock begin September 1, 2009. Because he used one (1) option in 2008, the year prior, his option clock does not end until September 1, 2011 (two years since one was removed because of the option).

Player B, meanwhile, used up two (2) options preceding the year he first reports. That means his clock has just one (1) year left on it. So it begins April 1, 2010 and expires April 1, 2011.

So you see, by calling up Player A in September, the club would actually gain five (5) additional months to use Player A before needing to be exposed to option waivers than Player B. Player A does not have to be exposed to option waivers until September 1, 2011, while Player B has to be exposed beginning April 1, 2011.

Quatitos
07-06-2011, 07:16 PM
OK so I had to double-check this, and I feel comfortable in posting this now.

It's actually not a reason for teams to be hesitant. Let me explain:

The rule says it's a 3-year clock beginning with the first reporting. One (1) year is shaved off that 3-year clock for each year an option is used *prior* to the season they first report.



Nevermind I got it now, missed a very important part of your explaination. So the key is that if a option was used the same year they were called up, that doesn't count in the yearly subtraction from the three year clock.

IslandRed
07-06-2011, 07:19 PM
Never mind (edit), I re-read it and saw what I missed.

Brutus
07-06-2011, 07:27 PM
Nevermind I got it now, missed a very important part of your explaination. So the key is that if a option was used the same year they were called up, that doesn't count in the yearly subtraction from the three year clock.

Precisely.

IslandRed
07-06-2011, 07:40 PM
I wouldn't doubt the "gentleman's agreement" myself. I imagine GMs like having the flexibility of optioning players with options remaining without having to worry about waivers, and if the price of getting one's own guys through without a fuss is missing the occasional opportunity to steal someone else, that's fair.

Having said that, though, I wonder if those optional waivers are revocable or irrevocable. Certainly, the hypothetical gentleman's agreement would be easier to maintain if all another GM can do is block an optional assignment as opposed to taking the player for his own organization.

Brutus
07-06-2011, 07:44 PM
I wouldn't doubt the "gentleman's agreement" myself. I imagine GMs like having the flexibility of optioning players with options remaining without having to worry about waivers, and if the price of getting one's own guys through without a fuss is missing the occasional opportunity to steal someone else, that's fair.

Having said that, though, I wonder if those optional waivers are revocable or irrevocable. Certainly, the hypothetical gentleman's agreement would be easier to maintain if all another GM can do is block an optional assignment as opposed to taking the player for his own organization.

They're revocable once. Then if used a second time within the period, they become irrevocable. For options, the waiver periods are mid-February through 31st day of the season. Then on or around start of May through July 31st then July 31st through end of season.

So once a waiver is granted, it is valid through the rest of that period (which means Volquez may actually be allowed to be optioned again until July 31 without going through waivers).

Slyder
07-06-2011, 09:41 PM
I really truely doubt that EV will ever have the focus needed to be a CONSISTENT starting pitcher. Would anyone be willing to roll the dice with Volquez as a setup/closer option or do you think that nickle head would rear its ugly head too often?

Superdude
07-06-2011, 10:20 PM
I really truely doubt that EV will ever have the focus needed to be a CONSISTENT starting pitcher. Would anyone be willing to roll the dice with Volquez as a setup/closer option or do you think that nickle head would rear its ugly head too often?

Seriously?