Interesting, AZ not the only team who claimed Dunn

[TeamBoone]

AZ has the worst record, so got first dibs. The "other teams" are not named in the article.

John Fay's notes on Dunn trade
Diamondbacks not only team to claim #44
By John Fay • jfay@enquirer.com • August 12, 2008

If the trade deadline was July 31, then how were the Reds able to trade Adam Dunn on Aug. 11?


The answer: July 31 is the "non-waiver" trade deadline.

After that deadline, teams can still trade players, but they must do so using the waiver process. Players who are put on waivers must stay there for 47 business hours. Any team can submit a claim during that time for the player, who may not even know they are on waivers.

That's what happened with Dunn. He was placed on trade waivers and claimed by several teams, including the Arizona Diamondbacks, said Reds assistant general manager Bob Miller .

Arizona had first rights because it had the worst record of the teams claiming Dunn.

The teams then had two days to reach a deal. Had no deal been reached, the Reds could have pulled Dunn back off waivers. He then could not have been placed on waivers for another 30 days.

"Most teams put on almost everyone they have on trade waivers," Miller said. "It's sort of like fishing. You throw bait in the water. That's the only way I can explain. Teams claim players. Teams block to try to keep someone away from somebody else."

The Reds could have kept Dunn for the rest of the year and gotten draft picks had he left the team as a free agent.

But in order for that to happen, the Reds would have had to offer Dunn arbitration. In that instance, Dunn could have accepted the Reds' offer and he would have been back on the roster, and eligible for a big one-year contract.

Miller said the Dunn trade to Arizona was preferable because the Reds got the players they wanted.

"We felt this was a good deal," Miller said. "We got three quality players."

• Photos: Adam Dunn
• Poll: Rate the Dunn trade
•Tell us: What do you think about the deal?

Griffey, Dunn money won't cover everything
By trading Ken Griffey Jr. and Adam Dunn, it would seem the Reds now have plenty of money to spend on free agents for next season.

Think again.

Dunn is making $13 million this year, and Griffey is making $12.5 million, but that doesn't mean the Reds now have $25.5 million in payroll to play with. Why? Raises to players under contract will eat almost $15 million next season.

Closer Francisco Cordero goes from $8.5 million to $12 million.

Starter Aaron Harang goes from $6.75 million to $11 million.

Starter Bronson Arroyo goes from $6.3 million to $9.5 million.

Infielder Brandon Phillips goes from $2.75 million to $4.75 million.

Utility player Ryan Freel goes from $3 million to $4 million.

Bob Castellini, the Reds' chief executive officer, said the team will probably pursue a free agent.

But the free agent class is underwhelming. Philadelphia left fielder Pat Burrell is probably the top outfielder on the list.

"A lot depends on who's available," GM Walt Jocketty said over the weekend. "The free agent list isn't great. We'll see who's available in trade."

Searching for OF help in the offseason
The outfielders (with their Opening Day 2009 ages) eligible for free agency after the 2008 season:

LEFT FIELDERS
Moises Alou (42)

Garret Anderson* (37)

Milton Bradley (31)

Emil Brown (34)

Pat Burrell (32)

Adam Dunn (29)

Cliff Floyd* (36)

Luis Gonzalez (41)

Raul Ibanez (36)

Kevin Mench (31)

Jason Michaels* (32)

Craig Monroe (32)

Jay Payton (36)

Wily Mo Pena* (27)

Manny Ramirez* (36)

Juan Rivera (29)

CENTER FIELDERS
Rocco Baldelli (27)

Mike Cameron* (36)

Jim Edmonds (38)

Mark Kotsay (33)

Corey Patterson (29)

RIGHT FIELDERS
Bobby Abreu (35)

Casey Blake (35)

Cliff Floyd* (36)

Brian Giles* (38)

Ken Griffey Jr.* (39)

Vladimir Guerrero* (33)

Bobby Kielty (32)

Brad Wilkerson (31)

* Club option for 2009

http://news.cincinnati.com:80/apps/p...PT04/808120388

[Always Red]

Interestingly enough, this article appeared in my paper copy of the Enquirer right above the Daugherty article which claimed that no one else claimed or had any interest in Dunn at all.

[TeamBoone]

Interestingly enough, this article appeared in my paper copy of the Enquirer right above the Daugherty article which claimed that no one else claimed or had any interest in Dunn at all.

Makes you wonder which one is telling the truth and which one is blantantly lying.

The media is an enigma to me.

[nate]

Makes you wonder which one is telling the truth and which one is blantantly lying.

The media is an enigma to me.

Oh, I don't have to wonder for very long about that one!

[Always Red]

Oh, I don't have to wonder for very long about that one!

I'm sure there will be a retraction in the morning paper, right??

[KittyDuran]

Wouldn't some teams try to claim Dunn just to make sure that other teams did not (especially in their divisions)?

[TeamBoone]

Wouldn't some teams try to claim Dunn just to make sure that other teams did not (especially in their divisions)?

Probably. But even if they wanted him, AZ had first dibs.

[KronoRed]

Wouldn't some teams try to claim Dunn just to make sure that other teams did not (especially in their divisions)?

Not according to Doc or the 700 crew, they say nobody wanted Dunn

[gonelong]

Makes you wonder which one is telling the truth and which one is blantantly lying.

The media is an enigma to me.

Daugherty isn't lying, he is just clueless. How you can hire someone to write about sports when its obvious that:
A. He has no interest in sports
B. He doesn't do his homework
C. He has little knowledge of the sports he is covering.

... is just beyond me.

Unfortunately, he is not unique in the Cincy media.

GL

[redsmetz]

It's hard to rail against a player when one of your main facts is incorrect. I'm not surprised other clubs put in claims on the waiver. I laid out at least seven or eight clubs that could plausibly have interest in him next year and others added to that list. And that's without counting other contenders, as some have noted, who would put in a claim to thwart a competitor from getting him. There will be a market next year for Adam Dunn's services. Him doing well with Arizona will only bolster his market.

[top6]

For some reason (because I am a loser), I have posted about 5 comments on Cincinnati.com today trying to get Daughtery to correct this. I just think it's pathetic that he rails on someone for being lazy and having a bad attitude, but then lets a blatant falsehood stay in his column for an entire day. I think I am going to call the Enquirer tomorrow until I can get them to post a correction.

Not sure why - of all the injustices in the world and of all the stupid things in the media - this inspired me to do this. Again, robably because I am a loser and, also, because I liked Adam Dunn. But I think I am going to focus all my energy on getting the Enquirer to publish a correction on this.

[RichRed]

For some reason (because I am a loser), I have posted about 5 comments on Cincinnati.com today trying to get Daughtery to correct this. I just think it's pathetic that he rails on someone for being lazy and having a bad attitude, but then lets a blatant falsehood stay in his column for an entire day. I think I am going to call the Enquirer tomorrow until I can get them to post a correction.

Not sure why - of all the injustices in the world and of all the stupid things in the media - this inspired me to do this. Again, robably because I am a loser and, also, because I liked Adam Dunn. But I think I am going to focus all my energy on getting the Enquirer to publish a correction on this.

Send "Doc" an email; I did. Although I didn't even mention his error on the waiver thing. My focus was on his espousal of Dunn's perceived weaknesses - the laziness, apathy, etc. He actually wrote back a response (a pretty weak one, in my opinion). I thought about posting it here but not sure it's appropriate.

[Degenerate39]

Will they release the other teams that claimed him? I'd assume the D-Rays are one of them.