Phillies DFA Mathieson [But They Probably Won't Lose Him - See Updates Below]

To open up a roster spot for a third catcher to back up Brian Schneider in Carlos Ruiz's absence, following Ruiz's head injury last night.

I don't get this at all. First, I'm surprised to hear that Mathieson has no options left. Second, while I can understand that we need another catcher, are you telling me there was no other way to accomplish this than by putting a legitimate prospect on waivers? Mathieson is sure to be claimed by some team, isn't he? Did we just waste him for no reason whatsoever?

UPDATE 3:25 p.m.: According to Eric Seidman on Twitter, "[B]ecause he has options left, Mathieson goes on optional waivers which are revocable. The team can call him back." So why isn't it just an "option" then? Is there a difference between an "option" and an "optional waiver"? In any event, perhaps this was a false alarm.

UPDATE 4:00 p.m.: Matt Gelb explains further on the Inquirer's blog that although Mathieson has options left, he cannot be optioned without first going through "optional waivers," which are required before optioning a player who is more than three years removed from his major league debut. But optional waivers are revocable, so if another team claims Mathieson before he clears, the Phillies will just pull him back. Link to Gelb's blog post in the comments.

almost 2 years ago taco pal 29 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Unless there’s something else going on here—and I sure hope that’s the case—this seems like the sort of mistake for which someone should get fired.

by dajafi on Jun 19, 2010 3:04 PM EDT via mobile reply actions

Agreed. I really hope a better explanation is forthcoming, because what we know as of now is totally unacceptable.

I was not one of those clamoring especially hard for Mathieson to be called up, and if it’s true that he had no options left, then that was a pretty good justification for the organization’s reluctance. But once he was called up, you absolutely had to keep him on the roster under any circumstances.

by taco pal on Jun 19, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions

But they’ll do anything to keep Herndon and his pitiful strikeout rate on the 25-man. If they really like him so much, God forbid they pony up a low level prospect to be able to send Herndon to Lehigh Valley.

by PhillyFriar on Jun 19, 2010 3:17 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

Herndon is rule-5. They CAN’T send him to AAA LV.

by Bilzo on Jun 19, 2010 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah they can. They can work out a deal with the original team. And usually, its a marginal filler-type prospect and/or cash. Then regular option rules apply.

Or they could simply DL Herndon and send him on a rehab assignment for the period they needed Sardinha.

"I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it" ~ Mae West

by Blicks on Jun 19, 2010 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions

“Or they could simply DL Herndon and send him on a rehab assignment for the period they needed Sardinha”

hehe, we could just claim social anxiety disorder. I know there are guys that legitimatley have the problem, but that rule is just begging to be taken advantage of.

by philiafan14364 on Jun 20, 2010 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Umm, wow.

You would think that somebody might have thought this out. If there was any inkling that they’d need a roster spot, why not call up somebody like Carpenter who, get this, HAS OPTIONS REMAINING.

I can’t imagine Mathieson getting through waivers.

I hate Ruben Amaro.

by PhillyFriar on Jun 19, 2010 3:09 PM EDT via mobile reply actions

Unless there’s more to this story than what we know, this is flat-out GM malpractice. It’s the equivalent of a banker taking a stack of $100 bills and lighting them on fire.

by taco pal on Jun 19, 2010 3:13 PM EDT reply actions

Wow - that's just absurd

A day after he’s called up? What were they thinking?!

by David S. Cohen on Jun 19, 2010 3:13 PM EDT reply actions

Has to be one of three things:

1. They think that Mathieson will get through waivers.
2. They think that Mathieson is worthless.
3. They think that Mathieson is valuable, but not as valuable as, say, Wilson Valdez.

No. 1 seems highly unlikely. If that’s what they were thinking, they had better be right, though I doubt they will be.

If they were thinking No. 2 or No. 3, then like dajafi said, somebody should be fired on the spot.

by taco pal on Jun 19, 2010 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions

But if he goes through optional waivers and is claimed and the Phillies pull him back then they are stuck with him on the ML roster. If they send him through waivers again and he is claimed then they lose him. You can only pull a claimed player back once.

Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!

by EREX21 on Jun 19, 2010 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions

That may or may not be the case. These “optional waivers” appear to be a different creature than the August post-trade deadline waivers.

by taco pal on Jun 19, 2010 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Your right, I may be confusing the two.

Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!

by EREX21 on Jun 19, 2010 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions

You don’t quite have the rule right. It isn’t that you can only pull a player back once. The rule is that you can only put a player on “revocable waivers” (another name for this) one time during any given waiver period (the current one ending on July 31).

This is one of the most confusing roster rules in the game — “this” as in “when a player with options remaining has to go on revocable waivers first” — and that’s saying something. It’s so confusing, and so rarely comes up, that it’s almost not worth knowing. And yes, these revocable waivers work exactly the same as the revocable waivers clubs use in August.

Prior to August, however, most of the time, when a guy with options remaining gets put on revocable waivers, you never even hear about it. The other teams know that the waivers are revocable, so at this time of year, they almost never put in a claim. The only reason to do it is just to screw with another team, and believe it or not, teams tend not to do that, because it can come back to bite you in the ass.

by Jay on Jun 19, 2010 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Makes no sense. Didn’t Valdez (and Hoover) already clear waivers once this season?

by Wet Luzinski on Jun 19, 2010 3:15 PM EDT reply actions

WAIT WAIT WAIT… maybe he’s not on waivers.

Developing…

by taco pal on Jun 19, 2010 3:25 PM EDT reply actions

According to Eric Seidman on Twitter

I’ll try to summarize: because he has options left, Mathieson goes on optional waivers which are revocable. The team can call him back.

by taco pal on Jun 19, 2010 3:26 PM EDT reply actions

Bet me to it.

Alright, rage subsiding. I assume this is the same waivers that teams put players through every year in August (I’m thinking of the Alex Rios claim last year, where the Blue Jays could’ve pulled him back).

by PhillyFriar on Jun 19, 2010 3:30 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

Yeah, it’s a relief. I don’t get why they didn’t just option him or if there’s even a difference. But whatever. Stupid Internet with its hair-trigger news cycle.

by taco pal on Jun 19, 2010 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Whoops, that’s supposed to say “Beat” above.

I’ll admit I don’t understand the intricacies here, but maybe if he clears waivers, they can export him off the 40-man? Just speculating. Whatever the case, sounds like they’re taking a gamble (a gamble with no downside, that is) to either save an option, save a spot on the 40-man, or something.

by PhillyFriar on Jun 19, 2010 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Here’s Matt Gelb’s explanation:

So the Phillies needed a spot. Mathieson was the guy to go, for a quirky reason.

“He’s sort of in limbo right now,” Phillies assistant GM Scott Proefrock said.

He’s in limbo because of a odd roster rule rarely used. Mathieson has options remaining. So many are asking, why designate him for assignment and expose him to waivers when he could have just been optioned?

Problem is, Mathieson cannot be optioned without going on waivers. Here is my understanding of Mathieson’s situation:

There are four types of waivers, the rarest being optional waivers. They are required when a team wishes to option a player who has options remaining but is more than three calendar years removed from his major-league debut. Mathieson falls under that category; he made his debut on June 17, 2006. And he has options left.

“We still have the ability to option him, we just haven’t done it yet,” Proefrock said.

So the Phillies had to place Mathieson on waivers regardless. Will they lose him? Almost certainly no. Optional waivers are revocable, which means if a team puts a claim in for Mathieson, the Phillies can pull him back.

“We’re very hopeful he stays in the organization,” Proefrock said. “That’s what our plan for him is.”

by taco pal on Jun 19, 2010 4:09 PM EDT reply actions

I hope some other team dont try to piss in our corn flakes

by sowhatifitisasportste on Jun 19, 2010 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions

So who do they waive when they have to pull him back off of waivers?

The proudest word in baseball is gamer - Tim McCarver 6/12/2010

by jemagee on Jun 19, 2010 4:10 PM EDT reply actions

First, there’s a good chance they won’t even have to pull him back off of waivers, because there’s little incentive for any other team to claim him, given that they know it will be pointless. The only reason any team would do that would be to make life slightly more difficult for us, which is possible but unlikely.

Second, there’s a fair chance that, if some team were to claim Mathieson and force us to revoke the optional waiver, by that time Ruiz will have recovered. So we can just DFA Sardinha and reopen the same roster spot that required Mathieson to be placed on “waivers” in the first place.

by taco pal on Jun 19, 2010 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions

The only reason any team would do that would be to make life slightly more difficult for us, which is possible but unlikely.

Why is that unlikely? If I were the Mets/Yankees/Braves/Fish/Nats…I’d make a claim on his butt in the event that he slips through and to force the Phils to deal with annoying the Phils.

by Bilzo on Jun 19, 2010 4:20 PM EDT reply actions