Here are today's minor moves:
- The Dodgers have inked 28-year-old righty Steve Edlefsen to a minor league deal after holding a recent tryout, reports MLB.com's Ken Gurnick. Edlefsen had spent his entire career with the Giants, and saw 26 2/3 innings of MLB work between 2011-12, posting a 6.75 ERA in that span. He struggled last year at Triple-A, throwing 53 innings and allowing a 6.28 ERA as his walk-rate skyrocketed to 7.6 BB/9.
- Minor league outfielder Todd Glaesmann of the Diamondbacks has been placed on the voluntary retired list, tweets Matt Eddy of Baseball America. A third round pick back in 2009, the 23-year-old Glaesmann was the player to be named later in the three-team deal that sent Heath Bell and Ryan Hanigan to the Rays, David Holmberg to the Reds, and Justin Choate to the Diamondbacks. Curiously, Arizona GM Kevin Towers said at the time of the deal that the PTBNL (who turned out to be Glaesmann) was the key personnel piece from his team's perspective, although money saved by moving Bell no doubt was a significant motivator.
- Three players are suspended in DFA limbo, per MLBTR's DFA Tracker: Andy Parrino (Athletics), Chase D'Arnaud (Pirates), and Justin Sellers (Dodgers).
I guess this is what Rays’ fans called being “Freidman’d”
It’s what the Arizona desert dwellers are beginning to call KT being KT.
Who?
I was going to say that
Do the D-backs have any right under MLB rules to demand another “player to be named” to complete the deal or are they just out of luck? Sure, if the PTNL gets hurt in spring training after an off-season trade that’s not the Rays’ problem but if the PTNL is somehow determined to be damaged goods the D-backs would have the right to return the player and pick another or get cash or whatever the teams workout. I can’t remember a specific instance of this happening but I seem to remember this kind of “damaged goods” situation happening once every year or two. So, do the D-backs have any official recourse or is there an unofficial, unwritten rule where they have a “we own you one” consideration when the Rays and D-backs are again involved in a trade? I guess what I’m asking is if there is any expectation on the D-backs side that the Rays should in some way either immediately or down the road “make good” on the D-backs losing this piece of a trade for this reason?
I’m curious too… I would think that the Rays would have some form of debt to the Dbacks, but who knows?
The deal was signed, sealed, delivered. The Rays are not responsible for Glaesmann deciding not to continue playing for a third team in three years.
He’s always played for tampa’s system… and I’m not sure I agree with you about TB being home-free… what if they knew he would retire? If they did, they’re at fault (I know it’s highly unlikely they did). TB may owe Arizona a prospect similar to Glasseman (not a great prospect, but one with some upside).
My bad. I was looking at the wrong line. You’re right, been a Ray’s guy all along. I still doubt that they can be held liable for one of Arizona’s guys deciding the fire wasn’t there anymore.
I don’t think it was one of Arizona’s guys at all… In the write up it refers to KT valuing Glasseman as the key asset of the trade.
You’d have a hard time proving Tampa knew anything about this. It’s unfortunate for Arizona, but these things happen. Sure doesn’t make Kevin Towers look like a genius.
Not much does
The dbacks had this last year with Didi and they chose to continue the trade after an arm injury showed up in their physical.
A tragic end to a spectacular career.
What the heck? Did he win the lotto or something?
Well, makes the trade look even better for the Rays.
The Dodgers snag yet another former Giant
Wasn’t Edlefsen considered the closer of the future as recently as this time last year or am I thinking of someone else?