Article: The Andrew Albers Circus

[Jeremy Nygaard]

Since the original release was sent out late Wednesday night, the transaction story of Andrew Albers has been downright confusing.

 

CAUTION: Do not read if you want to avoid a headache.The night of last Wednesday, August 10th, started with Brian Dozier and the Twins hanging five runs on Dallas Keuchel, but ended with a steady stream of rain that washed the game out and those five runs away.

 

Due to the rainout forcing the Twins and Astros to play two games the following day, the Twins issued a release at 10:57 pm announcing that they planned to select the contract of Andrew Albers from Rochester to serve as the 26th man for the second game of the day Thursday, as baseball rules allow.

 

But the first game of the day was a disaster and immediately following the game, the Twins announced that Buddy Boshers was headed to the disabled list and Andrew Albers would have his contract selected and replace Boshers on the active roster. There would be no 26th man for the doubleheader because Pat Light, who was going to be called up from Rochester, had a flight get cancelled.

 

Albers wasn’t particularly good, getting hit around for 11 hits. But he served his purpose, pitching six innings to save an already-taxed bullpen.

 

Two days later, Albers was designated for assignment.

 

We all know what that means - when a player is DFAd a 40-man (and 25-man spot - if the player is on the 25-man roster) opens immediately and the player goes into “DFA limbo” for up to 10 days. Typically the limbo ends when the player is traded, sent through release waivers and released, or sent through outright waivers where he is either claimed (buh-bye) or clears and is “outrighted” to the minor leagues.

 

So imagine my surprise when the beat writers started reporting that Albers was “optioned” to Rochester. Wait. What? An “optioned” player is on the 40-man roster. An “optioned” player is just coming off the 25-man roster. Albers was on neither.

 

Or was he?

 

Well, what happened is that Albers had to pass through a different set of waivers called “optional waivers.” A place that players go when they have an option left, but when three calendar years have passed since their big-league debut. The Twins didn’t need the 40-man spot, but they needed a roster spot so bad that they had to DFA Albers while the formality of the “optional waivers” processed. Albers goes back on the 40-man too.

 

So what the heck?

 

I recalled reading this article about the Indians DFA'ing (but not really DFA'ing) Carlos Carrasco and it got my mind spinning…. was this the same thing? It certainly appeared to be.

 

But I still find myself asking a few questions:

 

When the Indians did this with Carrasco their release said they “designated Carrasco for assignment Sunday for the purpose of optioning him to Class AAA Columbus.” The Twins, however, said they were designating “left-handed pitcher Andrew Albers for release or assignment.” Why not be up front in the release? Semantics, I guess, considering they were going to option him… which is an assignment.

 

Why did the Twins change course and add Albers to the 25-man roster when DL'ing Boshers instead of just leaving Albers as the 26th man and adding Light the next day? Does it have to do with the fact that Albers couldn’t simply be sent down immediately after the game because he’d have to clear optional waivers? (In that case, DFA him right away.) Or did the Twins front office not realize they’d be hamstrung by adding Albers? (Which would be hard for me to be mad at anyway, because I didn’t know the rule.)

 

Was there concern that Albers wouldn’t clear outright waivers? Or that he wouldn’t accept his assignment? (He’s been outrighted before, so he could elect free agency.)

 

Maybe the Twins had no intention of sending Albers back down right away, but had to in light of Milone’s injury?

 

At any rate, Andrew Albers remains on the 40-man roster on optional assignment to Rochester. Of course, it’s not really going to matter anyway in a couple of months, when Albers is sent through outright waivers to clear up a space on the 40-man.

But I’ll tell you what, the series of transactions led this geek to do a lot of head-scratching.

 

Click here to view the article

[Craig Arko]

**** happens.

 

Although whoever thinks up these weird procedural rules deserves a good talking to.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Craig Arko

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I get wanting your 26th man to be up and down, but I don't get using a guy for 26 you have to add to the 40 man that you don't intend to keep in the 40 man but don't want to risk losing.

[Mike Sixel]

Well...the whole thing was, imo, badly handled. And now they've compounded it by still not calling up Light? I am not sure I understand the plan, but the plan does not appear to be "get some AAA pitchers up here we haven't seen, so our best pitching coach can see them and work with them".

[diehardtwinsfan]

Honestly, with Albers, I don't think anyone is concerned about losing him, and if someone takes him, it's good for Albers more than anyone else. I don't have a big problem with it.  Flight cancellations... yeah that sucks, and I think that most of the 40 man pitchers in AAA who could come up had pitched recently.

[Platoon]

Well...the whole thing was, imo, badly handled. And now they've compounded it by still not calling up Light? I am not sure I understand the plan, but the plan does not appear to be "get some AAA pitchers up here we haven't seen, so our best pitching coach can see them and work with them".

No one who has over 15K 's worth of post should ever use the word 'plan' when discussing the Twins FO. Therefore, forthwith, and henceforth, and heretofore, I am formally petitioning a moderator to penalize you 10,000 posts, putting you back with those who would! :)

[Rosterman]

The whole thing makes little sense. In some ways, there was no need to add Dean, just go straight to O'Rourke.

 

Now if we are going to start adding guys, let's see Wheeler and Wimmers, or maybe even Baxendale. People who we MIGHT want to keep away from otehr teams next year. Yes, adding Albers, than Dean, means we get a checkmark on their "thanks" list and they may resign for added depth (and the paycheck it does bring, which is substantial) next season.

[jorgenswest]

Antony's explanation that they needed to bring up pitchers who were ready to give innings right away makes some sense. Rochester was also in need of arms which may have motivated the way they moved Albers so he could return quickly. In hindsight maybe it wasn't all necessary, but it really helped to get that start from Duffey.

[nicksaviking]

You're right that is confusing.

 

So to be clear, we basically traded Andrew Albers for Carlos Carrasco. Right? Right?!

[Winston Smith]

**** happens.

 

Although whoever thinks up these weird procedural rules deserves a good talking to.

The main problem is that so many rules aren't written anywhere so things can get really confusing.

[Seth Stohs]

 

The whole thing makes little sense. In some ways, there was no need to add Dean, just go straight to O'Rourke.

 

Now if we are going to start adding guys, let's see Wheeler and Wimmers, or maybe even Baxendale. People who we MIGHT want to keep away from otehr teams next year. Yes, adding Albers, than Dean, means we get a checkmark on their "thanks" list and they may resign for added depth (and the paycheck it does bring, which is substantial) next season.

 

Why Dean? Because they needed someone who could pitch 3+ innings if necessary. O'Rourke pitched 3.2 innings once this year. Other than that, completed two innings just twice. Dean made sense.

 

Now, I too would like to see Wimmers and Baxendale, but for those 3 days, they played it how they had to. 

[Jack Goin]

I'm not sure why this article is titled the "Andrew Albers Circus". What occurred is pretty straight forward. We selected Albers for the second game of the double header. Designating a player occurs when the active list (25-man) or reserve list (40-man) limits have been reached and a club wants to add a player(s) to either list. Int this case Albers was designated off the active roster to make room for a fresh arm. Designated players must be either released or assigned (traded, optioned, outright) within 10 days of the assignment. Optional waivers are required for an optional assignment if the date of the option is three or more years after the date the player first reported to a Major League club during the season. There are more exceptions within the rule but for Albers purpose it had been more than three years. After his optional waivers cleared he was optioned to Rochester (the assignment part of "release or assignment"). This series of transactions happens very frequently when a player is recalled or selected for only a day or two with the intent of them being sent back to the minor leagues in one form or another.

 

That's it.

[Jack Goin]

 

Well...the whole thing was, imo, badly handled. And now they've compounded it by still not calling up Light? I am not sure I understand the plan, but the plan does not appear to be "get some AAA pitchers up here we haven't seen, so our best pitching coach can see them and work with them".

The entire thing was handled within the rules of a club's ability to add a 26th man for a double header the day after a rainout. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does not mean it was poorly handled.

[Jeremy Nygaard]

 

I'm not sure why this article is titled the "Andrew Albers Circus". What occurred is pretty straight forward. We selected Albers for the second game of the double header. Designating a player occurs when the active list (25-man) or reserve list (40-man) limits have been reached and a club wants to add a player(s) to either list. Int this case Albers was designated off the active roster to make room for a fresh arm. Designated players must be either released or assigned (traded, optioned, outright) within 10 days of the assignment. Optional waivers are required for an optional assignment if the date of the option is three or more years after the date the player first reported to a Major League club during the season. There are more exceptions within the rule but for Albers purpose it had been more than three years. After his optional waivers cleared he was optioned to Rochester (the assignment part of "release or assignment"). This series of transactions happens very frequently when a player is recalled or selected for only a day or two with the intent of them being sent back to the minor leagues in one form or another.

 

That's it.

 

There are just so many little-known procedures that made something that seems so simple - and happens all the time - not that simple.

 

The difference between optioning a guy - which all fans are familiar with - and DFAing a guy to option him - which I can't recall ever happening with the Twins (not that it hasn't).

[Jeremy Nygaard]

 

The entire thing was handled within the rules of a club's ability to add a 26th man for a double header the day after a rainout. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does not mean it was poorly handled.

 

I am curious. The original intent was that Albers was going to be the 26th man, but when Boshers was placed on the disabled list, Albers was added in his place - and not as the 26th man (at least according to the press release). In the event that Albers was added as the 26th man and he'd have to be off the roster following the doubleheader, he would have to be DFA'd to be optioned in that case too, right? 

[Mr. Brooks]

It seems odd to me that the Twins were actually worried enough about losing organizational filler, Albers, that they were willing to effectively play a man short (Albers wasn't available to pitch after throwing 6 innings) while they waited for him to clear optional waivers.

[Jeremy Nygaard]

 

I'm not sure why this article is titled the "Andrew Albers Circus". 

 

No one would have clicked on an article titled, "Let Me Explain Optional Waivers."

[Jeremy Nygaard]

 

It seems odd to me that the Twins were actually worried enough about losing organizational filler, Albers, that they were willing to effectively play a man short (Albers wasn't available to pitch after throwing 6 innings) while they waited for him to clear optional waivers.

 

There is also this. With the injuries to the Twins, we saw Rochester play with 21, now Chattanooga play with 22. You could move the organizational filler around and be fine, I'm sure... but I honestly don't know.

 

He could have been DFA'd and outrighted and another bullpen arm could have been available on Friday. It's a good point.

[twinsnorth49]

No one would have clicked on an article titled, "Let Me Explain Optional Waivers."

So, click bait?

 

For shame.

[Secondary User]

 

I'm not sure why this article is titled the "Andrew Albers Circus". What occurred is pretty straight forward. We selected Albers for the second game of the double header. Designating a player occurs when the active list (25-man) or reserve list (40-man) limits have been reached and a club wants to add a player(s) to either list. Int this case Albers was designated off the active roster to make room for a fresh arm. Designated players must be either released or assigned (traded, optioned, outright) within 10 days of the assignment. Optional waivers are required for an optional assignment if the date of the option is three or more years after the date the player first reported to a Major League club during the season. There are more exceptions within the rule but for Albers purpose it had been more than three years. After his optional waivers cleared he was optioned to Rochester (the assignment part of "release or assignment"). This series of transactions happens very frequently when a player is recalled or selected for only a day or two with the intent of them being sent back to the minor leagues in one form or another.

 

That's it.

The question I have is once it was known that Light wouldn't get on a flight in time, why not just wait on a move? Don't DL Boshers until after the second game, Albers is still your 26th man, even though Boshers is unavailable.  That way, you can still send Albers down without a transaction after the second game if you have to use him a lot (like they did) and call someone else up, or you can make the same move you did between games.  

[Platoon]

This has likely been said in six different ways already, but why didn't they just leave Albers as #26. Then just send him back? And deal with Buddy as a separate issue? Maybe I am being too simplistic, or else am missing the sequencing. Btw, I do wish you had titled it "Techinical Explanation of 26th Man Optional/Recall/DFA Requirements After Aug. 1st". Then I wouldn't be confused about something that interests no one outside the USA! (And remote parts of Canada)

[Otto von Ballpark]

It seems odd to me that the Twins were actually worried enough about losing organizational filler, Albers, that they were willing to effectively play a man short (Albers wasn't available to pitch after throwing 6 innings) while they waited for him to clear optional waivers.

It is not that they were waiting for him to clear -- once he was DFA, he was off the roster.

 

It is important to note that the entire bullpen was not taxed, just the low leverage portion. So they called up Dean for Friday, and intended to keep Albers around longer. That meant they played "a man short" Friday but no more than they do at other times when a reliever or two get rested.

 

But when Dean too had to pitch a ton on Friday, that is when they realized they had to get another fresh low leverage arm. So Saturday they DFA'd Albers and recalled O'Rourke.

 

You can certainly quibble with the choices -- why are we investing innings and 40-man roster spots to two pitchers practically guaranteed to be dropped for nothing after the season (Dean and Albers)? Why do we keep treating O'Rourke like a long reliever, a dead-end role for him too? But there is some logic to the choice and timing of the transactions.

[Mr. Brooks]

It is not that they were waiting for him to clear -- once he was DFA, he was off the roster.

 

It is important to note that the entire bullpen was not taxed, just the low leverage portion. So they called up Dean for Friday, and intended to keep Albers around longer. That meant they played "a man short" Friday but no more than they do at other times when a reliever or two get rested.

 

But when Dean too had to pitch a ton on Friday, that is when they realized they had to get another fresh low leverage arm. So Saturday they DFA'd Albers and recalled O'Rourke.

 

You can certainly quibble with the choices -- why are we investing innings and 40-man roster spots to two pitchers practically guaranteed to be dropped for nothing after the season (Dean and Albers)? Why do we keep treating O'Rourke like a long reliever, a dead-end role for him too? But there is some logic to the choice and timing of the transactions.

I think with optional waivers he stays on the roster until he clears.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I think with optional waivers he stays on the roster until he clears.

No, he was designated for assignment first.  Which means technically he was removed from the 40-man roster (and by extension, the 25-man roster) on Saturday, immediately replaced by O'Rourke, then added back to the 40-man roster and optioned on Sunday.

 

http://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3535

 

 

When a player is Designated for Assignment, the "Designated Player" is removed from his club's MLB Reserve List (40-man roster), and then the club has up to ten days to either trade, release, non-tender, or outright the player to the minors, or return the Designated Player to its MLB Reserve List (40-man roster) and option the player to the minors (if the player has minor league options available and Optional Assignment Waivers are secured if needed

 

[gil4]

 

No one would have clicked on an article titled, "Let Me Explain Optional Waivers."

I probably would have, but that says more about me than about your point.

[ashbury]

No, he was designated for assignment first. 

This has been a great Inside Baseball discussion. But, is there any chance it's been based on mistaken information? Where did we get that Albers was DFA'ed? I think it started with this two word tweet from Berardino - "Albers designated". What if he misunderstood, and/or used a shorthand he didn't think would get parsed so literally?

 

https://twitter.com/MikeBerardino/status/764313276528418820

[twinsnorth49]

I think we're forgetting this is the key phrase in Jeremy's article.

 

"Of course, it’s not really going to matter anyway in a couple of months, when Albers is sent through outright waivers to clear up a space on the 40-man".

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

This has been a great Inside Baseball discussion. But, is there any chance it's been based on mistaken information? Where did we get that Albers was DFA'ed? I think it started with this two word tweet from Berardino - "Albers designated". What if he misunderstood, and/or used a shorthand he didn't think would get parsed so literally?

 

https://twitter.com/MikeBerardino/status/764313276528418820

No, the DFA has been officially reported by the team too:

 

http://m.twins.mlb.com/news/article/195293586/twins-call-up-orourke-as-albers-dfad/

[Mike Sixel]

 

The entire thing was handled within the rules of a club's ability to add a 26th man for a double header the day after a rainout. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does not mean it was poorly handled.

 

so you weren't going to add him to the 25 man roster, and then decided to DFA him just a day or so later, like was reported? You weren't going to add Light, but then didn't? Why not wait, and handle it differently? Perhaps it was handled fine, and it's the reporting that is off?

 

Either way, thanks for coming back here again. Appreciated.

 

edit to add: I did say, IMO, but I guess I should have said something softer than I did. Also, handling something in the rules does not make something de facto handled well. The parts that confuse me, and apparently others, are above. Did the Twins decide to add Albers to the 25 man, then DFA him? If so, were they required to do that to send a 26th man back down, that seems unlikely to me. Were they going to call up Light, but then didn't because he missed a plane ride? Why was he not the right guy to call up 1 day later? How does one go from being the right call up, to not, in 1 day? Why did they call up a guy that doesn't pitch long outings, and not Wimmers? I think those are legit questions. But, maybe they aren't. Maybe everything about this series of transactions makes perfect sense. Perhaps they had to add Albers because you have to have 25 men on the roster? If they were going to promote Light, why not have him fly in at the same time as Albers? Either way, it's not like the reporting gave us much information to know the answers to these questions, and I beg forgiveness as someone that doesn't know every rule that maybe I just didn't get all the moving pieces.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Mike Sixel

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I think we're forgetting this is the key phrase in Jeremy's article.

 

"Of course, it’s not really going to matter anyway in a couple of months, when Albers is sent through outright waivers to clear up a space on the 40-man".

Doesn't that ultimately make it matter more right now?  If it's a forgone conclusion that Albers will be outrighted after the season and may elect free agency, why keep him on the roster beyond what was necessary (the doubleheader)?

 

And what does it say about Dean and O'Rourke that they were both effectively behind the "designated man walking" Albers on the depth chart?

 

And what does it say about the Twins that we are investing August innings / roster openings in a lost season on 3 pitchers, ages 27, 28, and 30, all of whom have had opportunities before, have very low upsides, and are very likely to be gone for nothing when the season ends?