Why High Profile Players Get Placed on Waivers

Finding value in waivers for the Mets, Reds, and claiming teams

---

It is not all that common to see high profile players placed on outright waivers. The decisions to place Luis Robert Jr., Eugenio Suárez, and T.J. Friedl on outright waivers reflected a reassessment of each player’s value relative to their team after the Trade Deadline. These moves represented an attempt to save money on players who presumably did not generate much interest before the deadline and whose teams were highly unlikely to make the playoffs. Instead of paying a significant price for their services in September, when their production would not meaningfully improve the organizations’ situations and could restrict opportunities for younger players, the clubs tested whether another organization valued them enough to assume their remaining contractual obligations. A successful claim would create immediate financial and roster flexibility. The driving factor behind these decisions is that a player’s value is relative to a team’s competitive position. A player has limited value to a club with little chance of reaching the postseason but may carry significantly more value for a contender seeking a boost in the final month.

How Outright Waivers Work

This year, the Trade Deadline was August 3 at 6 p.m. ET. After the deadline, teams could still place players on waivers, and other clubs could submit waiver claims. Players acquired during this period would remain eligible for the postseason as long as they joined their new organization prior to September 1st and satisfied MLB’s postseason roster requirements.

When a player is placed on outright waivers, the other 29 clubs have roughly 48 hours to submit a claim. The entire Waivers process is supposed to be confidential. If multiple clubs claim him, priority is given to the club with the lowest winning percentage. The placing team cannot select its preferred destination or negotiate a trade regardless if it is before or after the trade deadline. Once a player is claimed, the transaction is essentially complete. 

These waivers are irrevocable. Once a claim is awarded, the placing club cannot withdraw the player from waivers. The claiming club takes on the player’s existing contract from that point forward and must create the necessary 40-man roster space. If the player cannot be optioned, the club must also create active-roster space. The original club receives no prospect or meaningful trade compensation, with the primary return being the salary dump.

Placing a player on waivers is different from designating him for assignment or releasing him. The player remains on the club’s roster and can continue playing while on waivers. This is different from being DFA’s as a player who is DFA’d is immediately removed from the 40-man roster. If a player clears waivers, nothing drastic actually changes. The club may keep him, as Cincinnati did with Suárez and Friedl, or pursue another transaction later.

The narrow late-August window before September 1 gives contenders an opportunity to add a player after the Trade Deadline without giving up talent. It also gives a non-contender one final chance to drop the player’s remaining financial obligations. However, this process typically involves lower-caliber players or expensive contracts, as seen in these situations. High-value players on appropriately valued contracts would generate significant trade interest before the deadline.

Why a team would place a high profile name on waivers

A front office compares the value of keeping a player with the value created if he is claimed. The club must consider how much production the player can provide over the remainder of the season, the amount of money that would come off the books, the value of any future club control, and whether a claim would create playing time for younger players to evaluate for the future. The team’s competitive position is the main factor here. One additional win can carry significant value for a club near the playoff line but far less value for a club whose season is effectively over.

The trade cost, or free agent contract, already paid to acquire the player should not matter in this decision as it is effectively a sunk cost. The important question is whether keeping the player from late August forward would produce more value to the organization than the salary relief, roster flexibility, and player-development opportunities created by a claim.

Luis Robert Jr. 

In January 2026, the Mets acquired Robert from the White Sox in exchange for Luisangel Acuña and pitching prospect Truman Pauley. It was a promising deal for New York because Robert provided an athletic center fielder with star-level upside, although he also carried a lengthy injury history. Robert was set to make $20 million in 2026, with another $20 million club option for 2027, or $2M buyout.

Robert appeared in only 58 games for the Mets before the waiver claim and hit .223 with a .303 on-base percentage, a .399 slugging percentage, 10 home runs, and a .702 OPS. Injuries once again limited him, as he missed nearly three months with a lumbar spine disc herniation. He returned strong in August, hitting .267 with a .321 on-base percentage, a .520 slugging percentage, an .841 OPS, 6 home runs, and 11 RBIs. By that point, however, the Mets were well outside the playoff race and had young outfielders who needed Major League opportunities.

Robert was owed approximately one month of his $20 million 2026 salary, or roughly $3M, along with a reported $2M buyout attached to his 2027 club option. When Baltimore claimed him on August 31, the Orioles assumed at least $5 million in remaining obligations. For New York, the move immediately created financial and roster flexibility during a season in which Robert’s remaining production would have had little effect on the club’s future.

The decision also showed the importance of separating acquisition cost from current value. Losing Robert for no player return did not recover Acuña or Pauley, but keeping him solely because the Mets had already traded those players would have compounded the mistake. Assuming the organization was unlikely to exercise the 2027 option, the remaining guaranteed money and September playing time offered limited value to the Mets’ future.

Baltimore viewed the same contract differently. The Orioles entered August 31 with a 68–69 record and sat only 1 game out of the final American League Wild Card position. Their claim required no prospect capital, made Robert eligible for the postseason, and gave the club an opportunity to evaluate him before deciding whether to exercise his 2027 option.

The cost was significant for one month, but the potential marginal value of even one additional win was much greater for the Orioles than it was for the Mets at the time.

Robert landed on the injured list with left hamstring discomfort after playing three games for Baltimore. That outcome increased the cost of the gamble, but it does not mean the process was wrong. The Orioles paid for Robert’s upside, positional value, and the chance to improve their postseason odds without trading a prospect. The Mets chose guaranteed savings and additional roster flexibility. Both clubs made decisions that fit their different competitive positions.

Eugenio Suárez 

Cincinnati’s decision to place Suárez on waivers was for a similar reason to the Mets’ decision with Luis Robert Jr. Last offseason, the Reds signed Suárez to a one-year, $15M contract with a mutual option for 2027 after he hit 49 home runs in 2025.

Through 103 games before being placed on waivers, Suárez was batting just .208 with a .705 OPS and 19 home runs. Although he still provided some power, his overall production no longer matched the roughly $3Mremaining on his contract.

Because the 2027 option was mutual, both Suárez and the Reds would have needed to exercise it. With Suárez in his age-35 season and producing below Cincinnati’s expectations, the likelihood of both sides reaching that agreement had declined. The Reds therefore had a logical reason to find out whether a contender valued his power enough to assume the remaining salary.

A successful claim would have created salary relief and opened more at-bats for younger players without forcing Cincinnati to release Suárez and remain responsible for his guaranteed salary. It also could have sent a respected veteran to a club with a stronger postseason opportunity. If no club claimed him, Cincinnati would lose nothing from a roster standpoint because Suárez could remain active.

That is exactly what happened. Suárez cleared waivers and remained with the Reds. The outcome showed that no other club valued his expected September production enough to assume the full remaining cost of his contract. It did not mean that Suárez could no longer help Cincinnati, and the Reds continued to play him after he cleared. Given their competitive position and his contract status, it was still worthwhile for the Reds to attempt to drop the remaining salary while preserving the ability to retain him if he went unclaimed.

T.J. Friedl 

The Reds also placed T.J. Friedl on waivers. Through August 27, Friedl had a .476 OPS, the lowest among the 276 hitters with at least 250 plate appearances at the time, after posting a .742 OPS in 152 games in 2025.

Unlike Suárez, Friedl had a relatively small amount remaining on his 2026 salary. Approximately $700,000 remained on his one-year, $3.8M contract, meaning Cincinnati’s decision was tied more closely to roster fit, future control, and the organization’s evaluation of its 2027 roster.

Friedl’s case shows why salary alone does not determine waiver strategy. A club must also consider future roster construction and the likelihood that the player will be tendered a contract. If the organization does not expect to retain him, even modest salary relief and an open roster spot can provide value in the form of creating opportunities to evaluate younger players for the following season. If the club still believes the player can rebound, allowing him to clear waivers and remain on the roster preserves that possibility.

Friedl cleared waivers and remained with the Reds, just as Suárez did. Cincinnati gained information about the external market while retaining both players after no other club was willing to assume their contracts under the waiver rules.

The 2023 Angels 

The most prominent recent example came in 2023. The Angels acquired Lucas Giolito, Reynaldo López, and other veterans before the Trade Deadline in an effort to push for the playoffs during Shohei Ohtani’s final season under club control. After an 8–19 August pushed them out of the playoff race, they placed Giolito, López, Matt Moore, Dominic Leone, Hunter Renfroe, and Randal Grichuk on waivers.

Five of the six players were claimed. Cleveland added Giolito, López, and Moore; Cincinnati claimed Renfroe; and Seattle claimed Leone. Grichuk cleared waivers and remained with the Angels.

The claims would remove approximately $5.7 million from the Angels’ payroll and bring the club close to the $233 million Competitive Balance Tax threshold. The Angels ultimately remained narrowly above the threshold because Grichuk was not claimed. The attempt still demonstrated why that line mattered. CBT rates increase for consecutive-year payors, while exceeding the threshold can also affect qualifying-offer compensation for Shohei Ohtani should he sign elsewhere, and the penalties for signing qualified free agents.

For the claiming clubs, the process offered Major League help without requiring them to surrender prospect capital. Cleveland added three pitchers for roughly $3.7M while chasing Minnesota in the American League Central. The Guardians still had to absorb the remaining salaries and create the necessary roster space, but they did not have to give up young talent. That was the same basic opportunity Baltimore saw with Robert in 2026.

The Angels’ decision also illustrates the risk involved. They had traded meaningful prospects for Giolito and López only one month earlier before losing both players for no return. The waiver decision still made sense once the Angels’ competitive circumstances changed, but it highlighted the cost of misjudging the team’s position at the Trade Deadline. Waivers can limit the financial damage of a failed bet, but they cannot restore the prospect capital already spent.

Why High-Profile Waiver Placements Remain Rare

Most teams would rather trade a valued player before the deadline because a trade allows them to receive talent, negotiate cash considerations, and choose the transaction that best fits their organization. Outright waivers remove that level of control. 

The player also must have a specific contract profile. If the remaining salary is too low relative to his talent, every club would claim him and the original team would be giving away meaningful value. If the salary is far above the expected production, he will clear and the original club saves nothing. The strategy works best in the narrow middle, where one contender may value the player more than the non-contender but not enough to have traded for him earlier.

There is also roster and clubhouse costs. A claiming team needs a 40-man spot and usually an active-roster role. A placing club must accept the possibility that the player will remain after the waiver decision becomes public. Because waiver requests are intended to be confidential, public leaks can create unnecessary tension

Finally, cash payroll and Competitive Balance Tax payroll are not identical. The CBT is calculated under the CBA’s contract-accounting rules rather than by simply adding the cash paid in a given month. The 2023 Angels had a specific threshold incentive. The 2026 Mets’ clearest benefit from Robert was the transfer of the remaining contractual obligation and the roster flexibility that followed.

Conclusion

Putting a recognizable player on waivers can look interesting at first as a placing club receives no tangible return. That criticism is fair when a team misreads its competitive position before the Trade Deadline or gives away valuable future control. It is less applicable when the deadline has passed and the choice is between paying the full remaining obligation for limited value or allowing another club to assume it.

The Mets correctly recognized that Robert’s remaining 2026 cost, injury risk, and uncertain future option no longer fit their situation. Baltimore accepted those same risks because one additional win could change its season and the claim required no prospect capital. Cincinnati used waivers to test whether another club would absorb the remaining costs of Suárez and Friedl, then retained both when the answer was no.

The main lesson is that waiver value depends on context. The player’s reputation matters far less than his contract, projected contribution, roster fit, future control, and the claiming club’s position in the standings. When those variables no longer align for the original team, placing a high-profile player on waivers can be the most disciplined transaction available.