JUGGERNAUT Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 News Flash. As much as I want Griffey, they arent going to get rid of him. The Ownership group is trying to sell the team, and they know that the team is worth more money with those players on it instead of prospects in the minors. Getting rid of Griffey and selling the team would not only drop value, but eliminate the already dwindling fan base. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 9, 2005 -> 03:22 PM) News Flash. As much as I want Griffey, they arent going to get rid of him. The Ownership group is trying to sell the team, and they know that the team is worth more money with those players on it instead of prospects in the minors. Getting rid of Griffey and selling the team would not only drop value, but eliminate the already dwindling fan base. What if the new ownership group doesn't want to pay that salary until 2145 or whenever it ends? To say that for sure, when you don't know, is just plain crazy. CRAZY, I TELLS YA!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 QUOTE(TheDybber @ Aug 9, 2005 -> 01:53 PM) What if the new ownership group doesn't want to pay that salary until 2145 or whenever it ends? To say that for sure, when you don't know, is just plain crazy. CRAZY, I TELLS YA!!! It was on the news, take if FWIW, but it makes some sense. You would like a build in fan base as well as SOME marketability when you purchase a team, not to mention the sellers can make a case for a higher price because of the forementioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 QUOTE(TheDybber @ Aug 9, 2005 -> 10:06 AM) Would DH'ing full time have an adverse affect on Griffey's health? At least when he's playing the outfield, he can stay a little looser by running from time to time. If he's sitting on the bench warming up, then cooling down, he's more susceptable to injuries. That being said, I'd love to see a sweet swinging, healthy, lefty power hitter on the Sox. It would be a necessary evil. A) Aaron Rowand has done NOTHING to deserve a demotion of any kind B ) His future looks a lot like that of Frank Thomas'. If he really wants to stay around for a few more years, he's going to have to either DH in the AL or taking less at-bats in the NL because his legs simply can't take the grind anymore. He is no spring chicken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 I really really wish it could happen, but I only see washed up players with large contracts coming through the wire, I dont know if Griffey would make it/cinci would get rid of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatScott82 Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Didn't Griffey say he didn't want to play here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpringfieldFan Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(spiderman @ Aug 9, 2005 -> 11:16 AM) When are we going to start hearing who has cleared waivers ? For example, when was Griffey put on waivers, and how long would it take for him to get through? This is my question too. Wouldn't we know if he were placed on waivers. I am positive I remember seeing "such-and-such placed so-and-so on waivers" in the transactions column of my morning paper at various times in the past. They do still do that don't they? SFF Edited August 9, 2005 by SpringfieldFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 QUOTE(SpringfieldFan @ Aug 9, 2005 -> 03:18 PM) This is my question too. Wouldn't we know if he were placed on waivers. I am positive I remember seeing "such-and-such placed so-and-so on waivers" in the transactions column of my morning paper at various times in the past. They do still do that don't they? SFF You're referring to the traditional waiver wire that runs all season as opposed to now where it's not revealed when a player is placed on waivers....I think most teams will put quite a few of their players on waivers, and will end up pulling back nearly all (especially if you're contending).... I'm just surprised that it's August 9th, and we haven't heard any names getting blocked/passing through, and that goes back to my original questions of how long will it take for a player to get through waivers, and when is a player originally put on waivers ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpringfieldFan Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 QUOTE(spiderman @ Aug 9, 2005 -> 06:40 PM) You're referring to the traditional waiver wire that runs all season as opposed to now where it's not revealed when a player is placed on waivers....I think most teams will put quite a few of their players on waivers, and will end up pulling back nearly all (especially if you're contending).... I'm just surprised that it's August 9th, and we haven't heard any names getting blocked/passing through, and that goes back to my original questions of how long will it take for a player to get through waivers, and when is a player originally put on waivers ... Oh ok, I got it now. Thanks for the clarification! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Grif is hot now get him LH Power Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sircaffey Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Our O sucks...Griffey or someone similar is needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Heres the real question, who are WE going to put on Waivers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 09:13 AM) Heres the real question, who are WE going to put on Waivers? Everyone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Inspired posts of reason coming as to why Griffey is needed, and who we'd give up for him. It's just like he's gonna appear at the Cell from a Magic Carpet or something. Yeesh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 10:13 AM) Heres the real question, who are WE going to put on Waivers? Why would we have to put anyone on waivers? Thomas can go on the 60-day DL, which will open up a spot on the 40 man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 QUOTE(knightni @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 10:05 AM) Why would we have to put anyone on waivers? Thomas can go on the 60-day DL, which will open up a spot on the 40 man. The Sox will put every player on the team onto waivers at one point or another. Most will be claimed, and all who are claimed will be pulled back. Many teams use this to judge who is interested in trading for certian players in the off-season, and they keep that in mind for winter dealings. They also place everyone on waivers to try to bury the names of players they are trying to slide through for deals. Pretty much this happens with every team, and every player in baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 QUOTE(spiderman @ Aug 9, 2005 -> 11:40 PM) I'm just surprised that it's August 9th, and we haven't heard any names getting blocked/passing through, and that goes back to my original questions of how long will it take for a player to get through waivers, and when is a player originally put on waivers ... I read on Daily Quickie on Page 2 of ESPN.com that Jamie Moyer refused a waiver deal to the Yankees. They are out there, just not public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Bruce interviewed griffey. He didnt sound opposed to the idea of coming to Chicago at ALL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 10:43 AM) Bruce interviewed griffey. He didnt sound opposed to the idea of coming to Chicago at ALL. SO LETS GO f***ING GET GRIFFEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GIT R DONE K-DUB! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 QUOTE(TheDybber @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 10:40 AM) I read on Daily Quickie on Page 2 of ESPN.com that Jamie Moyer refused a waiver deal to the Yankees. They are out there, just not public. Which is the way it usually works. It's really not newsworthy until a guy is actually traded, or in this case, not traded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 The MLB rules clearly state that if a player is revoked from ML waivers the team can not request ML waivers on that player for 30 days. Now if you think the Reds requested ML waivers on KGJ for the purpose of seeing who's interested then you're an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Aug 11, 2005 -> 02:07 PM) The MLB rules clearly state that if a player is revoked from ML waivers the team can not request ML waivers on that player for 30 days. Now if you think the Reds requested ML waivers on KGJ for the purpose of seeing who's interested then you're an idiot. I don't understand your supposed logic here. Passing a player through waivers is a no risk deal. I'm also familiar with how this August waiver period has worked in the past. A vast majority of ML players are, in fact, put on waivers. If they are claimed by another team, they pull those players off and those players are not eligible to be included in any trades. So, when two teams talk trade, they know who can be and who cannot be traded without having to wait three days to see if an agrred upon deal can happen. So, yes, I think the Reds requested ML waivers on KGJ. They have no logical reason no to do so. Now, if the makes me an idiot in your mind, that's ok. I just take into consideration who's mind it is and, as usual, disregard it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.