Nightengale's Griffey/ Sox update

[WSFAN35]

The Borchard - to - Young comparison is absolutely terrible.  Fine, you don't think minor leaguers are worth it.  That's Ok, but don't make baseless comparisons.

 

I really don't think the Borchard to Young comparison is as far off as you make it out to be. In case you don't remember, Borchard was our number one rated prospect for a long time, and was considered a Can't Miss type of guy.

[nitetrain8601]

I really don't think the Borchard to Young comparison is as far off as you make it out to be.  In case you don't remember, Borchard was our number one rated prospect for a long time, and was considered a Can't Miss type of guy.

 

Yep. It's not that far off. Young isn't even considered our best prospect. He's viewed as a guy with some of the most potential in the organization, but it's not even a sure thing he's going to reach it.

[Jake]

Yep. It's not that far off. Young isn't even considered our best prospect. He's viewed as a guy with some of the most potential in the organization, but it's not even a sure thing he's going to reach it.

 

 

Potential is a dangerous word.

[nitetrain8601]

Potential is a dangerous word.

 

Tell me about it. Just ask the Bulls about potential.

[YASNY]

If the Reds request ML waivers on Griffey Jr 1 of 4 things can happen:

1) A surprise team makes a claim & a trade offer they don't like.  They withdraw the request & lose the right to request ML waivers on Griffey Jr again for 30 days.

 

2) A surprise team makes a claim & a trade offer they can live with & they trade Griffey Jr.

 

3) An expected team makes a claim & trade offer they like & they trade Griffey Jr.

 

4) He clears ML waivers.  The Reds can then trade him for best offer.

 

I read the Stark link but I still think it's just his general opinion.  Mainly because it's not been backed up by a majority consensus of former or current GM's & to the best of my knowledge Kenny himself as never said anything about it. 

 

So I'm left to decide between Stark's opinion & logic.  Logic tells me teams would not risk losing the right to trade most of their players for 30 days at the risk of having to withdraw a request for ML waivers.  So if I accept Stark's opinion then there would have to be a logical reason for it.  I would have to conclude that prior to requesting ML waivers on a player a team would first do their homework to determine the likelihood of having to withdraw the request.  That means talking to the other teams & finding out who will make a claim beforehand.  If there's a near certainty that no team will make a claim then it would make sense to request ML waivers on a player just to clear that hurdle for making the player trade eligible.

 

Will you give it up already? General opinion my ass. Every year hundreds of players go through waivers. There is no risk for the teams to put them through. You can't trade them without doing so. Yet, you kep saying they wouldn't risk it because they couldn't trade them for 30 days. This does not not make any sense whatsoever.

[WHarris1]

I really don't think the Borchard to Young comparison is as far off as you make it out to be.  In case you don't remember, Borchard was our number one rated prospect for a long time, and was considered a Can't Miss type of guy.

So they can be compared because they were both top prospects and can't miss guys?

[Rowand44]

So they can be compared because they were both top prospects and can't miss guys?

They're similar in ways in that they both had huge power potential, both very good athletes, both had great years in bham and were both thought to have an insane amount of upside. That being said just cause they're similar in comparison doesn't mean Young is going to become Borch.

[WSFAN35]

So they can be compared because they were both top prospects and can't miss guys?

 

All I said was that the comparison isn't that far off, not that Young is going to end up like Borchard. The matter of fact is that no one knows where he is going to end up, so for someone to say that Young ABSOLUTELY WON'T end up like Borchard is ridiculous. People talk about this guy like he's a for sure thing, but he's not.

[CWSGuy406]

All I said was that the comparison isn't that far off, not that Young is going to end up like Borchard.  The matter of fact is that no one knows where he is going to end up, so for someone to say that Young ABSOLUTELY WON'T end up like Borchard is ridiculous.  People talk about this guy like he's a for sure thing, but he's not.

 

Who said that?

 

I just said the Borchard/Young comparison was awful...

[beck72]

griffey has cleared waivers, per ESPN and his agent, in the Dayton Daily news

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/cont...4redsnotes.html

[DBAHO]

The Borch to Young comparison is actually an interesting one if you look at the numbers;

1 - In Borch's best year in AA (2001), he had splits of .295/.380/.509. Right now Chris Young has splits of .278/.372/.548 giving him a higher OPS, but a lower BA than Borch had.

2 - K/BB ratio. Borch had a 158/67 in that year. Young's is 105/53.

3 - Extra Base Hits - Chris Young already has 37 doubles in 100 games. Borchard had 27 in 133 games.

4 - Stolen Bases - Where Young comes into his own. 22 to 5 from Borch in that year.

 

Of course after Borch's year in AA, he moved onto Charlotte where he hit .272 with 20HR's. That's ok right? Well don't forget the 139/49 K/BB ratio.

 

So what I'm trying to say is that Chris Young and Joe Borchard are 2 different players. Young gets on base more from his ability to draw a walk, and to striking out a little less than Borch (still an area he really needs to work on). But you can see with the stolen bases and extra base hits, the tools and that potential is all there for everyone to see.

 

You just hope, they don't rush him like they did with Mr. Borchard. He's only 21, let him repeat in B-Ham to start of next season if he stays to show that this year wasn't a fluke, and then let him move up to Charlotte for the rest of the year, he shouldn't be up by 2007 anyways.

 

Would I include him in a Griffey deal? No I wouldn't. I'd give them Brian Anderson instead. Yeah Anderson is the most ready, and is gonna be a good player in his career. Does he have all - star potential though? Probably not. Do Chris Young and Ryan Sweeney? Yes, yes they do.

 

So in essence like Jason said, I'd be willing to give up some pitching prospects instead. I'd like to keep Gio, and I'd be willing to say give them Ray Liotta, Casey Rogowski and Wes Whisler in a deal. Will Cinci accept? Probably not, but they're desperate for good young pitching, and may accept less of a deal if it includes some, something to consider.

[3E8]

griffey has cleared waivers, per ESPN and his agent, in the Dayton Daily news

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/cont...4redsnotes.html

Let's make a deal.

[OZZ-fest 2004]

Now that Podsednik has injured his leg and may have to go on the DL, does Kenny pull the trigger for Griffey?

[Dick Allen]

Now that Podsednik has injured his leg and may have to go on the DL, does Kenny pull the trigger for Griffey?

Kenny wants Griffey, the teams agreed on a trade. Cincinnatti's owner does not want to get rid of him.

[sircaffey]

Kenny wants Griffey, the teams agreed on a trade. Cincinnatti's owner does not want to get rid of him.

 

Really?

[JUGGERNAUT]

Will you give it up already?  General opinion my ass.  Every year hundreds of players go through waivers.  There is no risk for the teams to put them through.  You can't trade them without doing so.  Yet, you kep saying they wouldn't risk it because they couldn't trade them for 30 days.  This does not not make any sense whatsoever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First off I've never claimed a number. If you are saying 100's then that makes sense given the average contract value of a MLB player. Especially considering how often players move from the 40 man roster to the ml's & vice versa in the course of a season. All I've stated is that they first call GM's around the league to determine interest before requesting ML waivers on a player. Whereas you've argued they don't & they use ML waiver requests to do that work for them.

 

I likewise doubt the confidentiality of these waiver transactions. Newsday reports that Ken Griffey Jr., Mike Piazza and Tom Glavine have all cleared waivers. In addition they report Pedro, Beltran, Benson, Mientkiewicz, Zambrano, Graves, Cairo, & Castro, Posada, Chacon, Womack, Lieter, Rodriquez, Franklin, Escalona, Small, & Flaherty cleared.

 

I don't think they left any stone uncovered there so that amounts to 19 players on 2 40 man rosters. Most? No. Some. So much for the confidentiality of ML waivers.

 

Heavy contracts missing from Newsday's NY teams ML waiver list are: Floyd, A-Rod, Jeter, Matzui, Giambi, Sheffield, Martinez, Johnson, Pavano, Wright, Mussina, & Williams.

 

With respect to KGJ, I'd like to know if the Reds requested ML waivers on Dunn & Kearns. They were told they wouldn't be traded. KGJ was not told that. I feel that's the biggest eye-opener as to Linder being open to trading him for the right deal: one that costs the Reds next to nothing to trade him.

 

I read over the weekend that the NYY$ were never on his short-list. The teams were HOU, ATL, & LAD. All reports say that KGJ would accept a trade to the White Sox, but what about ANA? I don't think you can rule them out either.

Edited August 14, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Dick Allen]

First off I've never claimed a number.  If you are saying 100's then that makes sense given the average contract value of a MLB player.  Especially considering how often players move from the 40 man roster to the ml's & vice versa in the course of a season.  All I've stated is that they first call GM's around the league to determine interest before requesting ML waivers on a player. Whereas you've argued they don't & they use ML waiver requests to do that work for them.

 

I likewise doubt the confidentiality of these waiver transactions.  Newsday reports that Ken Griffey Jr., Mike Piazza and Tom Glavine have all cleared waivers.  In addition they report Pedro, Beltran, Benson, Mientkiewicz, Zambrano, Graves, Cairo, & Castro, Posada, Chacon, Womack, Lieter, Rodriquez, Franklin, Escalona, Small, & Flaherty cleared.

 

I don't think they left any stone uncovered there so that amounts to 19 players on 2 40 man rosters.  Most?  No.  Some.  So much for the confidentiality of ML waivers. 

 

Heavy contracts missing from Newsday's NY teams ML waiver list are: Floyd, A-Rod, Jeter, Matzui, Giambi, Sheffield, Martinez, Johnson, Pavano, Wright, Mussina, & Williams.

You can only have 7 guys on waivers at a time I believe. It takes a few weeks for everyone to go through. Most players get placed on waivers. Stark reported it, Gammons reported it, Phillips, who used to be a GM reported it. Just accept it.

[JUGGERNAUT]

You can only have 7 guys on waivers at a time I believe. It takes a few weeks for everyone to go through. Most players get placed on waivers. Stark reported it, Gammons reported it, Phillips, who used to be a GM reported it. Just accept it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Where did you read you can only have 7 guys on ML waivers at a time? The one link I posted on the rules itself didn't mention any limit like that. Nor do any of the other waiver rules.

[JUGGERNAUT]

http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/graziano/...ll=1&thispage=3

Linder apparently rejected the prior deal citing a need for roster stability with a sale pending on the team. The NYY$ did ask about him in late July.

 

So apparently $15M is worth more than roster stability

[nitetrain8601]

So it looks like we won't get him.

[Soxfest]

Sunday, August 14, 2005

Report: Jr. clears waivers

But agent says Reds haven't brought up trade

 

By Kevin Kelly

Enquirer staff write

Cincinnati

 

 

MILWAUKEE - The Reds are now free to trade Ken Griffey Jr. if the team wishes, according to a radio report Saturday.

 

The report said the center fielder, who continues to be the focus of a trade rumor involving the White Sox, is believed to have cleared waivers.

 

Brian Goldberg, the Cincinnati-based agent for Griffey, said Saturday he still has not heard from the Reds regarding any potential trades.

 

Griffey, who is signed with the Reds through 2008 at $12.5 million with a club option for 2009, has the right to veto any trade because of his status as a 10-and-5 player.

 

"We have not been asked anything," Goldberg said. "We can't answer to something we haven't been asked."

[fathom]

So it looks like we won't get him.

 

At this point, I hope KW is exploring other options than just Griffey Jr. It definitely doesn't seem like Reds ownership is going to change their mind anytime soon.

['94WorldChamps]

At this point, I hope KW is exploring other options than just Griffey Jr.  It definitely doesn't seem like Reds ownership is going to change their mind anytime soon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Screw Griffey. Just another bopper who will get owned in the playoffs, Eric Chavez-style. His contract and injury history as well as what it'll take to get him don't quite blow my mind, either.

 

We need OBP. Lots of it. Whether Rickey Henderson, Ray Durham, Mother Goose, I don't care.

[fathom]

Screw Griffey. Just another bopper who will get owned in the playoffs, Eric Chavez-style. His contract and injury history as well as what it'll take to get him don't quite blow my mind, either.

 

We need OBP.  Lots of it. Whether Rickey Henderson, Ray Durham, Mother Goose, I don't care.

 

Yeah, since Ray Durham has been so healthy? Also, Mother Goose just hasn't been the same since the steroid testing.

['94WorldChamps]

Yeah, since Ray Durham has been so healthy?  Also, Mother Goose just hasn't been the same since the steroid testing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Still healthier than Junior. And assuming Giants still plan on picking a few mill of his '06 salary, much less of a (financial) risk going forward. Did I mention you won't have to give up MaCarthy or Young for him, either? I think I dided.

 

With Podsednik's OBP/confidence in the dumpster, Ray-Ray is an ideal choice either as a lead-off guy, or if Pods comes back better than ever, as a #2, with Gooch letting loose in the 3-hole.