Nightengale's Griffey/ Sox update

[JUGGERNAUT]

You can look thru the MLB transaction logs for previous years and search on DFA or clear to see where it's reported.

 

The main reason why I don't believe Levine is telling the truth is because when Manny was put on waivers by BOS last year it was BIG news. Every major news circuit reported it. I would think KGJ being put on waivers would be just as big. Yet I can't even find a Cincy source reporting it.

[RockRaines]

You can look thru the MLB transaction logs for previous years and search on DFA or clear to see where it's reported.

 

The main reason why I don't believe Levine is telling the truth is because when Manny was put on waivers by BOS last year it was BIG news.  Every major news circuit reported it.  I would think KGJ being put on waivers would be just as big.  Yet I can't even find a Cincy source reporting it.

wasnt he put on waivers in the offseason?

[Rowand44]

You can look thru the MLB transaction logs for previous years and search on DFA or clear to see where it's reported.

 

The main reason why I don't believe Levine is telling the truth is because when Manny was put on waivers by BOS last year it was BIG news.  Every major news circuit reported it.  I would think KGJ being put on waivers would be just as big.  Yet I can't even find a Cincy source reporting it.

Big, HUGE difference. Manny was put on irrevocable(sp?) waivers, meaning if someone claimed him he was gone, Boston couldn't do anything about it. Also, most players are put on waivers this time of year, your comparision is awful in this case.

[Dick Allen]

Here's a question for you guys: If Griffey makes it to the Sox to they put a claim in on him or just let him pass through?  If they claim him they might be able to get him for absolutely no players just take on that crazy contract, also this negates any chance of another team(the yankees) making a trade for Jr.

Unless they have an agreement that Cincinatti wouldn't just award him to them, I don't think KW and JR would want to take the chance of being stuck with the entire contract. In the agreed upon deal, Cincinatti was going to be paying between $13.5 to $18 million of that contract.

Edited August 11, 2005 by Dick Allen

[SpringfieldFan]

My biggest fear is that St. Louis makes a claim and makes a deal. Jockety works magic every season and has been quiet over there for too long now. That team is hurting in the corner spots and I could see them shoehorning KGJ in there somewhere. The question is what would they offer? Their minor league is barren.

 

SFF

Edited August 11, 2005 by SpringfieldFan

[Kyyle23]

Well, wouldn't the White Sox claim him? Then the Reds would have to deal with the White Sox. No?

 

If the Sox claim him, they pick up his contract, right? And if they let him clear waivers, then they could work out a trade to have the reds pick up some of his salary.

 

At least thats how I understand it, correct me if Im wrong.

[Rowand44]

If the Sox claim him, they pick up his contract, right?  And if they let him clear waivers, then they could work out a trade to have the reds pick up some of his salary. 

 

At least thats how I understand it, correct me if Im wrong.

If the sox put a claim on him the Reds could either let him go to the Sox in which case the Sox would pick up the remainder of his contract, the Reds could work out a trade with the Sox or they can just pull him back off waivers.

[JUGGERNAUT]

My point is ... That WE wouldn't necessarily be made aware of it.  It's not publicized when some is claimed, cleared or put on waivers.  Jayson Stark may gather that info and write a column  about it, but it doesn't make the daily transaction wire that hits the papers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd be willing to accept the reasoning that a team can place a player on waivers & then withdraw him before the 3 days & it never gets reported. That seems reasonable since no action occurs with respect to that player. I doubt very much that GM's do that with all their players because the player's agents would find out about it.

 

But if the player is then DFA'd, claimed, or traded then that transaction would definitely be reported.

 

In the case of marquee player's like Manny we've already seen that the act of a team placing such a player on waiver's gets reported. That's the main reason why I don't believe KGJ has been put on waivers. How could such an act escape reporters in NY?

How could Levine be the only one to report about it? It makes no sense.

[Rowand44]

I'd be willing to accept the reasoning that a team can place a player on waivers & then withdraw him before the 3 days & it never gets reported. That seems reasonable since no action occurs with respect to that player. I doubt very much that GM's do that with all their players because the player's agents would find out about it. 

 

But if the player is then DFA'd, claimed, or traded then that transaction would definitely be reported. 

 

In the case of marquee player's like Manny we've already seen that the act of a team placing such a player on waiver's gets reported.  That's the main reason why I don't believe KGJ has been put on waivers.  How could such an act escape reporters in NY?

How could Levine be the only one to report about it?  It makes no sense.

Read post number 78, you're comparing apples and oranges, it's a big f'n difference.

[Dick Allen]

I'd be willing to accept the reasoning that a team can place a player on waivers & then withdraw him before the 3 days & it never gets reported. That seems reasonable since no action occurs with respect to that player. I doubt very much that GM's do that with all their players because the player's agents would find out about it. 

 

But if the player is then DFA'd, claimed, or traded then that transaction would definitely be reported. 

 

In the case of marquee player's like Manny we've already seen that the act of a team placing such a player on waiver's gets reported.  That's the main reason why I don't believe KGJ has been put on waivers.  How could such an act escape reporters in NY?

How could Levine be the only one to report about it?  It makes no sense.

Frank Thomas has been place on and cleared waivers several times. You don't read about it in the paper. If Griffey clears though, we probably will here about it in a column by Stark or Nightengale.

[YASNY]

Frank Thomas has been place on and cleared waivers several times. You don't read about it in the paper. If Griffey clears though, we probably will here about it in a column by Stark or Nightengale.

 

Bingo. That's what I've been trying to get through to Juggernaut. It is not made public as a matter of course. If it is made public, it's so common of an occurance that it isn't newsworthy. So, it doesn't get reported and therefore WE don't generally find out about it.

[YASNY]

It damn sure never makes the daily transaction wire that is printed in the newspapers.

[southsider2k5]

Here's a question for you guys: If Griffey makes it to the Sox to they put a claim in on him or just let him pass through?  If they claim him they might be able to get him for absolutely no players just take on that crazy contract, also this negates any chance of another team(the yankees) making a trade for Jr.

 

You don't claim him otherwise you could end up with the whole contract. At least under the deal we had worked out we were getting about $15 million in salary relief.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Big, HUGE difference.  Manny was put on irrevocable(sp?) waivers, meaning if someone claimed him he was gone, Boston couldn't do anything about it.  Also, most players are put on waivers this time of year, your comparision is awful in this case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It helps to know what you talking about when you throw out a new term

There is no such thing as irrevocable waivers, but there are limits to how many time's a team can withdraw a player during multiple waiver periods. I'm not certain but that might be what happened with Manny. If you clear waivers in one period & then your team puts you out on waivers in another period they can't withdraw you from waivers.

There might be one other instance of withdrawal in between there.

 

So unless you have something more substantial to offer in your belief that at least 601 players are put on waivers during this period your statement remains ridiculous.

[YASNY]

It helps to know what you talking about when you throw out a new term

There is no such thing as irrevocable waivers, but there are limits to how many time's a team can withdraw a player during multiple waiver periods.  I'm not certain but that might be what happened with Manny.  If you clear waivers in one period & then your team puts you out on waivers in another period they can't withdraw you from waivers. 

There might be one other instance of withdrawal in between there.

 

So unless you have something more substantial to offer in your belief that at least 601 players are put on waivers during this period your statement remains ridiculous.

 

There is such a thing as irrevocable waivers.

[Rowand44]

You don't claim him otherwise you could end up with the whole contract.  At least under the deal we had worked out we were getting about $15 million in salary relief.

That's why I asked the question if it would be worth it to take on that whole ridiculous contract to ensure yourself of getting him.

[Rowand44]

It helps to know what you talking about when you throw out a new term

There is no such thing as irrevocable waivers, but there are limits to how many time's a team can withdraw a player during multiple waiver periods.  I'm not certain but that might be what happened with Manny.  If you clear waivers in one period & then your team puts you out on waivers in another period they can't withdraw you from waivers. 

There might be one other instance of withdrawal in between there.

 

So unless you have something more substantial to offer in your belief that at least 601 players are put on waivers during this period your statement remains ridiculous.

Yes there is irrevecoable waivers, 320894320..... now you believe me?

Edited August 11, 2005 by Rowand44

[YASNY]

That's why I asked the question if it would be worth it to take on that whole ridiculous contract to ensure yourself of getting him.

 

You still wouldn't insure you'd get him .. as the Reds could revoke the waivers, or .. pull him back. But the Sox wouldn't have to claim him, because they would the last team on the list. If they let him through, they'd still be eligible to work a deal.

[Rowand44]

You still wouldn't insure you'd get him .. as the Reds could revoke the waivers, or .. pull him back.  But the Sox wouldn't have to claim him, because they would the last team on the list.  If they let him through, they'd still be eligible to work a deal.

Right, sorry, I didn't write that out very well, I should have said you insure yourself that another team doesn't pull off a deal for him, sorry about the confusion.

Edited August 11, 2005 by Rowand44

[YASNY]

Yes there is irrevecoable waivers, 320894320..... now you believe me?

 

I have read "Joe Blow was placed on irrevokable waivers for the purpose of giving him his unconditional release" countless times.

[YASNY]

Right, sorry, I didn't write that out very well, I should have said you insure yourself that another team doesn't pull off a deal for him, sorry about the confusion.

 

Just trying to keep things clear. No problem.

[Kyyle23]

Hey juggs, it helps to know what you are talking about when you say there is no such thing as irrevocable waivers.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1650053

 

however, there is no tooth fairy. Santa Claus is another story.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Frank Thomas has been place on and cleared waivers several times. You don't read about it in the paper. If Griffey clears though, we probably will here about it in a column by Stark or Nightengale.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is too easy If it never gets reported then what basis do you have for your statement? How do you know that Frank has been put on waivers repeatedly? Where did you get that information if it was never reported?

 

Let's try to use common sense here. If a player is placed on waivers then all MLB teams know about it as does the player's union & player himself. There is no confidentiality agreement governing this information. So it's ridiculous to suggest ALL or even most marquee players get put on waivers & no one ever reports it.

 

Put another way, if the NYY$ put A-Rod, Jeter, Posada, Randy Johnson, or Mike Mussina on waivers do you really believe not one NY reporter would write about it?

[Rowand44]

This is too easy   If it never gets reported then what basis do you have for your statement?  How do you know that Frank has been put on waivers repeatedly?  Where did you get that information if it was never reported?

 

Let's try to use common sense here.  If a player is placed on waivers then all MLB teams know about it as does the player's union & player himself.  There is no confidentiality agreement governing this information.  So it's ridiculous to suggest ALL or even most marquee players get put on waivers & no one ever reports it.

 

Put another way, if the NYY$ put A-Rod, Jeter, Posada, Randy Johnson, or Mike Mussina on waivers do you really believe not one NY reporter would write about it?

I'll bet you they've all been put on waivers before, I guarantee it.

[YASNY]

This is too easy   If it never gets reported then what basis do you have for your statement?  How do you know that Frank has been put on waivers repeatedly?  Where did you get that information if it was never reported?

 

Let's try to use common sense here.  If a player is placed on waivers then all MLB teams know about it as does the player's union & player himself.  There is no confidentiality agreement governing this information.  So it's ridiculous to suggest ALL or even most marquee players get put on waivers & no one ever reports it.

 

Put another way, if the NYY$ put A-Rod, Jeter, Posada, Randy Johnson, or Mike Mussina on waivers do you really believe not one NY reporter would write about it?

ok ... here's common sense for you. It does not GENERALLY get reported because it is not considered newsworthy. This is fact, Juggs.