thedoctor Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 01:18 PM) NBC sports last night, said the trade for Griffey wont happen because the Reds are asking for a #1 starting pitcher in return. reds management is absolutely clueless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 I think its obvious the Sox won't get Griffey now... maybe they should focus on Ibanez instead... I think he would fit this team nicely as well...JMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 QUOTE(thedoctor @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 01:24 PM) reds management is absolutely clueless. Yeah, what idiots to actually ask for something in return that could help their team. I never understood why the Reds would have even considered a deal centered around Young and Rogo. That team needs pitching, pitching, and more pitching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 08:26 AM) Yeah, what idiots to actually ask for something in return that could help their team. I never understood why the Reds would have even considered a deal centered around Young and Rogo. That team needs pitching, pitching, and more pitching. Not that freeing up $40 million or so could help them get pitching... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 01:32 PM) Not that freeing up $40 million or so could help them get pitching... Look at the FA market this offseason. The Reds want an ace, and the only big name available is Burnett, who surely won't go to Cincy. With their small ballpark, no stud FA pitcher will go to Cincy. Their best opportunity to get a top pitcher is to trade someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 08:33 AM) Look at the FA market this offseason. The Reds want an ace, and the only big name available is Burnett, who surely won't go to Cincy. With their small ballpark, no stud FA pitcher will go to Cincy. Their best opportunity to get a top pitcher is to trade someone. Which isn't going to happen unless the Reds were to pay virtually all of Griffey's contract. The only chance they have to get pitching is to dump Griffey's contract, and then use the money to aquire a pitcher from a team looking to move payroll. If Rogo and Young was the best offer they had, that saids it all. If the Reds have any sense at all, they would realize that freeing up $40 million gives them a way better chance of getting pitching than holding out for a top pitcher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedoctor Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 01:26 PM) Yeah, what idiots to actually ask for something in return that could help their team. I never understood why the Reds would have even considered a deal centered around Young and Rogo. That team needs pitching, pitching, and more pitching. this goes beyond this deal. they are clueless on many levels. besides, the reds need everything. rogo and young would be upgrades over anything else they have in their system at first base or in the outfield. and they've needed pitching, pitching and more pitching for years, and have acquired tee-stand after tee-stand in trade and free agency. they are clueless because two prospects, hell even one prospect would to more for the future of their organization. the reds define themselves as a small-market ballclub. small-market ballclubs can not have guys making what griffey is making. it has skewed their salary structure to the point where they can not acquire legitimate pitchers, nor can they resign any of the decent players (dunn, kearns, casey) they have when their deals are up. clueless. ask any reds fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Keep in mind only SF, PIT, COL, TB, SEA, & KC are higher in the waiver claim order than CIN. Contenders can not block CWS players going to CIN. They can't block any players going from the CWS to non-contenders. They can only block the players from non-contenders going to the CWS. But that's where $$$ comes into play. I'm sure KW is on top of this. If there is any hope for a plan B he's sure to complete a deal & get us a solid LH bat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Grif deal is dead time to move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 QUOTE(Soxfest @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 10:06 AM) Grif deal is dead time to move on. I find it completely hysterical that the person who claimed Levine was a liar and that Griffey was never on waivers is now leading the trail to the bowl of Gravy Train here.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Outside of KGJ as Jason pointed out all AL contenders can block us from any plan B options. Either claiming the player we want or claiming the players are trade partner would want. Having the best record in the AL really sucks when it comes to ML waivers. The only thing that seems possible is for the CWS to trade for players that have cleared waivers & splitting the trade into two parts: before & after the ML waiver period. They would have to take on more $$$ initially as collateral that they would give up the talent when the waiver period expires. They would get that extra $$$ back when they traded the talent they promised the other team. The assumption of course is that the players that team wants would be worth more than the extra $$$ involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 10:09 AM) I find it completely hysterical that the person who claimed Levine was a liar and that Griffey was never on waivers is now leading the trail to the bowl of Gravy Train here.. Steff.... do not know what you are talking about, where i ever said anything about Levine's a liar or Griffey never on waivers this is news to me, think you are getting a little confused and completely hysterical as you would say! Edited August 17, 2005 by Soxfest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 For those who still think BMac, &/or Anderson would have to clear ML waivers please explain the following trade: STL 8/06/04 Traded RHP Jason Burch and 2 PTBNL to COL for OF Larry Walker. COL 8/11/04 Acquired LHP Luis Martinez and RHP Chris Narveson from STL. Martinez had been claimed off waivers from MIL prior to ST. If PTBNL has to be on the 40 man roster then this would be an example where they didn't have to clear ML waivers. The league would not announce the trade if any players had to clear ML waivers. If they did have to clear then a contender could easily claim any such players to block the trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 QUOTE(Soxfest @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 11:42 PM) Steff.... do not know what you are talking about, where i ever said anything about Levine's a liar or Griffey never on waivers this is news to me, think you are getting a little confused and completely hysterical as you would say! Not that she can't (or won't) say this herself, but just in case she's given up on this forum -- she wasn't talking about you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 QUOTE(Soxfest @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 06:42 PM) Steff.... do not know what you are talking about, where i ever said anything about Levine's a liar or Griffey never on waivers this is news to me, think you are getting a little confused and completely hysterical as you would say! The fact that you didn't say it or no nothing of what I was talking about might be a good clue I wasn't talking to or about you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 09:04 PM) Not that she can't (or won't) say this herself, but just in case she's given up on this forum -- she wasn't talking about you. Thanks jackie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 09:33 PM) The fact that you didn't say it or no nothing of what I was talking about might be a good clue I wasn't talking to or about you. Ok in your original post you had me with a quote above and comments below. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 QUOTE(Soxfest @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 09:48 PM) Ok in your original post you had me with a quote above and comments below. Apologies. I assumed that people were aware of who was calling people ignorant and liars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 18, 2005 -> 02:33 AM) Thanks jackie. Just trying to help a good cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 10:08 PM) Apologies. I assumed that people were aware of who was calling people ignorant and liars. No problem Steff sorry for the misunderstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 (edited) Avoid the questions you are clueless to answer I see. So typical. Larry Walker trade. It happened. The mlers that were on the 40 man roster didn't have to clear ML waivers. Ignore it. That's what you're good at. Edited August 18, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Aug 18, 2005 -> 01:48 AM) Avoid the questions you are clueless to answer I see. So typical. Larry Walker trade. It happened. The mlers that were on the 40 man roster didn't have to clear ML waivers. Ignore it. That's what you're good at. One question for you. How do you know those players did not go through waivers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Aug 18, 2005 -> 01:48 AM) Avoid the questions you are clueless to answer I see. So typical. Larry Walker trade. It happened. The mlers that were on the 40 man roster didn't have to clear ML waivers. Ignore it. That's what you're good at. There wasn't a question asked, pot stirrer. It was a statement. And I didn't say anything about Larry Walker so go crawl back in your hole. Ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 One question for you. How do you know those players did not go through waivers? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you look at the transaction logs there are listings for players clearing waivers & being re-assigned to the minors in the month of August. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Aug 18, 2005 -> 08:14 AM) If you look at the transaction logs there are listings for players clearing waivers & being re-assigned to the minors in the month of August. Griffey clearing isn't in any transaction log. This is a different type of waivers, they let the players clear through and than they are available for trade. Its only documented on the major league waiver wire which goes to all the teams and the major league offices. On a sidenote, I think Colorado was the worse or one of the 2 worse teams last season when they made the trade so they didn't need guys to pass through waivers (most likely). 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.