Griffey Rumor

[DBAHO]

Yes, but you are ignoring the point of his argument.  Chuck Lamarr could give two s***s about what anyone thinks of him and trading with him. He would block the trade to be ornery, or he would end up with a prospect.  No loss for him, either way.

Especially if it was say a team like the Yankees in the same division who wanted the player.

[Chisoxrd5]

It seems pretty simple to you because you're negating the impact that will have on trade negotiations between the CWS & PIT.  PIT knows they won't get BMac if they put in a claim because the CWS would just pull him back.  But if they want to play the spoiler anyways then they risk good trade relations with the CWS.  Considering the history of trades between the two clubs that would be a pretty stupid thing to risk on their part.

 

I doubt very much that non-contenders take an active role in thwarting trades like that.  If you have a historical reference suggesting otherwise lay it on us.

 

Ok...so you're implying that the Sox would look at the Pirates business/baseball decision as a personal stab against them? So much so that it would hinder future trades? I may be an idiot but to think that KW would stop dealing with the Pirates because they chose to make an intelligent baseball decision is an absolutely ridiculous notion.

 

I'll have to get back to you on the historical references as I'll have to call some current/past GM's and ask them about which teams they currently hold vendettas against for blocking their waiver wire deals... :headshake

[JUGGERNAUT]

So you would risk putting some of our best prospects through waivers, just on the assumption that the other GMs wont take them, based on some sort of good faith agreement between GMs?

 

Thats insane Juggs, these prospects are good and cheap, any team would be foolish not to grab them if they are just sitting there, and the Sox would be foolish to put them out there to be scooped up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First off you don't just put him on the list. You call the GM's first & get agreement from those teams that can claim before the Reds. A refusal to agree would not only spoil trade relations but it could also come back & haunt that non-contender. Say a few years down the road that team reverses roles with either the CWS or the Reds. The Reds or CWS would then be inclined to return the favor.

 

Secondly if a non-contender did decide to play the spoiler (even after giving their word not to) you can always pull the player back. The only risk is that you get a one shot deal involving that player.

[Kyyle23]

First off you don't just put him on the list.  You call the GM's first & get agreement from those teams that can claim before the Reds.  A refusal to agree would not only spoil trade relations but it could also come back & haunt that non-contender.  Say a few years down the road that team reverses roles with either the CWS or the Reds.  The Reds or CWS would then be inclined to return the favor. 

 

Secondly if a non-contender did decide to play the spoiler (even after giving their word not to) you can always pull the player back.  The only risk is that you get a one shot deal involving that player.

 

For someone who puts so much worth in hard facts, you sure are willing to believe in alot of assumptions.

[Chisoxfn]

How often has a lower record team claimed players going to the non-contender to block a contender?  I can't recall any such year.  I don't think we can rule it out just yet.

 

Keep in mind any player the White Sox request ML waivers on to facilitate the trade

the Reds get to claim before any contender.  Teams with worst records than the Reds would be the only ones to block it.  Why would they do that?

The entire American League could be able to block McCarthy before the Reds even got a shot at claiming him. There is no way a team would let McCarthy slide through, especially a contender cause if they saw Brandon on his way through they'd instantly know a big time deal was in play and nab McCarthy, therefor in a sense blocking the trade.

[Kyyle23]

Also, how could any organization fault another organization for blocking a trade that would add one of the best left-handed hitters of our generation to the team with (currently) the best record in the league? I dont understand how 4 years down the line Kenny would care about what happened this year.

[Steff]

I can not believe you guys are doubting the power of the "secret handshake".. :rolly

[JUGGERNAUT]

For someone who puts so much worth in hard facts, you sure are willing to believe in alot of assumptions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No it's common sense. This isn't X-Box. It's the real world. There's consequences for the dumb-arse moves you make.

[jackie hayes]

I can not believe you guys are doubting the power of the "secret handshake".. :rolly

Well played.

[Steve9347]

This doesn't sound to promising.

 

Reds’ COO spikes Griffey rumor

By Scot Gregor

Daily Herald Sports Writer

Posted Wednesday, August 17, 2005

 

Fans still hoping to see star center fielder Ken Griffey Jr. in a White Sox uniform this season can turn their attention elsewhere.

 

It’s not going to happen.

 

So says John Allen, the Cincinnati Reds’ chief operating officer.

 

Obviously fed up with the incessant trade rumors linking Griffey to the Sox, Allen ended all of the suspense Monday.

 

“There’s nothing to it!’’ Allen told the Cincinnati Enquirer. “There’s no trade talk going on! There’s no trade! I’m not commenting on it. Where do you guys get this stuff? Who promulgates this story is beyond me.’’

 

Before the July 31 nonwaiver trade deadline, a report in USA Sports Weekly said a Griffey-to-the-White Sox deal was in place before Reds CEO Carl Lindner pulled the plug.

 

Cincinnati ownership strongly denies the report. And since he is a 10-and-5 player (10 years major-league experience, five with the same team), Griffey has the right to veto any trade. Griffey said he was never approached about being moved to the White Sox, Yankees or any other team.

Edited August 17, 2005 by Steve9347

[southsider2k5]

First off you don't just put him on the list.  You call the GM's first & get agreement from those teams that can claim before the Reds.  A refusal to agree would not only spoil trade relations but it could also come back & haunt that non-contender.  Say a few years down the road that team reverses roles with either the CWS or the Reds.  The Reds or CWS would then be inclined to return the favor. 

 

Secondly if a non-contender did decide to play the spoiler (even after giving their word not to) you can always pull the player back.  The only risk is that you get a one shot deal involving that player.

 

Wouldn't that border on collusion?

[Chisoxfn]

No it's common sense.  This isn't X-Box.  It's the real world.  There's consequences for the dumb-arse moves you make.

I should add I do agree with one thing your saying Juggs and its the non-contenders. I don't think non-contenders block deals. The reason behind this is, not just one non-contender is trying ot make a deal, usually most, if not all of them are and I think when it comes down to it them blocking a deal is just going to get them burned because than the other teams will block their deal. They are making these trades to get better, but aren't going to the playoffs anyway. So I tend to think those deals get blocked less often (of course how the non-contenders know not to put a claim on a certain player, I don't know).

 

Heck, Gm's may call up those teams (hoping they have a good relationship) and may ask a player to slide (sometimes you get those extra type of moves when you make a few trades or a team owes you a favor).

 

In terms of Bmac though, no contending team in the AL would let him slide through cause they know he's the type of guy that could bring the Sox a potential impact player.

[Steff]

Wouldn't that border on collusion?

 

 

Yes Mike.. it would.

[Chisoxrd5]

Wouldn't that border on collusion?

 

Nah...this is the real world.

[Chisoxrd5]

The entire American League could be able to block McCarthy before the Reds even got a shot at claiming him.  There is no way a team would let McCarthy slide through, especially a contender cause if they saw Brandon on his way through they'd instantly know a big time deal was in play and nab McCarthy, therefor in a sense blocking the trade.

 

Good point Jas...I completely forgot that the AL gets first "diddys" on blocking deals.

[Chisoxfn]

Wouldn't that border on collusion?

I've been told that teams will do that sort of stuff, but on a less formal basis (for the exact reason you say). Its kind of one of those un-written things.

 

However, if a non-contender wants someone they'll take him and that can definately happen more often than not. In the Sox perspective if they are making a deal with a team in the NL involving someone on the 40 man roster, well, unless that person is Ryan Wing or Kevin Walker, he's not going to get through unclaimed.

[Kyyle23]

No it's common sense.  This isn't X-Box.  It's the real world.  There's consequences for the dumb-arse moves you make.

 

riiiiiight. Just get back to me when you find something saying that All other GMS agreed not to pick up a highly touted prospect going through waivers.

 

You see, the X Box statement is funny because it is commonly used when someone around Soxtalk is being incredibly unrealistic with their trades, and you throw it at me when you are inferring that one (possibly two, Anderson and BMac) top prospects are just going to pass through waivers to accomodate a trade, on the theory that noone else is going to claim them because they are worried Kenny wont deal with them years down the road.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

[Steff]

I've been told that teams will do that sort of stuff, but on a less formal basis (for the exact reason you say).  Its kind of one of those un-written things. 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to see some examples please. :rolly

[Dick Allen]

If the Sox tried to slide BMac through waivers and KC didn't claim him, their GM should be immediately fired. There used to be a gentleman's agreement not to claim guys, but that agreement is long gone. I read claiming guys could ruin future relations, that's total BS. GM's trying to win will deal with anyone they think can make their team better.

[spiderman]

First off you don't just put him on the list.  You call the GM's first & get agreement from those teams that can claim before the Reds.  A refusal to agree would not only spoil trade relations but it could also come back & haunt that non-contender.  Say a few years down the road that team reverses roles with either the CWS or the Reds.  The Reds or CWS would then be inclined to return the favor. 

 

Secondly if a non-contender did decide to play the spoiler (even after giving their word not to) you can always pull the player back.  The only risk is that you get a one shot deal involving that player.

 

I think we're on our last breath with this Griffey trade.

[Chisoxrd5]

I think we're on our last breath with this Griffey trade.

 

^^ Post of the day ^^

[Steff]

I think we're on our last breath with this Griffey trade.

 

 

 

Last breath....???

 

More like the body is on the block about to be embalmed.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The entire American League could be able to block McCarthy before the Reds even got a shot at claiming him.  There is no way a team would let McCarthy slide through, especially a contender cause if they saw Brandon on his way through they'd instantly know a big time deal was in play and nab McCarthy, therefor in a sense blocking the trade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's the first intelligent rebuttal. Thanks for reminding me of the rule: every team in the league you play in gets a chance before any team in the other league. It's a dumb rule that makes no sense in the modern age of FA but it's not one the CWS can overcome. Maybe they'll revisit it in the off-season or better yet adopt Stark's suggestion of doing away with ML waivers altogether & extend the trade deadline to Sep 1st.

 

Well that sucks. It looks like the guys that helped get us the 75 wins are the guys who are going to have to get it done in the post-season.

[LosMediasBlancas]

This doesn't sound to promising.

 

He also went on to say that if someone offers the Reds a #1 ace and they go ahead and make the deal, the press will call him a liar. So, basically, if that is the asking prcie, there is no chance for us to land him.

Of course, according to his column today, in Mariotti's brain, this means we can get it done and all KW has to do, I gather, is give up Mark B, that's all.

Why do we just not get it?

[spiderman]

It looks like the guys that helped get us the 75 wins are the guys who are going to have to get it done in the post-season.

 

Or is it possible to focus on a lesser player (with less to give up) who may have cleared waivers ?

 

Just asking, but has anyone heard of a few less popular/big $$ players who have gotten through waivers?

 

I'm sure Kenny Williams is exploring every possible player who's cleared waivers. Anyone we're overlooking while focusing on Griffey ?