PDA

View Full Version : Cheapshot at Junior?



WilyMo
03-22-2006, 05:59 PM
Bowden quote when referring to Alfonso Soriano.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the chaos, Bowden said he does not regret making the trade.

"The risk is always there," Bowden said. "When I made the Ken Griffey Jr. trade with Cincinnati, everyone said this was one of the best trades in baseball, congratulations, and he was hurt for four years and it was a horrible trade.

"That's part of the game."

Heath
03-22-2006, 06:02 PM
Cheapshot or truth?

Did you think in 2000 that Jr. was going to get hurt like this every year?

Me neither.

WilyMo
03-22-2006, 06:03 PM
Yeah but it's not like the Reds gave up a king's ransom for Junior. The only factor is the money.

Nugget
03-22-2006, 06:07 PM
And as described in the other thread Bowden would have to have had his head in the sand to not know that Soriano was petulant and had already refused to move when at Texas. I don't think that there was any indication Junior was going to be injured or was even carrying injuries when he came to the REDS.

Heath
03-22-2006, 06:08 PM
The reason they didn't give up a king's ransom is that Jr. held the Mariners hostage for telling him he wanted to go to one team.

The Reds signed him to a hometown (at the time) discount. Lindner was looking to make a big splash to start the healing after Schott left.

Too bad Uncle Carl wasn't interested in spending it.

registerthis
03-22-2006, 06:12 PM
Cheapshot or truth?

Did you think in 2000 that Jr. was going to get hurt like this every year?

Me neither.

No one did. It's why Bowden's statement is bogus. He was comparing the Soriano deal to Junior's deal. Like I said in another thread, one situation (Soriano's) was easily forseen and predictable. The other (Junior's injury) was not. Bowden's simply trying to shrug off the Soriano trade as "Well, sometimes that's just how the cookie crumbles." which absolves him of the responsibility HE had to make sure that Soriano would be a good fit for his team and play where the team needed him to play.

Soriano's decision not to play left field wasn't the result of a freakish, unforseen injury. It was well known, even to the Nationals, that Soriano had no desire to play the outfield prior to being traded. JimBo did it anyway. JimBo bears the responsibility for that decision, which it appears he is unwilling to accept.

vaticanplum
03-22-2006, 06:14 PM
Bowden quote when referring to Alfonso Soriano.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the chaos, Bowden said he does not regret making the trade.

"The risk is always there," Bowden said. "When I made the Ken Griffey Jr. trade with Cincinnati, everyone said this was one of the best trades in baseball, congratulations, and he was hurt for four years and it was a horrible trade.

"That's part of the game."

I don't know how many times I can say this without feeling my own brains drizzle out of my ears, but it never was and is not now a "horrible trade". It was a fantastic deal in almost every way. The fact that it did not work out as expected, coupled with the myriad other mistakes the FO made in the succeeding years, does not negate the fact that it was a good signing.

Frank Robinson: a bad trade. Many people could have guessed that. Griffey Junior: a good trade that did not pan out as expected. But no one could have known that at the time.

It's semantics, but it's important. (And it's worth noting that it's non-Reds fans who least understand this distinction.)

RedsManRick
03-22-2006, 06:20 PM
Yup, Bowden is trying to equate unforseeable catastrophic injuries to a player not being willing to change positions even though it was common knowledge that he was strongly averse to doing so...

Sorry Jimbo -- you gambled that it wasn't really a big deal to Soriano and lost. Totally different situation. Just ask all of the writers who questioned the intelligence of the deal BEFORE it was even consumated.

Nugget
03-22-2006, 06:25 PM
The reason they didn't give up a king's ransom is that Jr. held the Mariners hostage for telling him he wanted to go to one team.


He didn't hold the Mariners hostage - He gave them an opportunity to trade him rather than just lose him to free agency like ARod. The Mariners dealt for what they thought was right for them. Certainly Cameron served them well for a number of years and like REDS trades in recent years you can't blame the player traded for failure or success.

Heath
03-22-2006, 06:35 PM
He didn't hold the Mariners hostage - He gave them an opportunity to trade him rather than just lose him to free agency like ARod. The Mariners dealt for what they thought was right for them. Certainly Cameron served them well for a number of years and like REDS trades in recent years you can't blame the player traded for failure or success.

Here's the exact conversation

Griffey - Trade me so I can be closer to Orlando.

Howard Lincoln - Well, there's Tampa Bay.

Griffey - No, send me to the National League.

Howard Lincoln - Well, there's Miami.

Griffey - No, send me to Cincinnati - that's the only place I will go.

Howard Lincoln - No, they have no one we want.

Griffey - Well, then, I guess I'll walk after the year.

Lincoln (grumbles, picks up phone) Yes, get me Jim Bowden.


There was no opportunity to trade with any other team. The Mariners had one opportunity to get anything from anybody for Junior. That team was Cincinnati.

kaldaniels
03-22-2006, 06:40 PM
Not a cheapshot, not even close to one...just the truth. Try to reconsider your thread title next time, as I began to get furious the moment I saw the title. :evil:

KronoRed
03-22-2006, 06:40 PM
As I recall the Mariners tried really hard to deal him to the Pirates and that's when the Cincy or bust declaration came down.

Chip R
03-22-2006, 06:43 PM
I do not think JimBo is familiar with the various levels of risk. If I take a trip on an airplane, there is a risk that the plane will crash. But the risk is very, very minimal. Then there is the risk of starting a fire when you are surrounded by a pool of gasoline. You may not die but the alternative is not going to be very fun. JimBo lit a cigar next to a gas tank with the Soriano deal.

Nugget
03-22-2006, 06:43 PM
I wouldn't call it a hostage situation. Junior could have left for free and all the Mariners would have got was a draft pick. So he gave them an opportunity to get something. Not nothing.

Team Clark
03-22-2006, 07:29 PM
Is is public knowledge that the Rangers would not allow the Nationals to speak with Soriano or his representation before the trade was official? Just curious. Although not common place it is happening more frequently and certainly would have helped Jimbo bridge this gap.

KoryMac5
03-22-2006, 09:49 PM
Soriano's decision not to play left field wasn't the result of a freakish, unforseen injury. It was well known, even to the Nationals, that Soriano had no desire to play the outfield prior to being traded. JimBo did it anyway. JimBo bears the responsibility for that decision, which it appears he is unwilling to accept.

Soriano also has some responsibility to accept to. Such as a contract to play baseball for ten million dollars. Unfortunately for Bowden Texas would not agree to let the Nats speak with Soriano before making the deal so Bowden really couldn't get a fair assesment of Soriano's extreme displeasure of playing the outfield.

captainmorgan07
03-22-2006, 10:09 PM
jimbo can shut his trap if he's that much of an idiot he's an idiot he only says that about junior now to try to cover his butt

MartyFan
03-23-2006, 03:15 AM
Here's the exact conversation

Griffey - Trade me so I can be closer to Orlando.

Howard Lincoln - Well, there's Tampa Bay.

Griffey - No, send me to the National League.

Howard Lincoln - Well, there's Miami.

Griffey - No, send me to Cincinnati - that's the only place I will go.

Howard Lincoln - No, they have no one we want.

Griffey - Well, then, I guess I'll walk after the year.

Lincoln (grumbles, picks up phone) Yes, get me Jim Bowden.


There was no opportunity to trade with any other team. The Mariners had one opportunity to get anything from anybody for Junior. That team was Cincinnati.


And tehy stll got some decent value even with their back against the wall.

registerthis
03-23-2006, 09:48 AM
Soriano also has some responsibility to accept to. Such as a contract to play baseball for ten million dollars. Unfortunately for Bowden Texas would not agree to let the Nats speak with Soriano before making the deal so Bowden really couldn't get a fair assesment of Soriano's extreme displeasure of playing the outfield.

I'm not absolving Soriano of any responsibility either. I thought his position was extremely selfish and undefensible--which is likely why he decided to eventually go on and accept the left field assignment.

But Soriano doesn't have anything to to do with where and when he is traded--GMs do. The Washington Post ran a story a couple of days ago that detailed the Soriano deal, and in it it was revealed that the nationals had a good idea that Soriano was averse to playing in the outfield, but thought that he could eventually be coaxed into it. They also realized that the rangers refusal to let them speak with Soriano indicated that they probably didn't want the nationals to hear what Soriano would say.

traderumor
03-23-2006, 09:54 AM
This isn't the first time Jimbo's thrown Jr. under the bus
http://reds.enquirer.com/2003/02/20/junior220.rtf.html


Thursday, February 20, 2003

Griffey stung by Bowden's "flop" remark

By John Fay
The Cincinnati Enquirer

SARASOTA, Fla. - Reds general manager Jim Bowden was stating the obvious when he said the Ken Griffey Jr. trade was a flop. But when you're dealing with a temperamental player like Griffey, stating the obvious can be an obvious mistake.

When asked about Bowden's statement, Griffey said: "I'd rather not talk about it."

His father, Ken Sr., wouldn't speak for Junior but said: "I know when you hear that stuff as a player, it doesn't feel good. I'm not talking as a father. I'm talking as a player and coach. You never like it when that stuff is written."

Bowden didn't back down from labeling as a flop the 2000 trade that dealt away center fielder Mike Cameron to Seattle, but Bowden reiterated that he qualified the statement.

"Junior's been hurt," Bowden said. "It's not his fault. So far, the trade hasn't worked. Everyone in America knows that. But it's not Junior's fault he's been hurt. It's not the Reds' fault he's been hurt."

HOW TRADE PANNED OUT
What the Reds got:
Ken Griffey Jr., CF: He has hit .275 with 70 home runs and 206 RBI since the trade.
What the Mariners got:
Mike Cameron, CF: He has hit .257 with 69 home runs, 268 RBI and 89 stolen bases since the trade.
Brett Tomko, RHP: He was traded to San Diego in a five-player deal. San Diego later traded him to St. Louis.
Antonio Perez, SS: The prospect was traded to Tampa Bay in the offseason for All-Star outfielder Randy Winn.
Jake Meyer, RHP: Was released by Seattle and signed by the Chicago White Sox last year.
Bowden based his statement on Cameron's numbers vs. Griffey's numbers.

Since the trade, Cameron has 69 home runs and 268 RBI. Griffey has hit 70 home runs and driven in 206 runs. Those numbers alone aren't overwhelming, because Cameron has played 463 games in the three years since the trade, and Griffey has played 326. In 2000, when Griffey was healthy, he hit .271 with 40 home runs and 118 RBI; Cameron hit .267 with 19 home runs and 78 RBI.

But the Mariners also got pitchers Brett Tomko and Jake Meyer and shortstop Antonio Perez in the deal. Tomko was traded to San Diego in a five-player deal that brought catcher Ben Davis to Seattle. Perez was traded to Tampa Bay in the deal that allowed the Devil Rays to sign manager Lou Piniella. The Mariners got All-Star outfielder Randy Winn in that deal. Meyer left Seattle as a minor-league free agent.

Bowden still thinks the trade will be a success.

"I believe over the next three years, Junior's going to be healthy and put up great numbers," Bowden said. "Everyone will say it's a great trade again. I'd make the deal 10 times over again."

Griffey hasn't been willing to talk about much of anything since arriving Tuesday.

Is he still happy in Cincinnati?

"What does it matter?" he said. "This game is not about being happy. It's about wins and losses."

The Reds are 229-257 since the Griffey trade, and Griffey has taken much of the blame.

"When anyone else is hurt, nobody says anything negative," Griffey Sr. said. "(Sean) Casey's been hurt. Nobody says anything about that."

Bowden's comment came about two months after word leaked that the Reds had worked out a Griffey trade with San Diego. Phil Nevin eventually nixed the deal with his no-trade clause, but how it was handled didn't sit well with the Griffey camp.

Yet Senior said Junior remains happy in Cincinnati.

"All Junior ever wanted to do was play in Cincinnati," Ken Sr. said. "He's going to be happy as long as he's there. The only thing he's disappointed in is all the bad press he's gotten."

Senior said Junior's biggest mistake was to try to play through a hamstring injury in 2001.

"I tried to get him to shut it down," Senior said. "But certain people wanted him to pinch hit. Why jeopardize everything for that?"

Senior didn't say who "certain people" were.

Junior injured his left hamstring March 26, 2001. He made 16 pinch-hit appearances to start the year, going 0-for-12. He then spent six weeks on the disabled list. He returned and hit 22 home runs with 65 RBI in 92 starts.

The 2002 season started just as badly, when Griffey tore his right patella tendon April 8 and missed 41 games. A torn right hamstring cost him 25 more games.

Bowden and Griffey Sr. say everything will be all right when Reds fans see a couple years of a healthy Junior.

"If he's healthy, the fans of Cincinnati have never seen a player like him," Senior said. "I'm talking about Willie Mays and all the rest."

Said Bowden: "He's very capable of doing what Barry Bonds has done. He's very capable of putting up the same type of numbers late in his career."

E-mail jfay@enquirer.com

traderumor
03-23-2006, 09:58 AM
As far as it being a horrible trade, it was not. He got an All-Century superstar for Cameron and Tomko. The bad part of the deal was the lifetime contract. Of course, Jimbo knows you don't judge a trade in hindsight, he's simply banking that others don't realize that. He will do anything to avoid his responsibility in a deal.

traderumor
03-23-2006, 10:00 AM
I'm not absolving Soriano of any responsibility either. I thought his position was extremely selfish and undefensible--which is likely why he decided to eventually go on and accept the left field assignment.

But Soriano doesn't have anything to to do with where and when he is traded--GMs do. The Washington Post ran a story a couple of days ago that detailed the Soriano deal, and in it it was revealed that the nationals had a good idea that Soriano was averse to playing in the outfield, but thought that he could eventually be coaxed into it. They also realized that the rangers refusal to let them speak with Soriano indicated that they probably didn't want the nationals to hear what Soriano would say.

Which is one thing that makes Bowden bad news as a GM. He has too many fetishes for types of players and specific players and will go against sound judgment to satisfy those fetishes.

princeton
03-23-2006, 10:19 AM
Jr. deal was a huge risk, mainly in hopes that Jr. would bring in the fans in the way that McGwire did in St. Louis. This would have freed up more money for pitching. But the fans only showed up for a season, and so the money for pitching didn't happen. 'm not sure that JimBo could have ever gotten SO MUCH extra money that he would have been able to land pitching, because he always spends extra money on other stuff. But the theory was sound.

Another big part of JimBo's gamble was that Pokey would become Ozzie Smith, which he didn't (as I've said many times, I'd have made that deal with Reese and not Cameron, which Seattle also preferred).

But the simple fact is that the Reds would actually have done better without making the trade. It was well worth the risk, but that doesn't mean that risk doesn't bite you.



Of course, Jimbo knows you don't judge a trade in hindsight.

of course you do-- you judge trades twice, at the beginning and at the end. it's how you learn.

registerthis
03-23-2006, 10:22 AM
Jr. deal was a huge risk, mainly in hopes that Jr. would bring in the fans in the way that McGwire did in St. Louis. This would have freed up more money for pitching. But the fans only showed up for a season, and so the money for pitching didn't happen. 'm not sure that JimBo could have ever gotten SO MUCH extra money that he would have been able to land pitching, because he always spends extra money on other stuff. But the theory was sound.

Another big part of JimBo's gamble was that Pokey would become Ozzie Smith, which he didn't (as I've said many times, I'd have made that deal with Reese and not Cameron, which Seattle also preferred).

But the simple fact is that the Reds would actually have done better without making the trade. It was well worth the risk, but that doesn't mean that risk doesn't bite you.

I don't disagree with any of this, but I don't think the Junior deal is an apt comparison to the Soirano deal. You could make an argument that neither trade worked well for both teams--althought the jury is still out on Soriano. But that's where the similarities between the two ended. There's risk involved with any trade, but i simply don't by Bowden's reasoning that Soriano's refusal to play is on par with Junior popping his hammy.

traderumor
03-23-2006, 10:57 AM
of course you do-- you judge trades twice, at the beginning and at the end. it's how you learn.
Except he's not doing a post mortem analysis here. As has been pointed out, he's saying its a bad trade because of injuries. Point taken, and I realize that, but that isn't what Jimbo is doing here. A post mortem would have been "don't give nine year contracts."

princeton
03-23-2006, 11:35 AM
I don't disagree with any of this, but I don't think the Junior deal is an apt comparison to the Soirano deal. You could make an argument that neither trade worked well for both teams--althought the jury is still out on Soriano. But that's where the similarities between the two ended. There's risk involved with any trade, but i simply don't by Bowden's reasoning that Soriano's refusal to play is on par with Junior popping his hammy.

the message is that what looks like a good trade now may turn out to be a bad one and vice-versa. How does that not apply to the Soriano trade?

vaticanplum
03-23-2006, 11:51 AM
the message is that what looks like a good trade now may turn out to be a bad one and vice-versa. How does that not apply to the Soriano trade?

Because Bowden had the tools to know better. It looked like a good trade on the assumption that Soriano would play the position Bowden wanted him to. But there were indications even before the trade that this assumption was wrong.

princeton
03-23-2006, 12:20 PM
It looked like a good trade on the assumption that Soriano would play the position Bowden wanted him to.

Thus far, it looks like your concern has been answered, so you'd have to call it a good trade.

to me, the bigger questions include whether Soriano plays up to his price, whether a cheaper replacement was available and whether the money was better spent elsewhere.