Has anyone seen this re:Griffey

[Cardinal_Fan]

Are you serious? We haven't had to go through anything like what he has gone through. I don't believe any of us had season ending injuries, long rehab assignments, multiple surgeries to put our body back together, our home fans boo us when we got hurt(even though they are the same ones that cheer when he hits a HR), our employer promise to put together a pitching staff that would contend and not do it, get beat up in the media, listen to people say his contract was what kept the Reds from winning even though he took less money to come here(and it was the Larkin, Casey, and Graves contracts that really hurt) and the list goes on.

Griffey has not failed here, when he has been healthy he has put up good numbers. In case you forgot he did put up these numbers in 2000: .271/.387/.943 with 40 HRs 118 RBI. So, I wouldn't say that he is finally having a good year for the Reds, I would say that after 3.5 years of injuries he is finally healthy. If you really want to look at numbers you could also make a case that his 111 games played in 2001 were more productive than what Casey has done this year, once again proving that this isn't the first time he has done anything here.

I don't think any of Griffey's true fans would turn their back on him for wanting to leave this mess and go to a contender. The people that would do that would probably be the same ones that were booing/cheering when he got hurt and then cheer this year when he is playing good.

dude trading griffey would be the best thing ever for the reds. i'll concede that after all his injuries he's having a great year, but the fact remains you have 4 great outfeilders, and one of them (griffey) is getting up there in years and whether you like it or not is injury prone. Right now you can trade him and so what if you dont get very much (player wise) in return, because you'll be getting rid of at least part and im assuming a significant part of his salary. Getting rid of that salary would free up the money so that your new GM could go buy a good pitcher during the off season, like i dunno say a Matt morris from st louis. I say your new GM because i heard that he's beign fired, and i hope that's true because the current one is incompetant. But in conclusion if you want griffey around for another 4-5 years be ready to accept 4-5 more years of mediocrity which will cause you to lose all of the players you have currently who might be able to make up a contending team next year.

[Peelboy]

FWIW, remember that at this point in the season, traded players have to clear waivers. Players not on the 40-man roster are excluded. It's pretty farfetched to think that any prospects who are good enough to be on the 40-man would clear waivers unless there's something pretty dramatically wrong with them (injury, or if they've already had their shot and busted).

Thus any trade of Griffey will be for non-40 man prospects. For the White Sox, this means no Brian Anderson or Brandon McCarthy. I think it might also mean no Rogowski. Chris Young is not on the 40-man.

[sig]

I don't like the idea of trading Jr. but if it happens it happens. If he does move out, I sure hope they don't go forward with an outfield of Dunn, Kearns and Pena. That would be a defensive nightmare, IMO. If Dunn can move to first and a new CF be brought in, I think that would be a good plan. Casey is a great guy to have on the team but it's time for a first baseman who hits with power.

[Cardinal_Fan]

FWIW, remember that at this point in the season, traded players have to clear waivers. Players not on the 40-man roster are excluded. It's pretty farfetched to think that any prospects who are good enough to be on the 40-man would clear waivers unless there's something pretty dramatically wrong with them (injury, or if they've already had their shot and busted).

Thus any trade of Griffey will be for non-40 man prospects. For the White Sox, this means no Brian Anderson or Brandon McCarthy. I think it might also mean no Rogowski. Chris Young is not on the 40-man.

all the reds have to worry about is getting rid of his salary. prospects would be ok but getting rid of his salary means you can buy someone good during the off season, who can lead your rotation.

[Peelboy]

all the reds have to worry about is getting rid of his salary. prospects would be ok but getting rid of his salary means you can buy someone good during the off season, who can lead your rotation.

No according to a lot of what I've seen posted here. Comments like "Maybe you trade Griffey if they eat the whole salary AND send over a top pitching prospect and another good one".

Maybe the fact that no team was willing to risk having to take Griffey FOR FREE but eat the whole deal will put the whole "he's got tons of value" thing to rest. The prospects the Reds get back will be 100% commensurate with what $$$ they send along with Griffey. Send the whole contract = get back crap. Send a decent portion = get back a good prospect.

[Jpup]

what is all of this talk about Griffey making it, partially, through waivers? BBTN has gone on and on about it. What does that mean?

[jnwohio]

what is all of this talk about Griffey making it, partially, through waivers? BBTN has gone on and on about it. What does that mean?

Maybe "partial" means depite what most of the media has reported, somebody put in a claim on him and the Reds had to withdraw the waivers to keep from losing him. Sounds looney that anyone would take the risk of getting hung with his contract by blocking like that. If this is what happened give them bonus cajones points I suspose.

Procedurally, if a claim and withdrawal occurred, I believe that means if the Reds put him back on the wire for a 2nd time in this waiver period (i.e. thru the end of the season), they cannot pull him back and conversely, if he is out there again and you claim him, his contract is yours to keep, unless their are multiple claimers and he is awarded to a different claim.

[Redsland]

I've never heard the term "partially through waivers."

If a club requests waivers on a guy and no team makes a claim within 72 hours, then they guy has passed through waviers. If anything else happens, he hasn't.

Possibly BBTN doesn't know what it's yammering on about?

[Peelboy]

IMO they're referring to "revocable waivers". So Griffey hasn't really been "waived" in the sense that it usually means, where he's available to any other team. The Reds can pull him back. Plus, IIRC on standard waivers, once the player clears, he has to be optioned down or released, which is not the case here. If he was claimed and they were to waive him again later - they'd have to release him.

I've never heard of "partial waivers" being used for a player that was claimed. That player just didn't make it through waivers.

[Redsland]

They may be referring to revokable waivers, since those are the only ones in effect at this time of year, but Griffey cleared those waivers, according to published reports.

So, again, WTF are those "experts" on BBTN talking about?

[wheels]

No according to a lot of what I've seen posted here. Comments like "Maybe you trade Griffey if they eat the whole salary AND send over a top pitching prospect and another good one".

Maybe the fact that no team was willing to risk having to take Griffey FOR FREE but eat the whole deal will put the whole "he's got tons of value" thing to rest. The prospects the Reds get back will be 100% commensurate with what $$$ they send along with Griffey. Send the whole contract = get back crap. Send a decent portion = get back a good prospect.

Oops.

My post made no sense, so now it's gone.