News Flash.  As much as I want Griffey, they arent going to get rid of him.  The Ownership group is trying to sell the team, and they know that the team is worth more money with those players on it instead of prospects in the minors.  Getting rid of Griffey and selling the team would not only drop value, but eliminate the already dwindling fan base.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

News Flash.  As much as I want Griffey, they arent going to get rid of him.  The Ownership group is trying to sell the team, and they know that the team is worth more money with those players on it instead of prospects in the minors.  Getting rid of Griffey and selling the team would not only drop value, but eliminate the already dwindling fan base.

 

What if the new ownership group doesn't want to pay that salary until 2145 or whenever it ends? To say that for sure, when you don't know, is just plain crazy.

 

CRAZY, I TELLS YA!!!

What if the new ownership group doesn't want to pay that salary until 2145 or whenever it ends?  To say that for sure, when you don't know, is just plain crazy.

 

CRAZY, I TELLS YA!!!

It was on the news, take if FWIW, but it makes some sense. You would like a build in fan base as well as SOME marketability when you purchase a team, not to mention the sellers can make a case for a higher price because of the forementioned.

Would DH'ing full time have an adverse affect on Griffey's health?  At least when he's playing the outfield, he can stay a little looser by running from time to time.  If he's sitting on the bench warming up, then cooling down, he's more susceptable to injuries.  That being said, I'd love to see a sweet swinging, healthy, lefty power hitter on the Sox.

 

It would be a necessary evil.

 

A) Aaron Rowand has done NOTHING to deserve a demotion of any kind

 

B ) His future looks a lot like that of Frank Thomas'. If he really wants to stay around for a few more years, he's going to have to either DH in the AL or taking less at-bats in the NL because his legs simply can't take the grind anymore.

 

He is no spring chicken.

I really really wish it could happen, but I only see washed up players with large contracts coming through the wire, I dont know if Griffey would make it/cinci would get rid of him.

Didn't Griffey say he didn't want to play here?

When are we going to start hearing who has cleared waivers ?

 

For example, when was Griffey put on waivers, and how long would it take for him to get through?

 

This is my question too. Wouldn't we know if he were placed on waivers. I am positive I remember seeing "such-and-such placed so-and-so on waivers" in the transactions column of my morning paper at various times in the past. They do still do that don't they?

 

SFF

Edited August 9, 200520 yr by SpringfieldFan

This is my question too.  Wouldn't we know if he were placed on waivers.  I am positive I remember seeing "such-and-such placed so-and-so on waivers" in the transactions column of my morning paper at various times in the past.  They do still do that don't they?

 

SFF

 

You're referring to the traditional waiver wire that runs all season as opposed to now where it's not revealed when a player is placed on waivers....I think most teams will put quite a few of their players on waivers, and will end up pulling back nearly all (especially if you're contending)....

 

I'm just surprised that it's August 9th, and we haven't heard any names getting blocked/passing through, and that goes back to my original questions of how long will it take for a player to get through waivers, and when is a player originally put on waivers ...

You're referring to the traditional waiver wire that runs all season as opposed to now where it's not revealed when a player is placed on waivers....I think most teams will put quite a few of their players on waivers, and will end up pulling back nearly all (especially if you're contending)....

 

I'm just surprised that it's August 9th, and we haven't heard any names getting blocked/passing through, and that goes back to my original questions of how long will it take for a player to get through waivers, and when is a player originally put on waivers ...

 

Oh ok, I got it now. Thanks for the clarification!

Grif is hot now get him LH Power

Our O sucks...Griffey or someone similar is needed.

Heres the real question, who are WE going to put on Waivers?

Heres the real question, who are WE going to put on Waivers?

 

Everyone

Inspired posts of reason coming as to why Griffey is needed, and who we'd give up for him. It's just like he's gonna appear at the Cell from a Magic Carpet or something. Yeesh.

Heres the real question, who are WE going to put on Waivers?

Why would we have to put anyone on waivers?

 

Thomas can go on the 60-day DL, which will open up a spot on the 40 man.

Why would we have to put anyone on waivers?

 

Thomas can go on the 60-day DL, which will open up a spot on the 40 man.

 

The Sox will put every player on the team onto waivers at one point or another. Most will be claimed, and all who are claimed will be pulled back. Many teams use this to judge who is interested in trading for certian players in the off-season, and they keep that in mind for winter dealings. They also place everyone on waivers to try to bury the names of players they are trying to slide through for deals. Pretty much this happens with every team, and every player in baseball.

I'm just surprised that it's August 9th, and we haven't heard any names getting blocked/passing through, and that goes back to my original questions of how long will it take for a player to get through waivers, and when is a player originally put on waivers ...

 

I read on Daily Quickie on Page 2 of ESPN.com that Jamie Moyer refused a waiver deal to the Yankees. They are out there, just not public.

Bruce interviewed griffey. He didnt sound opposed to the idea of coming to Chicago at ALL.

Bruce interviewed griffey.  He didnt sound opposed to the idea of coming to Chicago at ALL.

 

 

SO LETS GO f***ING GET GRIFFEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

GIT R DONE K-DUB!

I read on Daily Quickie on Page 2 of ESPN.com that Jamie Moyer refused a waiver deal to the Yankees.  They are out there, just not public.

 

Which is the way it usually works. It's really not newsworthy until a guy is actually traded, or in this case, not traded.

The MLB rules clearly state that if a player is revoked from ML waivers the team can not request ML waivers on that player for 30 days.

 

Now if you think the Reds requested ML waivers on KGJ for the purpose of seeing who's interested then you're an idiot.

The MLB rules clearly state that if a player is revoked from ML waivers the team can not request ML waivers on that player for 30 days. 

 

Now if you think the Reds requested ML waivers on KGJ for the purpose of seeing who's interested then you're an idiot.

 

I don't understand your supposed logic here. Passing a player through waivers is a no risk deal. I'm also familiar with how this August waiver period has worked in the past. A vast majority of ML players are, in fact, put on waivers. If they are claimed by another team, they pull those players off and those players are not eligible to be included in any trades. So, when two teams talk trade, they know who can be and who cannot be traded without having to wait three days to see if an agrred upon deal can happen.

 

So, yes, I think the Reds requested ML waivers on KGJ. They have no logical reason no to do so. Now, if the makes me an idiot in your mind, that's ok. I just take into consideration who's mind it is and, as usual, disregard it.