Wednesday, October 29, 2008

What Happens to Griffey?

In addition to Garrett Anderson, Ken Griffey, Jr. is available too:

According to an SI.com report on Tuesday, the Chicago White Sox will not try to re-sign the free-agent outfielder. That means the sure Hall of Famer will have played only 41 games in Chicago, which lost to the Tampa Bay Rays in the AL Division Series.

The White Sox acquired Griffey from the Cincinnati Reds in July. The team held off the Minnesota Twins for the AL Central crown but lost in four games to the Rays in the playoffs. Between the two teams last season, Griffey hit only .249 with 18 homers and 71 RBIs in 490 at-bats.
Not a surprise, obviously, but I'm sitting here wondering who on Earth needs Ken Griffey Jr.? While the Sox deployed him in center, he is at best a corner outfielder now, and a bad one at that. His bat is no longer potent, so even a DH slot would be difficult for him to justify in most places. Finally, while he has never seriously rocked the boat, he has sulked on occasion, and nothing about him suggests that he'd be willing to take a small -- and I mean a really small -- contract simply to play, which is probably all he can expect to realize in 2009.

The only possible landing pad I see for him is as a gate attraction as the DH in Seattle, because at least there he constitutes an actual upgrade in performance. If they're not interested, I think it's entirely possible that he retires.

7 comments:

Pete Toms said...

If Griffey nabs a job as a DH in 09 what does that say about NO offers to Bonds in 08? Probably moot, my money is on Griffey retiring.

tHeMARksMiTh said...

My guess: Griffey in Atlanta as the LF. Platoons with Matt Diaz. I shutter to think of it, but I also find it plausible.

Daniel said...

I could see him DHing in Seattle. As for conspiracy theories though, at least that takes race off the table (not that it was ever really prominently on the table in regard to Bonds).

There's still plenty of ground to stand on: Bonds' legal trouble, his rep as a "clubhouse cancer," etc. None of it is all that legitimate, but arguments could be made.

Pete Toms said...

There is an excellent conversation happening @ The Sports Economist re. Bonds & collusion. I don't think there is a "smoking gun" that will convict the owners but others make a convincing case in the chat room that Bonds could come out on top....

Mark said...

How could Bonds prove that it all wasn't just the owners and GMs independently deciding that signing him would not be the best PR move they could make?

I'm amazed this collection of plutocrats can agree on what time it is, never mind something that diabolical.

Which, obviously, didn't stop them once before.

scatterbrian said...

doesn't his age and effectiveness scream San Francisco?

Loztralia said...

Cubs. They'll be looking for a lefty bat/centre field miracle who by all rights should have retired years ago after Edmonds moves on.