Ken Griffey Jr.

[KSigkid]

What's up,
ESPN had a question about this on their page today, and I thought it was kind of interesting; how far has Griffey really fallen in the minds of sports fans?

How does everyone think he'll do for the rest of his career? How many home runs do you think he'll end up with? What's his final legacy: an all-time great, or someone who started on fire and tailed off a great deal at the end?

I have my own opinions, I'll weigh in later.

Collin

[KSig RC]

He'll get to 500 (hell, Collin, you'd have a chance to get to 500 from where he is) . . . however, is that a lock for the HOF anymore?

I think he's done - he'll be above replacement level (for you sabermetrics kid) for a while, but not by much.

If they could have traded him for Phil Nevin, that would have been a coup.

(PS - speaking of the Reds, order me my Todd Walker jersey for XMas buddy . . . word)

[Steeltrap]

Who really didn't want to see a diminished-skill Junior on the team.

I can understand some interest in the Kid, because there's a new downtown Camden Yard-esque ballpark being built in San Diego. But Phil Nevin's done pretty well, transforming himself from a converted catcher back into a solid power-hitting 3B.

Final legacy, IMO, is tarnished great, especially after the injuries. He should be in the HOF.

[Thrillhouse]

I am glad the sox said no to the Ordonez for Grumpy Jr. trade. I am not so sure that 500hr gets one into the hall of fame anymore. I think Eddie Murray is the last to get that distinction.

[KSigkid]

This is a big bump, but a question I'd thought about. With all the steroid controversy, especially around the premier home run hitters of the era (McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc.), does this make Griffey's accomplishments look that much greater? After all, I don't think anyone would accuse Griffey of steroid use. Does it make a difference?

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by KSigkid
This is a big bump, but a question I'd thought about. With all the steroid controversy, especially around the premier home run hitters of the era (McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc.), does this make Griffey's accomplishments look that much greater? After all, I don't think anyone would accuse Griffey of steroid use. Does it make a difference?

Gammons has argued this very point, pretty much saying that it must be pretty great to be Griffey right now, after all the shit he took, because he's one of the only guys on the planet that no one has the slightest suspicion of.

I'm not sure how I think the accomplishments stack up, though . . . honestly, I just don't know. I think this will be one of the great historical issues of our (sporting) times: how does the modern baseball era stack up when viewed in hindsight?

Off the top of my head, I think Griffey gets much more HOF voting respect, but I don't think history will view this any differently than, say, Cy Young's insane W/L numbers.

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Gammons has argued this very point, pretty much saying that it must be pretty great to be Griffey right now, after all the shit he took, because he's one of the only guys on the planet that no one has the slightest suspicion of.

I'm not sure how I think the accomplishments stack up, though . . . honestly, I just don't know. I think this will be one of the great historical issues of our (sporting) times: how does the modern baseball era stack up when viewed in hindsight?

Off the top of my head, I think Griffey gets much more HOF voting respect, but I don't think history will view this any differently than, say, Cy Young's insane W/L numbers.

I think Griffey was in anyways; maybe this makes him a more solid first ballot guy then he would have been, although I think he had enough dominance to make it a moot point.

You're right though...time will tell whether the public perception of Griffey improves. If he hadn't been hurt for so many years, we may be talking 600 home runs, we might be having a serious debate as to the best power hitter of the era (with the question marks surrounding Sosa, Big Mac and Bonds).