Balta1701 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 09:34 AM) Yeah, but they compensated by trading an actual prospect instead of a bag of balls... Now the Rios situation is much different because he is owed far more money, but if they didn't want to pay for Rios' salary, they could certainly include some cost-controlled prospects or young players instead of eating salary. For instance, there might be a team would be willing to take Rios and most of his salary if you included Addison Reed and Nestor Molina and Viciedo with him... It's just paying with different assets... Unfortunately in this case, the Red Sox couldn't be that team, because Rios's salary would easily push them into Luxury Tax territory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,2015814.story OAKLAND -- There were several interesting twists to the Chicago White Sox's 2-0 loss at Oakland that ended their four-game winning streak. Perhaps the strangest development involved Alex Rios, whose 11-game hitting streak ended with two out in the ninth inning when he was lifted for pinch-hitter Adam Dunn. Rios was 0-for-3 against crafty left-hander Tommy Milone. But Rios was only 2-for-12 with five strikeouts against closer Grant Balfour, while Dunn was 1-for-4. Kosuke Fukudome kept the Sox's alive with a pinch-hit single and moved all the way to third on defensive indifference. Dunn worked the count to 3-2 before striking out to end the game. "I thought I was going to hit, but he (Ventura) thought that Adam had a better chance," Rios said. "Let’s go for it. We’re here to win games, and that’s what matters right now.” Ventura insinuated that Dunn represented the Sox's best chance to tie the game at that time. “You’re looking to tie it up," said Ventura, who also had A.J. Pierzynski on the bench. "That was probably our best shot at tying it up, and that was the only reason for that.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 08:03 AM) Of Course, Byrd was actually hitting well enough to make Morel look good. Byrd was last of all 188 eligible/qualified MLB hitters the day they traded him. Morel was 185th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 07:48 AM) Unfortunately in this case, the Red Sox couldn't be that team, because Rios's salary would easily push them into Luxury Tax territory. Well that was the whole point I made...which is the entire reason they had to give up Bowden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Ventura insinuated that Dunn represented the Sox's best chance to tie the game at that time. “You’re looking to tie it up," said Ventura, who also had A.J. Pierzynski on the bench. "That was probably our best shot at tying it up, and that was the only reason for that.” I can't argue with that at all... Dunn gave the team the best chance for an instant tie ball game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 09:53 AM) Ventura insinuated that Dunn represented the Sox's best chance to tie the game at that time. “You’re looking to tie it up," said Ventura, who also had A.J. Pierzynski on the bench. "That was probably our best shot at tying it up, and that was the only reason for that.” I can't argue with that at all... Dunn gave the team the best chance for an instant tie ball game. I agree. Hopefully it doesn't f*** with Rios's psyche and put him in a slump. Mental toughness doesn't appear to be his strong suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) Well that was the whole point I made...which is the entire reason they had to give up Bowden. Its not like Bowden was a prized prospect anymore. He was designated for assignment. He's a better bet than most of the crap you would get for Byrd, but certainly not the main reason the Cubs are eating as much of the contract they are allowed . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 10:31 AM) Its not like Bowden was a prized prospect anymore. He was designated for assignment. He's a better bet than most of the crap you would get for Byrd, but certainly not the main reason the Cubs are eating as much of the contract they are allowed . So is the main reason Theo helping out Cherington? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 11:48 AM) So is the main reason Theo helping out Cherington? No the main reason is getting him off the roster lets the younger guys play and they get a flier on Bowden. If the Red Sox offered the Cubs $1 million in savings and prospect no better than me or you instead, The Cubs would have taken that. The Cubs weren't going to be able to trade Byrd without eating his contract. Teams that budget $6 million to spend during the season don't keep it handy for Marlon Byrd. Bowden couldn't hang in the Boston bullpen and they were just about to waive him anyway. Now when Ellsbury comes back, the Red Sox can waive Byrd if he still can't hit, without hurting themselves financially as I think they have luxury tax issues. Ricketts is paying a few teams to take old Cubs and probably isn't done wiring money to other teams. Edited April 25, 2012 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Rios is incredibly predictable if you pay attention, he's been an every other year guy for most of his career. It just so happens he's coming off of a down year and he's producing, again. This is the year to unload him if you can because he will SUCK next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 12:36 PM) No the main reason is getting him off the roster lets the younger guys play and they get a flier on Bowden. If the Red Sox offered the Cubs $1 million in savings and prospect no better than me or you instead, The Cubs would have taken that. The Cubs weren't going to be able to trade Byrd without eating his contract. Teams that budget $6 million to spend during the season don't keep it handy for Marlon Byrd. Bowden couldn't hang in the Boston bullpen and they were just about to waive him anyway. Now when Ellsbury comes back, the Red Sox can waive Byrd if he still can't hit, without hurting themselves financially as I think they have luxury tax issues. Ricketts is paying a few teams to take old Cubs and probably isn't done wiring money to other teams. So what point are you trying to make, other than just wanting to argue with me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 12:42 PM) So what point are you trying to make, other than just wanting to argue with me? I'm not arguing, and won't take your bait, just pointing out that Michael Bowden isn't such a great prospect that Cubs decided to eat $6 million to obtain his services. They were going to have to eat the money if they wanted to rid themselves of Byrd. As I mentioned, I think Bowden is a little better than what you would normally get for Byrd, but the Red Sox were going to lose him for nothing anyway, and he's still a longshot to be much in the major leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjshoe04 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 12:47 PM) I'm not arguing, and won't take your bait, just pointing out that Michael Bowden isn't such a great prospect that Cubs decided to eat $6 million to obtain his services. They were going to have to eat the money if they wanted to rid themselves of Byrd. As I mentioned, I think Bowden is a little better than what you would normally get for Byrd, but the Red Sox were going to lose him for nothing anyway, and he's still a longshot to be much in the major leagues. Yeah, Bowden can't be a great prospect when you consider the fact that I have a few career hits off of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 12:41 PM) Rios is incredibly predictable if you pay attention, he's been an every other year guy for most of his career. It just so happens he's coming off of a down year and he's producing, again. This is the year to unload him if you can because he will SUCK next season. Rios would have to have a career year to be truly tradeable, without hooking the Sox for a ton of cash, or for including our own top guys to balance it out. No major league general manager is going forget about the previous body of work for Alex Rios. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 12:47 PM) I'm not arguing, and won't take your bait, just pointing out that Michael Bowden isn't such a great prospect that Cubs decided to eat $6 million to obtain his services. They were going to have to eat the money if they wanted to rid themselves of Byrd. As I mentioned, I think Bowden is a little better than what you would normally get for Byrd, but the Red Sox were going to lose him for nothing anyway, and he's still a longshot to be much in the major leagues. Ok, well that's just fine...and not really disputing anything I pointed out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 11:41 AM) Rios is incredibly predictable if you pay attention, he's been an every other year guy for most of his career. It just so happens he's coming off of a down year and he's producing, again. This is the year to unload him if you can because he will SUCK next season. I think this Board's expectations of Rios are just way too high to begin with. The guy has never had an OBP over .354 in his entire career, has never hit over .305 in his career, has never driven in 90 runs in a season. He is what he is, a solid player. He's not going to be a perennial all star, and I think the fact that he gets paid like one makes us think he should be. The fact of the matter is, it was a terrible move for KW to pick him up off waivers. But the odds are overwhelmingly in favor he will have a season much like his career line of .270, .320, and 15-20 bombs. I think last year was just an aberration for the worst, unfortunately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 11:54 AM) Rios would have to have a career year to be truly tradeable, without hooking the Sox for a ton of cash, or for including our own top guys to balance it out. No major league general manager is going forget about the previous body of work for Alex Rios. I disagree...just look at Vernon Wells... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 01:01 PM) I disagree...just look at Vernon Wells... So who has a space for Rios and have the ability to pay him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 12:03 PM) So who has a space for Rios and have the ability to pay him? LA Dodgers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 24, 2012 -> 04:31 PM) Its nice that Rios is doing better, Im not sure that its Manto. Rios has done this before, you just never know what youll get. I'm convinced 100% that it's Manto, because I know for a fact that Greg Walker visited him and reworked his swing in the offseason (in one day, mind you) before 2010 and he had a hot start then too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (Special K @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 02:00 PM) I think this Board's expectations of Rios are just way too high to begin with. The guy has never had an OBP over .354 in his entire career, has never hit over .305 in his career, has never driven in 90 runs in a season. He is what he is, a solid player. He's not going to be a perennial all star, and I think the fact that he gets paid like one makes us think he should be. The fact of the matter is, it was a terrible move for KW to pick him up off waivers. But the odds are overwhelmingly in favor he will have a season much like his career line of .270, .320, and 15-20 bombs. I think last year was just an aberration for the worst, unfortunately. If Rios did all of that every year while playing the level of defense he's capable of, then he'd be more than earning his contract and picking him up would have been a great move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 01:13 PM) I'm convinced 100% that it's Manto, because I know for a fact that Greg Walker visited him and reworked his swing in the offseason (in one day, mind you) before 2010 and he had a hot start then too. It's just getting him to be willing to take pitches out over the plate to the opposite field... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 01:12 PM) LA Dodgers Are you benching Either or Kemp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 12:17 PM) Are you benching Either or Kemp? Yeah, we're going to bench Kemp. No, you're replacing Rivera most likely. Obviously you'd want to move him in the offseason...when more teams have flexibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 01:20 PM) Yeah, we're going to bench Kemp. No, you're replacing Rivera most likely. Obviously you'd want to move him in the offseason...when more teams have flexibility. So move him to LF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.