caulfield12 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 8, 2013 -> 01:24 PM) Rios is close to having earned that money. The problem is the mysterious "one of the worst seasons in baseball history" in 2011 that really is a marvel in the middle of his career. If he'd been just "Bad" that season rather than "among the worst in baseball history" he'd have fully earned what the Sox have paid him. 2009 and 2011 still are sticking in everyone's "craw" as they say. That, and the lackadaisical play recently that's making it harder to trade him, not to mention the issues that he brought to the clubhouse by displacing Dye (blame that on KW, and also KW not completing the proposed Homer Bailey/Dye trade with some minor league prospects)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 8, 2013 -> 02:24 PM) Rios is close to having earned that money. The problem is the mysterious "one of the worst seasons in baseball history" in 2011 that really is a marvel in the middle of his career. If he'd been just "Bad" that season rather than "among the worst in baseball history" he'd have fully earned what the Sox have paid him. And he wasn't even the worst hitter on the team in 2011. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2013 -> 03:28 PM) Why couldn't they get anything for him? That has nothing to do with Wells. I think it was his numbers declined a little bit and he was getting the reputation of not really caring. The 2010 BP when discussing Rios mentioned "the gaggle of scouts who think he just doesn't give a damn". I think they spent all their time trying to trade Wells, put Rios on the waiver wire expecting no one to claim him, a team claimed him, they did the math and decided to save the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2013 -> 12:46 PM) When Rios came to the Sox, he was basically having the same year in Toronto that he is having now, and all the Blue Jays got for him was salary relief. The question will be do the Sox want to pay him to play here the rest of this year or next, because the return probably isn't going to be a highly rated prospect. This is a fallacy -- there are dozens of variables that are different now than back then. The two biggest are (1) the risk -- regardless of age, he is signed for 1.5 years with a team option now versus 5.5 before, and (2) the market -- he's the best OF available in a very thin market where there are more contenders and fewer sellers than ever before thanks to the second wild card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I'm on the same wavelength with most people here. I don't believe we'll move him at this point because it seems unlikely that he'll fetch the talent that he's worth to us. Rios is a guy we can build around if we want to and if we change our minds, I'm betting he has more trade value at that time in the future than he does now. He has certainly been one of the more enigmatic players we've had, though. As far as 2011, I still don't understand that season. I rarely think the manager has much to do with anything, but it sure seems that Ozzie has infected a few players over the years with bad play. Rios, Dunn, and Swisher come to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 8, 2013 -> 04:19 PM) I'm on the same wavelength with most people here. I don't believe we'll move him at this point because it seems unlikely that he'll fetch the talent that he's worth to us. Rios is a guy we can build around if we want to and if we change our minds, I'm betting he has more trade value at that time in the future than he does now. He has certainly been one of the more enigmatic players we've had, though. As far as 2011, I still don't understand that season. I rarely think the manager has much to do with anything, but it sure seems that Ozzie has infected a few players over the years with bad play. Rios, Dunn, and Swisher come to mind. Ozzie and Rios are buddies. Rios had a problem with KW, and it almost got physical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 8, 2013 -> 03:03 PM) This is a fallacy -- there are dozens of variables that are different now than back then. The two biggest are (1) the risk -- regardless of age, he is signed for 1.5 years with a team option now versus 5.5 before, and (2) the market -- he's the best OF available in a very thin market where there are more contenders and fewer sellers than ever before thanks to the second wild card. You could say its a fallacy, we will only truly know if he gets traded. Scouts reporting lack of effort and a big slump especially since neither are new and could last a while, doesn't help Hahn if he really wants to move him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2013 -> 03:24 PM) Ozzie and Rios are buddies. Rios had a problem with KW, and it almost got physical. Who didn't KW have a problem with, besides Buehrle, Konerko, Dye, Peavy and Thome? Then again, he probably had issues with Jake as well...trying to remember, probably about the way he became injured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 8, 2013 -> 04:27 PM) Who didn't KW have a problem with, besides Buehrle, Konerko, Dye, Peavy and Thome? Then again, he probably had issues with Jake as well...trying to remember, probably about the way he became injured. Rios is only one I know where it almost came to blows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2013 -> 02:28 PM) Why couldn't they get anything for him? That has nothing to do with Wells. I think it was his numbers declined a little bit and he was getting the reputation of not really caring. The 2010 BP when discussing Rios mentioned "the gaggle of scouts who think he just doesn't give a damn". Didn't they claim him on waivers and the Jays wanted players the Sox said no but we will take the whole salary and poof here he is. They were blocking the Tigers at the time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Maybe I/we don't know enough specifics, but Ozzie was gone in 2012 and KW remained and Rios had the year of his life. It could be that the Oz/KW circus and not just Oz was the problem, but it seems like the inexplicably horrible play by key players went away when Ozzie left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 8, 2013 -> 03:03 PM) This is a fallacy -- there are dozens of variables that are different now than back then. The two biggest are (1) the risk -- regardless of age, he is signed for 1.5 years with a team option now versus 5.5 before, and (2) the market -- he's the best OF available in a very thin market where there are more contenders and fewer sellers than ever before thanks to the second wild card. Thank you. And the cost of talent has increased significantly since we acquired Rios. Look what B.J. Upton got this past offseason and then forecast what OFs are likey to get in the near future when each team has an extra $25 million to work with. It's quite clear that Rios is now signed to below market terms and there's a ton of value in that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2013 -> 04:26 PM) You could say its a fallacy, we will only truly know if he gets traded. Scouts reporting lack of effort and a big slump especially since neither are new and could last a while, doesn't help Hahn if he really wants to move him. I'm just saying it's a fallacy to compare then and now because there are an entirely different set of circumstances -- different GMs, teams, playoff rules, economic conditions, etc. You could be right that his trade value is low, but whatever it ends up looking like, it doesn't have anything to do with his trade value in 2009. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2013 -> 04:29 PM) Rios is only one I know where it almost came to blows. And Frank Thomas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 8, 2013 -> 04:42 PM) And Frank Thomas That could have been an issue but Frank was with the A's. Supposedly, Rios had to be stopped from attacking KW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsox Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2013 -> 07:28 PM) That could have been an issue but Frank was with the A's. Supposedly, Rios had to be stopped from attacking KW. I now like Rios much better than I did five minutes ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 QUOTE (oldsox @ Jul 9, 2013 -> 03:51 AM) I now like Rios much better than I did five minutes ago. I just thought the exact same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Well that's interesting. Guys on the board are happy Rios almost physically attacked his superior (let's not act like Williams is some unathletic punk either, considering his major league heritage, son who played professional baseball, and son who plays for the 49ers) when Williams kept the Sox extremely competitive for the better stretch of 10 years. I look at 2003, 2006, and 2010 as years where the team literally fell just short, while I look at 2005 and 2008 as years where the team broke through, and most other years the team was atleast competitive. Really, in the grand scheme of things, the Sox were probably one of the top 10 most successful franchises of the past 10-15 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 9, 2013 -> 09:17 AM) Well that's interesting. Guys on the board are happy Rios almost physically attacked his superior (let's not act like Williams is some unathletic punk either, considering his major league heritage, son who played professional baseball, and son who plays for the 49ers) when Williams kept the Sox extremely competitive for the better stretch of 10 years. I look at 2003, 2006, and 2010 as years where the team literally fell just short, while I look at 2005 and 2008 as years where the team broke through, and most other years the team was atleast competitive. Really, in the grand scheme of things, the Sox were probably one of the top 10 most successful franchises of the past 10-15 years. I'm so ready for everyone to attack you. But I totally agree. I wanted more, but things could have been much, much worse. It's interesting to think/wonder how many playoff appearances/runs were cost by winning the one WS. 2006 certainly seemed to be a byproduct of overtaxed pitchers while we seemed to piss away some other golden chances because our manager went insane but couldn't be fired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 I will always love that team, and it was constructed incredibly well, but that was just about the flukiest team I've ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 9, 2013 -> 09:33 AM) I will always love that team, and it was constructed incredibly well, but that was just about the flukiest team I've ever seen. I would also probably argue that the 2006 team was one of the most stacked teams I've ever had the chance to see up close and they ultimately missed the playoffs. Weaknesses of 2005 team: designated hitter, 5th starter Additions to 2006 team: Jim Thome, Javier Vasquez Fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 9, 2013 -> 02:41 PM) I would also probably argue that the 2006 team was one of the most stacked teams I've ever had the chance to see up close and they ultimately missed the playoffs. Weaknesses of 2005 team: designated hitter, 5th starter Additions to 2006 team: Jim Thome, Javier Vasquez Fail. 2003 was probably the best paper team in 50 years for us and we missed the playoffs. If 2005 was a fluke we deserved it after underachieving sooften. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jul 9, 2013 -> 09:46 AM) 2003 was probably the best paper team in 50 years for us and we missed the playoffs. If 2005 was a fluke we deserved it after underachieving sooften. Absolutely. It was about damn time everything fell into place for a Chicago baseball team after 88 years of disappointment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 2005 is amazing just for the sheer roster turnover. I remember the Soxtalk banner had the faces of each new player on it entering that season. When do you see a team bring in so many new people and immediately succeed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harfman77 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jul 9, 2013 -> 09:46 AM) 2003 was probably the best paper team in 50 years for us and we missed the playoffs. If 2005 was a fluke we deserved it after underachieving sooften. 2003 was the best team in 10 years maybe. The 1994 team was our year. Makes me rage to this day. 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.