Alex Rios Trade

[TaylorStSox]

There's absolutely no proof that Rios ever had issues in the clubhouse or with teammates. In fact, he was usually one of the first players to congratulate his teammates in the dugout. The speculation is pure TMZ level bulls***.

 

Garcia will be extremely lucky if he's ever as good as Alex Rios.

Edited June 10, 2014 by TaylorStSox

[LittleHurt05]

But they didn't.

 

You really don't think it's human nature to try harder to impress new teammates, especially when you're going from one of the three worst teams in the majors (with perhaps the most negative attitude/mindset of any Sox team in recent memory, and the most mental mistakes) to one of the best franchises in recent MLB history?

 

Fair enough.

 

What do Rock Raines and bucket think about this specific question?

 

There's no way I'm going to be convinced we would have won more games with Rios still around.

 

We can look at their record before he left the team (.377) and afterwards (.417) and that's just as compelling as virtually identical OPS numbers.

 

1. You are comparing 114 games to 48 games.

2. Peavy was also traded, maybe getting rid of him from the clubhouse was the reason the Sox played better.

[witesoxfan]

But they didn't.

 

You really don't think it's human nature to try harder to impress new teammates, especially when you're going from one of the three worst teams in the majors (with perhaps the most negative attitude/mindset of any Sox team in recent memory, and the most mental mistakes) to one of the best franchises in recent MLB history?

 

Fair enough.

 

What do Rock Raines and bucket think about this specific question?

 

There's no way I'm going to be convinced we would have won more games with Rios still around.

 

We can look at their record before he left the team (.377) and afterwards (.417) and that's just as compelling as virtually identical OPS numbers.

 

You can believe what you want to believe. If you believe in the Great Dijon God, that's your prerogative, but I'm going to use the quantifiable information I have on hand to help show that Alex Rios was a better player down the stretch than Avisail Garcia and, using deduction, will infer that the White Sox were a worse team. Just because their winning percentage was better than when Rios was there does not mean they were a better team with him off the roster, unless you want to look at a similar sample size of John Ely and assume he was the best pitcher on the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2010. Other people could have and did get hot - compare Dunn's numbers while Rios was on the Sox in 2013 versus when Garcia was on the Sox. It's a big, big difference. There are others I'm sure you can look at during those time frames too.

Edited June 10, 2014 by witesoxfan

[caulfield12]

1. You are comparing 114 games to 48 games.

2. Peavy was also traded, maybe getting rid of him from the clubhouse was the reason the Sox played better.

 

 

Which is kind of the point...there's no way to determine it. Or maybe it was not having Matt Thornton getting lit up like a Christmas tree?

 

FWIW, Erik Johnson basically pitched as well as or better than Peavy down the stretch, etc.

[witesoxfan]

Which is kind of the point...there's no way to determine it. Or maybe it was not having Matt Thornton getting lit up like a Christmas tree?

 

FWIW, Erik Johnson basically pitched as well as or better than Peavy down the stretch, etc.

 

So now you've admitted that others had a huge effect too, and a lot of other players picked up their performance. Why do you not find it reasonable that the team would have played better with a better player down the stretch?

[TaylorStSox]

Which is kind of the point...there's no way to determine it. Or maybe it was not having Matt Thornton getting lit up like a Christmas tree?

 

FWIW, Erik Johnson basically pitched as well as or better than Peavy down the stretch, etc.

Seriously, do you have a point?

[caulfield12]

So now you've admitted that others had a huge effect too, and a lot of other players picked up their performance. Why do you not find it reasonable that the team would have played better with a better player down the stretch?

 

 

It's the same argument people made about how Ventura was a great manager in 2012.

 

A lot of us said ANYONE not named Ozzie Guillen would have seemed great to that team, and would have had the same effect as a manager, essentially.

 

Ergo, another logical or reasonable person might also say that team was a lot better off with Ozzie Guillen (or Rios gone), not so much because of the production or manager that replaced them but simply because of the "breath of fresh air/change of scenery" effect it had in the clubhouse.

 

 

Still waiting for Rock Raines or bucket to weigh in...

[Eminor3rd]

But there's no way to quantify what affect his mood/attitude had on the clubhouse.

 

 

White Sox before Rios trade (43-71, .377 winning percentage)

 

After Alex Rios trade (Aug 9)...finished 20-28, for a .417 winning percentage.

 

 

 

If you extrapolate the team's record with Rios, they would have been expected to finish 61-101. That he played BETTER for the Rangers, in your opinion, doesn't mean he would have put up those same exact numbers (especially 16/17 in stolen bases) in Chicago for the final 6-7 weeks.

 

I don't mean to pile on, but man, that is a ridiculous argument.

[caulfield12]

Seriously, do you have a point?

 

 

Gee, Alex Rios leaving for the Rangers automatically put us ahead of the Cubs in losses and got us Rodon, and it had nothing to do with Jake Peavy, or Matt Thornton...or any of about 15-25 other variables we could throw out there as the reason.

 

That makes sense. He must have been THE reason.

 

And because of all that money we saved not having to pay him, it's also the only reason we were able to free up money to sign Jose Abreu (as well as the signing bonus), even though we were willing to spend $140 million on Tanaka anyway.

 

Seriously, do you also believe that?

Edited June 10, 2014 by caulfield12

[The Ultimate Champion]

I get both sides of the Rios salary dump thing.

 

First off, that deal was definitely, 100% a salary dump and that's that. Leury Garcia is not the return you ask for in exchange for that caliber of player. Leury is useful, but you need more than that.

 

Secondly, the Sox are the ones that put it out there that they needed money for Abreu. I agree with those that are calling bulls*** on this, but still, can't blame posters for taking the Sox word at face value. Truth is, the Sox bulls*** about money all the time, always have and always will, and you really don't know what they're going to do. They will have it, but will they spend it? Who knows.

 

Lastly, haven't read these last couple pages of this thread, but there is not one single player on the team ATM that you HAVE to dump. Danks is the closest, but let's see how he does this year first. If he looks like one of the seemingly many pitchers who have become better "pitchers" after diminished stuff, then he still brings you back a piece you will care about.

 

If you trade Beckham, Alexei, a starter, one of our better relievers, etc. the returns on all of those deals should be far better than the one we got out of Rios. With Dunn and DeAza it doesn't matter, a Leury return there is probably even asking too much, but aside from getting someone to handle our junk, any trade discussion centering around a Leury-quality player is a total non-starter, and you hang up the phone on that GM but only after telling him to suck your balls. JMO.

[TaylorStSox]

Gee, Alex Rios leaving for the Rangers automatically put us ahead of the Cubs in losses and got us Rodon, and it had nothing to do with Jake Peavy, or Matt Thornton...or any of about 15-25 other variables we could throw out there as the reason.

 

That makes sense. He must have been THE reason.

 

And because of all that money we saved not having to pay him, it's also the only reason we were able to free up money to sign Jose Abreu (as well as the signing bonus), even though we were willing to spend $140 million on Tanaka anyway.

 

Seriously, do you also believe that?

[caulfield12]

I don't mean to pile on, but man, that is a ridiculous argument.

 

 

And even though Alex Rios had a worse OPS than Avisail Garcia, it still means a 3-4 swing in the standings over just 48 games, since the Cubs won 66?

 

 

Wow. If Rios is so great that he can make up that much of a difference in the standings in 7 weeks, then why would they have traded him in the first place?

[Eminor3rd]

And even though Alex Rios had a worse OPS than Avisail Garcia, it still means a 3-4 swing in the standings over just 48 games, since the Cubs won 66?

 

 

Wow. If Rios is so great that he can make up that much of a difference in the standings in 7 weeks, then why would they have traded him in the first place?

 

The difference between 63-99 and 61-101 and not even remotely close to being statistically significant. Replay the stretch 10 times and you'd see all kinds of results with or without Rios. That's not useful evidence to your point is all I'm saying.

[The Ultimate Champion]

And even though Alex Rios had a worse OPS than Avisail Garcia, it still means a 3-4 swing in the standings over just 48 games, since the Cubs won 66?

 

 

Wow. If Rios is so great that he can make up that much of a difference in the standings in 7 weeks, then why would they have traded him in the first place?

I wish I had the mental capacity to figure out what your point is here. I'm not saying you don't have a point, just that I'm just a little sad thatt my brain does not possess the processing power necessary to find it.

[caulfield12]

I wish I had the mental capacity to figure out what your point is here. I'm not saying you don't have a point, just that I'm just a little sad thatt my brain does not possess the processing power necessary to find it.

 

 

I'll restate it simply.

 

Rios (with the Rangers) and Garcia (with the White Sox) were essentially the same player, OPS-wise.

 

Because Rios had 16/17 steals, and is a better defender (although we saw a TON of lapses out of him in 2013, although not quite like 2009/2011)...that trade was significant enough in and of itself to shift the balance in the standings so that the White Sox finished with the 3rd pick overall and took Rodon, while the Cubs finished at 66-96.

 

To summarize, if Rios wasn't traded, the argument goes...we would have won 66 or 67 games (a 3-4 game improvement) over 63-99 and ended up with Kyle Schwarber as the #4 draft pick instead of Rodon at 3.

Edited June 10, 2014 by caulfield12

[TaylorStSox]

And even though Alex Rios had a worse OPS than Avisail Garcia, it still means a 3-4 swing in the standings over just 48 games, since the Cubs won 66?

 

 

Wow. If Rios is so great that he can make up that much of a difference in the standings in 7 weeks, then why would they have traded him in the first place?

What in the hell are you trying to say? Go to sleep or something.

[The Ultimate Champion]

I'll restate it simply.

 

Rios (with the Rangers) and Garcia (with the White Sox) were essentially the same player, OPS-wise.

 

Because Rios had 16/17 steals, and is a better defender (although we saw a TON of lapses out of him in 2013, although not quite like 2009/2011)...that trade was significant enough to shift the balance in the standings enough so that the White Sox finished with the 3rd pick overall and took Rodon, while the Cubs finished at 66-96.

 

To summarize, if Rios wasn't traded, the argument goes...we would have won 66 or 67 games (a 3-4 game improvement) over 63-99 and ended up with Kyle Schwarber as the #4 draft pick instead of Rodon at 3.

Okay I think I get this.

 

But IMO, the reality of it all is that there are sooooooo many variables involved, and the team itself was soooooo bad, that you can't reasonably make any assumption whatsoever with regard to the record had Rios stayed here. Maybe we're even worse and we get the second pick, and we come away convinced that we're lucky to have Rodon because the Marlins surely would have taken him if there (even though we know that's not the case). Maybe we're better and we end up 4th with as you say, the Cubs taking Rodon.

 

I think the reality also is that you could have things go exactly as they did, with Rios getting traded and Avisail taking his place, and then simulate/replay the remaining games 10 different times, and you still get a range of outcomes that has us losing somewhere between 96-102 ballgames. Because that's just how bad we were.

 

Saying we came out ahead for trading Alex is a massive assumption IMO. All I think we can look at is that, 1) the Sox reasoning was bulls***, 2) the Rangers got a steal there. We trade Leury straight-up now we're probably looking at a quality MR or something, not a Rios-quality player by any means. The value of a UT player just isn't that high, and post steriod era, the type of all-around production a player like Rios offers is more valuable than it used to be. BTW he's hitting .335/.367/.492/.859 so far this year. Totally underwhleming return for us no matter how you slice it.

[The Ultimate Champion]

Also in in 2-4 range, it's not set in stone yet. Yes, I'd rather have Rodon of the 3, but Kolek and Schwarber could all turn out to be better players in the end. I'm very happy we got our guy, but it's not like we can sit here and say the future would be bleak had that not happen. Maybe our future is even better with Kolek, Schwarber, Jackson, etc. There's just so many things we don't know. We do know however that Hahn got hosed.

[bmags]

Sox would have ended up with Nola not Schwarber.

[RockRaines]

Getting rid of Rios freed us up to plan lots of different options for the team. He had no place in this org during this rebuild and I think we have shown that we have a decent plan in place. No use in looking at a move that turned out pretty good for us.

[The Ultimate Champion]

No use in looking at a move that turned out pretty good for us.

We got Leury Garcia.

[GreenSox]

Alex Rios would not have added 3-4 wins to our win total in 1 month of ball.

That extrapolates to 15-20 wins over the course of a season.

If he were that capable, he'd be baseball's MVP by a mile.

 

Rios had to go. No regrets.

[southsider2k5]

Sox would have ended up with Nola not Schwarber.

 

This.

[chitownsportsfan]

Nobody was going to give anything for Rios there is a reason he was on waivers in the first place. Sox were lucky to even get Leury for him. Teams aren't gullible anymore there is no reason to pay Alex Rios 15 times what you could pay a rookie or even AAAA player. Rios is a 1-3 WAR player right now at best.

[witesoxfan]

Nobody was going to give anything for Rios there is a reason he was on waivers in the first place. Sox were lucky to even get Leury for him. Teams aren't gullible anymore there is no reason to pay Alex Rios 15 times what you could pay a rookie or even AAAA player. Rios is a 1-3 WAR player right now at best.

 

Semantics, but I'd say he's a 2-5 WAR player. Still, the point remains valid.