PDA

View Full Version : Alex Rios?



OnBaseMachine
06-08-2009, 01:33 PM
Alex Rios may have talked his way right out of Toronto after profane exchange with fan
By STEVE SIMMONS

Last Updated: 7th June 2009, 4:47am

Alex Rios has turned into a $10-million embarrassment for the Toronto Blue Jays.

Never mind that he plays the outfield with a not-so-reckless indifference. Never mind that he has taken his five-tool gifts and squandered them with his lack of passion and apathy. Never mind that the hitting numbers aren't anywhere near where they are supposed to be.

All that pales when compared with his foolish act of the other night, exchanging swear words with a fan after turning down an autograph request from a kid, at a charity event no less. Available in today's technology for all to see on YouTube.

Whether management will see it this way or not, Rios essentially is done as a Blue Jay. Failing on the field can be accepted. Failing off the field reflects a certain lack of character. All the apologies in the world may not be able to correct that.

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/columnists/steve_simmons/2009/06/07/9703471-sun.html

I won't post the video here since it contains some not-so-friendly language, but go to YouTube and type in Alex Rios to see the incident.

Anyways, I would like to see Jocketty go after Rios. He's a stud defender in the outfield (+11.9 UZR/150 in CF, +14.7 in RF) and has a chance to be a 25 HR, .850+ OPS hitter. He just hasn't put it together consistently with the bat yet but the potential is there. I'd offer Alonso + Bailey.

NJReds
06-08-2009, 01:41 PM
Anyways, I would like to see Jocketty go after Rios. He's a stud defender in the outfield (+11.9 UZR/150 in CF, +14.7 in RF) and has a chance to be a 25 HR, .850+ OPS hitter. He just hasn't put it together consistently with the bat yet but the potential is there. I'd offer Alonso + Bailey.

I don't have a problem taking a chance on an overpaid, underachieiver with an attitude problem. Sometimes a change of scenery will do a guy good (although I see the Mets as a better landing spot for him).

No way I give up Alonso and Bailey, especially with Toronto being fed up with him. Taking a risk on a guy like that being paid over $10M? They'll get some middle of the road prospects, but that's it. Unless they're willing to pay more than half of his salary. Even then, I say no on Alonso.

fearofpopvol1
06-08-2009, 01:43 PM
I'd give them any guy in the system not named Alonso for Rios.

How about Stubbs and Bailey? I think that'd be pretty fair.

wolfboy
06-08-2009, 01:44 PM
Alex Rios may have talked his way right out of Toronto after profane exchange with fan
By STEVE SIMMONS

Last Updated: 7th June 2009, 4:47am

Alex Rios has turned into a $10-million embarrassment for the Toronto Blue Jays.

Never mind that he plays the outfield with a not-so-reckless indifference. Never mind that he has taken his five-tool gifts and squandered them with his lack of passion and apathy. Never mind that the hitting numbers aren't anywhere near where they are supposed to be.

All that pales when compared with his foolish act of the other night, exchanging swear words with a fan after turning down an autograph request from a kid, at a charity event no less. Available in today's technology for all to see on YouTube.

Whether management will see it this way or not, Rios essentially is done as a Blue Jay. Failing on the field can be accepted. Failing off the field reflects a certain lack of character. All the apologies in the world may not be able to correct that.

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/columnists/steve_simmons/2009/06/07/9703471-sun.html

I won't post the video here since it contains some not-so-friendly language, but go to YouTube and type in Alex Rios to see the incident.

Anyways, I would like to see Jocketty go after Rios. He's a stud defender in the outfield (+11.9 UZR/150 in CF, +14.7 in RF) and has a chance to be a 25 HR, .850+ OPS hitter. He just hasn't put it together consistently with the bat yet but the potential is there. I'd offer Alonso + Bailey.

Alonso and Bailey for Rios? That's a BIG no thanks for me, and that's just based on his on-field performance.

OnBaseMachine
06-08-2009, 01:47 PM
Yeah, Alonso + Bailey may be a little too much. I figure it would take at least one of those two though, probably Alonso, plus another solid prospect.

NJReds
06-08-2009, 01:50 PM
Here is his current contract info. He has a full no-trade clause:

7 years/$69.835M (2008-14), plus 2015 club option

08:$0.735M, 09:$5.9M, 10:$9.7M, 11:$12M, 12:$12M, 13:$12.5M, 14:$12.5M, 15:$13.5M club option ($1M buyout)

full no-trade clause, 2009-10
limited no-trade clause, 2011 - end of deal (may block trades to 6 clubs)

Chip R
06-08-2009, 01:54 PM
You have to wonder if his stats are down because he's trying to get the Jays to trade him or if his skills have declined. If it's the former, what makes anyone think he wouldn't do it again once he's unhappy with his new team? That's one thing everyone gave Sheffield crap about when he was a kid with MIL and said he intentionally messed up to get traded. If it's the latter, do you really want him if his skills have declined?

Kc61
06-08-2009, 01:56 PM
Arroyo and Heisey?

IslandRed
06-08-2009, 02:24 PM
Anyways, I would like to see Jocketty go after Rios. He's a stud defender in the outfield (+11.9 UZR/150 in CF, +14.7 in RF) and has a chance to be a 25 HR, .850+ OPS hitter. He just hasn't put it together consistently with the bat yet but the potential is there. I'd offer Alonso + Bailey.


I don't have a problem taking a chance on an overpaid, underachieiver with an attitude problem. Sometimes a change of scenery will do a guy good (although I see the Mets as a better landing spot for him).

Based on NJ's post later in the thread, Rios has about $60 million in guaranteed money coming over the next five years. For that price, I don't want any truck with a guy based on the ballplayer he hasn't yet become, nor am I going to invest that much in a change of scenery trade. I'm especially not going to hand over the cream of the farm system to roll the dice.

Consider that the payoff if the deal does work is simply a very good ballplayer earning his considerable salary. The downside is a huge albatross contract with little or no chance for the club to cut its losses. Admittedly, every long, expensive contract has that risk. But it's one thing when it happens unexpectedly, quite another when you can hear the albatross' wings flapping already.

If Toronto kicks in a bunch of money and doesn't want our best prospects in return, then it's a different discussion.

Johnny Footstool
06-08-2009, 02:24 PM
If Rios is available, you go get him, period.

You start low, but if it takes Alonso and Bailey (I don't think it would), you make that deal.

I'll bet the Braves are kicking themselves right now.

cumberlandreds
06-08-2009, 02:28 PM
From my experience players that have had problems with fans are very risky. Most of the time the problems this type of person is much more deep seated and not easily overcome. If he can be had cheap it is fine but I wouldn't give up very much in value for him. Just too risky.

Brutus
06-08-2009, 02:29 PM
Alex Rios may have talked his way right out of Toronto after profane exchange with fan
By STEVE SIMMONS

Last Updated: 7th June 2009, 4:47am

Alex Rios has turned into a $10-million embarrassment for the Toronto Blue Jays.

Never mind that he plays the outfield with a not-so-reckless indifference. Never mind that he has taken his five-tool gifts and squandered them with his lack of passion and apathy. Never mind that the hitting numbers aren't anywhere near where they are supposed to be.

All that pales when compared with his foolish act of the other night, exchanging swear words with a fan after turning down an autograph request from a kid, at a charity event no less. Available in today's technology for all to see on YouTube.

Whether management will see it this way or not, Rios essentially is done as a Blue Jay. Failing on the field can be accepted. Failing off the field reflects a certain lack of character. All the apologies in the world may not be able to correct that.

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/columnists/steve_simmons/2009/06/07/9703471-sun.html

I won't post the video here since it contains some not-so-friendly language, but go to YouTube and type in Alex Rios to see the incident.

Anyways, I would like to see Jocketty go after Rios. He's a stud defender in the outfield (+11.9 UZR/150 in CF, +14.7 in RF) and has a chance to be a 25 HR, .850+ OPS hitter. He just hasn't put it together consistently with the bat yet but the potential is there. I'd offer Alonso + Bailey.

I wouldn't give the ranch for him, but most certainly I'd take a flier. I'm not keen on taking clubhouse distractions (assuming that reputation is even a valid one), but I also think it can work if the guy is brought into the right environment and conforms to the clubhouse leadership.

In this case, I watched the video of Rios' interaction at that event. While I deplore his actions, I do understand these things sometimes get blown out of proportion. It would have been easy for him to simply sign that kid's autograph. After all, it's not like there was a long line waiting for it. But I also understand how it would be hard to have that following you everywhere you go. Further, I didn't think the guy needed to exacerbate the situation by verbally jousting with Rios. If this incident is the main factor as to why the Blue Jays might facilitate a trade, by all means I'd say the Reds should try to accommodate it.

flyer85
06-08-2009, 02:31 PM
~ $12M a yearthru the 14 season) for a sub 800 OPS RF. I am sure JP would do an Irish Jig if he could get more than a bag of balls and unload that contract for his overpaid outfielder, then he would only have one more to get rid of.

Nasty_Boy
06-08-2009, 02:41 PM
With Joey's health being in doubt I don't want Yonder anywhere near trade talks. You can't put a percentage on it, but there is a very real chance that Votto's problems become career threatening.

I would love to see a play for Rios, but I think that Yonder is a player that has to be all most untouchable at this point.

Johnny Footstool
06-08-2009, 02:53 PM
Bailey was untouchable for quite a while.

Don't fall in love with prospects.

flyer85
06-08-2009, 02:58 PM
Don't fall in love with prospects.
nor expensive underachieving players whose current teams wants to unload their contract.

IMO, the 850 OPS Rios is in the past. He may surge one season in the next 5 or 6 and get to that level again but I would expect the 750 to 800 OPS to be the norm.

RED VAN HOT
06-08-2009, 03:10 PM
No No Please No.

I don't believe in the change of scenery scenario. It happens, but it is high risk.

The only way I take on a contract like that is for a young, gold glove SS.

I don't want to endure 5 years of posts about getting out of the Rios contract.

I am not convinced that his numbers will improve substantially. After getting the big contract, his numbers have declined. That is a bad character sign for me.

The Reds are playing together well as a team. I see a sense of having to earn your way onto the team. Taking on a contract like that, sends the wrong message. It gets players comparing salaries relative to stats rather than focusing on winning.

Outfield is not the biggest need. A RH power bat has been eclipsed by the needs at SS and 3B. The notion that Rios will be the stud CF is an illusion. I don't want to replace Taveras/Dickerson with someone who plays with not-so-reckless indifference.

The only part of this I agree with is that Alonso and Bailey are trading chips. I don't see a place for either of them on the team. Alonso is not better than Votto. Nor do I see Votto going to LF to keep his bat in the game. Bailey is about to be passed by AA prospects. Now is the time to move him.

OnBaseMachine
06-08-2009, 03:13 PM
Honestly, I completely forgot about that big contract Rios signed. Thanks for pointing that out. That changes everything. I still like Rios' talent, but knowing what I know now, I definitely wouldn't trade Alonso + Bailey for him.

RedlegJake
06-08-2009, 03:16 PM
14 million a year gamble that Rios will suddenly find himself? No thanks. I wouldn't trade an A league prospect for him. His contract has priced him out of any semblance of value. Too long and too much, the Jays will have trouble moving him.

NJReds
06-08-2009, 03:20 PM
Honestly, I completely forgot about that big contract Rios signed. Thanks for pointing that out. That changes everything. I still like Rios' talent, but knowing what I know now, I definitely wouldn't trade Alonso + Bailey for him.

The Braves got the much more affordable Nate McClouth for what I've heard described as 3 mid-level prospects.

jojo
06-08-2009, 03:38 PM
The Reds need a shortstop. They have zero solutions for that need (either for the now or the later).

They've got a system loaded full of outfield options both in center and left (albeit not for this season though).

Rios is a long term solution to what we hope is a short term problem (essentially centerfield in '09).

I guess Rios makes sense from a win now standpoint but the length of his contract makes a "win now" move less palatable.

I like Rios. He's better than his '09 and his contract really shouldn't be that scary money-wise. I'm just not sold that he's a no brainer fit for the Reds.

This decision would probably be tougher than either side of the issue might think and of course what it took to get Rios would greater color the calculus.

OnBaseMachine
06-08-2009, 03:45 PM
The Reds need a shortstop. They have zero solutions for that need (either for the now or the later).


I agree, though Zach Cozart is starting to become interesting (.283/.358/.452 - .810 in Double-A).

I would love to find a young shortstop who can lock down the position for the next 5-10 years. We're Reds fans, we deserve to have a great shortstop. It's a tradition.

15fan
06-08-2009, 03:55 PM
Jose Guillen: The Sequel.

Homer Bailey
06-08-2009, 04:17 PM
If the Blue Jays sent over $30 Million with him, I still might not do it. And that's without giving up any prospects. That's how low I am on Alex Rios.

Chip R
06-08-2009, 04:18 PM
Jose Guillen: The Sequel.


Are you saying Cito should put plastic over his desk?

traderumor
06-08-2009, 04:37 PM
Dusty would make him happy. :evil: Vernon Wells is not exactly tearing it up in Toronto, either. Something in the water?

Johnny Footstool
06-08-2009, 05:10 PM
14 million a year gamble that Rios will suddenly find himself? No thanks. I wouldn't trade an A league prospect for him. His contract has priced him out of any semblance of value. Too long and too much, the Jays will have trouble moving him.

No need for hyperbole. At no point in his current contract does Alex Rios make $14 million a year. He makes $5.9M this season, $9.7M next year, then settles in around $12.5 for the next 4 years.

I don't buy him as being washed up at 28 years old. Streaky, yes -- check out his splits. But he'll be earning his $12.5 million a year and then some before his contract is out.

Eric_the_Red
06-08-2009, 05:20 PM
What about Arroyo for Rios, straight up? I don't think Toronto really needs another SP, but the money would balance itself out nicely.

Highlifeman21
06-08-2009, 07:41 PM
What about Arroyo for Rios, straight up? I don't think Toronto really needs another SP, but the money would balance itself out nicely.

Sign me up.

Arroyo's not a long-term fixture for this club, while Rios could be a long-term fixture.

The $ is similar, and IMO we're actually addressing our pathetic offense, while giving one of our SP question marks a chance to prove their worth.

Seems like an overall good idea.

Homer Bailey
06-08-2009, 07:51 PM
What about Arroyo for Rios, straight up? I don't think Toronto really needs another SP, but the money would balance itself out nicely.

After 2009 Guaranteed Money:

Arroyo: $13M
Rios: $61M


The money does not balance nicely.

cincrazy
06-08-2009, 07:53 PM
From my experience players that have had problems with fans are very risky. Most of the time the problems this type of person is much more deep seated and not easily overcome. If he can be had cheap it is fine but I wouldn't give up very much in value for him. Just too risky.

Agreed. After seeing the way he treated that kid, I want him nowhere near the roster. First of all, it's not like he plays well enough to ignore the fact that he's a jerk. Second of all, he didn't even say anything to the kid. No "Not right now kid," no nothing. Just pure arrogance, and immaturity in responding to the fan. What did the guy say that was so bad?

No thank you.

Mario-Rijo
06-08-2009, 07:55 PM
After 2009 Guaranteed Money:

Arroyo: $13M
Rios: $61M


The money does not balance nicely.

Could be as much as 24 Million but yeah I get what you are saying.

Homer Bailey
06-08-2009, 07:57 PM
Could be as much as 24 Million but yeah I get what you are saying.

That was just guaranteed. If you include options Rios's get's up to $73.5M, While Arroyo gets up to $22M with his 2011 option.

Mario-Rijo
06-08-2009, 07:58 PM
That was just guaranteed. If you include options Rios's get's up to $73.5M, While Arroyo gets up to $22M with his 2011 option.

Plus Arroyo has a 2 million dollar '11 bonus depending on IP. BUt either way I get ya.

Blitz Dorsey
06-08-2009, 08:40 PM
Alex Rios is a complete turd. Unfortunately I was dumb enough to draft the "bum" in my fantasy baseball $$ league this year.

Stinks on the field, is a complete jerk off the field, no thanks in terms of him playing for the Reds.

(But I will say Jermaine Dye's 15 HRs in exchange for Homer Bailey would be looking real good right about now.)

Blitz Dorsey
06-08-2009, 08:47 PM
If Rios is available, you go get him, period.

You start low, but if it takes Alonso and Bailey (I don't think it would), you make that deal.

I'll bet the Braves are kicking themselves right now.

You go get him period? Not even close. The guy is grossly overpaid, he's average-at-best at the plate, he'll steal less and less bases as he gets older (including this year so far), he's not good defensively and he's a jerk off the field. Other than that, I love him.

I wouldn't trade Yonder Alonso for that clown in a million years even if he didn't have that ridiculous contract. That is nonsense.

Sorry Blue Jays, you are stuck with Rios and his awful contract that will strap you for years.

jojo
06-08-2009, 09:41 PM
You go get him period? Not even close. The guy is grossly overpaid, he's average-at-best at the plate, he'll steal less and less bases as he gets older (including this year so far), he's not good defensively and he's a jerk off the field. Other than that, I love him.

I wouldn't trade Yonder Alonso for that clown in a million years even if he didn't have that ridiculous contract. That is nonsense.

Sorry Blue Jays, you are stuck with Rios and his awful contract that will strap you for years.

He's a significantly above average bat and a plus defender who has yet to be overpaid but other than that you may be right.

Blitz Dorsey
06-08-2009, 10:22 PM
He's a significantly above average bat and a plus defender who has yet to be overpaid but other than that you may be right.

Honestly, I haven't watched the guy play D all that much, but the general consensus coming out of Toronto is that the guy is afraid of walls, won't go all-out after fly balls, doesn't get good jumps, etc. I'm sure he has the tools to be a good defensive outfielder, but that doesn't mean he is.

The guy has over 230 ABs this year already (hardly a small sample size) and his OPS is in the .700s. That's pretty darn average. I know he's been better than than in his career, but I think he's a guy that has plateaued and even his manager Cito Gaston has said his swing is a complete mess. Says he's a mechanical nightmare. Maybe he can get it back, who knows. But right now, I'd call him an average hitter at best.

(Yes, I'm just mad I drafted the guy in my fantasy $$ league. Ha.)

fearofpopvol1
06-08-2009, 10:23 PM
I still say Bailey + Stubbs is a great deal for both sides. Toronto is looking for pitching and Stubbs, by most people's accounts is ready for The Show (or close to it). Heck, maybe Toronto even sends another player back with it.

traderumor
06-08-2009, 10:33 PM
I still say Bailey + Stubbs is a great deal for both sides. Toronto is looking for pitching and Stubbs, by most people's accounts is ready for The Show (or close to it). Heck, maybe Toronto even sends another player back with it.If Stubbs is ready, then why not keep him and let Rios continue to be someone else's bad contract?

PuffyPig
06-08-2009, 10:40 PM
If Rios was a FA, would I pay him his current contract.

No way.

So why would I give up two of our best prospects for something I wouldn't take for nothing?

Unless you have a team with unlimited payroll, trading excellent propects for a players like Rios makes zero sense.

Rios has negative trade value for teams on any kind of budget.

PuffyPig
06-08-2009, 10:42 PM
He's a significantly above average bat ......

He has a .790 lifetime OPS.....

Define "significantly above average".

PuffyPig
06-08-2009, 10:47 PM
Jose Guillen: The Sequel.

Let's see, we picked up Guillen for nothing, paid him nothing, and then flipped him for Harang when he was on the verge of FA.

Posters want us to trade our best prospects for an average OF who will be a financial albatross around our necks for years to come.

Guillen might be the bizarro Rios.

fearofpopvol1
06-08-2009, 10:54 PM
If Stubbs is ready, then why not keep him and let Rios continue to be someone else's bad contract?

Because Rios has shown he can consistently hit major league pitching and with power (something Stubbs likely won't do--at least not with the same ability as Rios).

jojo
06-08-2009, 11:00 PM
He has a .790 lifetime OPS.....

Define "significantly above average".

What's more informative, his first 1000 PAs as a major leaguer in his early 20's where he struggled to OPS .700 or his last 2200 PAs where he has OPS'd significantly higher than .800?

His true offensive skill looks to be that of roughly a .360 wOBA hitter. League average is around .330. That makes him 15 runs better than average over 600 PAs. If he plays centerfield, he gets another 2.5 for position and another +5 for his defense (he looks to be a slightly plus defender in center) and another 20 runs for the difference between average and replacement over 600 PAs.

That adds up to him roughly being a 4 win player (over replacement). While that's not elite, it's significantly above average.

Jpup
06-08-2009, 11:01 PM
I've never cared much for Rios' game and never understood why folks here were always clamoring for him. He's just not that good.

traderumor
06-08-2009, 11:10 PM
What's more informative, his first 1000 PAs as a major leaguer in his early 20's where he struggled to OPS .700 or his last 2200 PAs where he has OPS'd significantly higher than .800?

His true offensive skill looks to be that of roughly a .360 wOBA hitter. League average is around .330. That makes him 15 runs better than average over 600 PAs. If he plays centerfield, he gets another 2.5 for position and another +5 for his defense (he looks to be a slightly plus defender in center) and another 20 runs for the difference between average and replacement over 600 PAs.

That adds up to him roughly being a 4 win player (over replacement). While that's not elite, it's significantly above average.But he would be getting elite money in the Reds budget. No thanks, but the probability of the Reds dealing into such a situation is probably about the same as me winning the lottery.

Benihana
06-08-2009, 11:18 PM
I'd do Bailey, Taveras and Heisey for Rios and $15MM.

Call up Stubbs and have a long-term OF of Rios, Stubbs/Dickerson, Bruce. Gomes and Nix become your RH and LH pinch-hitting options, respectively (along with Owings of course.) The money is still not great but you save some in shedding Taveras and picking up $15MM. If Votto returns to form, you can package Alonso for pitching. If he doesn't, well you still have Alonso.

The Jays get a pitching prospect with a fresh start, and Taveras replaces Rios in the everyday lineup. Meanwhile, you can sell high on Heisey, who becomes extraneous in Cincy in the current situation.

M2
06-08-2009, 11:25 PM
I adore Rios' game. .290+ hitter, 40+ doubles, 20+ HR (particularly if you stuck him in the GAB), 20+ SB, GG-level defender in RF.

But don't worry, the Reds will never bid on him. The Giants ought to gnaw off a limb to get him. But if he goes on the market, I figure the Mets and Braves are the leading suitors.

Blitz Dorsey
06-08-2009, 11:42 PM
I adore Rios' game. .290+ hitter, 40+ doubles, 20+ HR (particularly if you stuck him in the GAB), 20+ SB, GG-level defender in RF.

But don't worry, the Reds will never bid on him. The Giants ought to gnaw off a limb to get him. But if he goes on the market, I figure the Mets and Braves are the leading suitors.

Wow, you really like a guy that I cannot stand. Amazing how two baseball fans can have such different opinions of the same player. I see one of the most-overpaid players in MLB when you factor in the rest of his contract.

PuffyPig makes a great point earlier in the thread. The Reds wouldn't want Rios at his current contract even if they didn't have to trade anything to get him. So, there is certainly no way they would trade anything for him, unless the Jays wanted to pick up about half of his ridiculous contract (which they would never do IMO).

Highlifeman21
06-08-2009, 11:50 PM
I adore Rios' game. .290+ hitter, 40+ doubles, 20+ HR (particularly if you stuck him in the GAB), 20+ SB, GG-level defender in RF.

But don't worry, the Reds will never bid on him. The Giants ought to gnaw off a limb to get him. But if he goes on the market, I figure the Mets and Braves are the leading suitors.

I can't imagine the Jays would want Failcouer. He'd have to no longer be a Brave if Rios became a Brave, right?

If somehow Hell froze over and the Reds landed Rios, does that mean Rios plays RF and Bruce shifts to LF?

In which case, what happens to Gomes and Nix?

And, do we then rely on a CF platoon of Stubbs and Dickerson?

Patrick Bateman
06-09-2009, 12:35 AM
I think Rios is a pretty similar overall player to Brandon Phillips, just plays a different position, and in CF, plays a similar skill position well.

A good player, entering his prime years that has a chance to become significantly good (like Phillips this year?)

He's more than worth his contract IMO, but considering the Reds' current payroll constraints, it'd be hard to stomach moving top prospects for him that potentially offer very valuable cheap production. I don't think he's the right particular fit for the Reds, since we're looking pretty set in CF and RF for the next while.

M2
06-09-2009, 12:47 AM
Wow, you really like a guy that I cannot stand. Amazing how two baseball fans can have such different opinions of the same player. I see one of the most-overpaid players in MLB when you factor in the rest of his contract.

PuffyPig makes a great point earlier in the thread. The Reds wouldn't want Rios at his current contract even if they didn't have to trade anything to get him. So, there is certainly no way they would trade anything for him, unless the Jays wanted to pick up about half of his ridiculous contract (which they would never do IMO).

I love his contract. It really depends on whether you think he's going to be a good player in his late 20s and early 30s. I do, so I look at it as a quality hitter you can build around locked in for what's going to look like chump change in 2014. He had a poor April, but you can't touch a five-tool, bat-on-ball RH OF stud like Rios when he's on his game.

I suspect the Jays don't really want any part of trading their best player in the OF. Vernon Wells is the albatross contract hanging around that club's neck. Maybe they'll have to part company with Rios because he's the guy they can trade and because of the PR mumbo jumbo mentioned at the start of the thread. All I know is that Rios is the kind of do-it-all player I'd want to spend my money on if I were running the circus. Seriously, .300/.350/.500 with speed and defense for the next six or seven seasons? Sign me up.

That's what the Reds want Jay Bruce to become. Why not get a RH bookend?

I disagree the Reds wouldn't want Rios on the team because I figure Rios is exactly the kind of player Walt Jocketty covets, a Jim Edmondsesque kind of pickup. Yet I doubt he's got the leash to make it happen, so all he can do as the Reds GM is die a little more on the inside when he hears that a guy like Rios might be had.

If he goes somewhere, it won't be to Cincinnati. FCB's double helix theory applies to this one.

M2
06-09-2009, 12:52 AM
I can't imagine the Jays would want Failcouer. He'd have to no longer be a Brave if Rios became a Brave, right?

If somehow Hell froze over and the Reds landed Rios, does that mean Rios plays RF and Bruce shifts to LF?

In which case, what happens to Gomes and Nix?

And, do we then rely on a CF platoon of Stubbs and Dickerson?

I don't think the Braves would pass on making a deal for a good OF in deference to Jeff Francouer.

Rios in RF and Bruce in LF, sounds pretty badass.

Gomes and Nix? What's wrong with having depth on the bench?

Dickerson's catching everything in sight and getting on base. You could do worse than him in CF.

But I agree we're in Hell frozen over territory talking about the Reds making a deal like this.

Johnny Footstool
06-09-2009, 01:08 AM
You go get him period? Not even close. The guy is grossly overpaid, he's average-at-best at the plate, he'll steal less and less bases as he gets older (including this year so far), he's not good defensively and he's a jerk off the field. Other than that, I love him.

I wouldn't trade Yonder Alonso for that clown in a million years even if he didn't have that ridiculous contract. That is nonsense.

Sorry Blue Jays, you are stuck with Rios and his awful contract that will strap you for years.

Is that how you felt before you drafted him for your fantasy team, or are you letting emotions get in the way of rational thinking?

Personally, I don't think that a couple of bad months and a YouTube video can undermine Rios' value.

Ron Madden
06-09-2009, 03:15 AM
But he would be getting elite money in the Reds budget. No thanks, but the probability of the Reds dealing into such a situation is probably about the same as me winning the lottery.

(IMHO) The Reds are only going to spend so much money. If that happens to be 70- 80 million a year they'd rather divvy it up between nonproductive players than to pay a productive player or two the going rate.

Highlifeman21
06-09-2009, 06:57 AM
I don't think the Braves would pass on making a deal for a good OF in deference to Jeff Francouer.

Rios in RF and Bruce in LF, sounds pretty badass.

Gomes and Nix? What's wrong with having depth on the bench?

Dickerson's catching everything in sight and getting on base. You could do worse than him in CF.

But I agree we're in Hell frozen over territory talking about the Reds making a deal like this.

I guess my original question was more would the Jays want Francouer, and if they don't, what does Atlanta do with Francouer? Do they slide him over to LF, use Diaz as the 4th OF and keep Larry Jones @ 3B?

Believe me, I'd love to have Bruce in LF and Rios in RF and then figure out CF down the road, as you're right that Dickerson is showing he can definitely handle the position defensively and has hit enough to keep him in the lineup.

So, if somehow Walt has enough leash to get Rios (if he's really available), that means we carry 6 OF (Bruce/Gomes/Nix, Dickerson/Taveras, Rios), with Gomes being Votto's backup, or could we platoon Nix and Gomes @ 1B? IIRC, Nix has never played 1B. I agree it would definitely strengthen our bench.

But yeah, definitely in Hell frozen over territory. The Nationals would lead their division before the Reds would try to make a deal like this.

Benihana
06-09-2009, 07:45 AM
I guess my original question was more would the Jays want Francouer, and if they don't, what does Atlanta do with Francouer? Do they slide him over to LF, use Diaz as the 4th OF and keep Larry Jones @ 3B?

Believe me, I'd love to have Bruce in LF and Rios in RF and then figure out CF down the road, as you're right that Dickerson is showing he can definitely handle the position defensively and has hit enough to keep him in the lineup.

So, if somehow Walt has enough leash to get Rios (if he's really available), that means we carry 6 OF (Bruce/Gomes/Nix, Dickerson/Taveras, Rios), with Gomes being Votto's backup, or could we platoon Nix and Gomes @ 1B? IIRC, Nix has never played 1B. I agree it would definitely strengthen our bench.

That's why you include Taveras in the deal- both to help plug a hole at the top of the Jays lineup and their outfield, as well as to save SOME money in the deal. Taveras, Bailey, and Heisey for Rios. If it helped get some money back in the deal, I'd include another prospect as well- maybe a guy like Sutton, Francisco or Lotzkar (as a PTBNL if they wanted a Canadian in the deal.)

PuffyPig
06-09-2009, 08:20 AM
What's more informative, his first 1000 PAs as a major leaguer in his early 20's where he struggled to OPS .700 or his last 2200 PAs where he has OPS'd significantly higher than .800?

His true offensive skill looks to be that of roughly a .360 wOBA hitter. League average is around .330. That makes him 15 runs better than average over 600 PAs.

In his first two years, his OPS is about .710, his next two about .850, and his last two, about .775.

He doesn't look to be a .360 OBA guy, considering his career high is .354, his career average is .337 and his average over the last two years is about .330. That suggests he's getting on base around an average player in the majors, but less than average for an OF.

As I said, I wouldn't pick him up if he was on waivers. Too much money for essentially average offensive production. Even in his career year, he posted a .852 OPS in 2007. And he's been downhill ever since. If we pay that kind of money for average production, we'll have to get rid of likley more productive salary to pay for him. Becuase you can't get rid on unproductive salary.

RedlegJake
06-09-2009, 08:28 AM
In his first two years, his OPS is about .710, his next two about .850, and his last two, about .775.

He doesn't look to be a .360 OBA guy, considering his career high is .354, his career average is .337 and his average over the last two years is about .330. That suggests he's getting on base around an average player in the majors, but less than average for an OF.

As I said, I wouldn't pick him up if he was on waivers. Too much money for essentially average offensive production. Even in his career year, he posted a .852 OPS in 2007. And he's been downhill ever since. If we pay that kind of money for average production, we'll have to get rid of likley more productive salary to pay for him. Becuase you can't get rid on unproductive salary.

Puffy and I are of the exact same opinion. I just don't see the high end player that M2 does, and I have high doubts about him improving his game going forward. Obviously a player who splits opinions pretty sharply, but one thing most of us are in agreement about is that given his contract there is no way the Reds would deal for him.

GADawg
06-09-2009, 08:36 AM
just curious has Rios had similar problems in the past or is the first time he's gone all Milton Bradley? If it's his first time I'd be willing to give him a chance. If he doesn't have a pattern of this behavior then maybe someone just pushed the wrong button....can happen to any of us though I realize it doesn't excuse him in that situation.

Highlifeman21
06-09-2009, 08:44 AM
That's why you include Taveras in the deal- both to help plug a hole at the top of the Jays lineup and their outfield, as well as to save SOME money in the deal. Taveras, Bailey, and Heisey for Rios. If it helped get some money back in the deal, I'd include another prospect as well- maybe a guy like Sutton, Francisco or Lotzkar (as a PTBNL if they wanted a Canadian in the deal.)

I'd include Taveras in any deal right now just as long as the result is more PAs for Dickerson.

blumj
06-09-2009, 08:47 AM
I can't imagine the Jays would want Failcouer. He'd have to no longer be a Brave if Rios became a Brave, right?
The Red Sox were supposedly scouting him, and, no surprise, apparently were not impressed. But that's probably a pretty good sign that the Braves are at least making an attempt to unload him.

bucksfan2
06-09-2009, 08:52 AM
I'd do Bailey, Taveras and Heisey for Rios and $15MM.

The key for in a deal for a team like the Reds is the value of prospects traded and the cash involved in the deal. If the Reds like Rios but think is contract is too expensive a cash offering may get the contract back into the area in which the Reds deem reasonable.

Many players are deemed malcontents when they are unhappy in a situation. It is rather easy to turn a town or organization against a particular player. All it takes is one hometown reporter to sour on a player and it could be bad news for the particular player. I don't have much of a problem with the video of Rios posted on youtube. He is a human being and many of us after a bad day at work want to forget about the day. Rios is attending a charity event and some stupid fan is heckling him about his bad day. He probably shouldn't have said anything as severe as he said, but that is past now.

I would be willing to entertain the idea of trading for Rios, as long as some money was kicked into the deal. I don't know if Tronto would take Taveras and his contract would probably take away from more money the Reds could receive in return. A Bailey, Heisey, and Ronekie may be enough to get Rios + cash. I am against trading young, live arms but Bailey may need a change, Heisey looks blocked by Stubbs, and Roenkie may or may not fit in to the organization's plans.

wolfboy
06-09-2009, 09:15 AM
In his first two years, his OPS is about .710, his next two about .850, and his last two, about .775.

He doesn't look to be a .360 OBA guy, considering his career high is .354, his career average is .337 and his average over the last two years is about .330. That suggests he's getting on base around an average player in the majors, but less than average for an OF.

As I said, I wouldn't pick him up if he was on waivers. Too much money for essentially average offensive production. Even in his career year, he posted a .852 OPS in 2007. And he's been downhill ever since. If we pay that kind of money for average production, we'll have to get rid of likley more productive salary to pay for him. Becuase you can't get rid on unproductive salary.

Just to add to this, his minor league numbers don't do a whole lot for me either. He had one "significantly above average" season in AA. Other than that, this guy looks awful pedestrian (from an offensive standpoint).

Homer Bailey
06-09-2009, 09:41 AM
In his first two years, his OPS is about .710, his next two about .850, and his last two, about .775.

He doesn't look to be a .360 OBA guy, considering his career high is .354, his career average is .337 and his average over the last two years is about .330. That suggests he's getting on base around an average player in the majors, but less than average for an OF.

As I said, I wouldn't pick him up if he was on waivers. Too much money for essentially average offensive production. Even in his career year, he posted a .852 OPS in 2007. And he's been downhill ever since. If we pay that kind of money for average production, we'll have to get rid of likley more productive salary to pay for him. Becuase you can't get rid on unproductive salary.

This sums it up right here. Like I said, Toronto could send $30M with the guy and I probably wouldn't take it. So there is no way I would trade any prospects for the guy.

IslandRed
06-09-2009, 09:52 AM
This sums it up right here. Like I said, Toronto could send $30M with the guy and I probably wouldn't take it. So there is no way I would trade any prospects for the guy.

I wouldn't go that far. Even though I'm not a big Rios fan, there are deals that could be made. I'm just not into the "let the other team back up the truck" method of trade negotiating that often takes place here on RedsZone. We have more than one hole on this team, and the money and prospects expended on Rios is ammo that can't be fired at other areas.

Razor Shines
06-09-2009, 10:33 AM
In his first two years, his OPS is about .710, his next two about .850, and his last two, about .775.
In his last two seasons he's OPS'd .852 and .798 how does that average out to .775? He started horribly this season, but since the end of April he's OPS'd .830+. So he had a a little bit of a down year last season, but it looks like he'll be back up over .800 this year.


He doesn't look to be a .360 OBA guy, considering his career high is .354, his career average is .337 and his average over the last two years is about .330. That suggests he's getting on base around an average player in the majors, but less than average for an OF.

As I said, I wouldn't pick him up if he was on waivers. Too much money for essentially average offensive production. Even in his career year, he posted a .852 OPS in 2007. And he's been downhill ever since. If we pay that kind of money for average production, we'll have to get rid of likley more productive salary to pay for him. Becuase you can't get rid on unproductive salary.

Well he did say wOBA in which his career high was .368 followed by .365. I like Rios a lot better than most of the other bats that have been discussed. I'd say against righties we could play an outfield of Rios in LF, Dickerson in CF and Bruce in RF. Against Lefties put Gomes in LF, Rios in CF and Bruce in RF.

M2
06-09-2009, 12:22 PM
Just a couple of additions on Rios. Dewan rates him the 3rd-best overall RF from 2006-2008 at a +43. He's been double digit positives in each of those three seasons, which is notable consistency. His +43 is even better than Carl Crawford's +33 in LF (and Crawford is measured against some of the most dire fielders in the game).

Rios has also averaged 21 Win Shares the past three seasons (and, again, he's been quite consistent). That translates to 7 wins in WS math and, generally speaking, anyone who can consistently deliver 20+ WS is a very good player (Curtis Granderson is a similar player). Someone who can deliver 25+ on a consistent basis is a superstar.

If he remains essentially what he was from 2006-8, he'll be a bargain on his future paychecks. Obviously that goes out the window if you think he's sliding, but I suspect if he were a Reds player from the system in similar circumstances, most here would be thrilled to see him locked up into the middle of the next decade for a $10M average.

jojo
06-09-2009, 12:43 PM
Just a couple of additions on Rios. Dewan rates him the 3rd-best overall RF from 2006-2008 at a +43. He's been double digit positives in each of those three seasons, which is notable consistency. His +43 is even better than Carl Crawford's +33 in LF (and Crawford is measured against some of the most dire fielders in the game).

Rios has also averaged 21 Win Shares the past three seasons (and, again, he's been quite consistent). That translates to 7 wins in WS math and, generally speaking, anyone who can consistently deliver 20+ WS is a very good player (Curtis Granderson is a similar player). Someone who can deliver 25+ on a consistent basis is a superstar.

If he remains essentially what he was from 2006-8, he'll be a bargain on his future paychecks. Obviously that goes out the window if you think he's sliding, but I suspect if he were a Reds player from the system in similar circumstances, most here would be thrilled to see him locked up into the middle of the next decade for a $10M average.

This is absolutely correct concerning the money. The market would have to dramatically correct in an unlikely magnitude for the salary to be an albatross assuming he doesn't get injured/decline unpredictably.

He's just the kind of player that one would hope the Reds were trying to target. It's possible that the Reds think they've got a 3 win player in Stubbs next season and maybe they have to decide whether left field or shortstop (or catcher) is a bigger priority given resources.

Left field could probably be solved without a sledgehammer move like adding Rios allowing the Reds to swing resources toward a more premium positional need. I could buy such an argument. But the money issue (i.e. the issue of being overpaid)-I'm not seeing that excuse.

Swisher, Rios, Taveras. One is cheaper but he's also not like the others in other meaningful ways....

OnBaseMachine
06-09-2009, 01:01 PM
Speaking of trade targets, Ken Rosenthal says the Angels may trade Erick Aybar for a reliever...I've always been a fan of Aybar. He's currently posting a .710 OPS and playing solid defense. He would be an upgrade over Gonzalez.

PuffyPig
06-09-2009, 01:27 PM
In his last two seasons he's OPS'd .852 and .798 how does that average out to .775? He started horribly this season, but since the end of April he's OPS'd .830+. So he had a a little bit of a down year last season, but it looks like he'll be back up over .800 this year.



When I referrd to his last two years, I was referring to 2008 and this year.

He's currently at .760. I don't see how that translates to "looks like he'll be back up to over .800 this year"?

Look, I think Rios is a good player. I just don't think he's a star, definitely not worth giving up guys like Bailey, Heisley and Roneke so we can pay him $12M per season to play for us. If we had essentially unlimited payroll, maybe OK. But that money will have to come from somewhere else.

Razor Shines
06-09-2009, 02:29 PM
When I referrd to his last two years, I was referring to 2008 and this year.

He's currently at .760. I don't see how that translates to "looks like he'll be back up to over .800 this year"?

Look, I think Rios is a good player. I just don't think he's a star, definitely not worth giving up guys like Bailey, Heisley and Roneke so we can pay him $12M per season to play for us. If we had essentially unlimited payroll, maybe OK. But that money will have to come from somewhere else.

Yeah, that's what I figured, but it's not really fair to count this year in his last two years since it's not even halfway over. Also, as I posted he's been at .830+ since the end of April. He simply got off to a horrible start. So, yeah, it looks like he'll be over .800 again this year.

Highlifeman21
06-09-2009, 04:45 PM
Just a couple of additions on Rios. Dewan rates him the 3rd-best overall RF from 2006-2008 at a +43. He's been double digit positives in each of those three seasons, which is notable consistency. His +43 is even better than Carl Crawford's +33 in LF (and Crawford is measured against some of the most dire fielders in the game).

Rios has also averaged 21 Win Shares the past three seasons (and, again, he's been quite consistent). That translates to 7 wins in WS math and, generally speaking, anyone who can consistently deliver 20+ WS is a very good player (Curtis Granderson is a similar player). Someone who can deliver 25+ on a consistent basis is a superstar.

If he remains essentially what he was from 2006-8, he'll be a bargain on his future paychecks. Obviously that goes out the window if you think he's sliding, but I suspect if he were a Reds player from the system in similar circumstances, most here would be thrilled to see him locked up into the middle of the next decade for a $10M average.

You're making way too much sense, M2.

Which is why Rios will never be a Red. The moves that make sense just don't happen with the Reds. They continue to burn payroll on marginal guys, fringe guys, and role players.

Highlifeman21
06-09-2009, 04:47 PM
Speaking of trade targets, Ken Rosenthal says the Angels may trade Erick Aybar for a reliever...I've always been a fan of Aybar. He's currently posting a .710 OPS and playing solid defense. He would be an upgrade over Gonzalez.

Weathers to the Angels, sign me up.

Throw in Carlos Fisher to carry his bags.

Ltlabner
06-09-2009, 05:27 PM
You're making way too much sense, M2.

Which is why Rios will never be a Red. The moves that make sense just don't happen with the Reds. They continue to burn payroll on marginal guys, fringe guys, and role players.

And while it happens in nearly every MLB city, I'm absolutely convinced that some Cincy fans would hate whoever the player is that has the huge contract (on the offense side of things anyway). I don't know what it is, but some fans just knee-jerkidly hate the guy with the most zeros at the end of his paycheck.

I think it's some bizarre Cincinnati "blue collar" mentality run amok. Ask Eric Davis. Ask Ken Griffy. Ask the Player Who Shall Not be Named. It's as predictable as water being wet that the big money guys in Cincinnati will be labeled lazy, good for nothings.

At the same time, I think there's a contingent of fans who want to take no risks and want to build a baseball team with $2,635.67 expended. Sorry kids, sometimes you gotta spend the dough (wisely) to get places. Always being cheap always gets you crappy results.

So unfortunately, while you and M2 continue to put up good arguments as to why Rios is worth the money, we'll continue to be treated to the Adam Rosales and Willy Travaras's of the world. But hey....that Adam runs out to his position right?

OnBaseMachine
06-09-2009, 05:28 PM
Weathers to the Angels, sign me up.

Throw in Carlos Fisher to carry his bags.

I'd like to hang on to Fisher. His stuff is nasty. He dominated the Cubs on Sunday.

*BaseClogger*
06-09-2009, 05:39 PM
I'd like to hang on to Fisher. His stuff is nasty. He dominated the Cubs on Sunday.

Yeah, I would much rather trade Roenicke. They can have Roenicke and another low-level prospect for Aybar...

Benihana
06-10-2009, 06:30 AM
I'm not sure Aybar is all that much of an upgrade over what we currently have in Janish/Cozart, etc.

I would trade Weathers for him (and bring up Roenicke) but not all that much else.

I would much rather pursue a Rios or Holliday deal.

wolfboy
06-10-2009, 08:49 AM
So unfortunately, while you and M2 continue to put up good arguments as to why Rios is worth the money, we'll continue to be treated to the Adam Rosales and Willy Travaras's of the world. But hey....that Adam runs out to his position right?

So those that don't agree on Rios are simply clinging to some ingrained Cincinnati blue collar mentality? Talk about good arguments...

Ltlabner
06-10-2009, 08:57 AM
So those that don't agree on Rios are simply clinging to some ingrained Cincinnati blue collar mentality? Talk about good arguments...

Well, no not everybody. Some people have reasonable concerns regarding Rios. I didn't say "every" Reds fan....I said "some" Reds fans and later on said "a contingent" of Reds fans. So, no I don't think everybody in Cincy thinks that way.

But I do think many casual fans in Cincy have this warped blue collar mentality of low cost + run fast = good while big paycheck + anything = bad. And there's certainly a number of folks on RZ who think this way.

wolfboy
06-10-2009, 09:01 AM
Well, no not everybody. Some people have reasonable concerns regarding Rios. I don't believe I said "everybody" and if I did I misspoke/mistyped.

But that doesn't change that IN GENERAL many fans in Cincy have this warped blue collar mentality of low cost + run fast = good while big paycheck + anything = bad.

I can agree with that point. Cincinnati has some seriously irrational love for the "scrappy" player. I also agree that a big paycheck often equates to big criticism from fans here. I suspect it might be the same anywhere, but I don't know for sure. Anyway, I don't think those factors are a consideration for the majority of the people arguing against Rios.

NJReds
06-10-2009, 11:20 AM
He'd be an improvement over what the team has, no doubt. But I still wouldn't part with top level prospects for him, even if Toronto paid some of the salary.

cincrazy
06-10-2009, 06:10 PM
Well, no not everybody. Some people have reasonable concerns regarding Rios. I didn't say "every" Reds fan....I said "some" Reds fans and later on said "a contingent" of Reds fans. So, no I don't think everybody in Cincy thinks that way.

But I do think many casual fans in Cincy have this warped blue collar mentality of low cost + run fast = good while big paycheck + anything = bad. And there's certainly a number of folks on RZ who think this way.

I think that's the case in much of the Midwest though, and not just in baseball. The Indiana basketball team, OSU and its football players, and on and on. The scrappy guys rule in the Midwest because it's a blue collar society who are going to latch on to the supposed "blue collar" players. It's annoying for sure, but I've learned to live with it.

With that being said, I've never cared much for Rios as a player. We could certainly do worse, but I don't know if he's a guy that can be counted on to not go in the tank. He's a Milton Bradley lite, so to speak.

Brutus
06-10-2009, 06:50 PM
And while it happens in nearly every MLB city, I'm absolutely convinced that some Cincy fans would hate whoever the player is that has the huge contract (on the offense side of things anyway). I don't know what it is, but some fans just knee-jerkidly hate the guy with the most zeros at the end of his paycheck.

I think it's some bizarre Cincinnati "blue collar" mentality run amok. Ask Eric Davis. Ask Ken Griffy. Ask the Player Who Shall Not be Named. It's as predictable as water being wet that the big money guys in Cincinnati will be labeled lazy, good for nothings.

At the same time, I think there's a contingent of fans who want to take no risks and want to build a baseball team with $2,635.67 expended. Sorry kids, sometimes you gotta spend the dough (wisely) to get places. Always being cheap always gets you crappy results.

So unfortunately, while you and M2 continue to put up good arguments as to why Rios is worth the money, we'll continue to be treated to the Adam Rosales and Willy Travaras's of the world. But hey....that Adam runs out to his position right?

I don't care if someone earns $400,000 or add an extra zero or two. I want to see hustle, reverence for the game, work ethic and leadership out of every player.

Every day in society, people are criticized (and sometimes punished or terminated) for having talent but showing a lazy or lackadaisical demeanor to their employment. This is true for any and all professions. Though baseball is a sport, I don't think those expectations are too much of a burden for fans to expect of players.

So people want to see hustle. They want to see passion for the game and not treating it like a golden paycheck. They want players to, I don't know, actually work hard to improve themselves. These are not cumbersome or outrageous demands.

Scouts and management of baseball clubs do extensive background checks on baseball prospects before drafting them. Work ethic and intangible issues are considered red flags into 'character' profiles, and cause many players to drop spots and even rounds at a time. So suddenly when a player is a veteran, suddenly none of these things matter? I say surely you jest.

Instead of easily labeling Cincinnati folk as a blue collar town that simply despises overpaid bums (read: a descriptive term for this alleged society), perhaps it's prudent to consider the large elephant that hung in the room the past several years. It's the elephant no one wanted to acknowledge. That there was a severe attitude and approach issue that the Reds' franchise lacked on the big league level, sans a few isolated exceptions (Ryan Freel, Chris Stynes, etc.). Perhaps this appreciation of the Red Bull warriors resulted, not from a blue collar ideology, but rather, a simple lacking in fundamentals, hustle, energy and leadership from a series of mediocre ball clubs.

Ltlabner
06-10-2009, 10:08 PM
They want players to, I don't know, actually work hard to improve themselves.

That's all well and good. But how do you decide who really worked hard and who didn't when you get to see the player in action maybe 3 hours a day? Someone who follows the game can put together a reasonable guess based on news reports, scouting, etc.

But bet your bottom dollar that the casual fan, especially in Cincy, is going to look for the guy who runs fast or has the dirtiest uni. And that's a damn stupid way to determine who worked hard the other 21 hours of the day.


It's the elephant no one wanted to acknowledge. That there was a severe attitude and approach issue that the Reds' franchise lacked on the big league level

Actually, the severe lack of talent issue had a lot more to do with The Lost Decade than any amount of attitude and approach.

edabbs44
06-10-2009, 10:15 PM
Speaking of trade targets, Ken Rosenthal says the Angels may trade Erick Aybar for a reliever...I've always been a fan of Aybar. He's currently posting a .710 OPS and playing solid defense. He would be an upgrade over Gonzalez.

It would take this board less than a month to turn on Aybar, he of the 30 career walks in 253 games.

jojo
06-10-2009, 10:16 PM
Actually, the severe lack of talent issue had a lot more to do with The Lost Decade than any amount of attitude and approach.

Talent is the true white elephant in discussions about intangibles.

M2
06-10-2009, 10:37 PM
Talent is the true white elephant in discussions about intangibles.

Word.

Brutus
06-10-2009, 10:44 PM
That's all well and good. But how do you decide who really worked hard and who didn't when you get to see the player in action maybe 3 hours a day? Someone who follows the game can put together a reasonable guess based on news reports, scouting, etc.

But bet your bottom dollar that the casual fan, especially in Cincy, is going to look for the guy who runs fast or has the dirtiest uni. And that's a damn stupid way to determine who worked hard the other 21 hours of the day.



Actually, the severe lack of talent issue had a lot more to do with The Lost Decade than any amount of attitude and approach.


There have been numerous reports from reporters and folks that know what they're talking about - folks that do insight to the work habits of many of these players. There have been so many of those reports that have surfaced the last several years, but quickly they've been dismissed as sour grapes, shoddy journalism or some sort of personal vendettas. People just simply chose to ignore them.

Every other sport, intangibles 'matter." Yet baseball, just because we've found advanced methods of measuring performance, these intangibles are ignored as if they don't exist. Intangibles matter in everything in life. Attitude, perseverance, work ethic and leadership are recognized ingredients to success and important attributes in every walk of society. I'm not sure how in baseball, simply because we can reasonably estimate within a few percent correlation to the number of runs a player creates for his team, is suddenly isolated from the impact these important characteristics the rest of the world lives by.

In any event, the last several years, talent issues aside (and that's not to say there were not some issues with that, although half of those years the stats say the offense was above average), the lethargy was noticeable enough on the field, but the commentators and beat writers (who do have further access to the behind-the-scenes workings), all have commented ad nauseum on this and echoed their beliefs. It would seem that there's a lot of burying heads in sand going on over the whole thing.

M2
06-10-2009, 11:54 PM
I agree intangibles matter. Yet with the Reds of the past decade, I'd say you were looking at a team with good intangibles. The franchise consistently outplayed its pythag. It flirted with respectability early on in numerous seasons. There were lots of come-from-behind wins along the way. There was the bounce. Generally it was a good group of players (e.g Paul Wilson was a fabulous guy if not such a great pitcher).

A team can have good intangibles and generally play hard and still be lousy. That's your turn-of-the-century Reds.

People grouse when the team's losing, but I'd say the Reds have had attitude, perseverance, work ethic, even some leadership during the Lost Decade. It just didn't help.

Anyway, I'm not really sure what any of this has to do with Rios. He's a top notch fielder. He steals bases, takes extra bases, doesn't caught much doing either one. He's good at delivering a runner from 3rd with less than two outs.

Brutus
06-11-2009, 01:03 AM
I agree intangibles matter. Yet with the Reds of the past decade, I'd say you were looking at a team with good intangibles. The franchise consistently outplayed its pythag. It flirted with respectability early on in numerous seasons. There were lots of come-from-behind wins along the way. There was the bounce. Generally it was a good group of players (e.g Paul Wilson was a fabulous guy if not such a great pitcher).

A team can have good intangibles and generally play hard and still be lousy. That's your turn-of-the-century Reds.

People grouse when the team's losing, but I'd say the Reds have had attitude, perseverance, work ethic, even some leadership during the Lost Decade. It just didn't help.

Anyway, I'm not really sure what any of this has to do with Rios. He's a top notch fielder. He steals bases, takes extra bases, doesn't caught much doing either one. He's good at delivering a runner from 3rd with less than two outs.

lol Ironically enough, I agree wholeheartedly on Rios and though I can see reasons not to want him, I think he's a guy that will outperform his overall career numbers. I'm not sure what started this subject, other than I think some people perceive him as having those lackadaisical characteristics we're discussing.

There have been some seasons where I absolutely agree that the Reds have had those aforementioned intangibles. I don't think the franchise has been littered with bums the past decade. It just felt like, at least the last few years, that the team had a major attitude problem. They were sitting back waiting on 3-run homers and that's really not any way to win ball games consistently.

More than talent on the diamond, it's been, in my opinion, the lack of any talent on the pitching mound that has been the Reds' undoing. I just think, at least the last few years, the club has been lacking in the clubhouse aspect.

RE: Rios though, because he's such an excellent defender, I think his bat has high enough upside he would be a good addition.

Ltlabner
06-11-2009, 06:39 AM
In any event, the last several years, talent issues aside (and that's not to say there were not some issues with that, although half of those years the stats say the offense was above average),

That's dandy. How about the pitching during that time?

Listen, the whole intangibles subject has been hashed and rehashed long before your call-up to ORG so this isn't really new ground. Intangibles are important and I think most anybody appreciates a hard worker. But the equation really is 95% talent, 5% fundamentals. In major league baseball, 70% talent, 30% fundamentals just isn't going to cut it.

My biggest gripe with the "bad fundamentals" crowd is that they base their decisions as to who is lazy on the dumbest things imaginable. Reclining chairs in the clubhouse, dirty uniforms and sprinting to your position like a jackass has zero to do with hard work. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. They sound nice, but the reality is those sorts of things tell us nothing about a players work ethic.

With regard to the subject at hand, Rios has the talent the Reds need to help improve their team. Get bogged down in intangibles issues if you wish. Unless the guy has a regular habit of killing other teammates, molesting children or spraying anthrax into the stands I really don't care about his "intangibles".

Highlifeman21
06-11-2009, 08:47 AM
I don't care if someone earns $400,000 or add an extra zero or two. I want to see hustle, reverence for the game, work ethic and leadership out of every player.

Hustle is a very ambiguous term. How can you say that certain players aren't hustling and or giving their all? And I'm hoping you would agree that not all players are leaders, can be leaders, or should be leaders, so why should they show leadership? Have you ever been in a situation where there were too many leaders? IMO, too many leaders in a situation is a bad thing.


Every day in society, people are criticized (and sometimes punished or terminated) for having talent but showing a lazy or lackadaisical demeanor to their employment. This is true for any and all professions. Though baseball is a sport, I don't think those expectations are too much of a burden for fans to expect of players.

People with talent are more often than not given the benefit of the doubt, and supervisors or managers of that talent will work with and coach the talent, whereas if the subordinate lacks talent, then work ethic and demeanor only mean so much. Sure, if lazy talent receives coaching from a superior and remains lazy talent then you'll see the talent punished or terminated, but talent still trumps work ethic.


So people want to see hustle. They want to see passion for the game and not treating it like a golden paycheck. They want players to, I don't know, actually work hard to improve themselves. These are not cumbersome or outrageous demands.

Care to back up this statement that players are just cashing a check and not attempting to hone their craft? I'm a person, and I don't give a crap about hustle. I give a crap about talent and wins. Give me wins, and I don't care how it happens. Hustle or no hustle, give me Ws.


Scouts and management of baseball clubs do extensive background checks on baseball prospects before drafting them. Work ethic and intangible issues are considered red flags into 'character' profiles, and cause many players to drop spots and even rounds at a time. So suddenly when a player is a veteran, suddenly none of these things matter? I say surely you jest.

Are you saying players can learn intangibles? I agree if you're saying they can improve their work ethic, but IMO intangibles are inherent, and not a learned trait or ability.


Instead of easily labeling Cincinnati folk as a blue collar town that simply despises overpaid bums (read: a descriptive term for this alleged society), perhaps it's prudent to consider the large elephant that hung in the room the past several years. It's the elephant no one wanted to acknowledge. That there was a severe attitude and approach issue that the Reds' franchise lacked on the big league level, sans a few isolated exceptions (Ryan Freel, Chris Stynes, etc.). Perhaps this appreciation of the Red Bull warriors resulted, not from a blue collar ideology, but rather, a simple lacking in fundamentals, hustle, energy and leadership from a series of mediocre ball clubs.

Pretty sure the teams involved in the Lost Decade lacked talent, talent, and talent. Those teams had leaders and leadership, displayed energy, and had some players that hustled with fundamentals, but improving hustle and fundamentals only marginally improves a club, and over the Lost Decade, those teams needed more than marginal improvement with hustle and fundamentals. Those teams needed talent, talent, and talent.

bucksfan2
06-11-2009, 08:49 AM
People grouse when the team's losing, but I'd say the Reds have had attitude, perseverance, work ethic, even some leadership during the Lost Decade. It just didn't help.

Anyway, I'm not really sure what any of this has to do with Rios. He's a top notch fielder. He steals bases, takes extra bases, doesn't caught much doing either one. He's good at delivering a runner from 3rd with less than two outs.

I say during the "lost decade" the leadership was lacking. IMO the players that were looked up to for leadership weren't natural born leaders. Its not a knock on players, its just a reality of life. Some people are born to lead while others are lacking in that rhelm. The problem arises when the success, or winning stops. Its easy to be happy, cohesive, and playing well as a team when things are going good. But when things take a turn for the worst, which inevitably happen in baseball, leadership is very very important.

I like the idea of Rios in a Reds uniform. The price tag is a little steep for this current market, but I would be willing to bet Toronto would pony up some cash if the Reds traded enough in return. I think getting him out of the AL East and out of the shadow of NY, Boston, and now TB would greatly help Rios. You put him in the NL Central on the current Reds team and he would have a legit shot to compete for the division title. In the AL East that is highly unlikely. I may be one of the few but I would include Alonso in a deal for Rios. If the Reds trade for Rios that sures up their OF for the next 5 years. You have a combination of Rios in LF, Stubbs/Heisey/Dickerson in CF and Bruce in RF. Alonso would have no where to play with Votto manning 1b. It would make the Reds contenders this season as well as contenders into the near future.

Highlifeman21
06-11-2009, 08:54 AM
That's dandy. How about the pitching during that time?

Listen, the whole intangibles subject has been hashed and rehashed long before your call-up to ORG so this isn't really new ground. Intangibles are important and I think most anybody appreciates a hard worker. But the equation really is 95% talent, 5% fundamentals. In major league baseball, 70% talent, 30% fundamentals just isn't going to cut it.

My biggest gripe with the "bad fundamentals" crowd is that they base their decisions as to who is lazy on the dumbest things imaginable. Reclining chairs in the clubhouse, dirty uniforms and sprinting to your position like a jackass has zero to do with hard work. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. They sound nice, but the reality is those sorts of things tell us nothing about a players work ethic.

With regard to the subject at hand, Rios has the talent the Reds need to help improve their team. Get bogged down in intangibles issues if you wish. Unless the guy has a regular habit of killing other teammates, molesting children or spraying anthrax into the stands I really don't care about his "intangibles".

Bingo.

The Reds need more talent. Rios provides more talent.

Last night, prime example. I'm sitting with Cyclone in section 117, row KK, watching Harang pitch pretty well and the Reds offense get embarrassed by Nationals pitching. Cyclone called Bruce's shot, btw. As Bruce walked to plate, Cyclone says "he's due for a shot". First pitch, boom. But I digress.

Say for example Rios was a Red last night. What does this mean? It means Fast Willy T isn't in CF playing Guzman's single into a triple b/c Dickerson would be in CF. (I'd read about Willy's bad breaks on balls, but until I saw it last night I didn't want to believe it. They are worse than anyone's written on this board.) It also means that Ramon Hernandez isn't playing 1B, b/c maybe Laynce Nix and his Daynce Mix are playing 1B. If Rios is a Red, as M2 said, it makes us a better and a deeper team, b/c then the guys that might be marginal starters are now on the bench where they belong, and we have a stronger bench.

So, having Rios improves the Reds offensively, and defensively, since Rios should put up better numbers than Willy T or any of our LFers, and Dickerson should then start in CF which improves us defensively flanked by Rios and Bruce.

Talent, something the Reds need. Badly.

PuffyPig
06-11-2009, 09:00 AM
So, having Rios improves the Reds offensively, and defensively, since Rios should put up better numbers than Willy T or any of our LFers, and Dickerson should then start in CF which improves us defensively flanked by Rios and Bruce.



Putting Rios in LF would be a waste of his good defensive play. And this year, the LF combo of Nix/Gomes has outproduced Rios offensively by quite a margin. And that's without giving up 3 good propsects and adding $70M or so to our payroll.

If we make a trade for Rios, it has to be to play him at CF, otherwise it's a complete waste.

RANDY IN INDY
06-11-2009, 09:20 AM
My biggest gripe with the "bad fundamentals" crowd is that they base their decisions as to who is lazy on the dumbest things imaginable. Reclining chairs in the clubhouse, dirty uniforms and sprinting to your position like a jackass has zero to do with hard work. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. They sound nice, but the reality is those sorts of things tell us nothing about a players work ethic.

But the jumps they get on fly balls, the angles and routes they take to the baseball, the times they miss the cut-off man, the baserunning mistakes, etc.......tell us volumes about a player's work ethic and desire to become better. Those things are very obvious to some folks.

The fans in St. Louis are revered around the game for knowing good baseball and applauding it. Fans such as these in Cincinnati are described as the "bad fundamentals" crowd because "they base their decisions on the dumbest things imaginable." That sure is painting with a broad brush. Speaking of absolutes? Some people expect the game to be played the right way by it's best players. Anything wrong with that? There was a time when teammates expected the same thing and called players out for not putting in the time and not going about their business in the right way. I don't see anything wrong with those expectations, regardless of a players talent level. They have to be very talented to be on a major league roster. Some have more talent that others but it doesn't excuse not putting in the time to keep the skills sharp and to become more baseball savvy in every area of the game. You can't teach some things. You can't teach speed, but you can become a good baserunner. You can't teach quickness, but you can be better at positioning yourself. You "can" work on the fundamentals and become a better player and teammate because of it, regardless of your talent level.

Jpup
06-11-2009, 09:53 AM
Speaking of trade targets, Ken Rosenthal says the Angels may trade Erick Aybar for a reliever...I've always been a fan of Aybar. He's currently posting a .710 OPS and playing solid defense. He would be an upgrade over Gonzalez.

Aybar can't hit a lick. I think there are better targets.

jojo
06-11-2009, 10:28 AM
My biggest gripe with the "bad fundamentals" crowd is that they base their decisions as to who is lazy on the dumbest things imaginable. Reclining chairs in the clubhouse, dirty uniforms and sprinting to your position like a jackass has zero to do with hard work. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. They sound nice, but the reality is those sorts of things tell us nothing about a players work ethic.


But the jumps they get on fly balls, the angles and routes they take to the baseball, the times they miss the cut-off man, the baserunning mistakes, etc.......tell us volumes about a player's work ethic and desire to become better. Those things are very obvious to some folks.

Something is not quite like the other here.........

Merriam-Webster defines intangible as "not capable of being perceived by the senses". I don't know how others define intangibles, but I wouldn't include getting good reads and taking good angles in the definition any more than I'd include a pitcher's stuff in the definition of intangible. These things both can be seen and they obviously effect performance (and thus show up in numbers).

That said, attributing the ability to get good reads as simply a product of work ethic is begging the question IMHO.

An astute eye can easily tell Mike Cameron gets better reads than Willy Taveras. I'm not sold that we can say Cameron works harder or "has more desire to get better" than Taveras does despite what "some folks" would conclude.

And that's the issue with intangibles that I believe Ltlabner was raising..... "work ethic" is an intangible in the sense that we see the finished product (i.e. the behavior on the field) but not the sweat equity. But often fans measure work ethic by what they see on the field (often mixing in a little romanticism to boot) sometimes in the form of results-based analysis and other times in the form of giving great weight to cosmetic factors. As a result, player evaluation can be skewed because the estimate of a player's true skill is inappropriately calculated through a prism built from flawed premises.

Razor Shines
06-11-2009, 10:41 AM
But the jumps they get on fly balls, the angles and routes they take to the baseball, the times they miss the cut-off man, the baserunning mistakes, etc.......tell us volumes about a player's work ethic and desire to become better. Those things are very obvious to some folks.
.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Ryan Freel was a somewhat significant part of the Lost Decade and while he may not have been totally considered Charlie Hustle reincarnate, he was at least considered Little Chuckie Hustle by a whole bunch of fans. He got all kinds of bad jumps on fly balls, he took some pretty bad routes and he was on the cover of Base Running Mistakes Magazine several times. If those things are obvious why was he considered such a hard worker while other guys weren't?

It seems like it has a lot less to do with the things you listed and more to do with how you look doing the things that you listed. It seems like a lot of fans think "well, this player does those things, but you can tell that he's really trying. So he's a hard worker. This player though, he does all those things but you can tell that he doesn't care. He's not a hard worker."

nate
06-11-2009, 11:02 AM
(often mixing in a little romanticism to boot)

Just a little?

:cool:

M2
06-11-2009, 12:09 PM
An astute eye can easily tell Mike Cameron gets better reads than Willy Taveras. I'm not sold that we can say Cameron works harder or "has more desire to get better" than Taveras does despite what "some folks" would conclude.

Exactly. I'll add that Ken Griffey Jr. got good jumps and took textbook routes to balls, didn't help when his wheels went. He also rehabbed through some injuries that would have put many players into retirement.

Yet his work ethic came under constant fire. Why? Bad teams, declining performance as he aged and a big contract. The work ethic and desire were there.

Brutus
06-11-2009, 12:20 PM
That's dandy. How about the pitching during that time?

Listen, the whole intangibles subject has been hashed and rehashed long before your call-up to ORG so this isn't really new ground. Intangibles are important and I think most anybody appreciates a hard worker. But the equation really is 95% talent, 5% fundamentals. In major league baseball, 70% talent, 30% fundamentals just isn't going to cut it.

My biggest gripe with the "bad fundamentals" crowd is that they base their decisions as to who is lazy on the dumbest things imaginable. Reclining chairs in the clubhouse, dirty uniforms and sprinting to your position like a jackass has zero to do with hard work. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. They sound nice, but the reality is those sorts of things tell us nothing about a players work ethic.

With regard to the subject at hand, Rios has the talent the Reds need to help improve their team. Get bogged down in intangibles issues if you wish. Unless the guy has a regular habit of killing other teammates, molesting children or spraying anthrax into the stands I really don't care about his "intangibles".

There's no way to measure this, so I can't really say that I think your 95/5 ratio is skewed anymore than you can tell me with certainty that it's not. However, I'll give my honest assessment while noting that there's no way for any of us to quantify this issue accurately (which is why I think some just prefer to downplay it altogether).

Let me use an example from Wednesday night's Reds-Nationals game. On one hand, you had Jay Bruce, in the 11th inning, make a heady play and saw Zimmerman was not covering the bag at third. He took off and acquired an important base. As it turns out, he may have scored on Gomes' hit anyhow, but that was huge at the time, because it set up a possible sac fly or scoring on a wild pitch, etc. On the other hand, back in the 7th inning (if I remember the inning correctly), you had Adam Dunn on second base with a huge leadoff. He was paying no attention to the fact the shortstop was creeping up behind him, and low and behold, Ryan Hanigan snaps down a throw to second, picking off Dunn who was asleep at the wheel. (Note: I'm using this as an example of the situation, it's just unfortunate that Dunn happened to be the subject as I don't want to make this about him).

Those two examples are the types of things I'm talking about. These are situations that accumulate in the course of a game, course of a month, course of a season. They're things that happen just as regular baseball events, but are not byproducts of talent, but rather instincts, hustle, intangibles, etc. The advanced formulas and statistics we use to measure production, take the course of these events into account already, so they're dismissed as a high correlation to talent. Because we can't accurately parse these events, they're included as part of the high run correlation events and dismissed as law of averages in run scoring environments.

It's my belief, however, that if you total these events up over the course of the season, you might find a team could win (or lose) an extra 5-7 games based on the premise you could find 50 runs created (or saved) from these types of plays. I'm including fundamentals (hitting your cut off, covering third on a bunt with a man on second, etc.), hustle (running out all groundballs in the event it's weakly hit and there's a close play or there is an errant throw that brings the defender off the bag, etc.), intangibles (instincts, baserunning, stretching a single into a double on a ball hit into the shallow gap, etc.). Add these plays up, and between offensive, baserunning and defensive contributions, you'll almost assuredly find a great deal of runs scored & saved and account for some of the 5-10 percent discrepancy between actual runs scored and run estimators.

Whereas, if my hunch is correct, you might find a 10-15 win swing over the course of the season between teams that excel on these and teams that don't, compare that to the normal 50-win margin that 95 percent of all baseball teams perform within (60-110 wins). If we just assume, for a minute, that perhaps my estimation has some merit, even a 5-10 win differential because of non-talent type of plays through a season is at least more than 5%.

Clearly, fans cannot see the work a player puts into improving his career. However, you only need to be a consistent observer of the game to see good or bad fundamentals, hustle & savvy as opposed to lackadaisical, or even getting a good gauge of effort. As far as leadership, not everyone has to be a spoken leader, but everyone should be a leader either by actions or by example. The ones that are not cut out to be leaders by leading need to be leaders simply by doing. And when you do get a culture of bad attitudes, laziness, poor fundamentals and a sketchy work ethic, if it does not get nipped in the bud by someone, it's contagious. It's like the old saying, "conduct permitted is conduct taught."

In my estimation, talent is absolutely the single biggest factor that contributes to winning. That I will never, ever dispute. I'm an avid fan of the fact we can measure, reasonably, a player's contribution to those wins with advanced metrics. But if there's one thing, in my experiences around baseball, the strategy is essentially the same at every level. These fundamentals, the way you play the game does not change. Talent might mask a lot of deficiencies, but it's fundamentals that make a talented team into a championship team or a solid team into a mediocre one. These things do add up. To some extent, talent, intangibles and fundamentals intertwine on various game events when you look at stats or a box score, but they each play very important roles in the game of baseball.

Sorry for the essay. I guess it's a strong issue for me.

bucksfan2
06-11-2009, 12:25 PM
Exactly. I'll add that Ken Griffey Jr. got good jumps and took textbook routes to balls, didn't help when his wheels went. He also rehabbed through some injuries that would have put many players into retirement.

Yet his work ethic came under constant fire. Why? Bad teams, declining performance as he aged and a big contract. The work ethic and desire were there.

IIRC Jr's work ethic came into question because in the early part of his career he relied on God given ability and supposedly didn't work off the field much. He was the Kid who loved playing baseball but there were questions about his off the field work ethic. Can't say I can doubt him much. He became one of the greats in the game because of his pure talent and ability.

As fans we don't know much about the work ethic about the players. All we know is what we read/hear from various media outlets and what we see on the field. But what I do know is that many describe the Minnesota Twins organization as they do it "The Twins Way". They take fielding practice every day and require a higher understanding of fundamentals. If this was prevalent in all of baseball I don't think we would hear about it.

IslandRed
06-11-2009, 12:31 PM
Bingo.

The Reds need more talent. Rios provides more talent.


No doubting the dude can play, but then we get back into the analytical and franchise-building discussion of value. One of the central tenets of Moneyball player evaluation, at least in my mind, is that a player's value to a team with fixed resources is inextricably tied to his talent AND his contract situation. I wouldn't mind Rios in the Reds outfield at all, but for what he's going to be paid over the next five years versus the bandied-about cost of acquiring him, frankly, I think the Reds should be able to turn those same resources into more talent than Rios alone provides.

Johnny Footstool
06-11-2009, 12:31 PM
IIRC Jr's work ethic came into question because in the early part of his career he relied on God given ability and supposedly didn't work off the field much. He was the Kid who loved playing baseball but there were questions about his off the field work ethic. Can't say I can doubt him much. He became one of the greats in the game because of his pure talent and ability.

As fans we don't know much about the work ethic about the players. All we know is what we read/hear from various media outlets and what we see on the field. But what I do know is that many describe the Minnesota Twins organization as they do it "The Twins Way". They take fielding practice every day and require a higher understanding of fundamentals. If this was prevalent in all of baseball I don't think we would hear about it.

Questions about Junior's work ethic arose from the media -- reporters trying to invent stories. According to the Mariners trainers at the time, Junior did all his stretching and pre-game excercises in the clubhouse. Reporters didn't see him stretching with his teammates, and decided to run with that as "Junior doesn't have a work ethic."

Johnny Footstool
06-11-2009, 12:32 PM
I wouldn't mind Rios in the Reds outfield at all, but for what he's going to be paid over the next five years versus the bandied-about cost of acquiring him, frankly, I think the Reds should be able to turn those same resources into more talent than Rios alone provides.

If they should be able to do it, then why haven't they done it already?

IslandRed
06-11-2009, 12:48 PM
If they should be able to do it, then why haven't they done it already?

First of all, we're talking about future money. "Done it already" would have involved spending this year's money, and we've already beaten the subject of how they spent this year's money to death.

But yes, I think if I was going to put $60 million over the next five years and our best prospects on the dealing table, I should be able to come away with more than Rios. But that's not necessarily the same question as "what is the best possible outcome for those resources?" Maybe the best thing for the team is to keep the prospects and spend the $60 million in some manner other than trading for a big contract. I didn't mean to imply I have all the answers, just that I thought the opportunity cost for Rios was a little high.

M2
06-11-2009, 01:35 PM
As fans we don't know much about the work ethic about the players. All we know is what we read/hear from various media outlets and what we see on the field. But what I do know is that many describe the Minnesota Twins organization as they do it "The Twins Way". They take fielding practice every day and require a higher understanding of fundamentals. If this was prevalent in all of baseball I don't think we would hear about it.

I love the way the Twins run themselves. It doesn't mean their players try any harder or care any more. It just means the organization is better organized.

That said, there are exactly 30 organizations stressing fundamentals. You will never encounter a club that doesn't place great import on executing fundamentals. It doesn't mean every club is good at it or that every club agrees on which fundamentals matter most (e.g. many consider working a count as a hitter to be a critical fundamental), but every club wants its players to execute the details as best they can.

And we get to see plenty in terms of work ethic. We get to see it in action. It's not easy to perform over a 162-game season, let alone multiple 162-games seasons. You don't just breeze through that.

Generally speaking, I find it more than a little preposterous when fans and media start making value judgments from their rumps about players nursing a half dozen lingering aches and pains while they try to play one of the most difficult games in the sporting landscape. My take is the overwhelming number of players have a good work ethic and that why they're there in the first place.

bucksfan2
06-11-2009, 01:47 PM
M2, I brought up the Twins because when you mention something like "the Twins way" or taking infield practice everyday, you mention it because it is out of the norm. If every team took infield before games it wouldn't be mentioned.

I with you love the way the Twins are organized and run. They should be the model of any team that resides outside of NY, Boston, Chicago, or LA. They are that team that no matter how good or bad the team or division looks you can't discount. The churn out quality bats and arms. They are a franchise that the Reds should try and emulate.

M2
06-11-2009, 03:29 PM
I with you love the way the Twins are organized and run. They should be the model of any team that resides outside of NY, Boston, Chicago, or LA. They are that team that no matter how good or bad the team or division looks you can't discount. The churn out quality bats and arms. They are a franchise that the Reds should try and emulate.

They did, but it's not a quick road to success and they decided to try it the Cardinals way instead.

Ltlabner
06-11-2009, 03:59 PM
On one hand, you had Jay Bruce...on the other hand, back in the 7th inning (if I remember the inning correctly), you had Adam Dunn on second base with a huge leadoff.

Bad news, I'm pretty sure Bruce has been caught napping and picked off too IIRC.

Forgetting the names involved, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Your casual fan goes the ball park, sees player X get picked off in one game and decides they are lazy. If they get paid big bucks he's a lazy bumb. If in the same game player Y, who can't hit his way out of a pay toilet, makes a snazzy play they walk away thinking, "whoa...that guy really is a go getter".

Furthermore, I fail to see the link between getting caught napping on second and being "lazy". If it's a pattern of behavior that's one thing, but the casual fan doesn't know the pattern of behavior. So to see one play, or use who fast they trot out to RF as a measuring stick as to how hard the player works behind the scenes makes no sense.



However, you only need to be a consistent observer of the game to see good or bad fundamentals, hustle & savvy as opposed to lackadaisical, or even getting a good gauge of effort..

Therein lies the problem. Very, very, very, very, very few people at the ballpark or watching TV are consistent observers of the game. They go to one or two games a year (maybe), watch an inning or two when they have time, or check the box scores when they think of it.

Also, the reality is most people do not follow the game as a whole very closely. They don't spend hours on an internet sports forum or reading books about the game to learn more. They know the basics of the game as they learned in little league, mix in some preconceived notions, and probably just yell when the rest of the fans in the stadium start yelling.

I've sat next to people who didn't know what OBP or SLG meant on the scoreboard or any of the current players (save Jr and Dunn). Yet, if Jr ground out to second he was "a lazy good for nothing bum who gets paid to play a game".

Ltlabner
06-11-2009, 04:11 PM
And we get to see plenty in terms of work ethic. We get to see it in action. It's not easy to perform over a 162-game season, let alone multiple 162-games seasons. You don't just breeze through that.

Generally speaking, I find it more than a little preposterous when fans and media start making value judgments from their rumps about players nursing a half dozen lingering aches and pains while they try to play one of the most difficult games in the sporting landscape. My take is the overwhelming number of players have a good work ethic and that why they're there in the first place.

Excellent points.

Play 100 games of baseball, that require 3 hours of concentrated effort every night, most likely with some nagging injury, in front of 70,000 eyeballs, after fielding a rocket shot on a funky hop and see if maybe just once you throw the ball to the wrong guy now and again.

And frankly, when a team (let's call them the Mincinnati Meds) has a multi-year run of poor "fundamental play" is that because the players are lazy and don't "respect the game" or is it because the organization around them is a failure?

RANDY IN INDY
06-11-2009, 04:20 PM
Probably a little of both.

Brutus
06-11-2009, 05:08 PM
Bad news, I'm pretty sure Bruce has been caught napping and picked off too IIRC.

Forgetting the names involved, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Your casual fan goes the ball park, sees player X get picked off in one game and decides they are lazy. If they get paid big bucks he's a lazy bumb. If in the same game player Y, who can't hit his way out of a pay toilet, makes a snazzy play they walk away thinking, "whoa...that guy really is a go getter".

Furthermore, I fail to see the link between getting caught napping on second and being "lazy". If it's a pattern of behavior that's one thing, but the casual fan doesn't know the pattern of behavior. So to see one play, or use who fast they trot out to RF as a measuring stick as to how hard the player works behind the scenes makes no sense.

You're putting words in my mouth. Nowhere in my post did I say (or insinuate) that getting picked off is an issue of being "lazy" (a term that I also did not use one single time). I'm talking about all things from fundamentals, to intangibles to work ethic to instincts and the first thing you do is spin my post around to casual fans calling players lazy.

And further, I don't care what an average fan thinks, I'm talking from my own personal experiences and observations of the game of baseball - what I believe in my heart to be true. You are trying to make this about what average baseball fans think. I'm trying to make this about what constitutes good baseball. Let's try to separate the two. I'm not talking about perception, I'm talking about reality.

My citation of these two incidents from last night, as I stated, was more about the issue of fundamentals and how these incidents can add up over the course of the season - not an endorsement or indictment on Bruce or Dunn. The players used were mentioned simply to elicit the examples I'm referring to, not cast these players as polar opposites.


Therein lies the problem. Very, very, very, very, very few people at the ballpark or watching TV are consistent observers of the game. They go to one or two games a year (maybe), watch an inning or two when they have time, or check the box scores when they think of it.

Also, the reality is most people do not follow the game as a whole very closely. They don't spend hours on an internet sports forum or reading books about the game to learn more. They know the basics of the game as they learned in little league, mix in some preconceived notions, and probably just yell when the rest of the fans in the stadium start yelling.

I've sat next to people who didn't know what OBP or SLG meant on the scoreboard or any of the current players (save Jr and Dunn). Yet, if Jr ground out to second he was "a lazy good for nothing bum who gets paid to play a game".

This is the problem here. No matter what sabermetrics tell us about players, what is learned in little league still has merit. The game has not changed. We know now the affects of getting on base. We know how performance translates to actual production. We can identify important characteristics, skills and traits that correlate to scoring. However, all we've done is taken what we know about the game and found ways to quantify a lot of it and view it differently than before.

That's the key crux of the problems. Some people want to hold sabermetrics as a tool to suddenly dispel everything that was learned in Little League. On the contrary, I think sabermetrics only quantify much of what we learned. Fundamentals, instincts, work ethic and the basics you learned in Little League still hold many truths. Only now we can measure the results of these aspects of baseball through actual analysis. Understand, this is coming from someone who absolutely loves these new metrics. They tell us more about past performances and future performances than ever before. That does not mean everything we learned in Little League is wrong. The game of baseball never changed. Strategy remains similar. We simply can more easily analyze things than before.

I really think you're taking an exaggerated stereotype and casting if off as the typical fan. I grew up around baseball. I've lived and breathed it as a player, coach, umpire, statistician, P.A. announcer and journalist covering it. I think I've seen it from every angle imaginable. In my opinion, the casual baseball fan is much more knowledgeable than you're giving them credit for. They may not know what Gross Production Average or Win Shares mean, but they're not any less knowledgeable about baseball strategy. What they were taught in Little League still applies. The core principals still very much matter. That has not, nor will it likely change.

M2
06-11-2009, 05:32 PM
I'm talking about all things from fundamentals, to intangibles to work ethic to instincts ...

I'm not trying to bust your chops, but doesn't that strike you as too broad to mean anything?

In common parlance, if the team wins it's got all of those things plus chemistry and if it loses then it's got none of them.

RANDY IN INDY
06-11-2009, 05:51 PM
In common parlance, if the team wins it's got all of those things plus chemistry and if it loses then it's got none of them

Totally disagree with that, M2.

Brutus
06-11-2009, 05:54 PM
I'm not trying to bust your chops, but doesn't that strike you as too broad to mean anything?

In common parlance, if the team wins it's got all of those things plus chemistry and if it loses then it's got none of them.

It's too broad if I were trying to argue about one specific thing. However, I'm merely trying to convey that there are a lot of things (not specifically related to talent) that play into wins & losses. I guess that's my point entirely, is that there are a ton of factors important into building a successful team that are beyond the scope of pure talent level. And many of these variances impact baseball games on a nightly basis.

IslandRed
06-11-2009, 05:56 PM
I agree intangibles matter. Yet with the Reds of the past decade, I'd say you were looking at a team with good intangibles. The franchise consistently outplayed its pythag. It flirted with respectability early on in numerous seasons. There were lots of come-from-behind wins along the way. There was the bounce. Generally it was a good group of players (e.g Paul Wilson was a fabulous guy if not such a great pitcher).

A team can have good intangibles and generally play hard and still be lousy. That's your turn-of-the-century Reds.

I agree with pretty much every word of that.

I'll toss in a general comment regarding the bolded statement -- it's generally accepted that the RS/RA is the team's true level of ability, and the effect of intangibles, nebulous though it is, is generally placed between RS/RA and the Pythag. I'd argue that if a team truly has problems with the intangibles, it's going to be upstream of RS/RA.

M2
06-11-2009, 06:21 PM
Totally disagree with that, M2.

Winning's always the proof point. Win 90 games and you've got "it." Lose 90 games and you don't.

A.J. Pierzynski had "it" with the Twins, lost "it" with the Giants and rediscovered "it" with the ChiSox.

And sportswriters/broadcasters are particularly obsessed with that calculus.

Falls City Beer
06-11-2009, 07:13 PM
I completely agree with the notion that nearly every ball player has a strong ethic. But I think a groupthink settles into teams that lose all the time, and some focus, no doubt, falls by the wayside. These guys are human and losing a lot is a terrible feeling.

Look no further than this Nats' squad. They should not have scored so few runs against this pitching staff. But they've been having horrible ABs, frustrated ABs the entire series.

RANDY IN INDY
06-11-2009, 07:54 PM
Winning's always the proof point. Win 90 games and you've got "it." Lose 90 games and you don't.

A.J. Pierzynski had "it" with the Twins, lost "it" with the Giants and rediscovered "it" with the ChiSox.

And sportswriters/broadcasters are particularly obsessed with that calculus.

Depends on who you are asking about the "got it" and the "lost it."

Rojo
06-11-2009, 08:50 PM
But yes, I think if I was going to put $60 million over the next five years and our best prospects on the dealing table, I should be able to come away with more than Rios. But that's not necessarily the same question as "what is the best possible outcome for those resources?" Maybe the best thing for the team is to keep the prospects and spend the $60 million in some manner other than trading for a big contract. I didn't mean to imply I have all the answers, just that I thought the opportunity cost for Rios was a little high.

Agree, Rios is a great corner outfielder. But we could probably find a very good one for a fraction. The left side of the infield needs the resources.

Johnny Footstool
06-11-2009, 11:08 PM
First of all, we're talking about future money. "Done it already" would have involved spending this year's money, and we've already beaten the subject of how they spent this year's money to death.

But yes, I think if I was going to put $60 million over the next five years and our best prospects on the dealing table, I should be able to come away with more than Rios. But that's not necessarily the same question as "what is the best possible outcome for those resources?" Maybe the best thing for the team is to keep the prospects and spend the $60 million in some manner other than trading for a big contract. I didn't mean to imply I have all the answers, just that I thought the opportunity cost for Rios was a little high.

I understand. But honestly, if it was easy to turn prospects and cash into quality players, why haven't the Reds been able to do it consistently? Or the Pirates? Or any of the other poorly-run franchises that cling to prospects and cry poor when opportunity knocks?

Blitz Dorsey
06-11-2009, 11:54 PM
Are we still talking about Alex Rios? The guy is not good and overpaid. That is the Cliff's Notes version for those just getting to the party.

Patrick Bateman
06-12-2009, 12:07 AM
Are we still talking about Alex Rios? The guy is not good and overpaid. That is the Cliff's Notes version for those just getting to the party.

No offense, but there was a lot of good analysis done in this thread by people who share the opposing viewpoint to this post, and based on the analysis that you've contributed, I find it pretty irrational that you think that this type of point is:

1. Going to sway anyone to take on your viewpoint
2. Coming with any type of authoritative value
3. Going to bring this conversation to a close

I personally think that both sides have some interesting points. I like Rios as a player, and has a very reasonable contract, but from the Reds point of view, I'd be hesitant to move prospects and payroll room when there is already some decent talent lining up in the OF over the next few seasons with glaring needs at SS, C, and 3B.

*BaseClogger*
06-12-2009, 01:20 AM
Alex Rios seems like the perfect trade target for Kenny Williams. His team is getting old in a hurry, and they don't have much of a farm system. His style has never been to sign big money free agents, but rather take on big contracts through trade. Rios is also athletic and a good defender, so he should fit in with their philosophy. It wouldn't surprise me at all to read that the White Sox acquired Rios...

Topcat
06-12-2009, 06:36 AM
Rios would be a fantastic addition to the Red's that being said................... I have to believe that salary would have to go the other way. Hernadez might entice them but adding 2 prospects of the Soto and Stewart variety would also be needed to make this deal happen quite honestly.

bucksfan2
06-12-2009, 09:15 AM
If the Reds target Rios, then the organization has very little need/room for Alonso. If Jocketty has his mind set up that Votto is moving to LF and Alonso will man 1b the I could see him stand pat or go after a 3B this year. If Jocketty is going to make a move Dye and Beltre seem like the usual suspects.

Jpup
06-12-2009, 10:28 AM
If the Reds target Rios, then the organization has very little need/room for Alonso. If Jocketty has his mind set up that Votto is moving to LF and Alonso will man 1b the I could see him stand pat or go after a 3B this year. If Jocketty is going to make a move Dye and Beltre seem like the usual suspects.

I still don't get the idea that Votto will move off of 1B if he is ready and willing to continue playing baseball. Votto is what Alonso could only hope of becoming. He's a long way from taking over the job.

bucksfan2
06-12-2009, 10:39 AM
I still don't get the idea that Votto will move off of 1B if he is ready and willing to continue playing baseball. Votto is what Alonso could only hope of becoming. He's a long way from taking over the job.

Oh I agree completely. It is why I didn't like the pick at the time even though Alonso has looked good so far in the minors. Drafting a one position player in the NL makes little sense to me especially with Beckham still on the board at the time. I can see BPA but I just don't know if a BPA is a one position player.

The idea of moving Votto off 1b is to get your best 8 players on the field at the same time. Especially since Votto has played LF in both the minors and for Canada in the WBC. Ideally Alonso could be moved to acquirer a position of need if Votto remains at 1b.

Nasty_Boy
06-12-2009, 11:11 AM
I still don't get the idea that Votto will move off of 1B if he is ready and willing to continue playing baseball. Votto is what Alonso could only hope of becoming. He's a long way from taking over the job.

See, I don't think so at all. I normally don't get enamored with prospects, but Yonder just seems like a sure bet to be a successful major leaguer. He's one of those guys that removes all doubt... I'm not ready to say he'll be an All-Star. But aside from Votto's range, I'm not that high on his ability around the bag. In fact I think Hernandez is much better at playing the balls in the dirt. All of that being said, Yonder isn't too far away. He's signed to a major league contract and I think it's realistic that if he hits in Carolina that he'll be in Louisville or even Cincy (depending on Votto's health) by September. Alonso brings a patient style of hitting that this lineup desperately needs, and I would love to see both him and Votto in the middle of that lineup for years to come.

jojo
06-12-2009, 11:15 AM
If Rios is "too expensive" could the Reds buy low on a rental player in a position of great need?



PA ave obp slg ISO k% BB% XBH% wOBA UZR
1st 160 0.200 0.234 0.300 0.100 18.1 3.6 37.5 0.237 5.7
last 80 0.375 0.419 0.500 0.125 10.7 4.8 20.0 0.415 2.5
total 0.258 0.294 0.367 8.2

PuffyPig
06-12-2009, 01:03 PM
I still don't get the idea that Votto will move off of 1B if he is ready and willing to continue playing baseball. Votto is what Alonso could only hope of becoming. He's a long way from taking over the job.


Alonso doesn't have to be better than Votto to play first.

He just has to be better than whoever we are likely to use in LF.

If Alonso proves he can play, even if not up to Votto's standards, Votto may get moved to LF to get both in the lineup. Or jsut to prove Alonso can hit enough to increase his trade value.

Jpup
06-12-2009, 01:17 PM
Alonso doesn't have to be better than Votto to play first.

He just has to be better than whoever we are likely to use in LF.

If Alonso proves he can play, even if not up to Votto's standards, Votto may get moved to LF to get both in the lineup. Or jsut to prove Alonso can hit enough to increase his trade value.

That would make you worse defensively at two spots. Votto would be my 1st baseman until he decides he doesn't want to be anymore. Sorry to hijack the thread.

BTW, I still think there are better options than Alex Rios.

PuffyPig
06-12-2009, 01:57 PM
That would make you worse defensively at two spots. Votto would be my 1st baseman until he decides he doesn't want to be anymore. Sorry to hijack the thread.



Well, playing Alonso over Votto at first weakens us defensively. But we don't know who would have been playing LF if Votto ends up there. I expect Votto could become league average out there.

Highlifeman21
06-13-2009, 01:40 AM
Putting Rios in LF would be a waste of his good defensive play. And this year, the LF combo of Nix/Gomes has outproduced Rios offensively by quite a margin. And that's without giving up 3 good propsects and adding $70M or so to our payroll.

If we make a trade for Rios, it has to be to play him at CF, otherwise it's a complete waste.

Rios would play RF. He's way better than Bruce defensively.

I'm sure by the end of the year, Rios will outperform our LF monster.

OnBaseMachine
06-13-2009, 01:48 AM
Rios would play RF. He's way better than Bruce defensively.

I'm sure by the end of the year, Rios will outperform our LF monster.

This year, Rios is a +0.2 defender in RF while Bruce is at +4.3, according to UZR.

Highlifeman21
06-13-2009, 01:50 AM
This year, Rios is a +0.2 defender in RF while Bruce is at +4.3, according to UZR.

This year, but IIRC, Rios has been the best RF in the game not named Ichiro Suzuki for at least the last 3 seasons.

Benihana
06-13-2009, 07:07 AM
With Litsch joining Marcum and McGowan as out for the year and Halladay now possibly injured, I wonder if the Jays will become sellers. If so, I'd imagine they're looking for young pitching, pitching, and more pitching. Don't forget their $47MM closer is injured as well.

If they're disillusioned and Riccardi wants to make a short-term play to save his job, maybe they'd want Arroyo.

If they're realists, they would probably salivate over Bailey and the injured Canadian, Lotzkar.

I would offer three different packages, each of which might entice them for different reasons. Each also provides the Reds with some salary relief. I would probably not include Alonso, who I would hold onto for now until I have a better read on the Votto situation. Assuming Votto is ok, I would trade Alonso for pitching (assuming Rios is acquired.)

PACKAGE 1 (short-term play)
Arroyo
Heisey
Francisco/Roenicke

PACKAGE 2 (bullpen fix/swap of heavy contracts)
Cordero
Dickerson
Owings

PACKAGE 3 (Canadian future special- high risk high return)
Bailey
Taveras
Hildenbrant
Lotzkar (as PTBNL)

What do you think- which of these would you do? Which, if any, do you think the Jays might like?

IslandRed
06-13-2009, 11:13 AM
I understand. But honestly, if it was easy to turn prospects and cash into quality players, why haven't the Reds been able to do it consistently? Or the Pirates? Or any of the other poorly-run franchises that cling to prospects and cry poor when opportunity knocks?

Historically, that's been about unwillingness or inability to put the cash on the table. But it's the same dynamic that takes place everywhere in baseball. Teams will take on money in trade or they'll deal top prospects but they almost never do both at the same time, since free agency offers the opportunity to get what you need with just money. I think if someone *did* put both out there, as proposed early in the thread for the sake of acquiring Rios, you'd see all sorts of possibilities open up. But again, that will get you a player, but it's not necessarily the optimal use of the resources.

Blitz Dorsey
06-25-2009, 09:17 PM
After seeing him up close for three nights (if you actually suffer through every Reds game like I do) I'm curious to hear what Reds fans think of Rios.

Homer Bailey
06-25-2009, 09:18 PM
After seeing him up close for three nights (if you actually suffer through every Reds game like I do) I'm curious to hear what Reds fans think of Rios.

I'd stop being a Reds fan if he was a Red.

Blitz Dorsey
06-25-2009, 09:21 PM
I'd stop being a Reds fan if he was a Red.

Ha! I wouldn't go that far, but I think the fan in Toronto that called him a "bum" wasn't too far off. The guy has no concept of the strike zone and is exactly what the Reds don't need IMO. He might have 5 tools, but all of them are dull. Give me the guy with 3-4 sharp tools over the Rios' with 5 dull tools anyday.

Redhook
06-25-2009, 09:26 PM
He was pretty unimpressive this series, that's for sure. He's better than the garbage we're rolling out there these days, but not worth the money or the minor leaguers we'd have to give up to get him.

Patrick Bateman
06-25-2009, 11:31 PM
He definitely struggled, and had a really ugly K today. But in the end, it's the same type of type from Phillips. The guy has had success even with the subpar plate approach, a 3 game series doesn't change that.

Homer Bailey
06-25-2009, 11:52 PM
Like I said, take $30M off his deal and he is maybe considerable. If the Reds traded for him, I would be beyond furious. He is a very poor man's Reggie Sanders, with less power.