First, The Chicago Tribune's national baseball writer should really be covering the winter meetings wall to wall in my world.But alas, the Tribune believes in holding onto their 80 year-old clientele instead of looking five years into the future (or ten years into the past - six of one...) by offering little outside of bland, boring and thoroughly uninformed opinion.
So we get this from Phil during the first two days of the winter meetings (seven of the ten tweets):
Essentially, we readers are supposed to lament along with Phil on the loss of Granderson. It's about him. And thanks for "admit"ting it. Nobody could tell by the eight columns you wrote on Granderson, offering little legitimate evidence that the Cubs are looking to trade for him outside of the fact that Granderson played baseball in Chicago and is a neat guy.
Read the fourth one down. "Granderson would be a good fit for Safeco." Why? To further knock down his power numbers? Can't move Gutierrez off center with the defensive numbers he put up in center. What? Move Granderson to left? That makes him a good fit?
Mostly, Phil WILL be doing a Granderson/Scherzer/Jackson trade evaluation and he WILL mention how Granderson will be a "good fit" for the bandbox that is Yankee Stadium. I want, nay, need to see how he reconciles these two points.
And then we get a Phil column on Monday. The winter meetings open and Phil writes a piece based on one observation/meandering that's rolling around in his head and could have been written anytime over the last two months while backing it up with filler that he's mentioned 12,000 other times. And it's still wrong filler.
Let's get started.
It's reasonable to think that the soon-to-be 29 year-old Rios, a guy who put up Win Values of $12.1 million, $18.9 million and $24.6 million over the three years before 2009 was seeing an outlier year, an uncharacteristic season that you don't count in evaluating a guy considering his age.
It was a high risk move on many fronts. His attitude has been called into question. There's been little progress w/r/t OBP. But he plays stellar defense by all accounts and is now in a ballpark more catered to his power output. Nobody in their right mind spends $60 million just to stop a possible waiver claim by the Tigers, which is what Phil is alluding to here (he's done it many times).
Rios responded to Williams' aggressiveness -- or impulsiveness -- by hitting .199 over 41 games. J.P. Ricciardi was on his way out as the Toronto Blue Jays' general manager, but White Sox box scores had to brighten his final days in office.
Are you joking? Ricciardi got fired because of a bevy of stupid moves, mainly Vernon Wells' contract. Phil thinks Rios' $60 million is somehow bad comparatively?
Vernon Wells' contract:
2010: $12.5 million (plus $8.5 million, $25.5 million spread over three years, 2008-10)
2011: $23 million
2012: $21 million
2013: $21 million
2014: $21 million
FULL NO-TRADE CLAUSE
Since Wells signed his big contract before the 2008 season, he's had a total Win Value of $5 million. He's been paid $19 million. Rios signed an extension before the 2008 season. He's been paid $10.135 million. He's been worth $24 million in Win Value. Rios is a little over two years younger than Wells.
You do the math.
Rios' contract is pennies compared to this. Good for Ricciardi. He got rid of a comparatively minor contract when the big elephant is still in the room.
Who is Phil writing for? Morons? People who don't know this shit? Nice target audience.
And now we're taking a 41-game sample to judge a player?
Consider this. Ryan Theriot OPSed .560 from August 20th to the end of the season, a period comprising 38 games.
DUMP HIS ASS!!!!
Four months after the Rios move, Williams was among the last general managers to arrive in Indianapolis for the winter meetings. He took his time driving from Chicago on Monday afternoon, a leisurely journey that apparently was not interrupted by many phone calls from player agents.
Read the newspaper, Phil. Kenny said on every occasion he could that his off-season was in August when he acquired Peavy and Rios. I know Peavy and Rios aren't shiny new toys like the over-priced free agents at the winter meetings but his big moves are done. Sorry if it's not pretty and new.
Williams has let it be known he has limited resources to finish assembling his roster. That's not because he added Mark Teahen, Omar Vizquel and Andruw Jones in recent weeks, while retaining Mark Kotsay, but because he gambled about $115 million on Jake Peavy and Rios over the summer.
Where's the gamble on Peavy again? $49 million over three years left on his contract. He's been worth that exact amount over the last three years...and that's not taking into account a Win Value dollar amount that has been regressively less each year you go back. And the fact that last year was injury-plagued (still had an $11.5 million value last year).
He'll, in the least, be better than league-average in the AL and make back his contract in value. How's that a gamble? If Phil thinks he is, he HAS to make a case. He hasn't.
What about Chone Figgins?
Manager Ozzie Guillen has long lamented a need for both speed and a leadoff hitter. The Angels igniter, a career .291 hitter who has averaged 46 stolen bases the last five seasons, had been the subject of recurring trade talks between Williams and his counterparts in Anaheim.
Because a Chicago team wanted Figgins, that means he should sign here.
Yet Williams took a knee throughout Figgins' brief time on the free agent market, unable to do anything except wish him well after he agreed to a four-year, $36 million deal with the Mariners.
"I don't have any money," said Williams, who projects the Sox's payroll to wind up near $100 million. "I would have loved to (add him), but it didn't work."
Asked and answered. His money was spent in August. Apparently that's not good enough. Not shiny enough.
In a perfect world, Figgins would have played left field for the White Sox. That appears to be the outfield spot they are targeting for an inexpensive addition, with Guillen saying Monday that Carlos Quentin is likely to move to right field, his natural position.
OH MY FUCKING GOLLY!!!!!
Geesh!!!! How many times do we have to go over this?
Figgins is one of the best third baseman in the league. His defensive numbers over the last two seasons have been better than any season Joe Crede (Phil's continuous masturbation material) has ever put up over a full season. Crede's best UZR/150 was 13.6 in 2006. Figgins, over the last two seasons, has put up 13.8 and 18.8.
HE'S!!!! NOT!!!! MOVING!!! OFF!!!! THIRD!!!!!
Sox played their hand when they signed Teahen. Blame that, if anything.
Had Williams not made the Rios waiver claim, he could have turned to prospect Jordan Danks to fill the center field void the Sox have felt since trading Aaron Rowand after the 2005 World Series. That would have left him the flexibility to pursue Figgins or even a run producer like Jason Bay or Matt Holliday.
Danks has exactly 330 at-bats above double A. He's Ready!
Sly Rowand slip-in there. Still catering to meatball Sox fans I see. Since leaving the Sox, Rowand has been worth $44.7 million over four years while playing progressively worse defense. He's also 32 years old.
Rios has been worth $54 million over the last four years while playing much steadier defense and is a little over three years younger.
Take out the outlier years for both (best and worst years over their careers) and Rios has averaged a little over $10 million in Win Value. Rowand? A little over $11 million (full seasons). Rios is still in the heart of his prime. Rowand...not.
Bay's overrated (if the Angels sign him for more than $13 million per for four years, they got ripped off) and Holliday has yet to prove he can hit in the AL while being a Boras client (read: WAY too expensive for what you get).
But Williams believes the 28-year-old Rios will prove to be just as valuable as any of those bird-in-the-bush options.
"We wanted that player," Williams said. "We don't look at (the situation) as a hindrance. We look at him as an answer to one problem we've had for a long time. This guy is a career .280 hitter with power, with speed, with defense. We're happy to have him."
Dispute it...you know...with numbers...or opinions...or something.
Guillen was among those shocked by the limited impact Rios had after coming to Chicago. He says Rios' biggest problem was "everything," specifically citing the pressure Rios put on himself after he was cast aside by Toronto, landing in a tricky situation with a .500 team that somehow pictured itself as a potential force.
JHC! Who? Who pictured itself as a potential force? Every report said this and the Peavy move were building toward the future. Cripes! This is bullshit newspaper writing that only serves as filler. It's crap that made me not waste a paltry 75 cents on a physical paper just on principle. It's just so...revisionist.
Stealing a very winnable division would only have been a bonus. Rios played his first game as a Sox on August 12. The Sox were two games back. Insurmountable!
At the time, it was a move with a double bonus. Win the division and great. Don't and you still have a good, moderately young guy that will play to his contract in value.
The Sox believe mechanical problems with his swing undercut Rios' confidence, putting him in a hole he could never escape.
Guillen said Rios has the potential to deliver 30 homers and steal 30 bases, maybe even 40-40 -- never mind that he has hit those levels only once, stealing 32 bases in 2008. He finished '09 with 17 homers and 24 stolen bases, with his batting average sliding to .247.
So...he's hit those levels and is only 29. Bad thing?
And so...Phil thinks he'll regress even further. Why? Tell. Me. Why?
Can he turn it around?
For Williams' sake, he had better.
The White Sox have the starting pitching to win in the next two or three seasons, but the lineup is an iffy proposition. This would have been a good winter to make an impact move or two had Ricciardi not let Williams solve one of the Blue Jays' problems.
Now the Blue Jays are ready to contend now they've rid themselves of Rios.
We'll be coming back to this. Oh yes! We'll be revisiting this on multiple occasions here at Phil Watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment