PDA

View Full Version : who else for center


oldcomiskey
12-28-2008, 07:59 AM
now that Tavares has signed with Cincinnatti, who else would you like to see in center for the sox

DaveFeelsRight
12-28-2008, 09:54 AM
anybody not named jerry owens.

It's Dankerific
12-28-2008, 09:56 AM
anybody not named jerry owens.

Anyone who is inked up and likes to party.

Parrothead
12-28-2008, 10:06 AM
ken griffey jr.

Shoeless
12-28-2008, 10:06 AM
http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo243/Calibri/longley.jpg

DumpJerry
12-28-2008, 10:24 AM
Who plays First.

soxfanreggie
12-28-2008, 11:44 AM
I wouldn't mind BA if we could get someone in here that can lead off from another position (Figgins). If we're going to go younger and faster, even though I love having Paulie, let's get a trade done to bring in Figgins and he can lead off. Thus, we can then afford to have BA, a good defensive CF, in the line-up. He can take Uribe's spot in the 8/9 hole.

For 1B, we do have some options: 1.) Look at our minor league system. 2.) Make the move to bring Dye to the IF if we sign someone else for the OF or think about Fields there. 3.) Bring in a temporary FA (for a year) like Rich Aurilia or Sean Casey.

Craig Grebeck
12-28-2008, 11:57 AM
For 1B, we do have some options: 1.) Look at our minor league system. 2.) Make the move to bring Dye to the IF if we sign someone else for the OF or think about Fields there. 3.) Bring in a temporary FA (for a year) like Rich Aurilia or Sean Casey.
1. I looked. Nothing there.
2. There is no reason to believe that either Fields or Dye could move to new positions with success.
3. :?:

I want Mags back
12-28-2008, 12:09 PM
2. There is no reason to believe that either Fields or Dye could move to new positions with success.


:scratch:

you actually think Dye couldn't play 1st??

Craig Grebeck
12-28-2008, 12:15 PM
:scratch:

you actually think Dye couldn't play 1st??
Some guys aren't cut out for playing first base. I don't know that he can't, but I also don't know that he can. It's not exactly a sure thing, and if we're planning on moving Dye to first base, it better be for a player a hell of a lot better than Chone Figgins.

I want Mags back
12-28-2008, 12:35 PM
I can tell you this much.

Dye can play first.

Parrothead
12-28-2008, 12:46 PM
http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo243/Calibri/longley.jpg

well played....:thumbsup:

Craig Grebeck
12-28-2008, 12:51 PM
I can tell you this much.

Dye can play first.
Based on?

jabrch
12-28-2008, 12:55 PM
I can tell you this much.

Dye can play first.


I don't think the question is can he play it. I'm sure he "can". The question is can he play it well enough to not be a liability. With a completely new IF, including a guy who is first playing SS at this level, a subpar defensive 3B and a ? at 2B, I don't see why we'd mess with that. Our best bet with PK is to hope he rebounds with the bat.

And I still don't see any way KW trades Konerko to the Angels for jus Figgins. Figgins could be the second player in a deal.

I want Mags back
12-28-2008, 01:22 PM
Based on?

The fact that he's an aging slugger who can still hit but is getting old to play the outfield. First is where you stick guys like that. 1B is a position one can learn easily over 1 spring.

Craig Grebeck
12-28-2008, 01:29 PM
1B is a position one can learn easily over 1 spring.
Exhibit A

Lukin13
12-28-2008, 01:33 PM
The lefty, lefty, righty, combo of Wise, Owens, Anderson will be YOUR 2009 Chicago White Sox starting centerfielder(s).

I won't be shocked if they outproduce Willy T, but I am REALLY afraid of 81+ w/ Jerry Owens in CF.

Hopefully Jerry has improved his d.

Daver
12-28-2008, 01:33 PM
The fact that he's an aging slugger who can still hit but is getting old to play the outfield. First is where you stick guys like that. 1B is a position one can learn easily over 1 spring.

No, you make guys like that a DH.

I want Mags back
12-28-2008, 01:45 PM
No, you make guys like that a DH.

but were kinda set there, at least for this year, aren't we.

Tragg
12-28-2008, 01:51 PM
anybody not named jerry owens.
Or Dewayne Wise, whom the Sox inexplicably signed to a contract after his .290 obp 2008.

soxfanreggie
12-28-2008, 01:58 PM
So it's between hoping that someone else could play 1B and hoping that PK can get his bat alive and give us a complete season at the plate? Either way we're hoping for something.

jabrch
12-28-2008, 02:13 PM
So it's between hoping that someone else could play 1B and hoping that PK can get his bat alive and give us a complete season at the plate? Either way we're hoping for something.

Same with nearly every team in baseball. If you don't want a team hoping for something, then your options are limited.

LITTLE NELL
12-28-2008, 02:25 PM
BA needs to have one more full shot at the job. He's matured a lot since 06 and right now as far as defense goes he is the best we have.

jabrch
12-28-2008, 02:50 PM
BA needs to have one more full shot at the job. He's matured a lot since 06 and right now as far as defense goes he is the best we have.

I'd say he needs to have a chance to come to camp and compete with whomever else we have...I wouldn't hand him anything.

WhiteSox5187
12-28-2008, 02:54 PM
BA needs to have one more full shot at the job. He's matured a lot since 06 and right now as far as defense goes he is the best we have.
I agree with that but that still leaves us with a mighty big question mark for leadoff.

WhiteSox1989
12-28-2008, 03:12 PM
The best option there is right now is Anderson.

I hope that changes.

Tragg
12-28-2008, 05:12 PM
I agree with that but that still leaves us with a mighty big question mark for leadoff.
Same problem exists without him - Owens is no leadoff hitter.

Chicken Dinner
12-28-2008, 05:13 PM
More concerned about 3rd!

It's Dankerific
12-28-2008, 05:18 PM
Same problem exists without him - Owens is no leadoff hitter.

But he's FAST! and a former football player!!!

btrain929
12-28-2008, 05:51 PM
More concerned about 3rd!

I'm pretty sure it's a done deal that 3rd will be filled in-house.

A. Cavatica
12-28-2008, 08:40 PM
Why aren't there threads wondering about our #4 and #5 starters?

Anderson would be just fine in CF, and even the bad players Ozzie will trot out there instead are better options than Broadway and Marquez.

Lip Man 1
12-28-2008, 09:10 PM
True dat!

Lip

btrain929
12-28-2008, 09:22 PM
True dat!

Lip

Lip!

I'm lovin' the vocab, son! :D:

Lukin13
12-28-2008, 10:22 PM
Why aren't there threads wondering about our #4 and #5 starters?

Anderson would be just fine in CF, and even the bad players Ozzie will trot out there instead are better options than Broadway and Marquez.

Amen... this board certaintly takes the starting pitching we received last year for granted.

cards press box
12-28-2008, 10:54 PM
I have seen threads asking whether the White Sox will sign a veteran starter for the back of the rotation. Posters have debated the merits of such free agents as Andy Pettitte, Jon Garland and Ben Sheets.

soxfanreggie
12-29-2008, 01:04 AM
I doubt we get Garland. He will probably get more money and more years elsewhere. I wouldn't mind offering him a 3 years $30 million. We were willing to give him 3 years, $29 million before, and I wouldn't mind giving him the same deal.

Do we give someone like Kris Benson an invite to ST (couldn't hurt as a non-roster invitee)? Do we think about Mark Hendrickson or Josh Fogg for a very small but incentive-laden contract? Do we offer Paul Byrd, Randy Wolf, or Braden Looper a one-year incentive-laden contract with a club option and $1 or 2 million buyout hoping he can be a 5th starter for us? Do we look at Mark Mulder for a very small incentive-laden deal if he can get healthy (South Holland native)?

There are plenty of guys out there and plenty of avenues to go down if we're looking for a cheap option; nobody will be an Earth-shattering acquisition. However, maybe someone still has something left in the tank and can give us 10 wins on the back of the rotation.

khan
12-29-2008, 11:33 AM
I'd do more than one of the above. Benson? Sure. Henrickson? Fogg? Sign 'em up. Byrd? Wolf? Looper? Mulder? Bring MORE than one of them in.

I'm pretty confident that at least one [or more] of these guys will be better than Broadway, Marquez, or any of the other current options for #s 4 and 5 in the rotation.

If the purpose of the exercise is to compete in 2009, that is. If the purpose of the exercise is to go cheap, then not ONLY should both Broadway and Marquez be in the rotation, but there should be a few more players shipped out, as well.

2906
12-29-2008, 11:47 AM
I would bet they'll bring in a veteran on a make good contract. In this order, I think they'll pursue Freddy Garcia, Bartolo Colon, Pedro Martinez. It all depends on who's healthy and their contract demands.

There were rumors Garcia hurt his shoulder again while pitching in winter ball although nothing has been confirmed. Personally I don't know how healthy Colon or Martinez are. As for Mulder, his health is even more of a question mark.

As for other names, Henrickson signed with the Orioles today, I thought Jon Lieber was retiring, and I'm guessing Paul Byrd wants more money than the White Sox want to pay.

khan
12-29-2008, 12:13 PM
And again, it depends on what the FO is actually doing. If they have plans on competing in 2009, there simply CAN'T be a rotation of: Buehrle/Floyd/Danks/?/?

I believe that one of Floyd or Danks will progress, while the other will regress. Neither Marquez nor Richard nor Broadway have had nearly as much MLB exposure prior to this year as Floyd/Danks did prior to 2008. So no, Marquez/Richard/Broadway are NOT as likely to have as much success in 2009 as Danks/Floyd in '08.


So again, IF KW/JR want to compete this season, then they should bring in a veteran SP. If they want to go cheap/young, then they'd better start backing up the truck, and offloading contracts. Doing neither of these two suggests at mediocrity in '09.

tm1119
12-29-2008, 12:28 PM
And again, it depends on what the FO is actually doing. If they have plans on competing in 2009, there simply CAN'T be a rotation of: Buehrle/Floyd/Danks/?/?

I believe that one of Floyd or Danks will progress, while the other will regress. Neither Marquez nor Richard nor Broadway have had nearly as much MLB exposure prior to this year as Floyd/Danks did prior to 2008. So no, Marquez/Richard/Broadway are NOT as likely to have as much success in 2009 as Danks/Floyd in '08.


So again, IF KW/JR want to compete this season, then they should bring in a veteran SP. If they want to go cheap/young, then they'd better start backing up the truck, and offloading contracts. Doing neither of these two suggests at mediocrity in '09.

Not only that but these guys dont have 1/2 the talent Floyd and Danks do. Both Floyd and Danks were regarded as top pitching prospects in all of baseball at one time, but none of the 3 mentioned are even top prospects in our crappy minor league system. AT LEAST 1 solid vet SP has to be brought in if we hope to compete this year.

russ99
12-29-2008, 12:31 PM
Also, as for CF:

Anderson's first season: 365 AB, 82 H, 23 2B, 1 3B, 8 HR, 33 RBI, 4 SB, 7 CS, 30 BB, 90 K, .225 BA, .290 OBP, .359 SLG, CF:3 A, 2 E, .994 FP, .287 RF

Owens' first season: 356 AB, 95 H, 9 2B, 2, 3B, 1 HR, 17 RBI, 32 SB, 8 CS, 27 BB, 63 K, .267 BA, .324 OBP, .312 SLG, CF: 1A, 2 E, .991 FA, .265 RF

Obviously we all know Owens is a lesser player in the field, but he's adequate and the guy can flat our run and isn't bad (or at least not as bad as our other CF options) at the dish either.

With all this clamoring for BA to get another chance, why not give Owens another chance?? Given a few more at bats, he can certainly surpass his 2007 numbers, and we'd still have BA as a defensive replacement. And as for age, he's only a year older than BA.

I can't tell if all this bashing of Owens is Pods-like hate of a speedy slap hitter or the BA fan club trying to elevate their guy...

khan
12-29-2008, 12:38 PM
Kenny's always thought of starting pitching as key, So I have no doubts he'll add someone.
I too hope that this is the case. But if the FO are using the recession as cover for going cheap/young, then they should move some more contracts for more prospects, not keep the team as it is.

I wonder if this is something he may address in ST, since if Viciedo or Betemit can prove they can handle 3B full time, then Fields would be pretty good trade bait, and he wouldn't have to "wave the white flag" (in a sense) by trading Dye.
I don't think Fields is worth very much in trade any more. Too many Ks, too many errors, and not enough batting average.

khan
12-29-2008, 12:44 PM
Not only that but these guys dont have 1/2 the talent Floyd and Danks do. Both Floyd and Danks were regarded as top pitching prospects in all of baseball at one time, but none of the 3 mentioned are even top prospects in our crappy minor league system. AT LEAST 1 solid vet SP has to be brought in if we hope to compete this year.

Agreed. I just get tired of the lazy minds that use Danks'/Floyd's success in '08 as a reason to extend this likelihood onto Broadway/Marquez/Richard.

Neither of Broadway/Marquez/Richard have had the exposure to MLB that Danks/Floyd did before '08. But you make a great point that neither of Broadway/Marquez/Richard are as talented nor as highly-regarded as Danks/Floyd were as prospects.


And I don't mind if KW/JR want to go cheap/young in '09. But if they decide to do so, they'd better offload some more contracts before ST. If they want to compete, then KW should be shopping right about now.

Vestigio
12-29-2008, 01:23 PM
With all this clamoring for BA to get another chance, why not give Owens another chance?? Given a few more at bats, he can certainly surpass his 2007 numbers, and we'd still have BA as a defensive replacement. And as for age, he's only a year older than BA.

I can't tell if all this bashing of Owens is Pods-like hate of a speedy slap hitter or the BA fan club trying to elevate their guy...

I think its because BA has more upside than Owens. BA has the tools to be a decent player (its just a matter if he can put it together), while Owens plus tools are pretty much his speed, and even that may digress a little because of his groin injury last season.

soxinem1
12-29-2008, 01:37 PM
I wouldn't mind BA if we could get someone in here that can lead off from another position (Figgins). If we're going to go younger and faster, even though I love having Paulie, let's get a trade done to bring in Figgins and he can lead off. Thus, we can then afford to have BA, a good defensive CF, in the line-up. He can take Uribe's spot in the 8/9 hole.

For 1B, we do have some options: 1.) Look at our minor league system. 2.) Make the move to bring Dye to the IF if we sign someone else for the OF or think about Fields there. 3.) Bring in a temporary FA (for a year) like Rich Aurilia or Sean Casey.

Getting Figgins and/or putting BA in CF is fine with me, but what would either of these guys bring to the White Sox?

Would they take Hall's place throwing cream pies??

whitesox901
12-29-2008, 02:02 PM
We could platoon these two:

:b&b


"heh heh heh sox rule :Rocker:"

Daver
12-29-2008, 02:06 PM
I can't tell if all this bashing of Owens is Pods-like hate of a speedy slap hitter or the BA fan club trying to elevate their guy...

Well, there is the fact that Jerry Owens plays CF like my ass chews gum.

oldcomiskey
12-29-2008, 07:04 PM
Amen... this board certaintly takes the starting pitching we received last year for granted.

no its not that I take it for granted. I started a thread about the pitchers a few weeks ago as a matter of fact. I was just wondering about center.

Frater Perdurabo
12-29-2008, 07:07 PM
Well, there is the fact that Jerry Owens plays CF like my ass chews gum.

Daver, putting aside questions about his hitting and who else plays where, could Jerry Owens be a passable left fielder?

soxfanreggie
12-29-2008, 07:23 PM
Khan,

I have to say that I agree with you. If we are going cheap and prospect-laden, then there are a few other guys we can get rid of for prospects. However, if they are going to continue to say we're going to compete while shedding payroll/getting younger, I'm going to conintue to laugh.

Yes, we can have a lot of guys step up and shock the world and somehow win the division again, but with our team the way it is right now, I don't know many Sox fans who think that's a high probability. I know I don't. I do like a lot of the prospects we have, but I believe that most of them are a season or two from being Major League ready.

Daver
12-29-2008, 07:26 PM
Daver, putting aside questions about his hitting and who else plays where, could Jerry Owens be a passable left fielder?Passable is a subjective term, what do you want out of the position? Carlos Lee was passable because he could hit for average and power, but had to resort to standing on the warning track to prevent flyballs from going over his head. Jerry Owens is going to slightly worse than Podsednick defensesively, poor arm and less range, so does what he brings at the plate balance it out? In my world no, but it is not my decision to make.

rwcescato
12-30-2008, 10:11 AM
now that Tavares has signed with Cincinnatti, who else would you like to see in center for the sox



I would like to see Shoeless Joe jackson. Afterall that is where triples
went to die.

PennStater98r
12-30-2008, 10:18 AM
Based on?

His stellar D at Shortstop actually...

:redface:

PennStater98r
12-30-2008, 10:35 AM
Well, there is the fact that Jerry Owens plays CF like my ass chews gum.

Admit it - you may not be able to chew, but you could blow some bubbles, couldn't you? ;)

khan
12-30-2008, 11:23 AM
Khan,

I have to say that I agree with you. If we are going cheap and prospect-laden, then there are a few other guys we can get rid of for prospects. However, if they are going to continue to say we're going to compete while shedding payroll/getting younger, I'm going to conintue to laugh.

Yes, we can have a lot of guys step up and shock the world and somehow win the division again, but with our team the way it is right now, I don't know many Sox fans who think that's a high probability. I know I don't. I do like a lot of the prospects we have, but I believe that most of them are a season or two from being Major League ready.

Well-stated.

Individually, the Wise vs. Owens vs. Anderson vs. Taveras @ CF and the whole-pile-pf-inexperienced-youngsters vs. any number of veteran SPs @ #s 4/5 may seem trivial.

And I agree with many here that Taveras may not be all that great. But at the same time, I think Taveras is more likely to be good in '09 than the pile of suck we currently have in CF. I also do not think that any of the young SPs will be good. [In '09, anyway.] Having said this, these question marks in the team are intertwined.


But the overriding question to me is more simple:

Do KW/JR want to go cheap, or do they want to compete in '09?

I don't think we know this yet, and I'm starting to wonder if THEY know the answer to this question yet.

Tragg
12-30-2008, 11:50 AM
Setting aside his poor defense, the only way that Jerry Owens could be even semi-legitimate as a corner outfielder is if he gets on base at least 35% of the time. Anything less than that, and he's a liability.
Considering his poor defense, anything less than 35% as a center fielder is also a liability.
There is little evidence that Owens is remotely capable of getting on base 35% of the time. Oh sure, one fluke year, his groundballs may sneak through at a high rate, but his norm is well below that.


Look at Pods - he had a 350 obp in 2005, and that was satisfactory; not great, but adequate. The second it dropped in 06 and 07, he became a negative.

SBSoxFan
12-30-2008, 01:44 PM
Setting aside his poor defense, the only way that Jerry Owens could be even semi-legitimate as a corner outfielder is if he gets on base at least 35% of the time. Anything less than that, and he's a liability.
Considering his poor defense, anything less than 35% as a center fielder is also a liability.
There is little evidence that Owens is remotely capable of getting on base 35% of the time. Oh sure, one fluke year, his groundballs may sneak through at a high rate, but his norm is well below that.


Look at Pods - he had a 350 obp in 2005, and that was satisfactory; not great, but adequate. The second it dropped in 06 and 07, he became a negative.

Just imagine how many wins the 2005 Sox would have had with a legitimate lead off hitter.

It seems the fact that Pods couldn't stay healthy after 2005 is more the reason he became a liability. Pods' '06 numbers aren't all that bad, and I think Owens could at least match that performance. That would be an adequate fit for the Sox. Unfortunately, Owens doesn't currently have the option of playing LF in 2009 for the Sox.

hawkjt
12-30-2008, 01:47 PM
I think we can win with a BA/Owens platoon deal if we get a decent vet 4th or 5th starter. I like speed, and I am the about the only sox fan who has not totally given up on Owens. I think he will produce adequately this year. If he comes thru, Sox will repeat.

jabrch
12-30-2008, 01:51 PM
Just imagine how many wins the 2005 Sox would have had with a legitimate lead off hitter.

Owens' biggest problem is that he can't defend well in CF. I can live with him at the dish - warts and all - if he could defend. His arm is terrible. His range is limited relative to his speed. He's just not a good defender. I can live with a CF hitting for low average, and getting on base at some reasonable clip (.330ish+? Really - at the end of the day, each 10 pts in obp represent about 6 bases all year...so who cares about 10 pts here or there. not talking about him obping .400 or anything significant) - as long as he plays defense.

whitesox901
12-30-2008, 01:53 PM
I think we can win with a BA/Owens platoon deal if we get a decent vet 4th or 5th starter. I like speed, and I am the about the only sox fan who has not totally given up on Owens. I think he will produce adequately this year. If he comes thru, Sox will repeat.

I believe in him too

SBSoxFan
12-30-2008, 01:57 PM
Owens' biggest problem is that he can't defend well in CF. I can live with him at the dish - warts and all - if he could defend. His arm is terrible. His range is limited relative to his speed. He's just not a good defender. I can live with a CF hitting for low average, and getting on base at some reasonable clip (.330ish+? Really - at the end of the day, each 10 pts in obp represent about 6 bases all year...so who cares about 10 pts here or there. not talking about him obping .400 or anything significant) - as long as he plays defense.

I completely agree. Owens would be much better in LF. Unfortunately, as I said, that spot is currently filled for the 2009 team.

Eddo144
12-30-2008, 02:25 PM
I completely agree. Owens would be much better in LF. Unfortunately, as I said, that spot is currently filled for the 2009 team.
Defensively, yeah, he'd be better in LF. But you also expect your LF to hit fairly well, only worse than your DH and 1B, and that's what kills the Owens-as-LF dream.

Noneck
12-30-2008, 02:27 PM
Ken Berry had a 10+ year career with a .308 OBP. But now defense doesn't seem to matter anymore to this club. I'll take Anderson everyday of the week over Owens and a lot of other centerfielders out there today. But I am one of the few that appreciate defense.

jcw218
12-30-2008, 02:41 PM
Ken Berry had a 10+ year career with a .308 OBP. But now defense doesn't seem to matter anymore to this club. I'll take Anderson everyday of the week over Owens and a lot of other centerfielders out there today. But I am one of the few that appreciate defense.

I'm with you on defense. With the popularity of fantasy sports, the immeasurable aspects of the game take a back seat to the fantasy producing elements of the game. For baseball, that is offense.

jabrch
12-30-2008, 02:46 PM
But I am one of the few that appreciate defense.

I think there are more than you think...

But in either case, I still would rather see Baldelli here with BA and JO as #4 and #5.

Tragg
12-30-2008, 03:40 PM
Just imagine how many wins the 2005 Sox would have had with a legitimate lead off hitter.
Who said he wasn't legitimate? His obp was adequate (and no more) and his steals made him above average. HIs obp slipped to .330 in 2006, and the team suffered. The Sox haven't had much from the leadoff hitter most of this century.

There is no evidence that Jerry Owens can come close to a .350 obp. Perhaps he can get .330 - slap hitting your way to a .330 obp with no power is horrendously bad offense.
And to put him at a power position like LF? LOL
Another concern is we're going to go through another year without a decent bench bat or a pinch hitter. Wise is awful (like owens, he can't field and he can't hit - yet, we signed him), and Owens is no pinch hitter. WE have to keep Anderson around so someone can actually play some defense out there. I guess Betemit/Fields will be the bench bat.

Noneck
12-30-2008, 04:08 PM
But in either case, I still would rather see Baldelli here with BA and JO as #4 and #5.
Dreaming always keeps ones hopes alive but when reality creeps in, your only choice will be Anderson.

Daver
12-30-2008, 04:14 PM
Dreaming always keeps ones hopes alive but when reality creeps in, your only choice will be Anderson.

Ozzie Guillen is still the manager, so Dewayne Wise will trot out to CF on opening day.

jabrch
12-30-2008, 05:25 PM
Ozzie Guillen is still the manager, so Dewayne Wise will trot out to CF on opening day.

I hear Oney is going to get a shot.

Noneck
12-30-2008, 05:28 PM
Ozzie Guillen is still the manager, so Dewayne Wise will trot out to CF on opening day.

Please don't scare a guy with a bad ticker.

Lip Man 1
12-30-2008, 05:42 PM
I don't think Daver was joking.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
12-30-2008, 05:50 PM
I completely agree. Owens would be much better in LF. Unfortunately, as I said, that spot is currently filled for the 2009 team.

At the risk of beating my own personal dead horse, the Sox could trade Paulie to the Angels for Figgins (3B), move Dye to 1B, move Quentin to RF, and stick Owens in LF, batting ninth. A lineup of Figgins, Getz, Quentin, Thome, Dye, AJ, Alexei, BA, Owens admittedly doesn't have a lot of power in the OF, but as a team produces enough power to complement the overall improved team speed. Fields can be used to spell Thome against LHP and start occasionally at 3B and 1B.

asindc
12-30-2008, 06:28 PM
At the risk of beating my own personal dead horse, the Sox could trade Paulie to the Angels for Figgins (3B), move Dye to 1B, move Quentin to RF, and stick Owens in LF, batting ninth. A lineup of Figgins, Getz, Quentin, Thome, Dye, AJ, Alexei, BA, Owens admittedly doesn't have a lot of power in the OF, but as a team produces enough power to complement the overall improved team speed. Fields can be used to spell Thome against LHP and start occasionally at 3B and 1B.

Wasn't it you that blasted me for suggesting this? If not, I apologize. I agree, of course, that it should not be set in stone that TCQ plays LF.

Frater Perdurabo
12-30-2008, 06:29 PM
Wasn't it you that blasted me for suggesting this? If not, I apologize. I agree, of course, that it should not be set in stone that TCQ plays LF.

Twas not me.

Daver
12-30-2008, 06:36 PM
At the risk of beating my own personal dead horse, the Sox could trade Paulie to the Angels for Figgins (3B), move Dye to 1B, move Quentin to RF, and stick Owens in LF, batting ninth. A lineup of Figgins, Getz, Quentin, Thome, Dye, AJ, Alexei, BA, Owens admittedly doesn't have a lot of power in the OF, but as a team produces enough power to complement the overall improved team speed. Fields can be used to spell Thome against LHP and start occasionally at 3B and 1B.

I would much rather have 3 defensive question marks in the infield than 2 going into next season, it makes things more exciting.

jabrch
12-30-2008, 06:38 PM
At the risk of beating my own personal dead horse, the Sox could trade Paulie to the Angels for Figgins (3B),

If that's all we get for PK, I sure hope we don't trade him.

I'm open to trading him for good players. But I'm not interested in seeing him traded for this guy.

Frater Perdurabo
12-30-2008, 06:54 PM
If that's all we get for PK, I sure hope we don't trade him.

I'm open to trading him for good players. But I'm not interested in seeing him traded for this guy.

So who would you be open to accepting in return for Paulie?

Daver
12-30-2008, 07:03 PM
So who would you be open to accepting in return for Paulie?

Somebody that can play first base?

Frater Perdurabo
12-30-2008, 07:22 PM
Somebody that can play first base?

You don't think Dye can, especially if given half an offseason and a full spring training to practice?

Daver
12-30-2008, 07:32 PM
You don't think Dye can, especially if given half an offseason and a full spring training to practice?

A cardboard cutout can play, it just can't do it well.


Your idea makes the Sox worse defensively, to make room for someone that is not very good at baseball to begin with.

DaveFeelsRight
12-30-2008, 07:35 PM
i was looking at baseball-reference to see if die played first before. it says he hasnt but im pretty sure he did play one game at 1B in 05.

but he played one game at SS?

voodoochile
12-30-2008, 07:41 PM
i was looking at baseball-reference to see if die played first before. it says he hasnt but im pretty sure he did play one game at 1B in 05.

but he played one game at SS?

Only after Crede got ejected...:D:

Frater Perdurabo
12-30-2008, 08:52 PM
A cardboard cutout can play, it just can't do it well.


Your idea makes the Sox worse defensively, to make room for someone that is not very good at baseball to begin with.

You don't think Dye can play first well with practice?

Also, what is your assessment of Chone Figgins' defensive ability at third base?

Daver
12-30-2008, 09:11 PM
You don't think Dye can play first well with practice?

Also, what is your assessment of Chone Figgins' defensive ability at third base?

No I don't, my idea of good defense and yours are probably very far apart though.

Figgins is better than Fields, but so is Betemit, in fact being better than Fields isn't that tough to do.

...
12-30-2008, 09:29 PM
A cardboard cutout can play, it just can't do it well.


Your idea makes the Sox worse defensively, to make room for someone that is not very good at baseball to begin with.

Let just trade for Alex Rodriguez, right? These "good at baseball" players don't grow on trees. Sometimes you have to give to get. Which is more plausible; Josh Fields becoming a first basemen with equal defensive skills to Paul Konerko or Paul Konerko stealing 60 bases while leading off and sporting a .380 OBP which is something Figgins may be able to do? I don't necessarily agree with such a trade but it isn't as far fetched of an idea as you make it out to be; Fields at 1B, Figgins at 3B.

Craig Grebeck
12-30-2008, 09:30 PM
Let just trade for Alex Rodriguez, right? These "good at baseball" players don't grow on trees. Sometimes you have to give to get. Which is more plausible; Josh Fields becoming a first basemen with equal defensive skills to Paul Konerko or Paul Konerko stealing 60 bases while leading off and sporting a .380 OBP which is something Figgins may be able to do? I don't necessarily agree with such a trade but it isn't as far fetched of an idea as you make it out to be; Fields at 1B, Figgins at 3B.
Fields at first base is an offensive disaster. He'd probably be one of the worst offensive 1B in the game.

Daver
12-30-2008, 09:33 PM
Let just trade for Alex Rodriguez, right? These "good at baseball" players don't grow on trees. Sometimes you have to give to get. Which is more plausible; Josh Fields becoming a first basemen with equal defensive skills to Paul Konerko or Paul Konerko stealing 60 bases while leading off and sporting a .380 OBP which is something Figgins may be able to do? I don't necessarily agree with such a trade but it isn't as far fetched of an idea as you make it out to be; Fields at 1B, Figgins at 3B.

My referrence was to Dye at first and Owens in left, at least Fields has played infield.

Craig Grebeck
12-30-2008, 09:33 PM
...leading off and sporting a .380 OBP which is something Figgins may be able to do?
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/1580_3BOF_season_full_1_20080930.png
Don't bet on it.

I'm extremely hesitant to commit the most ABs on the team to a guy who has played a total of 229 games the last two seasons.

tm1119
12-30-2008, 09:34 PM
At the risk of beating my own personal dead horse, the Sox could trade Paulie to the Angels for Figgins (3B), move Dye to 1B, move Quentin to RF, and stick Owens in LF, batting ninth. A lineup of Figgins, Getz, Quentin, Thome, Dye, AJ, Alexei, BA, Owens admittedly doesn't have a lot of power in the OF, but as a team produces enough power to complement the overall improved team speed. Fields can be used to spell Thome against LHP and start occasionally at 3B and 1B.

Not that this scenario is actually going to happen, but why wouldn't we start Fields at 3B and put Figgins in LF? We've already established that Owens sucks at D anyway, and Fields' offensive potential outweighs Owens speed. Plus this is pretty much gotta be a make or break year for Fields to prove himself as a starter in the majors.

...
12-30-2008, 09:39 PM
I'll bet more on Figgins than Konerko. We need a lead off hitter and we need one bad. Tell me this team's other options.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/1580_3BOF_season_full_1_20080930.png
Don't bet on it.

I'm extremely hesitant to commit the most ABs on the team to a guy who has played a total of 229 games the last two seasons.

Craig Grebeck
12-30-2008, 09:42 PM
I'll bet more on Figgins than Konerko. We need a lead off hitter and we need one bad. Tell me this team's other options.
If we trade Konerko, we'll be sorely in need of a 1B. Tell me this team's other options.

As for 3B, Betemit or Fields. Leadoff isn't a position, and we wouldn't be hurt putting Getz in that spot.

WhiteSox1989
12-30-2008, 10:02 PM
I don't feel like reading all of this, but has there been any legitimate suggestions for center?

jabrch
12-30-2008, 10:03 PM
You don't think Dye can, especially if given half an offseason and a full spring training to practice?

1) Not well
2) Not well enough to justify having Figgins at 3B
3) Not quickly enough

1B is not a position where you just throw a guy. PK has worked a long time to be an average defender at the position.

If we were to trade PK, I'd want either a mid rotation starter or a legitimate prospect who has major upside.

jabrch
12-30-2008, 10:04 PM
I don't feel like reading all of this, but has there been any legitimate suggestions for center?

Baldelli

jabrch
12-30-2008, 10:05 PM
No I don't, my idea of good defense and yours are probably very far apart though.

Figgins is better than Fields, but so is Betemit, in fact being better than Fields isn't that tough to do.

Imagine how bad any of them would look if they had Dye at 1B instead of PK?

WhiteSox5187
12-30-2008, 10:05 PM
If we trade Konerko, we'll be sorely in need of a 1B. Tell me this team's other options.

As for 3B, Betemit or Fields. Leadoff isn't a position, and we wouldn't be hurt putting Getz in that spot.
And if Getz puts up a .280 OBP? What is plan B? You're asking an awful lot out of a rookie by throwing him in the leadoff spot, especially for a team that is supposed to compete.

And as for Fields at first, if he can put up numbers similar to what he put up in 2007 and play adequately good defense (aren't most 1st basemen guys that just couldn't field at third or were too big to put anywhere else?), I'd take him at first.

Craig Grebeck
12-30-2008, 10:07 PM
And if Getz puts up a .280 OBP? What is plan B? You're asking an awful lot out of a rookie by throwing him in the leadoff spot, especially for a team that is supposed to compete.
I don't think that's very likely at all. Then put Alexei there.
And as for Fields at first, if he can put up numbers similar to what he put up in 2007 and play adequately good defense (aren't most 1st basemen guys that just couldn't field at third or were too big to put anywhere else?), I'd take him at first.

He'd still be below average offensively for his position.

...
12-30-2008, 10:27 PM
If we trade Konerko, we'll be sorely in need of a 1B. Tell me this team's other options.

As for 3B, Betemit or Fields. Leadoff isn't a position, and we wouldn't be hurt putting Getz in that spot.

I guess you missed the post from which you first quoted me.

..and, sure, each of those players you mentioned can play those positions.

Craig Grebeck
12-30-2008, 10:30 PM
I guess you missed the post from which you first quoted me.

..and, sure, each of those players you mentioned can play those positions.
Dye and Fields aren't very good options to play first base. There's not much more to say.

WhiteSox5187
12-30-2008, 10:43 PM
Dye and Fields aren't very good options to play first base. There's not much more to say.
So if Dye, a guy who averages about what, a .280 average and 30 HRs were to be thrown in at first cuz we traded Konerko for a leadoff hitter it wouldn't work because Dye could not play defense at first very well? Or because the average first baseman hits for more OPS? If Dye puts up numbers like he did in '08 at first will we be disappointed because most first baseman put up better numbers? Does it matter THAT much if Dye is a bit below those numbers? He's still a good hitter.

As for Getz, just because he has put up good minor league numbers doesn't mean he'll do a damned thing in the majors. Now, I think Getz has a bright future and will be a good ballplayer, I'm just saying I'd rather seen him eased into his role by putting him in the nine spot, and if he does well there, then you can move him up. Throwing him to the wolves doesn't seem like a great idea. And if he does struggle (and I don't think a .280 OBP is realistic, but what if his cap is a .330 OBP?) putting in Alexei who has hardly any plate discipline doesn't seem to be a good idea either.

Craig Grebeck
12-30-2008, 10:49 PM
So if Dye, a guy who averages about what, a .280 average and 30 HRs were to be thrown in at first cuz we traded Konerko for a leadoff hitter it wouldn't work because Dye could not play defense at first very well? Or because the average first baseman hits for more OPS? If Dye puts up numbers like he did in '08 at first will we be disappointed because most first baseman put up better numbers? Does it matter THAT much if Dye is a bit below those numbers? He's still a good hitter.
Not everyone can play first base. Dye isn't exactly agile, and I don't think he has the skills to play in the infield. I don't know what anyone could see from watching him move that makes them think he can handle first base.

Konerko05
12-30-2008, 10:54 PM
As for Getz, just because he has put up good minor league numbers doesn't mean he'll do a damned thing in the majors. Now, I think Getz has a bright future and will be a good ballplayer, I'm just saying I'd rather seen him eased into his role by putting him in the nine spot, and if he does well there, then you can move him up. Throwing him to the wolves doesn't seem like a great idea. And if he does struggle (and I don't think a .280 OBP is realistic, but what if his cap is a .330 OBP?) putting in Alexei who has hardly any plate discipline doesn't seem to be a good idea either.

To me it comes down to..

1. Getz
9. Anderson
>
1. Owens
9. Getz

PalehosePlanet
12-30-2008, 10:57 PM
Not everyone can play first base. Dye isn't exactly agile, and I don't think he has the skills to play in the infield. I don't know what anyone could see from watching him move that makes them think he can handle first base.

I think it solely stems from the fact that he is a slugger who is 6'5". If he were 5"10" I doubt anyone would have ever suggested it.

WhiteSox5187
12-30-2008, 10:57 PM
Not everyone can play first base. Dye isn't exactly agile, and I don't think he has the skills to play in the infield. I don't know what anyone could see from watching him move that makes them think he can handle first base.
He's not agile, but one does not exactly have to be agile to play first base. Paul Konerko is not exactly agile either. Nor was Frank Thomas, or Dick Allen. ****, Mark Grace was a good defensive first baseman and he was not exactly agile.

Konerko05
12-30-2008, 11:00 PM
He's not agile, but one does not exactly have to be agile to play first base. Paul Konerko is not exactly agile either. Nor was Frank Thomas, or Dick Allen. ****, Mark Grace was a good defensive first baseman and he was not exactly agile.

Do you really want a career RF'er learning 1B at age 34 with an infield of Fields-Ramirez-Getz? The Sox need an experienced sure-handed 1B in 2009.

WhiteSox5187
12-30-2008, 11:01 PM
To me it comes down to..

1. Getz
9. Anderson
>
1. Owens
9. Getz
Well, yea; my point was if we were to have Figgins leading off and Getz batting ninth it would ideal. I'm not so sure what Getz can do though, I'm not dead set against the idea of him leading off, but we don't have much of a track record to go on. However if he's going to be the sort of guy that winds up with a .330 OBP I think I'd rather have Owens, who can put up a similar OBP and steal more bases. But I'm not positive that Getz would be that bad, nor am I 100% sold on him, but I can see the logic in trying to acquire a guy like Figgins.

WhiteSox5187
12-30-2008, 11:03 PM
Do you really want a career RF'er learning 1B at age 34 with an infield of Fields-Ramirez-Getz? The Sox need an experienced sure-handed 1B in 2009.
Again, the only way I'd have Dye moving to first if we have someone like Figgins playing third. Dye playing first is fairly low on my options, though I wouldn't mind sliding Fields over to first and seeing how he does. But Craig Grebeck's argument is that Fields puts up inadequate power numbers for a first baseman. Though I don't like the idea of using hitting stats based on position unless you have a guy who can play LIGHTS OUT defense. So if you have a great defensive short stop who isn't exactly a great hitter (like say Luis Apparcio), I would make that trade.

WhiteSox1989
12-30-2008, 11:04 PM
No way Dye plays 1B.

Konerko05
12-30-2008, 11:13 PM
Again, the only way I'd have Dye moving to first if we have someone like Figgins playing third. Dye playing first is fairly low on my options, though I wouldn't mind sliding Fields over to first and seeing how he does. But Craig Grebeck's argument is that Fields puts up inadequate power numbers for a first baseman. Though I don't like the idea of using hitting stats based on position unless you have a guy who can play LIGHTS OUT defense. So if you have a great defensive short stop who isn't exactly a great hitter (like say Luis Apparcio), I would make that trade.

Yeah, I made the last two posts totally forgetting that Figgins was a part of the conversation.

Well the reason hitting stats are based on position is the fact that the corner positions are your opportunity to plug in above average offensive players. If the corners aren't filled with players of that caliber, the offensive is going to be fairly weak. Offensive players up the middle are a little harder to come by.

A below average offensive 1B is basically a waste of the position.

...
12-30-2008, 11:24 PM
Not everyone can play first base. Dye isn't exactly agile, and I don't think he has the skills to play in the infield. I don't know what anyone could see from watching him move that makes them think he can handle first base.

Konerko is??? :?:

WhiteSox5187
12-30-2008, 11:28 PM
Yeah, I made the last two posts totally forgetting that Figgins was a part of the conversation.

Well the reason hitting stats are based on position is the fact that the corner positions are your opportunity to plug in above average offensive players. If the corners aren't filled with players of that caliber, the offensive is going to be fairly weak. Offensive players up the middle are a little harder to come by.

A below average offensive 1B is basically a waste of the position.
Well, if you have a line up that consists of Figgins at third, you'd have your table setter. But I'm willing to sacrifice some power in order for a good table setter. Assuming that Figgins is acquired (which I don't think he will be) and we are to throw Fields at first, that means that you still have a line up with the likes of Quentin, Thome and Dye in it. You're going to get a lot of power out of those three and if Fields puts up 2007 like numbers, I wouldn't object to having him at first, even if that means we are getting less offense out of the first baseman's spot.

Another example would be the Cubs of the mid-1990s (which I had to watch a lot of cuz we didn't have cable and that meant no Sox!). You had one of my favorite players at first in Mark Grace who was a lousy power hitter, but since you had Ryne Sandberg at second who was a fairly good power hitter, I think the loss of power at first would be offset by the gain of power at second.

Konerko05
12-30-2008, 11:41 PM
Well, if you have a line up that consists of Figgins at third, you'd have your table setter. But I'm willing to sacrifice some power in order for a good table setter. Assuming that Figgins is acquired (which I don't think he will be) and we are to throw Fields at first, that means that you still have a line up with the likes of Quentin, Thome and Dye in it. You're going to get a lot of power out of those three and if Fields puts up 2007 like numbers, I wouldn't object to having him at first, even if that means we are getting less offense out of the first baseman's spot.

Another example would be the Cubs of the mid-1990s (which I had to watch a lot of cuz we didn't have cable and that meant no Sox!). You had one of my favorite players at first in Mark Grace who was a lousy power hitter, but since you had Ryne Sandberg at second who was a fairly good power hitter, I think the loss of power at first would be offset by the gain of power at second.

I don't think Quentin, Thome, and Dye have enough offensive capabilities to make up for the rest of your lineup, especially with Owens replacing Dye in the outfield.

Mark Grace actually wasn't a bad offensive player. His career numbers are .303/.383/.442. He consistently posted an OPS over .850 after 1995. A career .825 OPS with gold glove defense is not a liability. I'd take Fields at 1B if he could come close to those numbers.

Daver
12-30-2008, 11:42 PM
Konerko is??? :?:

Konerko is above average at first.

Craig Grebeck
12-30-2008, 11:43 PM
Konerko is??? :?:
No, you're missing the point. Dye isn't agile enough to switch positions at his age. Konerko, on the other hand, has been playing first base for quite some time.

WhiteSox1989
12-30-2008, 11:45 PM
Konerko is above average at first.
I agree.

I wouldn't necessarily describe Konerko as "agile", but I would much rather see him at 1B over Dye, as some suggested-and this is even if the Sox acquire Figgins.

Madscout
12-30-2008, 11:47 PM
Yeah, I made the last two posts totally forgetting that Figgins was a part of the conversation.

Well the reason hitting stats are based on position is the fact that the corner positions are your opportunity to plug in above average offensive players. If the corners aren't filled with players of that caliber, the offensive is going to be fairly weak. Offensive players up the middle are a little harder to come by.

A below average offensive 1B is basically a waste of the position.
In many cases, however, there exist players that defy such generalizations. Also, why do we need more power. We lost who, Crede? Cabrera? Griffey? And presumably Konerko for Figgins or whoever. Other than Konerko, there isn't a lot of power there, and we would still have Thome, Dye, and CQ.

What we need are guys that can flat out field their positions, give our pitchers confidence, and guys that will listen and play in a framework. Not guys like last year, who swung for the fences all of the time (Crede) were worried about thier stats for FA (Cabrera), aging guys without speed or power (Grif), and guys who made every excuse they could as to why they weren't producing (Konerko).

Craig Grebeck
12-30-2008, 11:52 PM
What we need are guys that can flat out field their positions, give our pitchers confidence, and guys that will listen and play in a framework. Not guys like last year, who swung for the fences all of the time (Crede) were worried about thier stats for FA (Cabrera), aging guys without speed or power (Grif), and guys who made every excuse they could as to why they weren't producing (Konerko).
1. Crede was fan-****ing-tastic up until his injury. He was an absolute monster in June.
2. Cabrera was fine for us offensively. I'd take that production from a solid defensive SS any day.
3. I'm not sure Konerko was making excuses. Sure, his supporters may have, but his second half was in line with the rest of his career.

Why do we need more power? Well, it's not a matter of more power, it's a matter of subtracting power and replacing it with, well, mediocrity. To me, I'd much rather have a lineup along the lines of what's below than everything else that's been suggested.

Ramirez
Getz
Quentin
Thome
Dye
Konerko
AJP
Baldelli or even BA
Betemit/Fields

Konerko05
12-30-2008, 11:53 PM
In many cases, however, there exist players that defy such generalizations. Also, why do we need more power. We lost who, Crede? Cabrera? Griffey? And presumably Konerko for Figgins or whoever. Other than Konerko, there isn't a lot of power there, and we would still have Thome, Dye, and CQ.

What we need are guys that can flat out field their positions, give our pitchers confidence, and guys that will listen and play in a framework. Not guys like last year, who swung for the fences all of the time (Crede) were worried about thier stats for FA (Cabrera), aging guys without speed or power (Grif), and guys who made every excuse they could as to why they weren't producing (Konerko).

To be fair, I never mentioned the word power. I was just talking about above average offensive players.

I agree the team could use a boost on defense, which is why I'm for starting Anderson in CF. The problem is this discussion is about plugging Fields or Dye at 1B. Even if Figgins is better than Fields defensively, the defense might be worse with Fields/Dye at 1B.

Edit: The offense will most likely be worse as well.

champagne030
12-31-2008, 12:21 AM
If we trade Konerko, we'll be sorely in need of a 1B. Tell me this team's other options.

As for 3B, Betemit or Fields. Leadoff isn't a position, and we wouldn't be hurt putting Getz in that spot.

Pay Paul to steal from Peter. Fields and Betemit are beyond horrible defensively.

Dye and Fields aren't very good options to play first base. There's not much more to say.

No, they are not, but our current 1B isn't a good option.

Konerko is above average at first.


Tallest midget. He stinks defensively, but so do a lot of players at 1B. At best, he's in the middle of a collection of defensive stiffs.

Craig Grebeck
12-31-2008, 01:07 AM
No, they are not, but our current 1B isn't a good option.
Why?

russ99
12-31-2008, 10:48 AM
1. Crede was fan-****ing-tastic up until his injury. He was an absolute monster in June.
2. Cabrera was fine for us offensively. I'd take that production from a solid defensive SS any day.
3. I'm not sure Konerko was making excuses. Sure, his supporters may have, but his second half was in line with the rest of his career.

Why do we need more power? Well, it's not a matter of more power, it's a matter of subtracting power and replacing it with, well, mediocrity. To me, I'd much rather have a lineup along the lines of what's below than everything else that's been suggested.

Ramirez
Getz
Quentin
Thome
Dye
Konerko
AJP
Baldelli or even BA
Betemit/Fields

Throwing Getz in the 1 spot right off he bat is asking way too much for a kid with only a few MLB at-bats, as that requires a discipline and mindset. A move there even messes up vets, like Swisher. Ozzie won't set the kid up to fail.

Also slotting Ramirez into 1 or 2 may be a bit too early as well, he needs to show more discipline and cut down the swing in some situations, and it may be best to get him 100 AB into his 2nd year before making the move up the order.

At this point it sounds like we're going with this:

1 - Owens
2 - Pierzynski
3 - Quentin
4 - Dye
5 - Thome
6 - Konerko
7 - Ramirez
8 - Fields
9 - Getz/Lillibridge/Nix

And grudgingly, IMO that's OK to start the year with, but that may change. I also don't think Getz should be handed the 2B job, especially considering the other players in the mix.

dooda
12-31-2008, 12:25 PM
Why all the interest in Baldelli? He's only played in 63 games in 2 yrs. His illness is not curable and only treatable at best. We would be better off with someone who will be available 125 games per year. I'd rather see a defensive guy in center who can save runs. If he can hit so much the better. Great defense helps make average pitchers good and good pitchers great.

voodoochile
12-31-2008, 12:45 PM
Throwing Getz in the 1 spot right off he bat is asking way too much for a kid with only a few MLB at-bats, as that requires a discipline and mindset. A move there even messes up vets, like Swisher. Ozzie won't set the kid up to fail.

Also slotting Ramirez into 1 or 2 may be a bit too early as well, he needs to show more discipline and cut down the swing in some situations, and it may be best to get him 100 AB into his 2nd year before making the move up the order.

At this point it sounds like we're going with this:

1 - Owens
2 - Pierzynski
3 - Quentin
4 - Dye
5 - Thome
6 - Konerko
7 - Ramirez
8 - Fields
9 - Getz/Lillibridge/Nix

And grudgingly, IMO that's OK to start the year with, but that may change. I also don't think Getz should be handed the 2B job, especially considering the other players in the mix.

Expect to see Owens and BA platooning in CF. When BA starts, he'll bat 9th with I'd imagine TCM leading off (his OBP against LHP is ~ .350 but most of his power comes against RHP).

khan
12-31-2008, 12:48 PM
The reality is that Ozzie Guillen doesn't value defense at all in the outfield. At least, that's what it seems like to THIS observer, given that he's started Mackowiac, Griffey, Swisher and other defensively-deficient players at CF.

Based on his history, the player that is most likely to be the CF for this club must:

1. Suck at defense.
2. Have the MOST possible power.
3. MUST be a favorite of Ozzie Guillen, and a "grinder," so as to satisfy KW.
4. Must be played hopelessly out of position
5. [Optional] This isn't a necessity, but KW likes to live vicariously through other former football playing stiffs who can't play baseball any better than he did.



Based on this, I'm guessing that the depth chart at CF will be:
1. DeWayne Wise
2. Jerry Owens
3. Some other former football-playing stiff as-yet unnamed hereto fore.
4. Brian Anderson

A. Cavatica
12-31-2008, 02:12 PM
The reality is that Ozzie Guillen doesn't value defense at all in the outfield. At least, that's what it seems like to THIS observer, given that he's started Mackowiac, Griffey, Swisher and other defensively-deficient players at CF.

Based on his history, the player that is most likely to be the CF for this club must:

1. Suck at defense.
2. Have the MOST possible power.
3. MUST be a favorite of Ozzie Guillen, and a "grinder," so as to satisfy KW.
4. Must be played hopelessly out of position
5. [Optional] This isn't a necessity, but KW likes to live vicariously through other former football playing stiffs who can't play baseball any better than he did.



Based on this, I'm guessing that the depth chart at CF will be:
1. DeWayne Wise
2. Jerry Owens
3. Some other former football-playing stiff as-yet unnamed hereto fore.
4. Brian Anderson

Based on this, I'm guessing that we'll see Josh Fields in CF. :thud:

jabrch
12-31-2008, 03:14 PM
Based on this, I'm guessing that we'll see Josh Fields in CF. :thud:


I'm leaning towards KWJR or Oney. KW is stupid, doesn't care about winning, and is screwing the fans. Ozzie is an idiot. And JR is cheap. It all makes sense.

oldcomiskey
12-31-2008, 06:14 PM
and to what do you base all this on. In 4 of the 5 years Ozxzie has been here he has finished at or near the top of the division. Ozzie also became the first Sox Manager in HISTORY to bring the sox in first TWICE

Tragg
12-31-2008, 06:21 PM
As currently constructed, there are only 2 possible choices for leadoff: Getz or Missle. I wouldn't put that pressure on Getz, so go with Missle. His obp isn't ideal, but he can hit the hell out of the ball AND he runs the bases exceptionally well.
There's no point in putting Owens out there...he adds zero to the offense and is a bad defender in an already defensively weak outfield. He should be in AAA as an organizational minor leaguer. That's just silly putting Owens on this team. Anderson will hit 20 homers and an obp of .310-.320; that's pretty bad, but better than Owens is likely to do.

jabrch
12-31-2008, 10:49 PM
and to what do you base all this on. In 4 of the 5 years Ozxzie has been here he has finished at or near the top of the division. Ozzie also became the first Sox Manager in HISTORY to bring the sox in first TWICE


Sorry - that should have been in teal.

voodoochile
12-31-2008, 10:50 PM
As currently constructed, there are only 2 possible choices for leadoff: Getz or Missle. I wouldn't put that pressure on Getz, so go with Missle. His obp isn't ideal, but he can hit the hell out of the ball AND he runs the bases exceptionally well.
There's no point in putting Owens out there...he adds zero to the offense and is a bad defender in an already defensively weak outfield. He should be in AAA as an organizational minor leaguer. That's just silly putting Owens on this team. Anderson will hit 20 homers and an obp of .310-.320; that's pretty bad, but better than Owens is likely to do.

Owens' splits against RHP include a .323 OBP in about 300 AB. Will he improve on that? Can he improve on that? He'll steal 40 bases in 400 AB.

Is it ideal? No, but I for one don't have a major issue with those numbers from the leadoff slot, compared to the other options.

Daver
12-31-2008, 10:53 PM
Owens' splits against RHP include a .323 OBP in about 300 AB. Will he improve on that? Can he improve on that? He'll steal 40 bases in 400 AB.

Is it ideal? No, but I for one don't have a major issue with those numbers from the leadoff slot, compared to the other options.

The fact that he may as well wear a glove on his head makes no difference, he's fast. That is a great way to pick a position player.

Brian26
12-31-2008, 11:10 PM
The reality is that Ozzie Guillen doesn't value defense at all in the outfield. At least, that's what it seems like to THIS observer, given that he's started Mackowiac, Griffey, Swisher and other defensively-deficient players at CF.

Is that Ozzie's fault or the organization's? KW's the guy that acquired all of those players, in addition to CF Carl Everett in 2003 (before Ozzie even got here). Except for Mackowiak, none of those guys had another position to play. They were in the lineup due to their bat.

voodoochile
12-31-2008, 11:48 PM
The fact that he may as well wear a glove on his head makes no difference, he's fast. That is a great way to pick a position player.

Seemed to work for Willy Mays, not so much for Jose Canseco...:D:

Daver
12-31-2008, 11:53 PM
Seemed to work for Willy Mays, not so much for Jose Canseco...:D:


You're comparing Jerry Owens to Willie Mays?

oldcomiskey
01-01-2009, 07:22 AM
Sorry - that should have been in teal.

No it should not have been in teal

voodoochile
01-01-2009, 10:20 AM
You're comparing Jerry Owens to Willie Mays?

And Jose Canseco. I figure defensively he's somewhere in the middle...

Frater Perdurabo
01-01-2009, 10:52 AM
And Jose Canseco. I figure defensively he's somewhere in the middle...

Canseco had a better arm. Remember when he tried pitching? :tongue:

jabrch
01-01-2009, 11:50 AM
And Jose Canseco. I figure defensively he's somewhere in the middle...

When he was young, Canseco was a decent OF. Not great - but he was a better LF than Owens.

Guys will consider taking third on singles to left against Owens. That's sad.

khan
01-01-2009, 02:43 PM
Is that Ozzie's fault or the organization's? KW's the guy that acquired all of those players, in addition to CF Carl Everett in 2003 (before Ozzie even got here). Except for Mackowiak, none of those guys had another position to play. They were in the lineup due to their bat.

Its both. When Mackowiac was acquired, Anderson was still the best CF in the organization. When Griffey was acquired, not only was Anderson better at CF, but I'd posit that both Wise and Owens were, too. When Swisher was acquired, Anderson was still better than he at CF.

So sure: Its KW's fault that he acquires these pieces of **** for a position that they have no earthly reason for playing. But its also this myth of "Ozzieball" that OG values speed, pitching, and defense. Ozzie keeps playing the most defensively-inept players at one of the most important defensive positions. This, despite there being better defensive options in the team already. [And I'm not a big BA fan, BTW.]


So again: Ozzie does not value speed and defense. He'll go with the player that has ****tiest glove, but the most power in CF. If that guy also played football, then KW's wet dreams will be answered, too. I still say it'll be Wise or Owens, whether we like it or not.

tm1119
01-01-2009, 03:04 PM
When are people going to realize/admit that Brian Anderson sucks? The guy is now 26 years old and has had 600 AB's at the MLB level and has yet to prove anything besides that he doesnt belong there. His defense is good but not great, and thats all hes got. No bat, average speed, and above average D does not make someone a major league baseball player.

khan
01-01-2009, 03:12 PM
When are people going to realize/admit that Brian Anderson sucks? The guy is now 26 years old and has had 600 AB's at the MLB level and has yet to prove anything besides that he doesnt belong there.
At hitting, sure. Brian Anderson sucks. But how well has it worked out, using a better bat than glove at CF? How many World Series wins has this organization had since getting rid of the average-at-defense Rowand? Mackowiac, Griffey, and Swisher are all better with the bat than the glove. And none of them have helped this team win a world series.

[quote=tm1119;2131356]His defense is good but not great, and thats all hes got.
Um, you're wrong. Anderson is great defensively. Given that neither Dye nor Quentin are great with the glove, Anderson is probably the best out of an admittedly-weak list of choices. EDIT: But that doesn't matter. It'll be Wise or Owens in CF. At least, until KW picks up the next football playing stiff, or his latest mancrush from 1997.

Brian26
01-01-2009, 03:13 PM
No bat, average speed, and above average D does not make someone a major league baseball player.

I could name 100 players off the top of my head that fit that description, starting with Mike Squires.

tm1119
01-01-2009, 03:41 PM
At hitting, sure. Brian Anderson sucks. But how well has it worked out, using a better bat than glove at CF? How many World Series wins has this organization had since getting rid of the average-at-defense Rowand? Mackowiac, Griffey, and Swisher are all better with the bat than the glove. And none of them have helped this team win a world series.


Um, you're wrong. Anderson is great defensively. Given that neither Dye nor Quentin are great with the glove, Anderson is probably the best out of an admittedly-weak list of choices. EDIT: But that doesn't matter. It'll be Wise or Owens in CF. At least, until KW picks up the next football playing stiff, or his latest mancrush from 1997.[/quote]

It's been what 4 years since our World Series win? And Rowand contributed to that win a lot more with his bat than his D. And no Brian Anderson is not great in CF. Great would put him in the same league as guys like Griffey, Andrew Jones, Tori Hunter, and other multiple gold glove winners during their primes. BA doesnt deserve to be in that league. Not even close really. Not saying that hes not good, but the word great is a huge stretch.

Tragg
01-01-2009, 08:42 PM
Owens' splits against RHP include a .323 OBP in about 300 AB. Will he improve on that? Can he improve on that? He'll steal 40 bases in 400 AB.

Is it ideal? No, but I for one don't have a major issue with those numbers from the leadoff slot, compared to the other options.
.323 OBP with no power is absolutely terrible for a leadoff hitter; it's bad for a 9 hole hitter. The fact that he can't defend should make it a slam dunk - he offers nothing. Ozzie already stuck us with Wise; that's enough.
As for steals, we don't really need them.... with Thome and TCQ and Konerko. We just need players to run the bases well. Wise can be the designated base stealer.

When are people going to realize/admit that Brian Anderson sucks? The guy is now 26 years old and has had 600 AB's at the MLB level and has yet to prove anything besides that he doesnt belong there. His defense is good but not great, and thats all hes got. No bat, average speed, and above average D does not make someone a major league baseball player.
Compared to Wise and Owens, Anderson stands tall. I realize he doesn't lunge and slap at it and can actually drive the ball, but he is a better hitter than Jerry Owens. Ozzie gave Owens 2 months virtually uninterrupted at leadoff (and he didn't hit a lick); Ozzie never gave Anderson 2 weeks unfettered in the 9 hole.

Daver
01-01-2009, 08:49 PM
As for steals, we don't really need them.... with Thome and TCQ and Konerko. We just need players to run the bases well. Wise can be the designated base stealer.

Ozzie uses Anderson as a pinch runner the vast majority of the time.

tm1119
01-01-2009, 10:20 PM
.323 OBP with no power is absolutely terrible for a leadoff hitter; it's bad for a 9 hole hitter. The fact that he can't defend should make it a slam dunk - he offers nothing. Ozzie already stuck us with Wise; that's enough.
As for steals, we don't really need them.... with Thome and TCQ and Konerko. We just need players to run the bases well. Wise can be the designated base stealer.


Compared to Wise and Owens, Anderson stands tall. I realize he doesn't lunge and slap at it and can actually drive the ball, but he is a better hitter than Jerry Owens. Ozzie gave Owens 2 months virtually uninterrupted at leadoff (and he didn't hit a lick); Ozzie never gave Anderson 2 weeks unfettered in the 9 hole.

Anderson has a career .221 .277 OBP, .656 OPS, and .379 SLG % in 597 AB
Owens has a career .268 AVG .321 OBP, .633 OPS, and .312 SLG % in 381 AB

So where did this idea that Anderson is so much better than Owens come from? And not to mention how overblown Owens lack of D is. His UZR in 2007(the season he got playing time) was 6.6. Anderson's in 2006(his only season with playing time) was 9.4. So yes an improvement but the difference of 2.8 runs over an entire season is nothing. So can someone now please give me a legit argument of why Anderson is so much better than Owens?

russ99
01-02-2009, 11:43 AM
There's a brief mention that the Nats might use Lastings Milledge as "trade-bait" on that rumor site.

He'd be a great fit for us in CF, but who knows what we'd have to give up to get him... They need power hitting (Dye??) and starting pitching.

Dan Mega
01-02-2009, 12:10 PM
Anderson has a career .221 .277 OBP, .656 OPS, and .379 SLG % in 597 AB
Owens has a career .268 AVG .321 OBP, .633 OPS, and .312 SLG % in 381 AB

So where did this idea that Anderson is so much better than Owens come from? And not to mention how overblown Owens lack of D is. His UZR in 2007(the season he got playing time) was 6.6. Anderson's in 2006(his only season with playing time) was 9.4. So yes an improvement but the difference of 2.8 runs over an entire season is nothing. So can someone now please give me a legit argument of why Anderson is so much better than Owens?

The fact that Anderson still has a higher OPS than Owens AND better D?

CF is the most important position on the field in terms of D (arguable with 3B I know). Why not have the best option there?

tm1119
01-02-2009, 12:25 PM
The fact that Anderson still has a higher OPS than Owens AND better D?

CF is the most important position on the field in terms of D (arguable with 3B I know). Why not have the best option there?

You would start Anderson because his OPS is barely higher than Owens? Thats ridiculous. Owens is a slap hitter and OPS factors in SLG %. If Anderson was anywhere near a decent hitter his OPS would be a lot higher than Owens. Owens average and OBP are both 40+ points higher than Anderson's. Thats pretty huge when Owens has the potential to steal 50 bases and make some sort of impact on the offense. Anderson contributes NOTHING to the offense. And the defensive difference is not that big at all. Pepole here seem to put Anderson on a throne and trash Owens no matter what the stats say.

Craig Grebeck
01-02-2009, 12:30 PM
The fact that Anderson still has a higher OPS than Owens AND better D?

CF is the most important position on the field in terms of D (arguable with 3B I know). Why not have the best option there?
I'd say SS is quite a bit more important than 3B.

You would start Anderson because his OPS is barely higher than Owens? Thats ridiculous. Owens is a slap hitter and OPS factors in SLG %. If Anderson was anywhere near a decent hitter his OPS would be a lot higher than Owens. Owens average and OBP are both 40+ points higher than Anderson's. Thats pretty huge when Owens has the potential to steal 50 bases and make some sort of impact on the offense. Anderson contributes NOTHING to the offense. And the defensive difference is not that big at all. Pepole here seem to put Anderson on a throne and trash Owens no matter what the stats say.
Jerry Owens -- he of the 71% success rate on stolen bases in the minor leagues -- has the potential to steal 50 bases in the major leagues? Perhaps if he tries 75-80 times.

And, for the record, I know he was 32/40 in 2007, but he's sustained some nagging leg injuries which will no doubt sap some speed.

tm1119
01-02-2009, 12:45 PM
I'd say SS is quite a bit more important than 3B.


Jerry Owens -- he of the 71% success rate on stolen bases in the minor leagues -- has the potential to steal 50 bases in the major leagues? Perhaps if he tries 75-80 times.

And, for the record, I know he was 32/40 in 2007, but he's sustained some nagging leg injuries which will no doubt sap some speed.

Ok thats a good point but still doesnt say anything for Anderson. And do you know what Pods success rate was in 05? Just curious to see how detremental getting thrown out is on the team. And I'd imagine that Owens would be much more cautious in the majors as apposed to the minors.

Craig Grebeck
01-02-2009, 01:08 PM
Ok thats a good point but still doesnt say anything for Anderson. And do you know what Pods success rate was in 05? Just curious to see how detremental getting thrown out is on the team. And I'd imagine that Owens would be much more cautious in the majors as apposed to the minors.
It says a lot for Anderson. He's a good defensive player (I've overstated how good he is in the past -- mainly due to his performance in 2006) who can provide below average offense at the league minimum. That's still better than Owens.

Of course, we'd be better served to acquire a player better than both.

russ99
01-02-2009, 02:40 PM
It says a lot for Anderson. He's a good defensive player (I've overstated how good he is in the past -- mainly due to his performance in 2006) who can provide below average offense at the league minimum. That's still better than Owens.

Of course, we'd be better served to acquire a player better than both.

Considering we have little other speed options on the club (Lillibridge and Ramirez), I'd think a average hitter with no power, but with above-average speed and a potential top 5 MLB base stealer that is a slightly above a liability on defense would be more valuable starting 66 percent of the time over another homer-oriented hitter with poor plate mentality and a Mendozaesque batting average, despite his outstanding defensive capabilities.

Especially so since Ozzie is more inclined after last year to sub Anderson in CF in late innings, and will get some benefit from Anderson's fielding talent without forcing another weak bat into the lineup.

But that's just my opinion, even though I share the same opinion as Ozzie.

If we had top level players at 2B, 3B and SS (give Alexei another year or two), we could carry Anderson in the 9 spot just for his defense, but we don't. And as I recall, we tried that already...

And yes, I think all Sox fans would vastly prefer Plan C, but Ozzie's gotta play the hand he's dealt.

jabrch
01-02-2009, 02:46 PM
Ok thats a good point but still doesnt say anything for Anderson. And do you know what Pods success rate was in 05? Just curious to see how detremental getting thrown out is on the team. And I'd imagine that Owens would be much more cautious in the majors as apposed to the minors.

IF Owens got on base enough, his SBs would make him even more valuable. But since he doesn't hit well, and puts no fear in pitchers, he won't see to much outside of the strikezone to take. And that's without discussing his defense.

BA has yet to show at the major league level that he can be a better hitter than JO. He won't walk enough to make a differnce. And his power is offset by how infrquently it impacts us. So the question is what's worth more - BAs Defense or JO's speed. YUCK. Between those two choices - give me BA. I'm hoping we end up with a better option to play every day and these guys are #4 and #5.

Tragg
01-02-2009, 02:55 PM
You would start Anderson because his OPS is barely higher than Owens? Thats ridiculous. Owens is a slap hitter and OPS factors in SLG %. If Anderson was anywhere near a decent hitter his OPS would be a lot higher than Owens. Owens average and OBP are both 40+ points higher than Anderson's. Thats pretty huge when Owens has the potential to steal 50 bases and make some sort of impact on the offense. Anderson contributes NOTHING to the offense. And the defensive difference is not that big at all. Pepole here seem to put Anderson on a throne and trash Owens no matter what the stats say.

Yes I'd start him because his D is far superior. That is particularly important considering the defenders we have in left and right.

The second part doesn't make any sense- because he's a slap hitter, it's okay not to have any power and slugging is irrelevant? That begs the issue - it's that he can only slap (among other things) that makes him a poor hitter.

jabrch
01-02-2009, 03:02 PM
The Dodgers are trying to completely cut ties with Andruw Jones.

Let's say we could have him for 1 year, for the veterans minimum...

NOW what do you think of Andruw Jones.

I would NEVER have given him what the Dodgers gave him. I thought that was completely foolish. But if I could have him on a 1 year deal for the minimum? Seems worth the risk to me. He's not what he used to be in any way, shape or form - but could he be better in 09 than he was in the past two years? I know it is a long shot. He's fat, his bat speed appears slower, and he moves much worse than he used to. But could he fit in?

I don't know...looking for an opinion on this.

Craig Grebeck
01-02-2009, 03:18 PM
Considering we have little other speed options on the club (Lillibridge and Ramirez), I'd think a average hitter with no power, but with above-average speed and a potential top 5 MLB base stealer that is a slightly above a liability on defense would be more valuable starting 66 percent of the time over another homer-oriented hitter with poor plate mentality and a Mendozaesque batting average, despite his outstanding defensive capabilities.

Especially so since Ozzie is more inclined after last year to sub Anderson in CF in late innings, and will get some benefit from Anderson's fielding talent without forcing another weak bat into the lineup.

But that's just my opinion, even though I share the same opinion as Ozzie.

If we had top level players at 2B, 3B and SS (give Alexei another year or two), we could carry Anderson in the 9 spot just for his defense, but we don't. And as I recall, we tried that already...

And yes, I think all Sox fans would vastly prefer Plan C, but Ozzie's gotta play the hand he's dealt.
I'm not going to attempt to reason with someone that believes Owens has the potential to be a top 5 baserunner in MLB.

JorgeFabregas
01-02-2009, 03:20 PM
I think if he's released then he's probably worth talking to. However, keep in mind that he's currently guaranteed $13 million. He's not going to ask to be released unless it's worth his while. I'm sure he's hoping to get a short term deal for a team where he'll be guaranteed playing time and improve his chances at one last long-term deal. Anyway, I'm guessing the asking price will be too high.

So yes, by all means talk to him. Beyond that, who knows.

Tragg
01-02-2009, 03:26 PM
The Dodgers are trying to completely cut ties with Andruw Jones.

Let's say we could have him for 1 year, for the veterans minimum...

NOW what do you think of Andruw Jones.

I would NEVER have given him what the Dodgers gave him. I thought that was completely foolish. But if I could have him on a 1 year deal for the minimum? Seems worth the risk to me. He's not what he used to be in any way, shape or form - but could he be better in 09 than he was in the past two years? I know it is a long shot. He's fat, his bat speed appears slower, and he moves much worse than he used to. But could he fit in?

I don't know...looking for an opinion on this.
WE'd have to give players up for him. The Dodgers are only stuck one more year.
What about Baldelli? What kind of salary will he command?

jabrch
01-02-2009, 03:28 PM
I think if he's released then he's probably worth talking to. However, keep in mind that he's currently guaranteed $13 million. He's not going to ask to be released unless it's worth his while. I'm sure he's hoping to get a short term deal for a team where he'll be guaranteed playing time and improve his chances at one last long-term deal. Anyway, I'm guessing the asking price will be too high.

So yes, by all means talk to him. Beyond that, who knows.


He isn't asking. The Dodgers want him gone. They are going to have to eat the deal and realease him. I wouldn't help them out one penny...They made this mess - let them clean it up. I wouldn't give them ANYTHING for him.

But if all he costs is the veterans minimum, that's a different ballgame.

Craig Grebeck
01-02-2009, 03:29 PM
I don't want Andruw. I'd prefer Baldelli, even with the risk associated.

everafan
01-02-2009, 03:34 PM
I didn't read through all 11 pages so sorry if this has been posted. Right now ESPN projects Quentin as the starting CFer, Fields in left and Betemit at 3B. I think messing with Quentin would be a huge mistake. RF would be fine but CF takes a lot more skill.

<http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove08/index

Craig Grebeck
01-02-2009, 03:35 PM
I didn't read through all 11 pages so sorry if this has been posted. Right now ESPN projects Quentin as the starting CFer, Fields in left and Betemit at 3B. I think messing with Quentin would be a huge mistake. RF would be fine but CF takes a lot more skill.

<http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove08/index
ESPN, as usual, is wrong.

jabrch
01-02-2009, 03:35 PM
I didn't read through all 11 pages so sorry if this has been posted. Right now ESPN projects Quentin as the starting CFer, Fields in left and Betemit at 3B. I think messing with Quentin would be a huge mistake. RF would be fine but CF takes a lot more skill.

<http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove08/index


Carlos Quentin won't be playing CF. That's silly. Why does it not surprise me that Keith Law is affiliated with that webpage?

JorgeFabregas
01-02-2009, 03:42 PM
He isn't asking. The Dodgers want him gone. They are going to have to eat the deal and realease him. I wouldn't help them out one penny...They made this mess - let them clean it up. I wouldn't give them ANYTHING for him.

But if all he costs is the veterans minimum, that's a different ballgame.
Ok, I misread:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/printedition/la-sp-simers2-2009jan02,0,1182180.column

Looks like they are hoping to deal him.

champagne030
01-02-2009, 03:46 PM
I didn't read through all 11 pages so sorry if this has been posted. Right now ESPN projects Quentin as the starting CFer, Fields in left and Betemit at 3B. I think messing with Quentin would be a huge mistake. RF would be fine but CF takes a lot more skill.

<http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove08/index

I cannot imagine that will happen, but they might just be looking at the horse**** Ozzie has chosen to put out there the past few years and I guess tCQ wouldn't be any worse than Mack.

Dan Mega
01-02-2009, 03:52 PM
TCQ in center? :rolling:

Lets trot PK out to SS while we're at it :rolling:

kittle42
01-02-2009, 03:56 PM
I didn't read through all 11 pages so sorry if this has been posted. Right now ESPN projects Quentin as the starting CFer, Fields in left and Betemit at 3B. I think messing with Quentin would be a huge mistake. RF would be fine but CF takes a lot more skill.

<http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove08/index

ESPN's depth charts are often screwed up even days before the season starts.

Jurr
01-02-2009, 04:18 PM
TCQ in center? :rolling:

Lets trot PK out to SS while we're at it :rolling:
Hell, we put Carl Everett in center for a spell. Don't put anything past the Sox!!

jabrch
01-02-2009, 04:22 PM
Ok, I misread:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/printedition/la-sp-simers2-2009jan02,0,1182180.column

Looks like they are hoping to deal him.


I can't see what anyone would give them for him. I would give them nothing, and pay him no more than the league minimum - just to take a flier on him. Anything else is way too much given how poor he has been the past two seasons.

voodoochile
01-02-2009, 06:34 PM
Why would we suppose that Owens has peaked? I mean he has less than 400 AB in the majors. with only one extended period of playing time.

Is .330 the best we can expect out him from and OBP perspective?

The SB are pretty much a foregone conclusion. He'll steal 40 in 400 AB with about 8 CS if history holds up.

Based on what he's shown in the time he's been in the majors, he deserves a chance to see if he can improve on his numbers. He certainly has nothing left to prove at the minor league level. If he can get his OBP up to .350 with that kind of speed, he'd be fine even leading off, but would be a monster in the 9 hole...

Craig Grebeck
01-02-2009, 06:39 PM
Why would we suppose that Owens has peaked? I mean he has less than 400 AB in the majors. with only one extended period of playing time.
Because he's not very good.
Is .330 the best we can expect out him from and OBP perspective?

Yeah, probably.
The SB are pretty much a foregone conclusion. He'll steal 40 in 400 AB with about 8 CS if history holds up.

Not really. He was 30/43 in AAA this year. He's sustained some leg injuries, which are death on one dimensional guys like him.
Based on what he's shown in the time he's been in the majors, he deserves a chance to see if he can improve on his numbers. He certainly has nothing left to prove at the minor league level. If he can get his OBP up to .350 with that kind of speed, he'd be fine even leading off, but would be a monster in the 9 hole...

He'd have to hit at least .300 to sport a .350 OBP.

Frater Perdurabo
01-02-2009, 07:15 PM
He'd have to hit at least .300 to sport a .350 OBP.

Quentin could always teach Owens how to "induce" a HBP. :tongue:

voodoochile
01-02-2009, 07:23 PM
Because he's not very good.

Yeah, probably.

Not really. He was 30/43 in AAA this year. He's sustained some leg injuries, which are death on one dimensional guys like him.

He'd have to hit at least .300 to sport a .350 OBP.

He was 30/43 while suffering from leg injuries. You have reason to believe the leg problems will persist or become recurrent? Is he injury prone or was he merely injured?

Why can't he improve his batting eye with practice? You make it sound like the best we can hope for almost any player is what they show in their first 400 AB.

I don't think Owens is a long term solution in CF, however, given the makeup of the club at present, I'd prefer to give him a shot to leadoff and platoon with BA in CF because his skill set is the best on the team for a table setter barring a breakout season from Lillebridge/Getz/Nix.

The sole batting/fielding position on the team I would like to see upgraded via trade or FA is CF (one more pitcher would be nice too), but barring that upgrade (and who is really available) Owens should be given a shot to at least platoon. Just my humble opinion...

A. Cavatica
01-02-2009, 08:09 PM
Why can't he improve his batting eye with practice? You make it sound like the best we can hope for almost any player is what they show in their first 400 AB.

By the time a player's 25, he is who he is. Not in every single case, but certainly the overwhelming majority of the time.

voodoochile
01-02-2009, 10:06 PM
By the time a player's 25, he is who he is. Not in every single case, but certainly the overwhelming majority of the time.

Owens is in his what 4th year of organized baseball? If ever there were a guy who might be the exception to the rule, this is it.

In adition, h's shown a better eye in the minors. Maybe with time he will adjust to big league pitching too...

SBSoxFan
01-02-2009, 10:09 PM
By the time a player's 25, he is who he is. Not in every single case, but certainly the overwhelming majority of the time.

It's likely this is one of those exceptions. The guy spent most of his time playing football. I think he still has time to develop as a baseball player and be a useful member of the Sox in 2009.

Tragg
01-02-2009, 10:15 PM
Owens is in his what 4th year of organized baseball? If ever there were a guy who might be the exception to the rule, this is it.

In adition, h's shown a better eye in the minors. Maybe with time he will adjust to big league pitching too...
He can't drive the ball - so he's never going to be any more than a slap hitter.
Because his slapping can't hurt opposing pitchers, they are going to throw him strikes. So he's not going to start walking.
Minimal upside.

DSpivack
01-02-2009, 11:07 PM
Just noticed that ESPN's Hot Stove page for the Sox has TCQ in CF, Fields in LF, and Betemit at 3B. :redneck

kittle42
01-03-2009, 06:02 AM
Can't wait for Daver to appear in this discussion.

guillensdisciple
01-03-2009, 07:32 AM
He was 30/43 while suffering from leg injuries. You have reason to believe the leg problems will persist or become recurrent? Is he injury prone or was he merely injured?

Why can't he improve his batting eye with practice? You make it sound like the best we can hope for almost any player is what they show in their first 400 AB.

I don't think Owens is a long term solution in CF, however, given the makeup of the club at present, I'd prefer to give him a shot to leadoff and platoon with BA in CF because his skill set is the best on the team for a table setter barring a breakout season from Lillebridge/Getz/Nix.

The sole batting/fielding position on the team I would like to see upgraded via trade or FA is CF (one more pitcher would be nice too), but barring that upgrade (and who is really available) Owens should be given a shot to at least platoon. Just my humble opinion...

Voodo, you are right in giving him another chance, if he screws up then you move on, but basing his whole career off of 400 previous at bats is ludicrous. Some people just don't have any patience, and I am glad that the people who saw Carlose Quentin had none of that.

The people who say he is done have no reasoning, they just say he can't be our every day Center fielder because he "sucks", "doesn't look good". You don't have a reason to say that, you have seen a very small sample size of his play. If he under performs this year, label him as you wish, but this kid deserves a chance, and that is that.

SBSoxFan
01-03-2009, 07:58 AM
He can't drive the ball - so he's never going to be any more than a slap hitter.
Because his slapping can't hurt opposing pitchers, they are going to throw him strikes. So he's not going to start walking.
Minimal upside.

Tragg, you constantly label players as "slap" hitters. Owens does have a little power, maybe on par with Podsednik. I believe Pods was much more valuable to the Sox as a base stealer, and that Owens could fill a need in that regard for the Sox. However, I get the impression from a post you previously made in this thread that the 2005 Sox won in spite of Podsednik, and not in some part due to him. Is that true?

Craig Grebeck
01-03-2009, 09:20 AM
Voodo, you are right in giving him another chance, if he screws up then you move on, but basing his whole career off of 400 previous at bats is ludicrous. Some people just don't have any patience, and I am glad that the people who saw Carlose Quentin had none of that.

The people who say he is done have no reasoning, they just say he can't be our every day Center fielder because he "sucks", "doesn't look good". You don't have a reason to say that, you have seen a very small sample size of his play. If he under performs this year, label him as you wish, but this kid deserves a chance, and that is that.
Why? What has he done in the minor leagues? We have a large enough sample size (I don't know, his whole career in the minors) to know that he's not an everyday baseball player on a major league team. Sheesh.

Tragg, you constantly label players as "slap" hitters. Owens does have a little power, maybe on par with Podsednik. I believe Pods was much more valuable to the Sox as a base stealer, and that Owens could fill a need in that regard for the Sox. However, I get the impression from a post you previously made in this thread that the 2005 Sox won in spite of Podsednik, and not in some part due to him. Is that true?
Wow.

TornLabrum
01-03-2009, 09:20 AM
Tragg, you constantly label players as "slap" hitters. Owens does have a little power, maybe on par with Podsednik. I believe Pods was much more valuable to the Sox as a base stealer, and that Owens could fill a need in that regard for the Sox. However, I get the impression from a post you previously made in this thread that the 2005 Sox won in spite of Podsednik, and not in some part due to him. Is that true?

Nellie Fox was "just a slap hitter" with no power, and he couldn't even steal bases. Now I doubt that Owens is the next Nellie Fox, but I guess the naysayers would probably have bitched about Frank Lane making that trade with the A's.

Frater Perdurabo
01-03-2009, 09:47 AM
Nellie Fox was "just a slap hitter" with no power, and he couldn't even steal bases. Now I doubt that Owens is the next Nellie Fox, but I guess the naysayers would probably have bitched about Frank Lane making that trade with the A's.

Hal, you just don't get it. OPS is the single-most important indicator of a player's worth. If a guy can't hit 35 homers a year, he's a stiff. :tongue:

jabrch
01-03-2009, 10:21 AM
Can't wait for Daver to appear in this discussion.


ass.chew.gum

jabrch
01-03-2009, 10:23 AM
Hal, you just don't get it. OPS is the single-most important indicator of a player's worth. If a guy can't hit 35 homers a year, he's a stiff. :tongue:


OPS is a decent way to measure a guy who hits in the middle of the order. Unless your team is so deep that you have #3 or #4 type hitters hitting in #1, #2, #7, #8 and #9 holes, it is a ****ty way to measure those guys.

That doesn't stop the pompous, arrogant, windbaggy, know-it-all, smarter than professional GMs who hang out on the internet from making that case. It just gives everyone else more reason to ignore them.

jabrch
01-03-2009, 10:25 AM
Voodo, you are right in giving him another chance, if he screws up then you move on, but basing his whole career off of 400 previous at bats is ludicrous. Some people just don't have any patience, and I am glad that the people who saw Carlose Quentin had none of that.

The people who say he is done have no reasoning, they just say he can't be our every day Center fielder because he "sucks", "doesn't look good". You don't have a reason to say that, you have seen a very small sample size of his play. If he under performs this year, label him as you wish, but this kid deserves a chance, and that is that.


The same arguement is true for BA. Neither has yet proven good enough to play everyday, nor bad enough to DFA. Both will get a shot coming into camp, unless KW gets a better option. I'm really OK with that. And I am ok with either one winning the job - as long as they do win it.

Craig Grebeck
01-03-2009, 10:36 AM
That doesn't stop the pompous, arrogant, windbaggy, know-it-all, smarter than professional GMs who hang out on the internet from making that case. It just gives everyone else more reason to ignore them.
Jabrch, not everything a GM touches is golden. It's okay to question them. Really.

champagne030
01-03-2009, 11:20 AM
Jabrch, not everything a GM touches is golden. It's okay to question them. Really.

You mean rolling with Julio Ramirez as your starting CF was a bad idea? :redneck

Frater Perdurabo
01-03-2009, 12:25 PM
The same arguement is true for BA. Neither has yet proven good enough to play everyday, nor bad enough to DFA. Both will get a shot coming into camp, unless KW gets a better option. I'm really OK with that. And I am ok with either one winning the job - as long as they do win it.

I agree; neither Owens nor BA has had enough ABs against MLB pitching for us to conclude whether or not either can cut it as MLB regulars.

jabrch
01-03-2009, 12:46 PM
I agree; neither Owens nor BA has had enough ABs against MLB pitching for us to conclude whether or not either can cut in as MLB regulars.


I'd say both have had enough ABs to prove they can - neither has capitalized. But for sure, neither has had enough to prove they can not.

Semantics....

champagne030
01-03-2009, 01:08 PM
I'd say both have had enough to prove they can - neither has capitalized. But for sure, neither has had enough to prove they can not.

Semantics....

It has nothing to do with semantics that Owens has the worst arm of any player on a MLB 25 man roster. Add in the fact he cannot judge the ball and there's the worst defensive OF in all of baseball.

Add in his inability to hit and you have complete suckage. :shrug:

DSpivack
01-03-2009, 01:13 PM
It has nothing to do with semantics that Owens has the worst arm of any player on a MLB 25 man roster. Add in the fact he cannot judge the ball and there's the worst defensive OF in all of baseball.

Add in his inability to hit and you have complete suckage. :shrug:

I don't think Jerry Owens is that bad, I think he has a real shot in Chicago. The Bears should see if he still can play WR.

champagne030
01-03-2009, 01:31 PM
I don't think Jerry Owens is that bad, I think he has a real shot in Chicago. The Bears should see if he still can play WR.

Don't get me wrong. Ozzie will start him and he'll get his shot to prove that he's not a slower, weaker, less talented Juan Pierre.

Considering the Bears, he couldn't cut it in college as WR because of his hands so he's just a slower version of Hester.

The Immigrant
01-03-2009, 01:48 PM
I don't think Jerry Owens is that bad, I think he has a real shot in Chicago. The Bears should see if he still can play WR.

Fields to Owens couldn't be much worse than Orton to Davis.

DSpivack
01-03-2009, 01:52 PM
Fields to Owens couldn't be much worse than Orton to Davis.

I'm starting a QB controvery rumor b/w Fields and Joe Borchard.

Tragg
01-03-2009, 04:12 PM
Tragg, you constantly label players as "slap" hitters. Owens does have a little power, maybe on par with Podsednik. I believe Pods was much more valuable to the Sox as a base stealer, and that Owens could fill a need in that regard for the Sox. However, I get the impression from a post you previously made in this thread that the 2005 Sox won in spite of Podsednik, and not in some part due to him. Is that true? He hits 1 or 2 homers a year. That's power? Come on.

Podsednik had an OBP of .350. Wake me up when Owens approaches, much less matches, that. I never said we won despite Pods. In fact, .350 OBP plus 50 steals was very solid and the best this leadoff-starved team had seen in ages, or since. But he couldn't replicate it and we shuffled him away. There's little evidece that Owens can give us anything close to what Pods offered in 2005.
People hereon are saying stuff like a .330 obp from owens would be fine at leadoff...no it would not be fine - it would be awful.

SBSoxFan
01-03-2009, 04:30 PM
He hits 1 or 2 homers a year. That's power? Come on.

Podsednik had an OBP of .350. Wake me up when Owens approaches, much less matches, that. I never said we won despite Pods. In fact, .350 OBP plus 50 steals was very solid and the best this leadoff-starved team had seen in ages, or since. But he couldn't replicate it and we shuffled him away. There's little evidece that Owens can give us anything close to what Pods offered in 2005.
People hereon are saying stuff like a .330 obp from owens would be fine at leadoff...no it would not be fine - it would be awful.

"Power" is measured in doubles and triples too. My point is that's a bad way to measure these guys if they're supposed to get on and steal bases. I understand that many people here believe Owens will rarely be on base, however. I also agree that Owens won't match Pods 2005 numbers. However, I believe Owens can match Pods' 2006 numbers with the added benefit of being healthy.

Having said that, I still don't think he should play CF, which is the only spot currently open for him. Anyway, I'm kind of tired of the debate. Perhaps I think he's better than he really is. I also have no doubt he's better than a lot of people here suggest.

For the sake of the 2009 Sox and us as fans, I hope he surprises you, Craig, Champagne, etc.

GrandValleyBB10
01-03-2009, 08:17 PM
If owens can play anywhere near where he was playing in the second half of 07 he will be fine out there. If the sox end up making some sort of move to bring Roberts to the south side we could get away with having either owens or BA in center.

I think if BA gets the chance to play everyday he would pan out much like a joe crede did over the years. Its hard to get better from the bench.

Take a look at Nate Mclouth of the pirates. He was fairly inconsistant as a pinch hitter and defensive replacement, but give him a chance at a full time position and see what happens.

Brandon-muskegon,MI

jabrch
01-03-2009, 09:13 PM
If owens can play anywhere near where he was playing in the second half of 07 he will be fine out there. If the sox end up making some sort of move to bring Roberts to the south side we could get away with having either owens or BA in center.

I think if BA gets the chance to play everyday he would pan out much like a joe crede did over the years. Its hard to get better from the bench.

Take a look at Nate Mclouth of the pirates. He was fairly inconsistant as a pinch hitter and defensive replacement, but give him a chance at a full time position and see what happens.

Brandon-muskegon,MI

Interestng take Brandon...Not sure how it would work out - but at this point, I am willing to give either BA or JO a shot. We don't have other options.

Tragg
01-04-2009, 02:18 AM
If owens can play anywhere near where he was playing in the second half of 07 he will be fine out there.

Owens had a good September. Yet, he finished the year with an OPS of 630ish and an OPS+ of 67. Futher, his defense was consinstently below par.
"Power" is measured in doubles and triples too. My point is that's a bad way to measure these guys if they're supposed to get on and steal bases.
Okay - he checked in with 10 doubles and 2 triples in 382 at bats in 2007. Once in a while, the grounders get to the corner. As for steals - that's not what the Sox need. The Sox need players to get on base and then run the bases well. Stealing in front of Quentin-Thome-Konerko-Dye is foolish. (made more sense when there was no Quentin or Thome). Here's my problem with slap hitters - it's not that I don't value a .350 OBP and 50 steals - I do. It's that they rarely achieve that (and not on a consistent basis) because they can't drive the ball...they are dependent on their grounders getting through the infield or enough soft liners. Erstad had 1 great year; Owens had a good month in 2007; Pods was never able to replicate 2005. Everyone's favorite slapper, Juan Pierre, has had 4 seasons with obp above .350 and 5 below. The best slap hitters are great walkers....but but it's hard to get the walk rate up when you're thrown nothing but strikes because pitchers don't fear you.
Getz is a far more intriguing prospect than Jerry Owens. In AAA he had a .360 OBP and double digits in steals and home runs. He can actually hit the ball.
Missle and Getz atop the order should invigorate it with some speed and pop.