PDA

View Full Version : Rangers interesting in BA


EMachine10
11-14-2006, 05:20 PM
ESPN Insider saying that the rangers are interested in BA. How about we give them BA, Uribe, and a pitcher (i don't really care who, but i guess not BMac or Jon) and we'll take Young. I guess anyway we can get young i would jump all over it. This guy is a stud and I can't believe they're even thinking about letting him go

chisoxmike
11-14-2006, 05:32 PM
ESPN Insider saying that the rangers are interested in BA. How about we give them BA, Uribe, and a pitcher (i don't really care who, but i guess not Fingernails on a blackboard or Jon) and we'll take Young. I guess anyway we can get young i would jump all over it. This guy is a stud and I can't believe they're even thinking about letting him go


While I'm a huge fan of trading for Michael Young, by trading Anderson you now create another hole for yourself by not having a CF.

WizardsofOzzie
11-14-2006, 05:51 PM
While I'm a huge fan of trading for Michael Young, by trading Anderson you now create another hole for yourself by not having a CF.
No you don't, thats when we start Mack in CF :o:

JermaineDye05
11-14-2006, 05:59 PM
While I'm a huge fan of trading for Michael Young, by trading Anderson you now create another hole for yourself by not having a CF.

not necessarily with jerry owens and ryan sweeney a possibility to take Anderson's spot trading Anderson for Young would then just create a spring training battle for CF that is unless Sweeney and Owens were rumored to be part of the deal

EMachine10
11-14-2006, 06:00 PM
as much as i like BA, i wouldn't be opposed to seeing sweeney and owens battle it out.

Cuck_The_Fubs
11-14-2006, 07:03 PM
No, Rowand will get the job:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :bandance:

Lillian
11-14-2006, 07:10 PM
I'm pretty sure that the newly acquired Luis Terrero would be ahead of Owens, on the depth chart for center. He is a better defensive player than Owens, and has a much better arm. Owens has never produced any impressive numbers at AAA, as had Terrero.

I'd rather they not trade Brian, but if they do, and don't replace him with a another center fielder, I really doubt that Owens would be the guy.

Ol' No. 2
11-14-2006, 07:16 PM
I'm pretty sure that the newly acquired Luis Terrero would be ahead of Owens, on the depth chart for center. He is a better defensive player than Owens, and has a much better arm. Owens has never produced any impressive numbers at AAA, as had Terrero.

I'd rather they not trade Brian, but if they do, and don't replace him with a another center fielder, I really doubt that Owens would be the guy.I agree that Owens doesn't seem like a good bet. Right now I wouldn't rate Anderson any higher than Sweeney, so I'd have no problem trading Anderson and giving Sweeney a shot. But regardless of who starts the season in CF, the lesson from 2006 should be, if they're going to rely on an unproven player, they need a better Plan B.

Lillian
11-14-2006, 07:22 PM
I agree that Owens doesn't seem like a good bet. Right now I wouldn't rate Anderson any higher than Sweeney, so I'd have no problem trading Anderson and giving Sweeney a shot. But regardless of who starts the season in CF, the lesson from 2006 should be, if they're going to rely on an unproven player, they need a better Plan B.

I love Sweeney, and I think that he's a can't miss prospect. I've watched him play a lot in Spring Training, when I was there for the 2004 and 2006 seasons. He really looked great both years.
However, he is not a natural center fielder. He's much better suited to Right Field. He is also very young.

JB98
11-14-2006, 07:29 PM
I'm pretty sure that the newly acquired Luis Terrero would be ahead of Owens, on the depth chart for center. He is a better defensive player than Owens, and has a much better arm. Owens has never produced any impressive numbers at AAA, as had Terrero.

I'd rather they not trade Brian, but if they do, and don't replace him with a another center fielder, I really doubt that Owens would be the guy.

I agree. I don't see Owens ever becoming an everyday player on a championship-level team. I see him as a guy who could be a fourth outfielder and provide some speed off the bench. If Anderson is dealt, the CF battle is between Sweeney and Terrero. Unless, of course, KW has something else up his sleeve.

Daver
11-14-2006, 07:35 PM
not necessarily with jerry owens and ryan sweeney a possibility to take Anderson's spot trading Anderson for Young would then just create a spring training battle for CF that is unless Sweeney and Owens were rumored to be part of the deal

So you want to see a right fielder and a left fielder compete for the center field position, while trading away a true center fielder that has not been given a chance to show his worth?

JB98
11-14-2006, 07:38 PM
So you want to see a right fielder and a left fielder compete for the center field position, while trading away a true center fielder that has not been given a chance to show his worth?

If I can get a first-rate shortstop in exchange for the aforementioned CF, I'd do it. Personally, if BA is traded, I'd prefer to see KW sign a veteran CF. After the events of last season, I'm a little skittish about trusting an unproven player with the responsibility of playing CF.

CLR01
11-14-2006, 07:39 PM
I love Sweeney, and I think that he's a can't miss prospect.


Borchard was one of those can't miss prospects too.

KRS1
11-14-2006, 07:42 PM
Im sorry to say it, but I dont like Ryans chances of being an everyday CF. I find it hard to believe everyone, especially Ozzie, are just willing to give up on BA. Brian could potentially be a mainstay in our outfield for a long time, and aeveryone thinks because he struggled in his rookie season, he sucks. He gets tossed under the bus way too much for last season. You could throw any number of people for not producing(well just about everyone except fro Dye), but it automatically goes to the guy who bats ninth in our lineup. Ozzie put him in a bad situation platooning him in the first place, and made it worse by calling him out. Ozzie made some poor decisions all around last year, and this is one of them. I dont want to get into the other stuff, but lets just say it has to do with our bullpen and the choices he made there.

As for Terrero starting in CF, cue the overused barf tag.

KRS1
11-14-2006, 07:46 PM
Borchard was one of those can't miss prospects too.


Borchard also had one of the longest swings imaginable, while Ryan has some of the smoothest, shortest, and most repeatable mechanics Ive seen from a young player at the dish. I dont use the phrase cant miss, so I see what youre getting at, but the mention of these two names together doesnt make sense.

thomas35forever
11-14-2006, 08:00 PM
I saw this in the Trib today. There might be talk of trading him for Gary Matthews, Jr., but I thought Anderson was the future of the Sox. We can't give up on him.

champagne030
11-14-2006, 08:02 PM
Im sorry to say it, but I dont like Ryans chances of being an everyday CF. I find it hard to believe everyone, especially Ozzie, are just willing to give up on BA. Brian could potentially be a mainstay in our outfield for a long time, and aeveryone thinks because he struggled in his rookie season, he sucks. He gets tossed under the bus way too much for last season. You could throw any number of people for not producing(well just about everyone except fro Dye), but it automatically goes to the guy who bats ninth in our lineup. Ozzie put him in a bad situation platooning him in the first place, and made it worse by calling him out. Ozzie made some poor decisions all around last year, and this is one of them. I dont want to get into the other stuff, but lets just say it has to do with our bullpen and the choices he made there.

As for Terrero starting in CF, cue the overused barf tag.

Yep. And how dare you question our master leader, the Great Oswaldo for ****ing up the CF position last year. He won us the World Series in 2005!

infohawk
11-14-2006, 08:04 PM
I have to admit that I don't understand why some people are so down on Anderson. He's played exactly one year in the majors. Most rookies have their ups and downs, and you can't reasonably give up on a guy because he didn't hit .280/25/90 in his rookie season, let alone his sophomore season. If we did, we wouldn't have Crede, not to mention that Paulie was considered a disappointment when he first came up with the Dodgers. Impact rookies are few and far between. I'd like to see Anderson play a couple more years to see what he can become. Besides, we didn't fall short of the playoffs because of Brian Anderson OR Rob Mackowiak. We fell short because the starting pitching regressed and the relief pitching was garbage for stretches at a time.

Alright, I'm done venting. Sorry!:redface:

KRS1
11-14-2006, 08:04 PM
I saw this in the Trib today. There might be talk of trading him for Gary Matthews, Jr., but I thought Anderson was the future of the Sox. We can't give up on him.


Matthews is a FA. Youre probably talking about the media reports of us being interested in him, the same kinds of reports that have us interesting in Barry Bonds.

SABRSox
11-14-2006, 08:07 PM
I sick of being interesting in all of these players.

Seriously, BA can't be worse than last season. He's great defensively, and I'd be content going into 2007 with him as the starting CF. I just want a better Plan B than Mackowiak.

Lillian
11-14-2006, 08:10 PM
Borchard was one of those can't miss prospects too.

Here is the difference between Borchard and Sweeney. Borchard was a footfall player, a quarterback no less. He was considered a prospect because he was a great athlete. Sweeney is a pure baseball player. He's a natural.
He has great baseball instincts, and has played well, at every level, at very young ages.
If you want to compare prospects, Josh Fields is much more like Borchard.

Sox Fan 35
11-14-2006, 08:10 PM
Did this article say who we could get back?

goon
11-14-2006, 08:16 PM
Here is the difference between Borchard and Sweeney. Borchard was a footfall player, a quarterback no less. He was considered a prospect because he was a great athlete. Sweeney is a pure baseball player. He's a natural.
He has great baseball instincts, and has played well, at every level, at very young ages.
If you want to compare prospects, Josh Fields is much more like Borchard.


ryan will be playing with the sox one day.

JB98
11-14-2006, 08:18 PM
I saw this in the Trib today. There might be talk of trading him for Gary Matthews, Jr., but I thought Anderson was the future of the Sox. We can't give up on him.

Screw the future. Here's the question: Who do we want in CF to help us make a run at the 2007 world championship?

A) Brian Anderson
B) Luis Terrero
C) Ryan Sweeney
D) Someone else

SouthSide_HitMen
11-14-2006, 08:26 PM
If I can get a first-rate shortstop in exchange for the aforementioned CF, I'd do it. Personally, if BA is traded, I'd prefer to see KW sign a veteran CF. After the events of last season, I'm a little skittish about trusting an unproven player with the responsibility of playing CF.

Not to mention the fact I don't see Ozzie giving Anderson more than 100 starts or so in CF. I like Anderson but Young is the best player in this proposed scenario and I don't see room on the Chicago White Sox for both Ozzie Guillen and Brian Anderson.

IMO, the White Sox are going to have to get another CF to placate Ozzie, be it a starting CFer or a reserve who can actually play the position defensively. Mackowiak has a good bat and is a good 4th OFer for the corners but it is obvious to everyone but Ozzie he should never start in CF except on an emergency basis (somewhat like Dye is our emergency shortstop).

thomas35forever
11-14-2006, 08:26 PM
Screw the future. Here's the question: Who do we want in CF to help us make a run at the 2007 world championship?

A) Brian Anderson
B) Luis Terrero
C) Ryan Sweeney
D) Someone else
I wish this was a poll. I'll have to say A.

SABRSox
11-14-2006, 08:29 PM
Not to mention the fact I don't see Ozzie giving Anderson more than 100 starts or so in CF. I like Anderson but Young is the best player in this proposed scenario and I don't see room on the Chicago White Sox for both Ozzie Guillen and Brian Anderson.

IMO, the White Sox are going to have to get another CF to placate Ozzie, be it a starting CFer or a reserve who can actually play the position defensively. Mackowiak has a good bat and is a good 4th OFer for the corners but it is obvious to everyone but Ozzie he should never start in CF except on an emergency basis (somewhat like Dye is our emergency shortstop).

**** Ozzie. He's not the GM, and for good reason. Kenny needs to tell him to play Brian and shut his mouth if Ozzie's going to insist on somebody else.

KRS1
11-14-2006, 08:40 PM
**** Ozzie. He's not the GM, and for good reason. Kenny needs to tell him to play Brian and shut his mouth if Ozzie's going to insist on somebody else.


There's two theories here.

1) The GM's job is to put together the best team possible in his eyes using all available resources. It's the mangers job to utilize these players appropriately.

2) It's the GM's job to put together a team the manager wants and feels comfortable with.

I dont think there is any set way about this, as it's a combination of ideas and wants. However, I get the feeling that Ozzie runs more than the typical manager does, just because of the simple fact that it's his way or the highway. I could be very wrong, but to me it seems like Ozzie doesnt comprimise in any areas of his team, and that can be both good and damaging.

JB98
11-14-2006, 08:50 PM
I wish this was a poll. I'll have to say A.

Personally, I'd go with D. But the point I want to make is we can't worry about who should be our CF in 2009. A decision needs to be made about 2007, and IMO, it's not an easy one.

EMachine10
11-14-2006, 10:18 PM
as the thread began, we'd be getting michael young. I love BA, and do not want to get rid of him...but with the return of young, an absolute stud. sure, why not.

esbrechtel
11-14-2006, 10:27 PM
as the thread began, we'd be getting michael young. I love BA, and do not want to get rid of him...but with the return of young, an absolute stud. sure, why not.
wrong...there was no mention of who the sox would get in return...it was just a blanket statement that with losing FA gary matthews rangers were interested in BA...it never said michael young...honestly im sure im going to catch some flak for this but what if we traded BA & prospects, for young...trade pitcher for a CF who could lead off and have pods(bat bottom of the 9th) play LF and sweeny some reps in LF?

batting order would be....
CF lead off hitter (crawford??? maybe???)
SS Michael Young
RF JD
DH Thome
1B Konerko
2B Guchi
C AJ
3B Crede
LF pods (sweeny?)

only problem being we still havent fixed our bullpen...

Brian26
11-14-2006, 10:31 PM
ESPN Insider saying that the rangers are interested in BA. How about we give them BA, Uribe, and a pitcher (i don't really care who, but i guess not Fingernails on a blackboard or Jon) and we'll take Young.

Are you crazy? Talk about undervaluing your own talent. Young is a great player, but it's arguable if he's even worth Uribe and one of our SP's, let alone throwing in Anderson. People around here undervalue our starting pitching. Nobody remembers the days of Kip Wells, Danny Wright and Felix Diaz.

EMachine10
11-14-2006, 10:57 PM
i just figured that the rangers would want more than that, and they do seem to want anderson. but sure, get him for less.

EMachine10
11-14-2006, 10:59 PM
wrong...there was no mention of who the sox would get in return...it was just a blanket statement that with losing FA gary matthews rangers were interested in BA...it never said michael young...honestly im sure im going to catch some flak for this but what if we traded BA & prospects, for young...trade pitcher for a CF who could lead off and have pods(bat bottom of the 9th) play LF and sweeny some reps in LF?

batting order would be....
CF lead off hitter (crawford??? maybe???)
SS Michael Young
RF JD
DH Thome
1B Konerko
2B Guchi
C AJ
3B Crede
LF pods (sweeny?)

only problem being we still havent fixed our bullpen...

i started the thread, don't tell me i was wrong. i said that the rangers were interested in BA and then i suggested that we try to get Young in return. If you're gonna be picky, the article said something about a minor league arm in return from the rangers.

esbrechtel
11-14-2006, 11:04 PM
as the thread began, we'd be getting michael young. I love BA, and do not want to get rid of him...but with the return of young, an absolute stud. sure, why not.

sorry this didnt sound like a suggestion...my apologies

chisoxmike
11-14-2006, 11:08 PM
Are you crazy? Talk about undervaluing your own talent. Young is a great player, but it's arguable if he's even worth Uribe and one of our SP's, let alone throwing in Anderson. People around here undervalue our starting pitching. Nobody remembers the days of Kip Wells, Danny Wright and Felix Diaz.

Exactly. All the other teams in BASEBALL would kill to have our starting 5. Let me let refresh some people's memory...

Mark Buehrle
Jose Contreras
Freddy Garcia
Jon Garland
Javier Vazquez

That's a hell of a rotation. Yes, they didn't live up to anything this year, but I would take my chances with them in 2007.

The bullpen gets most of the blame from me about the pitching problems. Cotts, Riske, Brandon "the golden child" McCarthy, Logan, and whoever else we ran out there that isn't named Mike MacDougal, Matt Thorton, and Bobby Jenks, coughed up so many leads and games this year is a main reason why the Sox didn't return to the playoffs.

chisoxmike
11-14-2006, 11:09 PM
batting order would be....
CF lead off hitter (crawford??? maybe???)


Crawford does not want to lead off.

goon
11-14-2006, 11:23 PM
Exactly. All the other teams in BASEBALL would kill to have our starting 5. Let me let refresh some people's memory...

Mark Buehrle
Jose Contreras
Freddy Garcia
Jon Garland
Javier Vazquez

That's a hell of a rotation. Yes, they didn't live up to anything this year, but I would take my chances with them in 2007.



it's strange how easily people forget how could these starting five are and what they could achieve. i wouldnt take any other starting rotation, maybe florida's in a few years.

Ol' No. 2
11-15-2006, 11:37 AM
There's two theories here.

1) The GM's job is to put together the best team possible in his eyes using all available resources. It's the mangers job to utilize these players appropriately.

2) It's the GM's job to put together a team the manager wants and feels comfortable with.

I dont think there is any set way about this, as it's a combination of ideas and wants. However, I get the feeling that Ozzie runs more than the typical manager does, just because of the simple fact that it's his way or the highway. I could be very wrong, but to me it seems like Ozzie doesnt comprimise in any areas of his team, and that can be both good and damaging.:fobbgod: Actually, there's one more theory.

JB98
11-15-2006, 02:28 PM
Are you crazy? Talk about undervaluing your own talent. Young is a great player, but it's arguable if he's even worth Uribe and one of our SP's, let alone throwing in Anderson. People around here undervalue our starting pitching. Nobody remembers the days of Kip Wells, Danny Wright and Felix Diaz.

I agree, Brian. A couple months ago, Frater was arguing that we should trade Konerko, Garcia and Uribe for Michael Young. I usually respect what Frater has to say, but he was certifiably insane with that one. Anderson, Garcia and Uribe would be too much as well.

The White Sox are the only team in baseball with SIX STARTING PITCHERS. That puts KW is a position of power. Other clubs are going to overpay for the Barry Zitos and Jason Schmidts of the world. Not only that, they are going to overpay for the Ted Lillys and Miguel Batistas of the world. We have the luxury of not entering those spending derbies.

Given the way the market is right now and how valuable starting pitching is, we should be getting two and possibly three useful players in return for Garcia or whatever starter we might trade. If we can't get what we want, we stand pat and tell other clubs it's their funeral if they want to give a five-year contract to Ted Lilly.

DaleJRFan
11-15-2006, 02:33 PM
on a somewhat related note (to the thread title), the greatest hitter in White Sox franchise history and the greatest offensive player in my lifetime is in discussions with the Rangers.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/baseball/rangers/stories/111506dnsporangprospects.82d01bd.html


...the Rangers are turning their attention to two key free agents from Oakland's AL West championship team. The Rangers are courting left-hander Barry Zito and designated hitter Frank Thomas, major league sources said Tuesday.

Zito and Thomas have already phoned to congratulate new manager Ron Washington, who also came from Oakland, on getting the Texas job. Both said they would consider playing for the Rangers.

CLR01
11-15-2006, 02:38 PM
Zito and Thomas have already phoned to congratulate new manager Ron Washington, who also came from Oakland, on getting the Texas job. Both said they would consider playing for the Rangers.


Is everyone in baseball phoning this guy to congratulate him and express their desire to play for him or is it just the Dallas/Ft. Worth media blowing smoke up everyones ass?

Ol' No. 2
11-15-2006, 02:39 PM
Is everyone in baseball phoning this guy to congratulate him and express their desire to play for him or is it just the Dallas/Ft. Worth media blowing smoke up everyones ass?I read it was their lifelong dream to play for the Rangers.:rolleyes:

DaleJRFan
11-15-2006, 02:42 PM
Is everyone in baseball phoning this guy to congratulate him and express their desire to play for him or is it just the Dallas/Ft. Worth media blowing smoke up everyones ass?

I wonder if Mark Buehrle text messaged Ron Washington with "You're a stud" :cool:

CLR01
11-15-2006, 02:55 PM
I wonder if Mark Buehrle text messaged Ron Washington with "You're a stud" :cool:

It was probably "Anything you can do to get there there, I'd love to play for the Rangers".

jenn2080
11-15-2006, 03:05 PM
I expect and hope to see Brian in center in 07

MrRoboto83
11-15-2006, 03:07 PM
I expect and hope to see Brian in center in 07

There is a reason the Rangers want Brian Anderson, and it is the same reason he will be the starting CF for the Sox in 2007.

jenn2080
11-15-2006, 03:10 PM
There is a reason the Rangers want Brian Anderson, and it is the same reason he will be the starting CF for the Sox in 2007.



:Rocker: :Rocker: :thumbsup:

palehozenychicty
11-15-2006, 03:12 PM
There is a reason the Rangers want Brian Anderson, and it is the same reason he will be the starting CF for the Sox in 2007.

I think he will be here as well, but with something to prove.

spiffie
11-15-2006, 03:44 PM
There is a reason the Rangers want Brian Anderson, and it is the same reason he will be the starting CF for the Sox in 2007.
The major-league minimum salary? Because I know that if he can just hit 230/300/375 that's the single best attribute he has, even more than his above-average defense. If Brian is just able to scratch out the barely acceptable minimum offensively, which honestly is about all I expect out of him this year if he starts the majority of games in CF, he's huge because of the salary flexibility he brings to a team along with the quality work in CF.

Ol' No. 2
11-15-2006, 03:49 PM
The major-league minimum salary? Because I know that if he can just hit 230/300/375 that's the single best attribute he has, even more than his above-average defense. If Brian is just able to scratch out the barely acceptable minimum offensively, which honestly is about all I expect out of him this year if he starts the majority of games in CF, he's huge because of the salary flexibility he brings to a team along with the quality work in CF.I don't care how cheap you are and how good your defense is, those offensive numbers are going to earn you a really short career.

spiffie
11-15-2006, 04:18 PM
I don't care how cheap you are and how good your defense is, those offensive numbers are going to earn you a really short career.
No disagreement here. I don't really think BA is going to have a very long career. But as long as he is that cheap he can be useful. The minute his salary hits seven digits he becomes much less of a bargain unless he gets his production up. But if having him in CF lets the Sox spend money to upgrade the 4th and 5th bullpen arms, LF, and SS, I'll take my chances with BA.

maurice
11-15-2006, 04:26 PM
if he can just hit 230/300/375 . . . he's huge because of the salary flexibility he brings to a team along with the quality work in CF.

I'd be very disappointed in those numbers. Given enough starts, a player should be expected to improve in his second year. OTOH, there are a handful of middle IF and CF in MLB who had an OPS under .700 in 2006 and kept their starting jobs. (I'm even excluding Podsednik.) Some of them are veterans who made over $1 mil. You certainly could stick as a 4th OF with those numbers and a great glove.

Ozzie was the poster-child for this type of player with his .625 career OPS. (No that's not a typo.) Heck, a .675 OPS would have been a career year for Ozzie. He was a pretty crappy baserunner as well (61% SB + lots of stupid pickoffs). Go figure.

Ol' No. 2
11-15-2006, 04:34 PM
I'd be very disappointed in those numbers. Given enough starts, a player should be expected to improve in his second year. OTOH, there are a handful of middle IF and CF in MLB who had an OPS under .700 in 2006 and kept their starting jobs. (I'm even excluding Podsednik.) Some of them are veterans who made over $1 mil. You certainly could stick as a 4th OF with those numbers and a great glove.

Ozzie was the poster-child for this type of player with his .625 career OPS. (No that's not a typo.) Heck, a .675 OPS would have been a career year for Ozzie. He was a pretty crappy baserunner as well (61% SB + lots of stupid pickoffs). Go figure.Ozzie Smith never was much of an offensive powerhouse, either, but the game has changed. Sad to say, but I don't think Ozzie Smith would make it today.

Sox Fan 35
11-15-2006, 05:16 PM
Ozzie Smith never was much of an offensive powerhouse, either, but the game has changed. Sad to say, but I don't think Ozzie Smith would make it today.

I doubt Ozzie Smith ever hit .225 in a season.

Ol' No. 2
11-15-2006, 05:23 PM
I doubt Ozzie Smith ever hit .225 in a season.Three times: 1979, 1981, 1995 (only 156 AB). He's a career .262 hitter.

Sox Fan 35
11-15-2006, 05:25 PM
Three times: 1979, 1981, 1995 (only 156 AB). He's a career .262 hitter.

I guess I should double check this stuff before I open my big mouth.:redface:

PennStater98r
11-15-2006, 07:19 PM
If we're going to talk Ozzie Smith - it should be noted that Ozzie is generally considered the greatest defensive Shortstop in the history of the game - and perhaps the best defensive player to play the game (Maz might have been considered better).

That said, BA is not, nor will he ever be considered the greatest defensive player to play the game much less the greatest defensive CF to play the game.

Smith also played Shortstop - which IMO is a more important position than CF - although not by much. I like BA. Having a number 9 hitter that hits .240 or .250 that can throw some leather at a bargin is a nice problem to have. However, if the guys goes through stretches in which he hits below .200 - that would just make him a complete sinkhole in our line up and not one we can afford to have.

Sure outs hurt teams badly. No amount of defense can make up for a guy be a sure out. He has to at least be a threat to get on base.

The guy was learning at the big league level last year and rebounded nicely. If that continues into 2007, I'll be quite happy. I never wrote the guy off last year, but next year is the time to look at him and do something about it if he puts up his April, May and June 2006 numbers.

If we're going to talk about someone that we could bring over to play in his place - Matthews is not the answer - Pierre is not the answer - nor is Dave Roberts. I'd just assume keep BA than have any of those guys. However, if the Jays were looking to move Wells.... let's start talking.

Sargeant79
11-15-2006, 11:03 PM
If we're going to talk Ozzie Smith - it should be noted that Ozzie is generally considered the greatest defensive Shortstop in the history of the game - and perhaps the best defensive player to play the game (Maz might have been considered better).

That said, BA is not, nor will he ever be considered the greatest defensive player to play the game much less the greatest defensive CF to play the game.


While you make some valid points, I have to rebut this one...

BA has exactly one full season of major league experience under his belt. It is impossible to speculate at this point on what type of defensive player he will be remembered as in 10,15, or even 20 years.

Also, I was only a baby then, so I don't remember. But I doubt people were calling Ozzie Smith one of the best defensive shortstops of all time after his first year either. A description like that takes years of top notch play to acquire.

Brian26
11-15-2006, 11:37 PM
But I doubt people were calling Ozzie Smith one of the best defensive shortstops of all time after his first year either. A description like that takes years of top notch play to acquire.

Or a move from the natural grass of Jack Murphy Stadium to the artificial turf of Busch Stadium.

You're right, Ozzie wasn't a star defensive player his first year. It wasn't until he was traded to the Cards for Templeton that he invented the astro-turf skip-throw to first and became the wizard.

spiffie
11-16-2006, 01:09 AM
Three times: 1979, 1981, 1995 (only 156 AB). He's a career .262 hitter.
Also Ozzie Smith in his prime usually beat the league avg. OBP by anywhere from 10-60 points every season. In his best year he was all the way up to a 392 OBP in 1987.

INSox56
11-16-2006, 09:51 AM
Interesting possibility...Freddy/Javy+BA+Uribe for Young and a reliever/prospect?



NAPLES, Fla. -- The Rangers' group at this week's general managers' meetings has focused primarily on improving the starting rotation and finding a center fielder, but they have also worked on adding a power bat. Nothing is close, however.
"Our priorities have been the rotation and center field," Rangers general manager Jon Daniels said. "I'd also like to add a middle-of-the-order bat, though."



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/baseball/16026212.htm

PennStater98r
11-16-2006, 09:57 AM
While you make some valid points, I have to rebut this one...

BA has exactly one full season of major league experience under his belt. It is impossible to speculate at this point on what type of defensive player he will be remembered as in 10,15, or even 20 years.

Also, I was only a baby then, so I don't remember. But I doubt people were calling Ozzie Smith one of the best defensive shortstops of all time after his first year either. A description like that takes years of top notch play to acquire.

You do make a valid point about inexperience and judging someone on limited play. I am not saying that BA will be a bad CF. I think he'll be very good defensively. However, I think it's a safe bet to say that he'll not be the best center fielder of all time, and I'd say that I have odds in my favor. Though it's true that the Wizard was not considered the best of all time in his first or second year - it' is safe to say that he was considered one of the top two or three defensive shortstops in baseball his very first year in baseball. He finished second place in the ROY voting - and with a .258 Avg it was not on his bat that earned him that respect. By the tmie we reach his third year - he's winning GG in SD, and he's not putting up very different numbers - defensive or offensive - than he did his previous two years.

That said, BA has great range, but I don't think people have ever talked about him in the way that people talked about Junior or Wells or Hunter in their first couple of years - as opposed to the Wizard receiving that kind of high praise during his rookie season.

maurice
11-16-2006, 12:02 PM
I am not saying that BA will be a bad CF. I think he'll be very good defensively. However, I think it's a safe bet to say that he'll not be the best center fielder of all time

False dichotomy. Anderson doesn't have to be the "best ever" to stick in the league, just among the best currently playing . . . and he's already among the best currently playing. It doesn't matter what the media think, as long as MLB GMs and scouts realize he's good . . . and they do. That's why he appears in trade rumors, and that's why Ichiro gets a "stop" sign when he's rounding 2B and wants to go to 3B when the batter hits a single up the middle.

I know you're not replying to my post, but I just wanted to repeat that the guys I referenced all posted sub-.700 OPSs in 2006. None of them are the best ever at their position, but most (or all) of them will be back in MLB in 2007. Most of them probably will start the entire season again, post a sub-.700 OPS again, and collect a huge paycheck again. ON2 is correct that the game has changed and that this type of player is less common, but there still are a handful of no-hit SS, 2B, CF, and C starting in MLB, and many many more riding the pine in MLB.

maurice
11-16-2006, 12:16 PM
there still are a handful of no-hit SS, 2B, CF, and C starting in MLB

This is really the only point I'm trying to make. I looked up the top-30 by AB at each of these positions in 2006, and here are some numbers:
- 9 CF had an OPS of .722 or lower
- 12 C had an OPS of .727 or lower
- 12 2B had an OPS of .729 or lower
- 14 SS had an OPS of .713 or lower

Some guys even had a sub-.600 OPS and started all year. Most of these guys make more money than Anderson (some make 10x more money). Most of them are worse defensively at their respective positions. Also, there are many more no-hit bench players in MLB who did not have enough AB to make the list but still collected a fat paycheck all year.

ondafarm
11-16-2006, 01:43 PM
Brian Anderson is not just an above average CF. He's an outstanding defensive CF. Only two regular (more than 100 games) outfielders in the AL had a higher range factor (effectively outs responsible for per nine innings.) This as a rookie. Anderson was considerably better than two CFs who are always mentioned as very solid to gold glove, Hunter and Kotsay. He is better than Sizemore or Granderson.

BA's hitting was below expectations but not abyssmal. If Ozzie can get him to add bunting and base-stealing to his repetroire then he should be a very solid player.

spiffie
11-16-2006, 04:08 PM
This is really the only point I'm trying to make. I looked up the top-30 by AB at each of these positions in 2006, and here are some numbers:
- 9 CF had an OPS of .722 or lower (1 out of 9 made playoffs)
- 12 C had an OPS of .727 or lower (4 out of 12 made playoffs with 2 on the same team - LA Dodgers)
- 12 2B had an OPS of .729 or lower (4 out of 12 made playoffs)
- 14 SS had an OPS of .713 or lower (1 out of 14 made playoffs)

Some guys even had a sub-.600 OPS and started all year. Most of these guys make more money than Anderson (some make 10x more money). Most of them are worse defensively at their respective positions. Also, there are many more no-hit bench players in MLB who did not have enough AB to make the list but still collected a fat paycheck all year.
I added the success rates of teams carrying guys with those benchmarks. The thing to note is almost all of the people below those lines appeared in the bottom third of the top 30 AB's by position, implying their teams tried their best to keep them from coming to the plate any more than absolutely necessary. Using the same benchmarks but only going by those who would qualify for the batting title:

- 4 out of 18 CF had an OPS of 722 or lower (1 of those 4 made the playoffs, Kotsay of Oakland)

- 8 out of 23 C had an OPS of 727 or lower (2 out of those 8 made the playoffs, Molina of St. Louis and Kendall of Oakland) I had to drop the requirements on this, or it would only garner 9 catchers with a rate of 1 out of 9.

- 7 out of 22 2B had an OPS of 729 or lower (1 of those 4 made the playoffs, Castillo of Minnesota)

- 7 out of 21 SS had an OPS of 713 or lower (1 out of those 7 made the playoffs, Eckstein of St. Louis)

This tells me that you can survive with one or maybe two of these guys on your roster if you have excellent pitching, or you play in the NL Central where mediocrity makes you champs. However, very few playoff teams have guys below those lines playing significant chunks of time, which means they are tying up bench spots making sure there's a backup for underperforming players. So yes, there's a spot for great-glove and no-hit guys, but it seems to be mostly on teams below .500, or maybe filling one of the 9 spots in a good team's lineup.

maurice
11-16-2006, 05:45 PM
Stated briefly, roughly 25% of these guys are on playoff teams. That indicates that it neither helps nor hinders a team's chances of making the playoffs.

This tells me that you can survive with one or maybe two of these guys on your roster if you have excellent pitching

You just described the team that KW tries to maintain.

it seems to be mostly on teams below .500, or maybe filling one of the 9 spots in a good team's lineup.

My highly scientific bar-napkin calculations indicate that, even among the high-AB crowd, about half of these guys played for teams with winning records. Notably, St. Louis won the WS, while Oakland, Houston, and the LA Angels of Anaheim, California, United States, North America, Planet Earth, etc. each had 2. Heck, the Sox won 90 games in a tough division with a lineup that featured 3 sub-.700-OPS guys most days + mediocre pitching! We were 3rd in MLB in runs scored and, with consistently good pitching, we would have been a threat to repeat as champs. Finally, a very good offensive team with a statistically improbable sub-.500 record (the Jndjans) also had 2. Again, it seems to me that it neither helps nor hinders a team's chances of being above .500, particularly since most of the low-OPS guys on the >.500 teams are not elite defensive players.

- - -

Ya gotta love these "we're bored so we're gonna dig up some stats" offseason threads.
:cool:

Red Barchetta
11-16-2006, 05:50 PM
If I can get a first-rate shortstop in exchange for the aforementioned CF, I'd do it. Personally, if BA is traded, I'd prefer to see KW sign a veteran CF. After the events of last season, I'm a little skittish about trusting an unproven player with the responsibility of playing CF.

Is there still truth to the Guillen wanting Juan Pierre rumors?

JohnTucker0814
11-17-2006, 12:14 PM
Interesting pieice of this article has us sending Anderson to Texas for Otsuka and prospects Danks (which has been untouchable) and Massett. We get a quality RP and two pitching prospects... What do you all think? I know there has to be more to what we are giving but still...

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-061116whispers,1,5139728.story?coll=cs-cubs-headlines

WhiteSoxFan84
11-17-2006, 12:33 PM
Which Anderson are we sending in return for all those guys exactly?? Greg Anderson so he can help them out in the weightroom???

spiffie
11-17-2006, 12:47 PM
Interesting pieice of this article has us sending Anderson to Texas for Otsuka and prospects Danks (which has been untouchable) and Massett. We get a quality RP and two pitching prospects... What do you all think? I know there has to be more to what we are giving but still...

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-061116whispers,1,5139728.story?coll=cs-cubs-headlines
The article says Danks would be in play if we sent a starter they could control through 2008. So it wouldn't be Buehrle or Garcia.