PDA

View Full Version : Outfield Question


Fake Chet Lemon
12-28-2006, 09:04 AM
Can the Sox win the division by sticking with Pods AND Anderson as starters in the outfield?

I like the idea of giving Pods another shot, and I especially like the idea of giving Anderson another shot. But both of them at the same time? Not liking that plan. If Kenny adds a solid outfielder before April, I like this teams chances a lot more. Right now if Dye goes down our outfield is very shaky at best.

cbotnyse
12-28-2006, 09:21 AM
Obviously if Dye goes down we will be in trouble. That guy is basically irreplaceable. Right now I have more confidenace in Anderson than I do in Pods. Sadly I think Pods best days are behind him. If he cant get on base and be a real threat to steal, his value will really go down, and he knows that.

I'd like to see KW shore up the outfield a little but I do not think that will be an easy task.

batmanZoSo
12-28-2006, 09:30 AM
If Dye goes down, our outfield is maybe the worst of all time.

But I don't think the outfield is much of a concern, Dye or no Dye. I would like Pods to have a better year, but I don't think our success hinges much on the performance of any of the three. I'll give you a hint at what it does hinge on: it starts with a "p."

cbotnyse
12-28-2006, 09:36 AM
If Dye goes down, our outfield is maybe the worst of all time.

But I don't think the outfield is much of a concern, Dye or no Dye. I would like Pods to have a better year, but I don't think our success hinges much on the performance of any of the three. I'll give you a hint at what it does hinge on: it starts with a "p."

Podsednik? :bandance:

I agree 100% that pitching is, and always is, the most important factor, but I thought Pods was a huge factor is 05. It seemed every game started with him getting on base and then scoring. And in 06, I cant remember that happening. I have no idea on how to fix the problem, but Podsednik's production is a big concern for me. :(:

Hitmen77
12-28-2006, 09:44 AM
If Dye goes down, our outfield is maybe the worst of all time.

But I don't think the outfield is much of a concern, Dye or no Dye. I would like Pods to have a better year, but I don't think our success hinges much on the performance of any of the three. I'll give you a hint at what it does hinge on: it starts with a "p."

I keep seeing this statement on WSI. I'm not sure if it's just you batman or if others are saying this. I don't get it. Yes, our outfield will be much worse without Dye - but the "worst of all time". You mean the worst OF in the history of MLB? I find that hard to believe.

ondafarm
12-28-2006, 09:47 AM
I keep seeing this statement on WSI. I'm not sure if it's just you batman or if others are saying this. I don't get it. Yes, our outfield will be much worse without Dye - but the "worst of all time". You mean the worst OF in the history of MLB? I find that hard to believe.

Worse than the Flubs when they had Dave Kingman and Keith Moreland?

Hitmen77
12-28-2006, 09:51 AM
I have more confidence in Anderson than Podsednik. I'm basing that mostly on age since BA is young, coming of his rookie season, and still has alot of upside potential.

With Pods, I just hope he can regain some of his spark from 05.

itsnotrequired
12-28-2006, 09:52 AM
I keep seeing this statement on WSI. I'm not sure if it's just you batman or if others are saying this. I don't get it. Yes, our outfield will be much worse without Dye - but the "worst of all time". You mean the worst OF in the history of MLB? I find that hard to believe.

The same could be said for a lot of teams. If their top outfielder goes down, the team is in trouble. What would the Cubs look like if Soriano went down? What would the Angels look like if Guerrero went down? What would the Red Sox look like if Manny went down?

batmanZoSo
12-28-2006, 09:59 AM
The same could be said for a lot of teams. If their top outfielder goes down, the team is in trouble. What would the Cubs look like if Soriano went down? What would the Angels look like if Guerrero went down? What would the Red Sox look like if Manny went down?

Would they be left with Anderson and Podsednik?

I use hyperbole but it would still be pretty horrific.

mcfish
12-28-2006, 10:06 AM
As stated earlier, it's 100% pitching. The Sox had ample opportunities to win the division last year down the stretch, and the pitching blew almost every one of them.

I find it amazing that there is so much concern over an offense that got shut out 6 total times in all 162 games last year. In addition, Uribe's performance was much worse compared to what was expected of him than either Pods or especially Anderson. If Uribe and Pods play well, then BA can bat .150 out there for all I care. We don't need 9 all-stars in the lineup - players can contribute in other ways on the field.

itsnotrequired
12-28-2006, 10:24 AM
Would they be left with Anderson and Podsednik?

I use hyperbole but it would still be pretty horrific.

I'm not saying the Sox would be sitting pretty but it is sort of silly to point out how weak a team when be when one of their number one players goes down. It can be said of any team. Now, if both the Sox and Cubs lost Dye and Soriano, respectively, which team would be worse off. Probably the Sox but it isn't like the Cubs have some great guys to plug in. Felix Pie has no ML experience and Buck Coats has a name like Buck Coats.

batmanZoSo
12-28-2006, 10:31 AM
I'm not saying the Sox would be sitting pretty but it is sort of silly to point out how weak a team when be when one of their number one players goes down. It can be said of any team. Now, if both the Sox and Cubs lost Dye and Soriano, respectively, which team would be worse off. Probably the Sox but it isn't like the Cubs have some great guys to plug in. Felix Pie has no ML experience and Buck Coats has a name like Buck Coats.

I just said the outfield would be bad and it would be. I also said this

But I don't think the outfield is much of a concern, Dye or no Dye.

itsnotrequired
12-28-2006, 10:34 AM
I just said the outfield would be bad and it would be. I also said this

Let's call a dog.

sox1970
12-28-2006, 10:39 AM
I think KW has about 4-5 more trades left, so who knows what the outfield will be like---or the pitching staff. I'm done speculating on what this team will look like until pitchers and catchers report. I do think Pods and/or Anderson could be gone. After the McCarthy trade, I've given up on trying to figure out the makeup of this team.

nlentz88
12-28-2006, 10:43 AM
I have a lot of faith in Brian Anderson. The kid has so much talent, he's bound to put it all together eventually. Hopefully it happens in 2007.

As for Pods, lets take a quick look at a couple of his stats:

2003 .314 BA, .379 OBP
2004 .244 BA, .313 OBP
2005 .290 BA, .351 OBP
2006 .261 BA, .330 OBP

It seems that his BA and OBP oscilate between odd and even years. I know it's silly, but I have a feeling that his numbers will rebound in 2007. If not, then the Sox need to find a new leadoff hitter.

batmanZoSo
12-28-2006, 10:50 AM
I have a lot of faith in Brian Anderson. The kid has so much talent, he's bound to put it all together eventually. Hopefully it happens in 2007.

As for Pods, lets take a quick look at a couple of his stats:

2003 .314 BA, .379 OBP
2004 .244 BA, .313 OBP
2005 .290 BA, .351 OBP
2006 .261 BA, .330 OBP

It seems that his BA and OBP oscilate between odd and even years. I know it's silly, but I have a feeling that his numbers will rebound in 2007. If not, then the Sox need to find a new leadoff hitter.

Well, if he and Pods are both on odd-year programs, then we're looking good.

Fake Chet Lemon
12-28-2006, 11:33 AM
So......anyone willing to take a stab at the the original question? Can we win the division with these two as our starters?

I know pitching plays the main ingredient, but just think for a minute how good our pitching would have to be to carry these two and maybe Uribe? Can you ask that much of any staff? 2005 was awesome, but probably more a fluke if you look at the history of baseball. We can never expect that again from a staff, just hope to get in that ballpark. It's like wishing every year the Bears defense may be the '85 defense. Silly, that will never happen again. I myself started the thread because I admit I can't answer the question. I flip-flop daily.

itsnotrequired
12-28-2006, 11:37 AM
So......anyone willing to take a stab at the the original question? Can we win the division with these two as our starters?

I know pitching plays the main ingredient, but just think for a minute how good our pitching would have to be to carry these two and maybe Uribe? Can you ask that much of any staff? 2005 was awesome, but probably more a fluke if you look at the history of baseball. We can never expect that again from a staff, just hope to get in that ballpark. It's like wishing every year the Bears defense may be the '85 defense. Silly, that will never happen again. I myself started the thread because I admit I can't answer the question. I flip-flop daily.

Can we win the division? Of course. These are servicable major league ballplayers on a team with above average pitching and offense.

Ol' No. 2
12-28-2006, 11:38 AM
So......anyone willing to take a stab at the the original question? Can we win the division with these two as our starters?

I know pitching plays the main ingredient, but just think for a minute how good our pitching would have to be to carry these two and maybe Uribe? Can you ask that much of any staff? 2005 was awesome, but probably more a fluke if you look at the history of baseball. We can never expect that again from a staff, just hope to get in that ballpark. It's like wishing every year the Bears defense may be the '85 defense. Silly, that will never happen again. I myself started the thread because I admit I can't answer the question. I flip-flop daily.Obviously, no team with Scott Podsednik in LF could EVER win their division. Just ask Dayn Perry.

mcfish
12-28-2006, 11:40 AM
I think we can. I think the pitching is the key to everything. If Paulie, Dye, Thome, Crede, AJ, and Iguchi hit well and consistently, they can make up for the rest of them. If Uribe would hit his weight, it would be even better. We can win with a hole or two in the lineup. We can't win with a bullpen that cannot hold a lead of less than 4 runs. And hopefully our bullpen is improved, so the answer is Yes - we can.

batmanZoSo
12-28-2006, 11:49 AM
So......anyone willing to take a stab at the the original question? Can we win the division with these two as our starters?

I know pitching plays the main ingredient, but just think for a minute how good our pitching would have to be to carry these two and maybe Uribe? Can you ask that much of any staff? 2005 was awesome, but probably more a fluke if you look at the history of baseball. We can never expect that again from a staff, just hope to get in that ballpark. It's like wishing every year the Bears defense may be the '85 defense. Silly, that will never happen again. I myself started the thread because I admit I can't answer the question. I flip-flop daily.

Say we get close to '05 quality pitching: I think we can overcome the theoretical loss of Dye. But I suppose your true question was whether can we win with Anderson and Podsednik starting and I think the answer is a resounding yes. We practically did it last year and that was with a consensus down year from the whole pitching staff.

But say we lost Dye to injury--and we get reasonably close to '05 pitching results--I would still say that with the added firepower of Thome and a much improved Crede (over his '05 self) is enough to overcome the loss of a corner outfielder.

itsnotrequired
12-28-2006, 11:51 AM
But say we lost Dye to injury--and we get reasonly close to '05 pitching results--I would still say that with the added firepower of Thome and a much improved Crede (over his '05 self) is enough to overcome the loss of a corner outfielder.

Especially since we have someone like Sweeney that could take his place.

California Sox
12-28-2006, 11:53 AM
I think "starter" is a relative term here. Pods is already in a platoon with Ozuna, and I think if he struggles you'll see more of Mackowiak out there as well. The real wild card is Sweeney. He has the chance to take away about 350 ABs with a good spring. As a fourth outfielder who can play all three outfield postions, he could spell Dye, replace Anderson against especially tough righthanders, and give Pods a break during extended slumps.

I have a feeling Ozzie's going to throw out some "creative" lineups in 2007.

batmanZoSo
12-28-2006, 11:56 AM
I think "starter" is a relative term here. Pods is already in a platoon with Ozuna, and I think if he struggles you'll see more of Mackowiak out there as well. The real wild card is Sweeney. He has the chance to take away about 350 ABs with a good spring. As a fourth outfielder who can play all three outfield postions, he could spell Dye, replace Anderson against especially tough righthanders, and give Pods a break during extended slumps.

I have a feeling Ozzie's going to throw out some "creative" lineups in 2007.

That thought makes one want to root against Sweeney's success.

Palehose13
12-28-2006, 11:56 AM
Obviously, no team with Scott Podsednik in LF could EVER win their division. Just ask Dayn Perry.

And just forget about winning a world series!

itsnotrequired
12-28-2006, 11:59 AM
I think "starter" is a relative term here. Pods is already in a platoon with Ozuna, and I think if he struggles you'll see more of Mackowiak out there as well. The real wild card is Sweeney. He has the chance to take away about 350 ABs with a good spring. As a fourth outfielder who can play all three outfield postions, he could spell Dye, replace Anderson against especially tough righthanders, and give Pods a break during extended slumps.

I have a feeling Ozzie's going to throw out some "creative" lineups in 2007.

Pods was platooned? He started 122 games. If we consider Podsednik platooned, that we might as well throw Uribe in there as he started only 127 games.

IMO, Anderson was the only one platooned last year (only 106 starts).

ChicagoHoosier
12-28-2006, 12:02 PM
Does anyone feel BA will be better this year compared to last year? First of all, his defense is just about tops in the league. Secondly, if you look at his improvement from 1st half to 2nd half last year, he was more than serviceable at the plate. .257/.301/.393 isn't too bad for a rookie's 2nd half. If he could improve on those numbers a tad bit more, he's getting close to the numbers our previous CF had this year with another team (.262/.321/.425).

Pods is the one that makes me more nervous, but I think I'm not seeing something in BA that Kenny, Ozzie, and others must be seeing. I simply see a rookie who struggled early, played decent after learning the ropes, and will grow into a solid player in year 2.

Ol' No. 2
12-28-2006, 12:10 PM
Does anyone feel BA will be better this year compared to last year? First of all, his defense is just about tops in the league. Secondly, if you look at his improvement from 1st half to 2nd half last year, he was more than serviceable at the plate. .257/.301/.393 isn't too bad for a rookie's 2nd half. If he could improve on those numbers a tad bit more, he's getting close to the numbers our previous CF had this year with another team (.262/.321/.425).

Pods is the one that makes me more nervous, but I think I'm not seeing something in BA that Kenny, Ozzie, and others must be seeing. I simply see a rookie who struggled early, played decent after learning the ropes, and will grow into a solid player in year 2.Anderson really had only two good months. He was back to hitting .200 in September. If you want to give him a mulligan, fine, but it has to be for the whole year - you can't just throw out the 2/3 of the year you don't like. Otherwise, why can't we just take Podsednik's best two months and throw out the other four?

I don't see how anyone could not consider Anderson a major question mark for 2007. That's not necessarily a show-stopper - they just need to have a better backup plan than they did in 2006.

Paulwny
12-28-2006, 12:25 PM
I don't see how anyone could not consider Anderson a major question mark for 2007. That's not necessarily a show-stopper - they just need to have a better backup plan than they did in 2006.

Yep, a critical yr. for the kid. The sox will want to see some vast improvement.

Fake Chet Lemon
12-28-2006, 12:38 PM
,........ but I think I'm not seeing something in BA that Kenny, Ozzie, and others must be seeing. I simply see a rookie who struggled early, played decent after learning the ropes, and will grow into a solid player in year 2.

I've often wondered if Anderson is too outgoing and vocal in the long-term for Guillen's liking. Anderson reminds me some of McCarthy in their personality, and we just saw what happened to McCarthy under this regime. Other vocal guys seem to disappear and get replaced by guys like Thome. Hopefully Anderson and Guillen can co-exist. Just speculating, who really knows though.

batmanZoSo
12-28-2006, 12:47 PM
I've often wondered if Anderson is too outgoing and vocal in the long-term for Guillen's liking. Anderson reminds me some of McCarthy in their personality, and we just saw what happened to McCarthy under this regime. Other vocal guys seem to disappear and get replaced by guys like Thome. Hopefully Anderson and Guillen can co-exist. Just speculating, who really knows though.

Is he very outspoken? I didn't know that about Anderson. He struck me as a reserved, demure kind of guy.

The Immigrant
12-28-2006, 12:49 PM
Worse than the Flubs when they had Dave Kingman and Keith Moreland?

Worse than the Flubs when they had Matt Murton, Juan Pierre and Jacques Jones?

Ol' No. 2
12-28-2006, 01:05 PM
I've often wondered if Anderson is too outgoing and vocal in the long-term for Guillen's liking. Anderson reminds me some of McCarthy in their personality, and we just saw what happened to McCarthy under this regime. Other vocal guys seem to disappear and get replaced by guys like Thome. Hopefully Anderson and Guillen can co-exist. Just speculating, who really knows though.I'm sure that's the reason they traded McCarthy - too outspoken. It had nothing to do with his pitching ability.:rolleyes:

Iwritecode
12-28-2006, 01:29 PM
Is he very outspoken? I didn't know that about Anderson. He struck me as a reserved, demure kind of guy.

From what I've seen of him at Soxfest and heard from him on the radio, he's anything but...

mcfish
12-28-2006, 04:15 PM
I don't see how anyone could not consider Anderson a major question mark for 2007. That's not necessarily a show-stopper - they just need to have a better backup plan than they did in 2006.It's not that I don't see him as a question mark, but that it is towards the bottom of the list of question marks. I really think that we win or lose next year based on the pitching staff - who rebounds, who fails, how the new guys do. And, instead of piling on the rookie, the blame needs to fall on Uribe and Pods, and to a lesser extent AJ and Iguchi. If those 4 do their jobs (well, all 8 of the other guys actually), then Brian's hitting really shouldn't matter too much to the outcome of the season.

Ol' No. 2
12-28-2006, 05:21 PM
It's not that I don't see him as a question mark, but that it is towards the bottom of the list of question marks. I really think that we win or lose next year based on the pitching staff - who rebounds, who fails, how the new guys do. And, instead of piling on the rookie, the blame needs to fall on Uribe and Pods, and to a lesser extent AJ and Iguchi. If those 4 do their jobs (well, all 8 of the other guys actually), then Brian's hitting really shouldn't matter too much to the outcome of the season.What you're asking, in effect, is for the rest of the lineup to carry him. I don't think anyone gets a pass. I don't necessarily expect a rookie to hit .300 all season, but I expect him not to suck for 2/3 of the season.

Craig Grebeck
12-28-2006, 05:56 PM
I'd much rather have Anderson + somewhat servicable MLB outfielder, but it looks like we're stuck with Anderson + Pods.

soxinem1
12-28-2006, 06:35 PM
I keep seeing this statement on WSI. I'm not sure if it's just you batman or if others are saying this. I don't get it. Yes, our outfield will be much worse without Dye - but the "worst of all time". You mean the worst OF in the history of MLB? I find that hard to believe.

Well, I remember the 1988-89 team having one of the weakest groups of OF I've ever seen the White Sox have, and if Dye gets hurt, then Mackowiak, Anderson, and Pods will definitely be worse than those two teams.

Fake Chet Lemon
12-28-2006, 07:00 PM
I'm sure that's the reason they traded McCarthy - too outspoken. It had nothing to do with his pitching ability.:rolleyes:

Yea, you're right he sucks. At his age Garland was dominating teams.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And the White Sox have NEVER gotten rid of someone for off-field reasons before.

ChiTownTrojan
12-28-2006, 07:01 PM
If you combine last year's offense with 2005 pitching, you've got the favorite to win the World Series. Pods and BA were part of that offense. Hence, we can win with them.

The key to the 2007 season is two other players: Contreras and Buehrle.

ChiTownTrojan
12-28-2006, 07:03 PM
Yea, you're right he sucks. At his age Garland was dominating teams.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
If McCarthy turns out to be Garland and Danks turns out to be a legit #1 (as projected), then we made out pretty good with this deal.

Fake Chet Lemon
12-28-2006, 07:03 PM
Is he very outspoken? I didn't know that about Anderson. He struck me as a reserved, demure kind of guy.

I've just read that he is a cocky, confident kid. Generally those aren't the quiet types. But you have a point, I just drew that conclusion from the cocky, confident description.

Fake Chet Lemon
12-28-2006, 07:05 PM
If McCarthy turns out to be Garland and Danks turns out to be a legit #1 (as projected), then we made out pretty good with this deal.

Wow. Why wasn't that in pink letters? Danks is the next Cy Young? Well, that would be nice.

Palehose13
12-28-2006, 07:06 PM
To answer the original question, yes as long as the pitching is there.

I think "starter" is a relative term here. Pods is already in a platoon with Ozuna, and I think if he struggles you'll see more of Mackowiak out there as well. The real wild card is Sweeney. He has the chance to take away about 350 ABs with a good spring. As a fourth outfielder who can play all three outfield postions, he could spell Dye, replace Anderson against especially tough righthanders, and give Pods a break during extended slumps.

I have a feeling Ozzie's going to throw out some "creative" lineups in 2007.

Pods is platooned with Ozuna? When did that happen?

Pods had a down year, but he still had a better offensive year than Anderson. I just hope that he stays away from the Mendoza line for most of the season (unlike last year).

Is he very outspoken? I didn't know that about Anderson. He struck me as a reserved, demure kind of guy.

From what I've seen of him at Soxfest and heard from him on the radio, he's anything but...

I'm backing Code. What I have seen/heard from him he is one wild and crazy guy!

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/pics/77afestrunks1.jpg

Fake Chet Lemon
12-28-2006, 07:08 PM
If you combine last year's offense with 2005 pitching,

Good luck getting Cliff Politte back to form...........and re-signed.

ChiTownTrojan
12-28-2006, 07:09 PM
Wow. Why wasn't that in pink letters? Danks is the next Cy Young? Well, that would be nice.
I didn't say Cy Young. I said #1 starter. I think there's as much a chance as that happening as McCarthy becoming a #2-#3 like Garland.

ChiTownTrojan
12-28-2006, 07:13 PM
Good luck getting Cliff Politte back to form...........and re-signed.
My point was that the offense is fine with Pods and BA as starters as long as we've got good pitching to go with it. Besides, MacDougal and Thornton are fully capable of replacing the 2005 versions of Pollite/Cotts.

Fake Chet Lemon
12-28-2006, 07:16 PM
My point was that the offense is fine with Pods and BA as starters as long as we've got good pitching to go with it. Besides, MacDougal and Thornton are fully capable of replacing the 2005 versions of Pollite/Cotts.

The 2007 Pods will likely be worse than the 2005 All-Star Pods. The 2007 Anderson will be worse than the 2005 Rowand. So even if the pitching in 2007 is as good as 2005 (which it will NOT be!), we are still worse off. That's my point.

Daver
12-28-2006, 07:25 PM
The 2007 Pods will likely be worse than the 2005 All-Star Pods. The 2007 Anderson will be worse than the 2005 Rowand. So even if the pitching in 2007 is as good as 2005 (which it will NOT be!), we are still worse off. That's my point.

Can I borrow that crystal ball you are using to see into the future?

Palehose13
12-28-2006, 07:26 PM
The 2007 Pods will likely be worse than the 2005 All-Star Pods. The 2007 Anderson will be worse than the 2005 Rowand. So even if the pitching in 2007 is as good as 2005 (which it will NOT be!), we are still worse off. That's my point.

And the 2006 Jim Thome surely won't be as good as the 2004 Jim Thome...oh ****, wait...

Fake Chet Lemon
12-28-2006, 07:31 PM
Can I borrow that crystal ball you are using to see into the future?

Wow, so saying Pods won't likely be an All-Star in 2007 is controversial now?
:gulp:

ChiTownTrojan
12-28-2006, 07:38 PM
The 2007 Pods will likely be worse than the 2005 All-Star Pods. The 2007 Anderson will be worse than the 2005 Rowand. So even if the pitching in 2007 is as good as 2005 (which it will NOT be!), we are still worse off. That's my point.

Please try to keep up. I'm not comparing Pods and Anderson in 2007 to Pods and Rowand of 2005. I'm comparing them to Pods and Anderson of 2006. Even if they repeat their horrific performances from a year ago, the offense is still good enough to win the WS because the 2006 offense was better than the 2005, WS offense. That doesn't even take into account that they are both likely to rebound and put up better numbers then last year.

Palehose13
12-28-2006, 07:43 PM
Wow, so saying Pods won't likely be an All-Star in 2007 is controversial now?
:gulp:

No, but saying that he definitely won't have a .290BA and .351OBP is jumping the gun just a bit. Hell, I don't really care for Brian Anderson, but it wouldn't be too much of a leap of faith to think that he might hit .270/13/69 (2005 Rowand)

fquaye149
12-28-2006, 08:00 PM
The 2007 Pods will likely be worse than the 2005 All-Star Pods. The 2007 Anderson will be worse than the 2005 Rowand. So even if the pitching in 2007 is as good as 2005 (which it will NOT be!), we are still worse off. That's my point.

You've got to be ****ing kidding me!

How on earth can you overlook the improvement of Thome over Everett and Crede's improved play....

Are you kidding me?

Palehose13
12-28-2006, 08:01 PM
You've got to be ****ing kidding me!

How on earth can you overlook the improvement of Thome over Everett and Crede's improved play....

Are you kidding me?

Sadly, he is not kidding. :(:

Fake Chet Lemon
12-28-2006, 08:46 PM
You've got to be ****ing kidding me!

How on earth can you overlook the improvement of Thome over Everett and Crede's improved play....

Are you kidding me?

????? The thread is about the outfield. I never mentioned DH, anywhere.

fquaye149
12-28-2006, 08:55 PM
????? The thread is about the outfield. I never mentioned DH, anywhere.

You're talking about the pitching and talking about how this team is worse off whether or not the pitching returns to 2005 form.

I think it's rather irresponsible to ignore the rest of the lineup in that analysi

WhiteSox5187
12-28-2006, 09:03 PM
I concur that Pods is a big question mark, but he was really banged up in '06. If Pods can stay healthy, I think we can see him return to his '05 form. The offense is good as it is, but if Pods can get on to set the table, it will be even better. But as has been said a thousand times, pitching wins pennants. And there's a hole in our pitching staff.

Fake Chet Lemon
12-28-2006, 10:10 PM
I concur that Pods is a big question mark, but he was really banged up in '06. If Pods can stay healthy, I think we can see him return to his '05 form. The offense is good as it is, but if Pods can get on to set the table, it will be even better. But as has been said a thousand times, pitching wins pennants. And there's a hole in our pitching staff.

Can Pods play everyday and not wear down though? Herm never steps out ever. But Herm ripped Pods in a back-handed way when he said Pods has to be tuned in perfectly to be effective. I think the only reason Pods is back is because of $$$$, he was cheap compared to the market. I hope he bounces back, I have a jersey investment in him. :D:

mcfish
12-28-2006, 10:51 PM
What you're asking, in effect, is for the rest of the lineup to carry him. I don't think anyone gets a pass. I don't necessarily expect a rookie to hit .300 all season, but I expect him not to suck for 2/3 of the season.
I understand what you're saying, and it's a very valid opinion, but I look at it more like breaking in a new guy and giving him time to get it straight. Kinda like Crede - he didn't hit as well as we wanted for years, but he stayed in there until he finally got it right (hopefully for good). The offense around him wasn't even as good then as it is now - so there should be more than enough around BA to cover for a guy getting acclimated to the big league.

Obviously, he doesn't get to stay that way forever, but I think you give him some time with the benefit of the doubt (as long as he plays good defense and shows he's trying at the plate) and let the rest of the lineup cover for him.

UserNameBlank
12-28-2006, 11:19 PM
I've often wondered if Anderson is too outgoing and vocal in the long-term for Guillen's liking. Anderson reminds me some of McCarthy in their personality, and we just saw what happened to McCarthy under this regime. Other vocal guys seem to disappear and get replaced by guys like Thome. Hopefully Anderson and Guillen can co-exist. Just speculating, who really knows though.

How many times have you personally hung out with Anderson and McCarthy? How do you have any idea whatsoever what their personalities are like?

Rowand's outgoing nature got him traded? Strange, I thought it had more to do with his 9000 consecutive groundballs to SS, his major offensive falloff after 2004, the emergence of Brian Anderson and Chris Young, the availability of Jim Thome, and the need for a LH power bat in the middle of the lineup.

McCarthy was traded for essentially the same exact package that Texas had rumored to offer for Garland. KW wanted the prospects, and kudos to him for trading an unproven pitcher instead of our most reliable veteran starter to get them.

Anderson and Guillen will get along just fine so long as Brian plays an above average CF and does a better job at the dish. If he stands up there and takes a perfectly hittable 1st pitch strike and then swings at something over his head on the next pitch again, Ozzie and BA will have problems.

fquaye149
12-29-2006, 02:23 AM
How many times have you personally hung out with Anderson and McCarthy? How do you have any idea whatsoever what their personalities are like?

Rowand's outgoing nature got him traded? Strange, I thought it had more to do with his 9000 consecutive groundballs to SS, his major offensive falloff after 2004, the emergence of Brian Anderson and Chris Young, the availability of Jim Thome, and the need for a LH power bat in the middle of the lineup.

McCarthy was traded for essentially the same exact package that Texas had rumored to offer for Garland. KW wanted the prospects, and kudos to him for trading an unproven pitcher instead of our most reliable veteran starter to get them.

Anderson and Guillen will get along just fine so long as Brian plays an above average CF and does a better job at the dish. If he stands up there and takes a perfectly hittable 1st pitch strike and then swings at something over his head on the next pitch again, Ozzie and BA will have problems.


POTW

digdagdug23
12-29-2006, 07:00 AM
How many times have you personally hung out with Anderson and McCarthy? How do you have any idea whatsoever what their personalities are like?

Rowand's outgoing nature got him traded? Strange, I thought it had more to do with his 9000 consecutive groundballs to SS, his major offensive falloff after 2004, the emergence of Brian Anderson and Chris Young, the availability of Jim Thome, and the need for a LH power bat in the middle of the lineup.

McCarthy was traded for essentially the same exact package that Texas had rumored to offer for Garland. KW wanted the prospects, and kudos to him for trading an unproven pitcher instead of our most reliable veteran starter to get them.

Anderson and Guillen will get along just fine so long as Brian plays an above average CF and does a better job at the dish. If he stands up there and takes a perfectly hittable 1st pitch strike and then swings at something over his head on the next pitch again, Ozzie and BA will have problems.

Brian might want to see this, quick, someone get his e-mail address STAT!

Fake Chet Lemon
12-29-2006, 08:43 AM
How many times have you personally hung out with Anderson and McCarthy? How do you have any idea whatsoever what their personalities are like?
.

Not a once, never. I can only go by what I read about them and try my best to figure things out. Maybe you are a supreme being (doubt it) and you know everything for fact? The rest of us are just doing our best to try and figure things out and speculate since we don't have all the information and never will.

UserNameBlank
12-29-2006, 10:11 AM
Not a once, never. I can only go by what I read about them and try my best to figure things out. Maybe you are a supreme being (doubt it) and you know everything for fact? The rest of us are just doing our best to try and figure things out and speculate since we don't have all the information and never will.

Look, if we all believed everything we read in some Joe Cowley column we'd all have accidentally taped our asses to our faces somehow. Furthermore, if we all believed everything that Ozzie himself said then we'd have to think that every single one of his players suck beyond all belief, except Timo Perez, who would be starting at 1B.

People write **** in the papers all the time and Ozzie "throws his players under the bus." We fans aren't privy to information such as the amount of alcohol Brian Anderson drinks or how often he displays an "outgoing" personality. Nor should we care about anything other than his performance on the field and how that relates to the successes or failures of the team we follow.

maurice
12-29-2006, 02:43 PM
FWIW, Anderson is extremely outgoing. McCarthy is the more reserved of the two . . . or at least he was before he started hanging out with Anderson.

Can the Sox win the division by sticking with Pods AND Anderson as starters in the outfield?

Certainly. The Sox won 90 games when both of these guys did very little at the plate. How many games do they win if:
(1) the pitching is better,
(2) Pods rebounds again, and/or
(3) Anderson improves like a 2nd-year player should?

jabrch
12-29-2006, 03:02 PM
Can the Sox win the division by sticking with Pods AND Anderson as starters in the outfield?

If that's the question, the answer clearly is yes.

Iwritecode
12-29-2006, 03:20 PM
I'm backing Code. What I have seen/heard from him he is one wild and crazy guy!

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/pics/77afestrunks1.jpg

My first encounter with him was at Soxfest last year. I had just given them my ticket and gotten in and was waiting for the rest of my party to catch up when I see him come through the lines with his arms raised yelling "I don't have a ticket! Sorry, I don't have a ticket!"

My first thought was "Who the hell is this guy?" because he had gotten his hair cut and I didn't recognize him. :redface: Then I saw Ozzie Jr. walking right behind him and realized who it was.