PDA

View Full Version : Pretty insightful article by the Daily Herald


caulfield12
02-26-2007, 10:16 AM
For whatever reason, the sense around the team starting to build is that Anderson really has his back against the wall this spring to beat out Darin Erstad. There's been a lot of speculation on this issue for almost a year now. Why does Ozzie seem to dislike him? Partying too much? Not listening to Walker? Attitude? It seems they brought in DE to light a fire under BA, and also to provide insurance for Pods as well. It would be a shame if they traded him, though, because his value is pretty darn low compared to what it was coming into 06.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/whitesox.asp

chisoxmike
02-26-2007, 10:41 AM
...Partying too much? Not listening to Walker? Attitude?

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/whitesox.asp

I think its a little bit of all of that.

russ99
02-26-2007, 10:48 AM
I think its a little bit of all of that.

I'd hope that even if Erstad beats him for the CF job that the Sox would keep him around as a defensive replacement. BA has way too much potential for the Sox to give up on him now.

Seems like almost a Crede-like situation. Maybe a stint in the minors would do him some good.

AuroraSoxFan
02-26-2007, 10:50 AM
I like BA and really think he has All-Star capability. But anyone who turns in a 225 average the year before is going to be challenged for the starting job. I know 2nd half was a lot better for him. I also know he did not get a chance to find any kind of rhythm. But Sox mgmt basically has to do it that way. It would not send too good of a message handing a job to a guy that turned in that kind of avg.

Anyway, it looks like he worked his ass off in the offseason with Walker and Paulie. I think it will pay off and he will be more of an offensive asset than a liability.

caulfield12
02-26-2007, 10:51 AM
The problem is that OG has repeatedly said he doesn't want him around as a late-inning defensive replacement...that BA needs to play almost everyday, and that he would be doing so in Charlotte in all likelihood, unless he was the "outright" starter and not just a platoon hitter against lefties.

UNLESS Erstad just doesn't have it to be an everyday CFer in the big leagues anymore.

Corlose 15
02-26-2007, 10:52 AM
This is just a writer speculating in my opinion. Walker knew BA was going to struggle with the bat last year but hoped his athleticism would take him through it.

He worked with Walker and Paulie this offseason is using his legs more and according to whitesox.com is smoking the ball in BP. That doesn't sound like someone who is uncoachable.

Lets just wait and see. Also, right now Erstad and Anderson aren't competing for the CF job I'd have to figure that LF is Erstad's right now and Anderson is battling the rest of the prospects for CF.

caulfield12
02-26-2007, 10:53 AM
I like BA and really think he has All-Star capability. But anyone who turns in a 225 average the year before is going to be challenged for the starting job. I know 2nd half was a lot better for him. I also know he did not get a chance to find any kind of rhythm. But Sox mgmt basically has to do it that way. It would not send too good of a message handing a job to a guy that turned in that kind of avg.

Anyway, it looks like he worked his ass off in the offseason with Walker and Paulie. I think it will pay off and he will be more of an offensive asset than a liability.


I also had read where there was some concern he had bulked up too much as he regained weight from his health scare in Venezuela, and the team wasn't happy about that either. Has anyone seen what he NOW looks like down there?

caulfield12
02-26-2007, 10:55 AM
This is just a writer speculating in my opinion. Walker knew BA was going to struggle with the bat last year but hoped his athleticism would take him through it.

He worked with Walker and Paulie this offseason is using his legs more and according to whitesox.com is smoking the ball in BP. That doesn't sound like someone who is uncoachable.

Lets just wait and see. Also, right now Erstad and Anderson aren't competing for the CF job I'd have to figure that LF is Erstad's right now and Anderson is battling the rest of the prospects for CF.

I really think, unless BA proves him wrong this spring in actual games (not just BP) that Erstad is the starter in CF with Ozuna and Mackowiak platooning in LF until Pods comes back. Of course, there's also the possibility Erstad shows a physical decline to the point where they have to use BA again.

Corlose 15
02-26-2007, 11:01 AM
I really think, unless BA proves him wrong this spring in actual games (not just BP) that Erstad is the starter in CF with Ozuna and Mackowiak platooning in LF until Pods comes back. Of course, there's also the possibility Erstad shows a physical decline to the point where they have to use BA again.


Well, I'm excited to see what Anderson does. He had a great spring last year, and a good opener but then tanked so we'll see. I think ideally Anderson wins CF and Erstad comes off the bench once Pods comes back. We'll see though.

I was looking at some clips on whitesox.com of BA and he was barely using his legs last year so it'll be interesting to see his new swing and the results.

BainesHOF
02-26-2007, 01:31 PM
This shouldn't be a surprise whatsoever. Erstad plays like a major leaguer, Anderson like a minor leaguer.

Anderson was given a full year to prove himself when he would have been sent to the minors by most teams. He had his chance and he was bad complete with inexcusable mental gaffes in the field.

itsnotrequired
02-26-2007, 01:38 PM
This shouldn't be a surprise whatsoever. Erstad plays like a major leaguer, Anderson like a minor leaguer.

Anderson was given a full year to prove himself when he would have been sent to the minors by most teams. He had his chance and he was bad complete with inexcusable mental gaffes in the field.

:?:

Dan Mega
02-26-2007, 01:51 PM
Thank God for BA. Otherwise, who would the Crede-haters have to complain about?

jenn2080
02-26-2007, 01:54 PM
Thank God for BA. Otherwise, who would the Crede-haters have to complain about?


:rolling:

maurice
02-26-2007, 01:57 PM
Erstad as a bench player & interim platoon LF = pretty good.

Erstad as everyday starter = very bad.

BainesHOF
02-26-2007, 02:19 PM
Erstad as everyday starter = very bad.

Anderson as everyday starter = worse.

Vernam
02-26-2007, 02:29 PM
I also had read where there was some concern he had bulked up too much as he regained weight from his health scare in Venezuela, and the team wasn't happy about that either. Has anyone seen what he NOW looks like down there?Dunno about NOW, but at Sox Fest he was big as a ****ing house. Quite a shock because of the reports about his intestinal problems in winter ball.

Saw him on TV the other day, and it looked like he's dropped a few pounds. He also cut that ridiculous hair he had a Sox Fest.

If they keep one of the young OFs to come off the bench, I'd rather see Owens. Nothing against BA, but Erstad (assuming he'd be the everyday CF) shouldn't need a defensive backup. I'd rather see what Owens can do and let BA build his confidence at AAA.

Vernam

CLR01
02-26-2007, 02:34 PM
I like BA and really think he has All-Star capability. But anyone who turns in a 225 average the year before is going to be challenged for the starting job. I know 2nd half was a lot better for him. I also know he did not get a chance to find any kind of rhythm. But Sox mgmt basically has to do it that way. It would not send too good of a message handing a job to a guy that turned in that kind of avg.

Unless you are a certain Dominican shortstop packing pellet gun heat.

Grzegorz
02-26-2007, 02:46 PM
For whatever reason, the sense around the team starting to build is that Anderson really has his back against the wall this spring to beat out Darin Erstad.

Why does Ozzie seem to dislike him? Partying too much? Not listening to Walker? Attitude?

If someone has "their back against a wall" in any position in life I'd question whether that person is getting a "fair shake".

As for the partying too much, it sounds as if the kid has a little of 'The Mick' in him.

Now I'd like some of this infamous partying sourced, and if he has a bad attitude where has this evidence been sourced? If not sourced, it is rampant speculation. If rampant speculation then it tarnishes BA's image.

Zabimaru
02-26-2007, 02:49 PM
Ozzie is Ozzie. Maybe he knows something about BA that we don't and eventually he'll play BA when he feels it's right for him to do so.

...so sayeth Zabimaru

Corlose 15
02-26-2007, 03:17 PM
If someone has "their back against a wall" in any position in life I'd question whether that person is getting a "fair shake".

As for the partying too much, it sounds as if the kid has a little of 'The Mick' in him.

Now I'd like some of this infamous partying sourced, and if he has a bad attitude where has this evidence been sourced? If not sourced, it is rampant speculation. If rampant speculation then it tarnishes BA's image.

Thus is the nature of the internet. :(:

caulfield12
02-26-2007, 04:41 PM
Unless you are a certain Dominican shortstop packing pellet gun heat.

I would have no argument, if BA had averaged a .310 OBP and played Gold Glove defense with 20-25 homers and 65-80 RBI's for 3 consecutive seasons before his bad season.

At least Uribe has a track record. You line BA and Borchard up statistically at this point in their careers (in terms of at-bats) and the lines are pretty much identical.

CLR01
02-26-2007, 05:40 PM
I would have no argument, if BA had averaged a .310 OBP and played Gold Glove defense with 20-25 homers and 65-80 RBI's for 3 consecutive seasons before his bad season.

I guess that depends on which bad season of Uribes you consider. I'd rather take my chances on the outstanding defensive, second year, center fielder improving than the veteran shortstop, with an outstanding glove, whose best year was three years ago and has done nothing but decline from there. God I hope Anderson starts swinging for the fences and keeps that OBP low so he too can be ignored while everyone piles on someone else.

Craig Grebeck
02-26-2007, 06:17 PM
I wouldn't say that BA should be handed the job, but to bring in a guy who has been AWFUL for the last six seasons to supplant him is ridiculous. I know it hasn't been officially said, but it's hard not to get the feeling that Erstad is the starter as of now. It will be hard to watch.

CLR01
02-26-2007, 06:31 PM
I wouldn't say that BA should be handed the job, but to bring in a guy who has been AWFUL for the last six seasons to supplant him is ridiculous. I know it hasn't been officially said, but it's hard not to get the feeling that Erstad is the starter as of now. It will be hard to watch.

Don't worry, Terrero will be there to back him up. :puking:

caulfield12
02-26-2007, 07:26 PM
I wouldn't say that BA should be handed the job, but to bring in a guy who has been AWFUL for the last six seasons to supplant him is ridiculous. I know it hasn't been officially said, but it's hard not to get the feeling that Erstad is the starter as of now. It will be hard to watch.

I wish all White Sox players were as awful as Erstad during that time.

3 Gold Gloves. The White Sox have how many during that time? 0.

During those "awful" years you describe, this has been an average season for Erstad, including one season he was hurt and had under 300 at-bats.

.274, 8, 64 RBI, 18 SB's, OBP around .325-.330 (career in the .340's)

Note, this doesn't count the 2000 season obviously. Actually, those stats look like what we'd LOVE to get out of BA every year...maybe more power, fewer stolen bases.

Here's another similar White Sox player, over the last two seasons...similar age to Erstad.

.280, 16, 69 RBI's, 13 SB

His name is Tadahito Iguchi.

Now how is Erstad awful, exactly? And once again, the White Sox as a team haven't had 3 Gold Gloves since 2000, COMBINED.

JB98
02-26-2007, 07:29 PM
I wouldn't say that BA should be handed the job, but to bring in a guy who has been AWFUL for the last six seasons to supplant him is ridiculous. I know it hasn't been officially said, but it's hard not to get the feeling that Erstad is the starter as of now. It will be hard to watch.

The use of the word "awful" is hyperbole. Erstad only had 95 ABs last season, so he was worthless in 2006. He was also limited by injury and had a poor season in 2003. He hit .295 as recently as 2004.

One of the major mistakes KW made last year was handing the CF job to Anderson and failing to bring in a reliable veteran option as a backup in the event BA failed. We now have that backup veteran option in Erstad, and I'm glad for it.

The best-case scenario for the Sox is for BA to pull his head out of his ass and start playing ball. I don't give a **** what his batting average was the second half. The bottom line is he hit .225 last season and looked every bit as weak and inept in September as he did in April. In a year where you have championship aspirations, you don't hand a starting position to a guy who is coming off a year like that. He should have to compete for his spot and earn it.

caulfield12
02-26-2007, 07:29 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=4745

In fact, no matter how hard you try to make Erstad awful, his 2001-2005 period of play still compares favorably to this "beloved" Sox player's stats in 2005 and 2006.

And DE is a MUCH better defender, no contest...even on half a leg.

itsnotrequired
02-26-2007, 07:35 PM
And DE is a MUCH better defender, no contest...even on half a leg.

Better than who, Anderson?

:?:

caulfield12
02-26-2007, 07:38 PM
Better than who, Anderson?

:?:

Try clicking on the link above.

Aaron Rowand.:mad:

JB98
02-26-2007, 07:38 PM
Better than who, Anderson?

:?:

No, he's talking about Rowand. And Erstad was every bit as good as Anderson and possibly better in CF in his prime. Whether he can still do it, I guess we'll find out.

I'm just glad there is competition for LF and CF this year. Those two positions were glaring weaknesses last year.

itsnotrequired
02-26-2007, 07:40 PM
Try clicking on the link above.

Aaron Rowand.:mad:

No time for links!

:redface:

Hitmen77
02-26-2007, 08:51 PM
I found these quotes from the Daily Herald interesting:

Last year, I think the White Sox thought it was going to be easy to repeat as World Series champions. They were horrible in the second half of the season, and it didnít happen. Even though itís early, you can just tell the attitude is different. They know they have to go out there and work at it a lot harder than last year.

If you watched the White Sox ó especially in the second half last year ó they were gassed. .... Mark Buehrle is in a lot better shape, Jenks should be a lot better, and even Paul Konerko arrived in a lot better shape. Jim Thome, Joe Crede Ö there are a lot of guys who concentrated on getting into better shape.

GoSox2K3
02-26-2007, 08:55 PM
I wouldn't say that BA should be handed the job, but to bring in a guy who has been AWFUL for the last six seasons to supplant him is ridiculous. I know it hasn't been officially said, but it's hard not to get the feeling that Erstad is the starter as of now. It will be hard to watch.

:rolleyes:

Yes, we get it - you hate Erstad. Get over it already. Time to move on and see how he does in the regular season.

Craig Grebeck
02-26-2007, 11:03 PM
Telling me his BA and RBI are completely meaningless. Let's look at his last four seasons where he had a significant amount of AB using inarguably the most complete, recognized, and basic stat around, OPS.
2001: .691
2002: .702
2004: .746
2005: .696
Last season Anderson had a .649 OPS. Considering natural progression and a little trust from Ozzie, I can't see a huge difference between Anderson's potential production and Erstad's. Obviously their floors are the same, and there's no reason to believe that Erstad will ever come close to a .775 OPS again when you consider his injury history and complete downward spiral. I completely understand bringing someone in to compete in LF/CF, but it shouldn't be someone who does not present any upgrade from the alternative. I would have preferred someone who can play all three outfield positions, hits at league average, and has GREAT platoon splits to pair with Podsednik (Jose Cruz Jr. preferably).

Now, I understand that Erstad is here to stay, but I have all the right in the world to chastise the organization for their lack of competence when it comes to handling Brian.

GoSox2K3
02-26-2007, 11:26 PM
Now, I understand that Erstad is here to stay, but I have all the right in the world to repeatedly chastise the organization by continuously blaming the Erstad signing for their lack of competence when it comes to handling Brian long before the first pitch is even thrown in the '07 season.

Fixed it for you.

caulfield12
02-27-2007, 03:48 AM
Telling me his BA and RBI are completely meaningless. Let's look at his last four seasons where he had a significant amount of AB using inarguably the most complete, recognized, and basic stat around, OPS.
2001: .691
2002: .702
2004: .746
2005: .696
Last season Anderson had a .649 OPS. Considering natural progression and a little trust from Ozzie, I can't see a huge difference between Anderson's potential production and Erstad's. Obviously their floors are the same, and there's no reason to believe that Erstad will ever come close to a .775 OPS again when you consider his injury history and complete downward spiral. I completely understand bringing someone in to compete in LF/CF, but it shouldn't be someone who does not present any upgrade from the alternative. I would have preferred someone who can play all three outfield positions, hits at league average, and has GREAT platoon splits to pair with Podsednik (Jose Cruz Jr. preferably).

Now, I understand that Erstad is here to stay, but I have all the right in the world to chastise the organization for their lack of competence when it comes to handling Brian.


Obviously KW prefers Erstad's "intangibles" more than that of a Preston Wilson or Jose Cruz, Jr. He's almost always right with these "bargain basement" pick-ups at the major league level.

Sure, Rios and Daubach weren't so great...but KW gets it right the majority of time, especially when you look at in terms of dollars added to the payroll versus potential reward on the field.

Craig Grebeck
02-27-2007, 08:05 AM
Obviously KW prefers Erstad's "intangibles" more than that of a Preston Wilson or Jose Cruz, Jr. He's almost always right with these "bargain basement" pick-ups at the major league level.

Sure, Rios and Daubach weren't so great...but KW gets it right the majority of time, especially when you look at in terms of dollars added to the payroll versus potential reward on the field.
What is Erstad's ceiling? His potential reward is a lot lower than Brian's.

caulfield12
02-27-2007, 09:44 AM
What is Erstad's ceiling? His potential reward is a lot lower than Brian's.


Yeah, and that potential "reward" we were waiting patiently for never showed up last season, one of probably five key factors that kept us out of the playoffs.

Also, in all your OPS stats, how do you factor in his experience, leadership, "grinder" mentality and Gold Gloves?

Gavin
02-27-2007, 10:15 AM
Also, in all your OPS stats, how do you factor in his experience, leadership, "grinder" mentality and Gold Gloves?

Doesn't Baseball Prospectus have numbers for these things? They have numbers for everything.

itsnotrequired
02-27-2007, 10:35 AM
Doesn't Baseball Prospectus have numbers for these things? They have numbers for everything.

I could make some numbers up for you if you'd like. They would be just as good as anything BP has.

caulfield12
02-27-2007, 10:57 AM
Doesn't Baseball Prospectus have numbers for these things? They have numbers for everything.


Obviously, A-Rod and Manny Ramirez are great players from any point of view, except defensively in Manny's case, and attitude.

The question is measuring the impact of Darin Erstad ONLY using OPS. That's dumb, too. If we favored that exclusively, we would still have Ordonez and Carlos Lee instead of Dye and Pods.

It's a good comparison too, but it's just ONE way to look at a player. Many see it as THE Holy Grail of stats.

The tough part is differentiating the dollar value of a Roberts, Pierre or Matthews versus $1 million for Darin Erstad. Nine times out of ten, it's better to take similar gambles on 3-5 players (like Loiaza for pitching, or Jose Cruz, Jr., and Preston Wilson), instead of paying a Juan Pierre $8-9 million per season.

Craig Grebeck
02-27-2007, 02:38 PM
Quanitfying Erstad's intangibles is impossible, and there's no reason to believe that they are enough to overcome his lack of production.
Experience- That's great and all, but we are a very veteran team already. It's certainly not a need for us.
Leadership- I don't care. We have Mark, Paul, A.J. i.e. plenty of leaders. And do you know what? They have been pretty productive over the course of their careers.
Grinder Mentality- He's such a grinder that he gets hurt almost every season. J.D. Drew (everyone's villain) has played more over the last few years. I don't understand why this makes him so valuable.
Gold Gloves- We have arguably the best defensive CF in MLB on the roster. I understand having a good defensive CF on the bench, but I wish KW would tell Ozzie that Erstad is only to be used as a late inning replacement. The guy can't hit.

Yeah, and that potential "reward" we were waiting patiently for never showed up last season, one of probably five key factors that kept us out of the playoffs.
Again, what in Erstad's recent track record makes you believe he will be significantly better than BA over the course of a season?

Obviously KW prefers Erstad's "intangibles" more than that of a Preston Wilson or Jose Cruz, Jr.
I prefer that Cruz destroys left handed pitching and can play all three positions.

Also, comparing Erstad to Dye is laughable. Check the statistics.

caulfield12
02-27-2007, 03:21 PM
Quanitfying Erstad's intangibles is impossible, and there's no reason to believe that they are enough to overcome his lack of production.
Experience- That's great and all, but we are a very veteran team already. It's certainly not a need for us.
Leadership- I don't care. We have Mark, Paul, A.J. i.e. plenty of leaders. And do you know what? They have been pretty productive over the course of their careers.
Grinder Mentality- He's such a grinder that he gets hurt almost every season. J.D. Drew (everyone's villain) has played more over the last few years. I don't understand why this makes him so valuable.
Gold Gloves- We have arguably the best defensive CF in MLB on the roster. I understand having a good defensive CF on the bench, but I wish KW would tell Ozzie that Erstad is only to be used as a late inning replacement. The guy can't hit.

Again, what in Erstad's recent track record makes you believe he will be significantly better than BA over the course of a season?

I prefer that Cruz destroys left handed pitching and can play all three positions.

Also, comparing Erstad to Dye is laughable. Check the statistics.

Where did I compare Erstad to Dye? I compared Erstad to Rowand, Anderson, Torii Hunter, Jim Edmonds, Andruw Jones and Rob Mackowiak.

Craig Grebeck
02-27-2007, 03:38 PM
It was directed to those who refer to Erstad's signing as comparable to Dye's, as well as the potential reward.

caulfield12
02-27-2007, 03:53 PM
It is comparable to the signing of Iguchi. Not Dye.

Dan Mega
02-27-2007, 04:13 PM
Grinder Mentality- He's such a grinder that he gets hurt almost every season. J.D. Drew (everyone's villain) has played more over the last few years. I don't understand why this makes him so valuable.

Also, comparing Erstad to Dye is laughable. Check the statistics.

Who was comparing statistics? Nobody, they were pointing out the fact that you are thinking the guy is too injured-riddled to be part of the team. Fact is, the same people I see saying this are the same people who said this about JD and Jim Thome. That's why they play the damn game. Screw the OPS and any of propellerhead crap. I'll wait and see what the guy can do for the Sox during the games before I grab my torch and pitchfork and head off to the Cell.

Flight #24
02-27-2007, 04:28 PM
Quanitfying Erstad's intangibles is impossible, and there's no reason to believe that they are enough to overcome his lack of production.
Experience- That's great and all, but we are a very veteran team already. It's certainly not a need for us.
Leadership- I don't care. We have Mark, Paul, A.J. i.e. plenty of leaders. And do you know what? They have been pretty productive over the course of their careers.
Grinder Mentality- He's such a grinder that he gets hurt almost every season. J.D. Drew (everyone's villain) has played more over the last few years. I don't understand why this makes him so valuable.
Gold Gloves- We have arguably the best defensive CF in MLB on the roster. I understand having a good defensive CF on the bench, but I wish KW would tell Ozzie that Erstad is only to be used as a late inning replacement. The guy can't hit.

Again, what in Erstad's recent track record makes you believe he will be significantly better than BA over the course of a season?


I don't believe that they signed Erstad to be a fulltime player. He's a part-time guy who can a)platoon with Ozuna while Pods is out, b)platoon with Anderson if he struggles, c)be an actual 4th OF, and d)be a bench guy to execute in the late innings.

All of these are things he does very well. He plays very good to excellent D. And as long as he's not playing too many ABs, it seems likely that he'll be able to post a solid OPS. His first halves tend to be solid, which combined with his injury history make me believe he gets worn down - ideal for a guy who you want to plug in as a part-time replacement and then play occasionally.

If they had signed him to play all year, I'd agree with you. But a guy who can execute and who you're pretty sure will be solid as a part-time starter and who's signed at a cheap price is bad again how?

And FWLIW, the reason people hate JD Drew isn't that he's injured a lot, it's that he's injured a lot AND is a tool. The holdout from Philly, the opt-out/potential tampering in LA, etc being the primary evidence.

Craig Grebeck
02-27-2007, 04:52 PM
I agree 24, he's fine as a reserve. But there have been hints he may have the job in hand. That and the fact that Ozzie doesn't seem so keen on BA.

Hitmen77
02-27-2007, 05:05 PM
I agree 24, he's fine as a reserve. But there have been hints he may have the job in hand. That and the fact that Ozzie doesn't seem so keen on BA.

How is this a "fact"? Do you have a direct quote or did you speak to Ozzie directly? In fact, the quote from Ozzie in today's Sun-Times contradicts what you are saying.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/274090,CST-SPT-sox27.article

"Brian is part of our ballclub. The way I talk about Brian [this offseason], people think he's automatically off the team. But I want him to play good and play the way we know he can play. We take a lot of heat because of him last year, but he knows I'm behind him 100 percent."

caulfield12
02-27-2007, 05:45 PM
I don't believe that they signed Erstad to be a fulltime player. He's a part-time guy who can a)platoon with Ozuna while Pods is out, b)platoon with Anderson if he struggles, c)be an actual 4th OF, and d)be a bench guy to execute in the late innings.

All of these are things he does very well. He plays very good to excellent D. And as long as he's not playing too many ABs, it seems likely that he'll be able to post a solid OPS. His first halves tend to be solid, which combined with his injury history make me believe he gets worn down - ideal for a guy who you want to plug in as a part-time replacement and then play occasionally.

If they had signed him to play all year, I'd agree with you. But a guy who can execute and who you're pretty sure will be solid as a part-time starter and who's signed at a cheap price is bad again how?

And FWLIW, the reason people hate JD Drew isn't that he's injured a lot, it's that he's injured a lot AND is a tool. The holdout from Philly, the opt-out/potential tampering in LA, etc being the primary evidence.


Don't forget LaRussa trashing him in Three Nights in August.

JB98
02-27-2007, 06:01 PM
I agree 24, he's fine as a reserve. But there have been hints he may have the job in hand. That and the fact that Ozzie doesn't seem so keen on BA.

Well, no ****. BA hit .225 last year. A lot of people aren't keen on BA. That's why Erstad was brought in, to compete with BA, to force BA to work harder and to provide the club with a fallback option in case BA faceplants again.

Quite a few WSIers seem predisposed to thinking Ozzie has a personnel vendetta against BA. I don't think that's the case. The bottom line is BA has not performed anywhere near his potential, and that's why the manager is on his ass.

As I've said earlier, the best thing for all involved is for BA to play well and win the job. Everyone knows Anderson's upside is greater than Erstad's at this stage of Darin's career. That's not the issue at hand.