PDA

View Full Version : Brian Anderson injured


sox1970
05-21-2007, 08:15 PM
BA left tonight's game in the 4th inning due to an "injured neck/shoulder".

champagne030
05-21-2007, 08:24 PM
BA left tonight's game in the 4th inning due to a "injured neck/shoulder".

He was probably drunk and in the process of beating up an old lady and her great grandchild.

Seriously, hope it's minor.

UserNameBlank
05-21-2007, 09:02 PM
Get well soon, you puppy killing ***hole.

ondafarm
05-22-2007, 09:01 AM
Get well soon, you puppy killing ***hole.

POTW, IMHO.

soxfanatlanta
05-22-2007, 09:07 AM
He was probably drunk and in the process of beating up an old lady and her great grandchild.

Yeah, and she hit back. :tongue:

Get well soon.

ondafarm
05-25-2007, 04:46 PM
Yeah, and she hit back. :tongue:

Get well soon.

With her walking cane.

eriqjaffe
05-25-2007, 05:12 PM
He was probably drunk and in the process of striking out while attempting to beat up an old lady and her great grandchild.I, too, hope it's not serious.

Heck, I hope it causes him to make some magical adjustment to his swing that turns him into the next Ted Williams!

JorgeFabregas
05-25-2007, 05:13 PM
Well he's 2-4 with a double, a homerun, and 3 rbi since the injury so you may have something there. :tongue:

sox1970
06-22-2007, 10:24 PM
Satan got hurt again tonight while making a play.

CLR01
06-23-2007, 12:23 AM
Satan got hurt again tonight while making a play.

Satan and Ersty are the same person? Freaky :o:

jongarlandlover
06-23-2007, 12:55 AM
Satan got hurt again tonight while making a play.

Ugghhh. Any details?

Hitmen77
06-25-2007, 10:39 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070625soxanderson,1,4695984.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines

Here's some more info on Beelzebub's injuries. His most recent one was a concussion, but the earlier one was "rotator cuff tendonitis". Ouch. Does anyone know if that could require surgery?

Randar68
06-25-2007, 11:28 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070625soxanderson,1,4695984.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines

Here's some more info on Beelzebub's injuries. His most recent one was a concussion, but the earlier one was "rotator cuff tendonitis". Ouch. Does anyone know if that could require surgery?

Rest, no surgery. This is the type of thing that makes all those "well he's hitting .250 in AAA, how could he have helped us" jerks on the big board look moronic.

It's time to trade/waive guys like Mackowiak and bring up Sweeney and Anderson, even if he's hurt. These lifeless veterans are killing us.

UserNameBlank
06-25-2007, 11:41 AM
Rest, no surgery. This is the type of thing that makes all those "well he's hitting .250 in AAA, how could he have helped us" jerks on the big board look moronic.

It's time to trade/waive guys like Mackowiak and bring up Sweeney and Anderson, even if he's hurt. These lifeless veterans are killing us.
I'd agree usually but if he's hurt he shouldn't be playing anywhere. When he's healthy he should definitely be up with the big club though. Sweeney should be here now IMO. Podstad Grindowhack isn't going to do us any good. I don't think Owens should be up though. A post-Dye OF of Sweeney-Anderson-Terrero would work for me unless someone else worth a damn is brought in.

JorgeFabregas
06-25-2007, 01:27 PM
So he concussed himself trying to make a diving catch. Does that mean he's a grinder?

nug0hs
06-25-2007, 01:41 PM
So he concussed himself trying to make a diving catch. Does that mean he's a grinder? I definitely think that makes him qualify.

oeo
06-25-2007, 01:48 PM
Rest, no surgery. This is the type of thing that makes all those "well he's hitting .250 in AAA, how could he have helped us" jerks on the big board look moronic.

Yep, since he was tearing the cover off the ball before that injury. :rolleyes:

Randar68
06-25-2007, 03:02 PM
Yep, since he was tearing the cover off the ball before that injury. :rolleyes:


Yeah, in the 2 weeks he played after sitting for over a month... :rolleyes:

What is your deal, anyway? Satan slept with your girlfriend?

oeo
06-25-2007, 03:07 PM
Yeah, in the 2 weeks he played after sitting for over a month... :rolleyes:

Again, he went something like 0-7 after being sent down, then heated up in the next 4-5 games. Then he went downhill.

What is your deal, anyway? Satan slept with your girlfriend?My problem is everyone saying Ozzie ruined his career, when the guy can't even prove he belongs on the major league roster. I think he's a complete dud. If he gets behind, it's pretty much an out; if he runs into a RHP, that's an out; put him in an RBI situation...can't do it; still haven't seen him not jump out of the way of an inside strike. The list goes on and on with this guy, how's he going to start everyday?

Flight #24
06-25-2007, 03:27 PM
My problem is everyone saying Ozzie ruined his career, when the guy can't even prove he belongs on the major league roster. I think he's a complete dud. If he gets behind, it's pretty much an out; if he runs into a RHP, that's an out; put him in an RBI situation...can't do it; still haven't seen him not jump out of the way of an inside strike. The list goes on and on with this guy, how's he going to start everyday?

Do you agree that it's tough to perform when you're in & out of the lineup, especially as a rookie? How about that it's difficult to make the jump to the bigs and there's often an adjustment period?

Because Anderson's rookie year supports both of those statements. Slow start. Then he adjusted and hit well for 2 months. Then he started playing intermittently and slumped (coincidentally). Then he was publicly called out by his manager repeatedly and didn't get to play consistently in ST (48 ABs as compared to 73 for Erstad, who obviously needed the ABs to try and get his act together against major league pitching.)

Once a guy has struggled and come through it - why not, I don't know, maximize his chances of success by continuing to play him regularly? I know it sounds crazy, but sometimes routines and confidence actually help a young player focus on key things and perform.

Whether Ozzie has ruined him or not, he certainly doesn't seem to have helped him any, which has an impact on the kid in terms of his performance. And I'm a lot more inclined to put weight on his 100s of ABs in AAA in 2005 than the ones this year given the issues with Ozzie/confidence and the injuries. How he finishes the year will tell the tale. But I really don't anticipate him coming back to the bigs, Ozzie won't give him that chance.

spiffie
06-25-2007, 05:34 PM
Because Anderson's rookie year supports both of those statements. Slow start. Then he adjusted and hit well for 2 months. Then he started playing intermittently and slumped (coincidentally).
On August 31, 2006, Anderson reached his highest battest average since early April when he got up to .233. After that game the Sox played 30 more games, of which Anderson started 20 (66.7%). For reference sake in July he started 17 games out of 25 (68%), August he started in 21 out of 29 (72.4%). There's no significant difference in his playing time, but his average was 100 points lower in Sept. than in August. So shall we assume the problem is that it isn't fair to judge him based on his early at-bats in 2006 since he wasn't adjusted, and that he was tired in September so those shouldn't be thought about either?

Tragg
06-25-2007, 05:45 PM
Anderson was a rookie.

This staff has given veteran professional hackers with zero upside 5 times the patience they gave rookie Anderson (or Sweeney for that matter). Hell, the vets still get the playing time in this 5/27 slide in which we can't score squat.

Young people party and drink. Young people do stupid things now and then. If marginalizing them when they do something stupid is your method of handling young people, then you won't be successful at it.

nodiggity59
06-25-2007, 05:54 PM
BA has no one to blame but himself for his troubles. He still played in like 80% of their games last year, maybe 65% starts. He didn't get the job done. Thus, he's been moved to the back of the line. I don't see anything unusual about that.

UserNameBlank
06-25-2007, 10:36 PM
BA has no one to blame but himself for his troubles. He still played in like 80% of their games last year, maybe 65% starts. He didn't get the job done. Thus, he's been moved to the back of the line. I don't see anything unusual about that.
What did you expect? His hitting coach said Brian had problems with his swing but he didn't want to fix them. His GM said publicly that he just wanted defense and any offense from him would be a bonus. He was a rookie who wasn't going to get any help and supposedly wasn't going to be called out repeatedly for his failures.

IMO, BA gets crucified here mainly because he was replacing the great Almighty Lord of All Things Centerfield, Aaron Rowand. Oh, God forbid ANY mortal man try and play a position only meant for a walking deity... I think some people conveniently forgot how much Rowand sucked for us offensively in 2005, especially when we needed him to step up in games down the stretch.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Anderson's .230 average or whatever it was in 2006 was like reason #4569 that we didn't win the division in '06. CF is a defensive position, as is SS, but unlike Uribe Brian was never prone to brief naps during a ballgame. He was our best CF option in 2006, he was our best CF option in ST, and when he's healthy he'll be our best CF option later on this year.

All that said, Brian still beats up innocent children and steals their lunch money so he's an ***hole.

spiffie
06-26-2007, 01:15 AM
I said it before and I'll say it again. Anderson's .230 average or whatever it was in 2006 was like reason #4569 that we didn't win the division in '06. CF is a defensive position, as is SS, but unlike Uribe Brian was never prone to brief naps during a ballgame. He was our best CF option in 2006, he was our best CF option in ST, and when he's healthy he'll be our best CF option later on this year.
Problem is that CF is no longer just a place where teams stick a guy with a good glove and hope he gives them a few doubles and maybe some stolen bases. Among AL CF's last year with 300+ AB's only three of them had an OPS within 100 points of Anderson's. Out of 16 qualified guys, the middle guy, #8 in the bunch, had an OPS of 810. The #9 guy was Ichiro, who makes up for the low slugging with a 370 OBP. Anderson's was 649. Maybe in the NL you can get by with a good glove but no stick guy, but I don't think in the AL you have that kind of luxury anymore. The idea that you can get by without some sort of solid production 1-9 seems like one that has passed. That's not to say Anderson can't ever provide the necessary plate production to meet that standard, but that last year, while not the main culprit by any means, he was a contributing factor to the team not quite making it back to the playoffs.

UserNameBlank
06-26-2007, 01:22 AM
Problem is that CF is no longer just a place where teams stick a guy with a good glove and hope he gives them a few doubles and maybe some stolen bases. Among AL CF's last year with 300+ AB's only three of them had an OPS within 100 points of Anderson's. Out of 16 qualified guys, the middle guy, #8 in the bunch, had an OPS of 810. The #9 guy was Ichiro, who makes up for the low slugging with a 370 OBP. Anderson's was 649. Maybe in the NL you can get by with a good glove but no stick guy, but I don't think in the AL you have that kind of luxury anymore. The idea that you can get by without some sort of solid production 1-9 seems like one that has passed. That's not to say Anderson can't ever provide the necessary plate production to meet that standard, but that last year, while not the main culprit by any means, he was a contributing factor to the team not quite making it back to the playoffs.
We got by with him in 2006. Our pitching and lack of fundamentals got us.

Whether or not a team needs offense from it's CF all depends on how the team is constructed. The Sox, at least normally, have an offense that doesn't need to rely on a CF for production.

Everyone was a contributing factor. There were times when even PK, Thome, and Dye ****ed up and didn't bring key runners home in key situations. Anderson is pretty far down on the list though. Our pitching - starting and bullpen both - really let us down and IMO was the difference between 90 wins and 100 or more wins. That 2006 team was the most talented baseball team I've seen in a long time, certainly the most talented Sox team I've ever seen.

Nellie_Fox
06-26-2007, 01:48 AM
Young people party and drink. Young people do stupid things now and then. If marginalizing them when they do something stupid is your method of handling young people, then you won't be successful at it.Let's just say, hypothetically (since neither you nor I know what happened or how it was handled or what unsuccessful attempts were made to change his behavior) that "a young person" is spoken to on numerous occasions about drinking and partying, but said "young person" ignores you and continues to behave as he/she sees fit. What do you do then? Do you just decide to live with it, or do you take more drastic steps to try to get his/her attention?

This is, of course, a discussion of a generic, hypothetical young person, not any individual, since neither you nor I know what really happened in this instance.

Grzegorz
06-26-2007, 05:44 AM
Let's just say, hypothetically (since neither you nor I know what happened or how it was handled or what unsuccessful attempts were made to change his behavior) that "a young person" is spoken to on numerous occasions about drinking and partying, but said "young person" ignores you and continues to behave as he/she sees fit. What do you do then? Do you just decide to live with it, or do you take more drastic steps to try to get his/her attention?

This is, of course, a discussion of a generic, hypothetical young person, not any individual, since neither you nor I know what really happened in this instance.

Hypothetically, you'd discipline that individual. As well as any other individual that is seen as being a negative factor in the clubhouse even if that person is a relative.

Hypothetically...

Frater Perdurabo
06-26-2007, 08:27 AM
IMO, BA gets crucified here mainly because he was replacing the great Almighty Lord of All Things Centerfield, Aaron Rowand. Oh, God forbid ANY mortal man try and play a position only meant for a walking deity...

Nailed it.

Jaffar
06-26-2007, 09:31 AM
Problem is that CF is no longer just a place where teams stick a guy with a good glove and hope he gives them a few doubles and maybe some stolen bases. Among AL CF's last year with 300+ AB's only three of them had an OPS within 100 points of Anderson's. Out of 16 qualified guys, the middle guy, #8 in the bunch, had an OPS of 810. The #9 guy was Ichiro, who makes up for the low slugging with a 370 OBP. Anderson's was 649. Maybe in the NL you can get by with a good glove but no stick guy, but I don't think in the AL you have that kind of luxury anymore. The idea that you can get by without some sort of solid production 1-9 seems like one that has passed. That's not to say Anderson can't ever provide the necessary plate production to meet that standard, but that last year, while not the main culprit by any means, he was a contributing factor to the team not quite making it back to the playoffs.

2007 to date
Erstad .652 OPS .311 OBP (spring .711 OPS)
Terrero .790 OPS .353 OBP (spring .734 OPS)
Owens .422 OPS
Sweeney .599 OPS
Andersons Spring - .855 OPS

I guess Erstad was the right man for the job out of spring training.

Randar68
06-26-2007, 10:29 AM
Let's just say, hypothetically (since neither you nor I know what happened or how it was handled or what unsuccessful attempts were made to change his behavior) that "a young person" is spoken to on numerous occasions about drinking and partying, but said "young person" ignores you and continues to behave as he/she sees fit. What do you do then? Do you just decide to live with it, or do you take more drastic steps to try to get his/her attention?

This is, of course, a discussion of a generic, hypothetical young person, not any individual, since neither you nor I know what really happened in this instance.

People have to make their own choices in life. "Does it affect his ability to perform his/her job" is all that matters in the end.

Anderson is a "free spirit" as some might say. I know of some of his shenanegans both in Chicago and where he lives in San Diego. However, he is still the best option for CF on this team, has been sincle the All-Star break last year. Instead he get's jerked around like the no-hit no-talent veterans ought to be. Instead, Mack, Tererro, Uribe, Erstad, etc, get all kinds of slack and patience and the "learning on the job" youngster gets roasted repeatedly by the manager.

:rolleyes:

Again, the argument really isn't "Anderson is going to be a superstar, just you watch". The point is that he's the best defensive CF we have, and he EARNED the CF job in spring training, only to watch Ozzie let him rot on the bench throughout April, even after Pods had gone down, Ozzie insisted on playing Mackowiak.

It's simply becoming more and more clear that Ozzie does not have the patience to develop young players, period. He has been veteran-oriented since he arrived, and the way he has brought young players along has been lacking, to be kind.

Randar68
06-26-2007, 10:30 AM
Hypothetically, you'd discipline that individual. As well as any other individual that is seen as being a negative factor in the clubhouse even if that person is a relative.

Hypothetically...


Hit the nail on the head.

Anderson was well-liked in the clubhouse from everything I have heard... kept the guys loose, always into the game... unlike pretty much everyone in the clubhouse for the past month.

balke
06-26-2007, 10:58 AM
Hit the nail on the head.

Anderson was well-liked in the clubhouse from everything I have heard... kept the guys loose, always into the game... unlike pretty much everyone in the clubhouse for the past month.

Look how they've been playing since he left the team. W/ Anderson in the lineup the Sox were like .640 last season! :tongue:

Right now I'd like Anderson not to get caught up in all of this for like another week or two. Let him get over his injury, call him up after the all-star break. At that point I think he's not too young anymore, and he's not going to need groomed at all or anything of the sort. If not him, then Sweeney.

The writing is on the wall with Terrero. Its been 10 games without an extra base hit. 4 singles, and he's back to his career norm of .225. The defense isn't special. I'm ready for Anderson to be our Rowand. Sent down, injured, comes up and sparks the team with D. Let the kid play.

Jaffar
06-26-2007, 11:12 AM
I would Like to Anderson and Sweeney BOTH in the outfield at some point this season with a nice run of CONSECUTIVE starts and see what they do to help decide where we go for next year.

duke of dorwood
06-26-2007, 11:56 AM
I have started to agree here-the outfielders Terrero & Gonzalez are hitting probably less than BA would with the extended, regular play they have got. Its time KW explains this to the manager. The thought about the manager & young players makes the manager almost sound like Dusty Baker

Tragg
06-26-2007, 11:59 AM
Let's just say, hypothetically (since neither you nor I know what happened or how it was handled or what unsuccessful attempts were made to change his behavior) that "a young person" is spoken to on numerous occasions about drinking and partying, but said "young person" ignores you and continues to behave as he/she sees fit. What do you do then? Do you just decide to live with it, or do you take more drastic steps to try to get his/her attention?
There's a large middle between living with and accepting immature behavior and ostracizing and evicting anyone who engages in it.

Randar68
06-26-2007, 12:24 PM
There's a large middle between living with and accepting immature behavior and ostracizing and evicting anyone who engages in it.

Would immature behavior include running a motocross bike off a 20-foot cliff?

I'd also like some clarity on what quantifies "immature" here since some people seem to have a clear definition in their own minds that I would like to understand.

California Sox
06-26-2007, 12:45 PM
Did Anderson's "immaturity" take anyone by surprise? If his emotional level is a deal-breaker then why did KW trade BOTH Rowand and CYoung? Do they know their own players? Seems odd. I hope this is just about performance because if it's not, it points to something wrong with our management.

spiffie
06-26-2007, 12:58 PM
People have to make their own choices in life. "Does it affect his ability to perform his/her job" is all that matters in the end.

Anderson is a "free spirit" as some might say. I know of some of his shenanegans both in Chicago and where he lives in San Diego. However, he is still the best option for CF on this team, has been sincle the All-Star break last year. Instead he get's jerked around like the no-hit no-talent veterans ought to be. Instead, Mack, Tererro, Uribe, Erstad, etc, get all kinds of slack and patience and the "learning on the job" youngster gets roasted repeatedly by the manager.

:rolleyes:

Again, the argument really isn't "Anderson is going to be a superstar, just you watch". The point is that he's the best defensive CF we have, and he EARNED the CF job in spring training, only to watch Ozzie let him rot on the bench throughout April, even after Pods had gone down, Ozzie insisted on playing Mackowiak.

It's simply becoming more and more clear that Ozzie does not have the patience to develop young players, period. He has been veteran-oriented since he arrived, and the way he has brought young players along has been lacking, to be kind.
I have a question about when exactly a guy becomes a "no-talent veteran" Going into this season we had two players in our system with the following lines:

Player 1: 26 years old on opening day. 434 major league AB's with a line of 235/311/350/661. 1,016 AAA AB's with a line of 301/343/479/822 and decent speed as seen in his 35 SB/162 games.

Player 2: 25 years old on opening day. 399 major league AB's with a line of 221/281/361/642. 448 AAA AB's with a line of 295/360/469/829. Very solid glove.

While I might disagree about the usefulness of Erstad getting a spot, I wonder how it is that going into this season one of these players is seen as a prospect who should be given as much time and room to grow at his own pace as possible, while the other one is somehow useless and a "no-talent vet." Is it the extra 35 AB's at the major league level? The extra year older? Earlier in this thread Flight#24 said he was inclined to give more weight to the hundreds of AB's in AAA for Anderson. Why does that not apply to Terrero as well? Is it because we are familiar with Anderson's situation and the supposed slights and injustices perpetrated on him by Ozzie, while Terrero is just a castoff from another organization? I guess I'm just not sure why the perception gap between these two is enormous in terms of potential, when they've both shown the exact same thing basically so far.

Jaffar
06-26-2007, 01:17 PM
I have a question about when exactly a guy becomes a "no-talent veteran" Going into this season we had two players in our system with the following lines:

Player 1: 26 years old on opening day. 434 major league AB's with a line of 235/311/350/661. 1,016 AAA AB's with a line of 301/343/479/822 and decent speed as seen in his 35 SB/162 games.

Player 2: 25 years old on opening day. 399 major league AB's with a line of 221/281/361/642. 448 AAA AB's with a line of 295/360/469/829. Very solid glove.

While I might disagree about the usefulness of Erstad getting a spot, I wonder how it is that going into this season one of these players is seen as a prospect who should be given as much time and room to grow at his own pace as possible, while the other one is somehow useless and a "no-talent vet." Is it the extra 35 AB's at the major league level? The extra year older? Earlier in this thread Flight#24 said he was inclined to give more weight to the hundreds of AB's in AAA for Anderson. Why does that not apply to Terrero as well? Is it because we are familiar with Anderson's situation and the supposed slights and injustices perpetrated on him by Ozzie, while Terrero is just a castoff from another organization? I guess I'm just not sure why the perception gap between these two is enormous in terms of potential, when they've both shown the exact same thing basically so far.

I see what you are saying but I think that is the hole in your argument.

oeo
06-26-2007, 01:27 PM
Do you agree that it's tough to perform when you're in & out of the lineup, especially as a rookie? How about that it's difficult to make the jump to the bigs and there's often an adjustment period?

Because Anderson's rookie year supports both of those statements. Slow start. Then he adjusted and hit well for 2 months. Then he started playing intermittently and slumped (coincidentally). Then he was publicly called out by his manager repeatedly and didn't get to play consistently in ST (48 ABs as compared to 73 for Erstad, who obviously needed the ABs to try and get his act together against major league pitching.)

Once a guy has struggled and come through it - why not, I don't know, maximize his chances of success by continuing to play him regularly? I know it sounds crazy, but sometimes routines and confidence actually help a young player focus on key things and perform.

Whether Ozzie has ruined him or not, he certainly doesn't seem to have helped him any, which has an impact on the kid in terms of his performance. And I'm a lot more inclined to put weight on his 100s of ABs in AAA in 2005 than the ones this year given the issues with Ozzie/confidence and the injuries. How he finishes the year will tell the tale. But I really don't anticipate him coming back to the bigs, Ozzie won't give him that chance.

This isn't about his rookie year. It's about his eerily similar Spring Training to last year, and it's about his current stats in AAA. The fact of the matter is, no matter how good his average was in Spring Training this year, he still had the the same problems that plagued him all of 2006. He didn't change...he just had another good Spring; kind of like Boone Logan. What he should have done, is started the year at AAA...if he did well, then bring him up.

spiffie
06-26-2007, 01:28 PM
I have a question about when exactly a guy becomes a "no-talent veteran" Going into this season we had two players in our system with the following lines:

Player 1: 26 years old on opening day. 434 major league AB's with a line of 235/311/350/661. 1,016 AAA AB's with a line of 301/343/479/822 and decent speed as seen in his 35 SB/162 games.

Player 2: 25 years old on opening day. 399 major league AB's with a line of 221/281/361/642. 448 AAA AB's with a line of 295/360/469/829. Very solid glove.

While I might disagree about the usefulness of Erstad getting a spot, I wonder how it is that going into this season one of these players is seen as a prospect who should be given as much time and room to grow at his own pace as possible, while the other one is somehow useless and a "no-talent vet." Is it the extra 35 AB's at the major league level? The extra year older? Earlier in this thread Flight#24 said he was inclined to give more weight to the hundreds of AB's in AAA for Anderson. Why does that not apply to Terrero as well? Is it because we are familiar with Anderson's situation and the supposed slights and injustices perpetrated on him by Ozzie, while Terrero is just a castoff from another organization? I guess I'm just not sure why the perception gap between these two is enormous in terms of potential, when they've both shown the exact same thing basically so far.

I see what you are saying but I think that is the hole in your argument.

Perhaps. But for comparison's sake:
Terrero: 2520 AB's (1,016 AAA)
Crede: 2761 AB's (822 AAA)

Randar68
06-26-2007, 01:29 PM
Did Anderson's "immaturity" take anyone by surprise? If his emotional level is a deal-breaker then why did KW trade BOTH Rowand and CYoung? Do they know their own players? Seems odd. I hope this is just about performance because if it's not, it points to something wrong with our management.

I think it's a disconnect between Ozzie and Kenny, frankly.

rdivaldi
06-26-2007, 01:37 PM
I think it's a disconnect between Ozzie and Kenny, frankly.

Really? I've always gotten the impression that the entire major league coaching staff and KW are almost always on the same page.

I think the Young and Rowand trades occured because KW really wanted Thome and Vazquez and the Phillies and D'Backs knew what everyone else knew. Anderson is an inferior talent to Young and had not proven he could hit at the major league level like Rowand.

I think last year KW thought at least one of his young outfielders plus Mack could put up similar numbers to Rowand's in 2005. He was wrong.

Randar68
06-26-2007, 01:39 PM
Perhaps. But for comparison's sake:
Terrero: 2520 AB's (1,016 AAA)
Crede: 2761 AB's (822 AAA)

Anderson went from his first pro season to the opening day MLB starter in 2 years.

Coming into this year:

Terrero had 2520 AB's over the course of 9 minor league seasons and 434 in the majors. Anderson had 936 AB's in 2 seasons and went right to the majors, where he had 399 more.

Luis has had 2x as many professional AB's as Anderson. Anderson was learning on the job last year because of this. To turn around and not give him the everyday spot after earning it in the spring and taking his lumps last year, in lieu of mediocre veterans, is insane, IMO.

Randar68
06-26-2007, 01:42 PM
Really? I've always gotten the impression that the entire major league coaching staff and KW are almost always on the same page.

I think the disconnect does not exist in terms of "what is wanted", rather, "what is needed".

If you're going to commit to playing young player(s), you must commit. Ozzie only seems committed as long as some kid hits .300 out of the gate, otherwise it's back to Mackowiak's .230 average and mediocre defense... for what?

Ozzie was already ragging on Fields after about a week. What other options did he have and he already wanted to bench the kid. I just don't think Ozzie is committed to developing the young players and will stick with the veteran 9/10 times, even if there is an obvious disparity in talent or potential.

Tragg
06-26-2007, 02:20 PM
Would immature behavior include running a motocross bike off a 20-foot cliff?

I'd also like some clarity on what quantifies "immature" here since some people seem to have a clear definition in their own minds that I would like to understand.
Not clear - just stupid stuff is what I meant. My definition isn't clear by any means.

I distiguish it from criminal behavior, which is not unknown of professional athletes....criminal behavior deserves to be ostracized.

Anyway, I agree with your comments on Anderson and young players in general.

southside rocks
06-26-2007, 02:21 PM
Ozzie was already ragging on Fields after about a week. What other options did he have and he already wanted to bench the kid. I just don't think Ozzie is committed to developing the young players and will stick with the veteran 9/10 times, even if there is an obvious disparity in talent or potential.

Where did Ozzie say that? I missed it. All I saw was Ozzie saying that if Fields (who wasn't hitting well at that point) continued to struggle, Ozzie might spell him at third base with someone else.

I didn't read that as Ozzie "wanting to bench the kid" nor did I see it as Ozzie "ragging on Fields" -- but maybe you are referring to info that I did not see.

I actually thought that Ozzie was saying that he didn't want Fields to become discouraged by continued lack of hitting and would give him breaks if that happened. Sometimes spending a game sitting on the bench with the manager and coaches can be quite valuable to a young player.

Tragg
06-26-2007, 03:01 PM
Where did Ozzie say that? I missed it. All I saw was Ozzie saying that if Fields (who wasn't hitting well at that point) continued to struggle, Ozzie might spell him at third base with someone else.


To me that's ragging. When has he said that about a vet? Not to bring up a touchy subject, but when ERstad was hitting .167, Ozzie was lauding him saying how valuable he was for this or that reason, regardless of his batting average. A rookie, 3 games into his career, gets the "ya better hit" treatment.

Boondock Saint
06-26-2007, 05:23 PM
To me that's ragging. When has he said that about a vet? Not to bring up a touchy subject, but when ERstad was hitting .167, Ozzie was lauding him saying how valuable he was for this or that reason, regardless of his batting average. A rookie, 3 games into his career, gets the "ya better hit" treatment.

I think it's a different situation when it comes to veterans. You know that a guy like Erstad will come around, while you're left wondering if a rookie like Fields is capable of hitting in the majors.

balke
06-26-2007, 06:29 PM
I think it's a different situation when it comes to veterans. You know that a guy like Erstad will come around, while you're left wondering if a rookie like Fields is capable of hitting in the majors.

You also know a guy like Erstad will only play part of the season healthy and the rest nursing injuries or on the DL or IR.

Daver
06-26-2007, 06:31 PM
I think it's a different situation when it comes to veterans. You know that a guy like Erstad will come around, while you're left wondering if a rookie like Fields is capable of hitting in the majors.


How do you find out if you are not allowed to face MLB pitching for 400 AB's?

Boondock Saint
06-26-2007, 07:08 PM
How do you find out if you are not allowed to face MLB pitching for 400 AB's?

I agree with you, but all I'm saying is that it's a different situation with a rookie than it is with a proven veteran. There's a degree of certainty with vets as far as production/playing time is concerned, while you're still unsure what you have with rookies.

Randar68
06-27-2007, 12:02 AM
I agree with you, but all I'm saying is that it's a different situation with a rookie than it is with a proven veteran. There's a degree of certainty with vets as far as production/playing time is concerned, while you're still unsure what you have with rookies.

Yes, we know Mackowiak is at best a .250 hitter with little to no power as an everyday player. Thank God for certainty with a ceiling like that!

We also know Uribe is a streaky hitter who is another .250 hitter with sporadic power.

Nellie_Fox
06-27-2007, 01:10 AM
Thank God for certainty with a ceiling like that!:tealpolice:
:tealtutor:
Randar, you've been around for too long to need these.

Down two, over five.

BoysMom3
06-28-2007, 09:15 AM
People have to make their own choices in life. "Does it affect his ability to perform his/her job" is all that matters in the end.

Anderson is a "free spirit" as some might say. I know of some of his shenanegans both in Chicago and where he lives in San Diego. However, he is still the best option for CF on this team, has been sincle the All-Star break last year. Instead he get's jerked around like the no-hit no-talent veterans ought to be. Instead, Mack, Tererro, Uribe, Erstad, etc, get all kinds of slack and patience and the "learning on the job" youngster gets roasted repeatedly by the manager.

:rolleyes:

Again, the argument really isn't "Anderson is going to be a superstar, just you watch". The point is that he's the best defensive CF we have, and he EARNED the CF job in spring training, only to watch Ozzie let him rot on the bench throughout April, even after Pods had gone down, Ozzie insisted on playing Mackowiak.

It's simply becoming more and more clear that Ozzie does not have the patience to develop young players, period. He has been veteran-oriented since he arrived, and the way he has brought young players along has been lacking, to be kind.

What are some of these said shenanigans in Chicago and San Diego? Do tell!!

Randar68
06-28-2007, 05:54 PM
What are some of these said shenanigans in Chicago and San Diego? Do tell!!

No chance...

BoysMom3
06-28-2007, 06:42 PM
No chance...

Awww, no fun. Hey, he's one of my favorite players, and he's my baseball boyfriend. :tongue: