PDA

View Full Version : Fields on a very short leash, apparently


JRIG
06-13-2007, 02:16 AM
From the "You've Got To Be ****ing Kidding Me" department:

It’s official that Joe Crede is done for the year. The Sox announced that on Tuesday.
So, now the question is: who’s going to play third? The logical answer says Josh Fields, but Ozzie wasn’t so sure.
The manager said after Tuesday’s loss that he’ll take a long look at Andy Gonzalez there if Fields is struggling, and I think he could even move Mackowiak there when Podsednik and Erstad are healthy.
http://blogs.dailysouthtown.com/whalen/2007/06/crede_done_fields_not_a_given.html

Fields has put up OBPs of .380 and .390 at AAA and slugged about .500 both years. It's his time. You've got to give him the opportunity to play every freaking day. Otherwise it's much tougher to evaluate what to do with Crede after the season if you're still not sure if Fields can make it on the ML level. I don't know, maybe he's just not a grinder.

oeo
06-13-2007, 02:18 AM
From the "You've Got To Be ****ing Kidding Me" department:

http://blogs.dailysouthtown.com/whalen/2007/06/crede_done_fields_not_a_given.html

Fields has put up OBPs of .380 and .390 at AAA and slugged about .500 both years. It's his time. You've got to give him the opportunity to play every freaking day. Otherwise it's much tougher to evaluate what to do with Crede after the season if you're still not sure if Fields can make it on the ML level. I don't know, maybe he's just not a grinder.

Andy ****ing Gonzalez?

Fields is the only guy I want to see play right now. Once he was taken out tonight, I didn't even want to watch anymore. Play the guy, Ozzie, we're finished.

I'm hoping this is just to get Fields to kick it up a notch.

MRM
06-13-2007, 02:21 AM
From the "You've Got To Be ****ing Kidding Me" department:

http://blogs.dailysouthtown.com/whalen/2007/06/crede_done_fields_not_a_given.html

Fields has put up OBPs of .380 and .390 at AAA and slugged about .500 both years. It's his time. You've got to give him the opportunity to play every freaking day. Otherwise it's much tougher to evaluate what to do with Crede after the season if you're still not sure if Fields can make it on the ML level. I don't know, maybe he's just not a grinder.

It won't take long to determine if Fields is ready. You don't just leave him there if he's not. I don't get what your problem is with what Ozzie said?

If he can't handle it and he gets left out there we'll be hearing about how Ozzie mis-used yet another superstar in waiting the same way he did with Anderson.

oeo
06-13-2007, 02:23 AM
It won't take long to determine if Fields is ready. You don't just leave him there if he's not. I don't get what your problem is with what Ozzie said?

If he can't handle it and he gets left out there we'll be hearing about how Ozzie mis-used yet another superstar in waiting the same way he did with Anderson.

Andy Gonzalez is our answer? We don't have anyone to play 3B, our season is all but finished...let Fields learn on the job, it'll end up paying off. Totally different situation than the one Anderson was in. Think of this as letting Crede and Rowand mature.

MRM
06-13-2007, 02:28 AM
Andy ****ing Gonzalez?

Fields is the only guy I want to see play right now. Once he was taken out tonight, I didn't even want to watch anymore. Play the guy, Ozzie, we're finished.

I'm hoping this is just to get Fields to kick it up a notch.

I dont' care if they go 62-100 you don't just keep sticking the kid out there if he's failing. That's definately not fair to the rest of the team. Let alone the kid, himself.

You all can have the "seasons over" attitude all you like, but I GUARANTEE Ozzie and the team are FAR from throwing in the towel. It's not time to "see what he can do". It's time to see if he can produce, if he can't get the hell outta the way for someone who can. That should ALWAYS be the attitude no matter the record.

ZombieRob
06-13-2007, 02:28 AM
Seems Ozzaroo really doesn't seem to have patience with young players.Does he have Dusty syndrome?

oeo
06-13-2007, 02:31 AM
I dont' care if they go 62-100 you don't just keep sticking the kid out there if he's failing. That's definately not fair to the rest of the team. Let alone the kid, himself.

You all can have the "seasons over" attitude all you like, but I GUARANTEE Ozzie and the team are FAR from throwing in the towel. It's not time to "see what he can do". It's time to see if he can produce, if he can't get the hell outta the way for someone who can. That should ALWAYS be the attitude no matter the record.

Our third base situation is not going to make the difference between us turning the season around and not. We have a lot bigger issues. If we had a good veteran third baseman, it wouldn't bother me. We don't have that...we have Fields, and Fields alone. He's our future third baseman, let him get the ABs.

Besides, he's only been up for a week, it's much too early for Ozzie to be looking for replacements, especially when they're Andy Gonzalez (can't hit ****), and Rob Mackowiak (can't play 3B very well).

MRM
06-13-2007, 02:35 AM
Andy Gonzalez is our answer? We don't have anyone to play 3B, our season is all but finished...let Fields learn on the job, it'll end up paying off. Totally different situation than the one Anderson was in. Think of this as letting Crede and Rowand mature.

Of course Gonzalez isn't the answer at 3rd. That wasn't what Ozzie was getting at. He was saying the same thing he's said all year...if you don't produce, you dont play. Why should the rook at 3B be any different than the rook in the pen or the rook starter? If you can't handle the big league game we aren't going to subject you to it. This ain't rocket science.

oeo
06-13-2007, 02:39 AM
Of course Gonzalez isn't the answer at 3rd. That wasn't what Ozzie was getting at. He was saying the same thing he's said all year...if you don't produce, you dont play. Why should the rook at 3B be any different than the rook in the pen or the rook starter? If you can't handle the big league game we aren't going to subject you to it. This ain't rocket science.

Since when has Andy Gonzalez produced? You don't replace a guy that isn't producing after a week, with a guy that hasn't produced much at all his entire professional career. Gonzalez shouldn't even be mentioned.

Unless we pick up a different third baseman (highly unlikely), Fields deserves that spot, period.

MRM
06-13-2007, 02:43 AM
Our third base situation is not going to make the difference between us turning the season around and not. We have a lot bigger issues. If we had a good veteran third baseman, it wouldn't bother me. We don't have that...we have Fields, and Fields alone. He's our future third baseman, let him get the ABs.

Besides, he's only been up for a week, it's much too early for Ozzie to be looking for replacements, especially when they're Andy Gonzalez (can't hit ****), and Rob Mackowiak (can't play 3B very well).

First of all, I didn't read anything Ozzie said to mean Fields was going to lose the job tomorrow or the next day or the day after that. He's simply looking at options, as he HAS to considering the way this season has gone thus far.

Secondly, if Fields is the lone option at 3rd long term I sure hope Kenny has the Yankees and Scott Boras on speed dial working feverishly to get ARod at any cost.

I've seen enough of Fields to confidently state he will never come CLOSE to Crede or Ventura defensively and will likely never be more than a below average offensive player. If you have any info to the contrary other than hype please share.

MRM
06-13-2007, 02:45 AM
Since when has Andy Gonzalez produced? You don't replace a guy that isn't producing after a week, with a guy that hasn't produced much at all his entire professional career. Gonzalez shouldn't even be mentioned.

Unless we pick up a different third baseman (highly unlikely), Fields deserves that spot, period.

Where did Ozzie say he was replacing him after a week? I sure didn't see it. And Fields doesn't DESERVE anything. In the majors you EARN your spot, you don't get it based on some article in baseball america.

JRIG
06-13-2007, 02:49 AM
I've seen enough of Fields to confidently state he will never come CLOSE to Crede or Ventura defensively and will likely never be more than a below average offensive player. If you have any info to the contrary other than hype please share.

So you're going to value 24 major league at bats above (roughly) 650 AAA at bats that say he should be a very productive major league hitter?

Did you feel the same way when Ventura started out 0 for 41?

Nellie_Fox
06-13-2007, 02:53 AM
Fields doesn't DESERVE anything. In the majors you EARN your spot, you don't get it based on some article in baseball america.Absolutely correct. He may be great, he may be a bust, but he doesn't "deserve" anything.

MRM
06-13-2007, 03:47 AM
So you're going to value 24 major league at bats above (roughly) 650 AAA at bats that say he should be a very productive major league hitter?

Did you feel the same way when Ventura started out 0 for 41?

Where did I say anything about his dismal MLB ABs? Way too small a sample for me to even comment on.

Exactly which of his minor league stats leads you to believe he "should be a very productive major league hitter"? He was barely mediocre in Birmingham. Numbers in Charlotte don't mean much to me, have you SEEN that park? Oh, and he had no where near 650 ABs in AAA (462) though he did have nearly 1200 ABs total in the minor leagues. Definately enough to draw a conclusion. (BTW, for future reference, perfomance in AA is much easier to extrapolate to the majors than AAA is.)

In fact, in his MINOR LEAGUE career he was a .279 hitter with an 812 OPS. What about that excites you? I'll venture a guess that you had no clue what his minor league numbers were. I did. Been following him since he was drafted.

As for Ventura, no I didn't feel the same way. HE had shown something in the minors and was a great fielder in the mean time. Fields didn't and isn't.

As I told someone earlier. Color me unimpressed with Fields.

JRIG
06-13-2007, 04:24 AM
Exactly which of his minor league stats leads you to believe he "should be a very productive major league hitter"? He was barely mediocre in Birmingham. Numbers in Charlotte don't mean much to me, have you SEEN that park? Oh, and he had no where near 650 ABs in AAA (462) though he did have nearly 1200 ABs total in the minor leagues. Definately enough to draw a conclusion. (BTW, for future reference, perfomance in AA is much easier to extrapolate to the majors than AAA is.)

In fact, in his MINOR LEAGUE career he was a .279 hitter with an 812 OPS. What about that excites you? I'll venture a guess that you had no clue what his minor league numbers were. I did. Been following him since he was drafted.

He was "barely mediocre" at AA two years ago. He had an awful month down there where he hit like .150 which drove down his numbers. Since then he's only gotten better. Last year he was third in the International League in OPS. This year he was Top Ten again before his call-up. And, oh by the way...he's actually hit better away from Charlotte in AAA! .310/.373/.528 on the road in '06 vs. .296/.372/.498 at home. Similar numbers this year with slightly less power on the road. So how exactly does playing in Charlotte over inflate his value?

By the way, Fields has had 667 at bats at Charlotte. See, you have to add the 2006 and 2007 seasons to get a total.

MRM
06-13-2007, 04:50 AM
He was "barely mediocre" at AA two years ago. He had an awful month down there where he hit like .150 which drove down his numbers. Since then he's only gotten better. Last year he was third in the International League in OPS. This year he was Top Ten again before his call-up. And, oh by the way...he's actually hit better away from Charlotte in AAA! .310/.373/.528 on the road in '06 vs. .296/.372/.498 at home. Similar numbers this year with slightly less power on the road. So how exactly does playing in Charlotte over inflate his value?

By the way, Fields has had 667 at bats at Charlotte. See, you have to add the 2006 and 2007 seasons to get a total.

Admittedly I left out this years ABs at Charlotte.

I absolutely stand by the assertion that AA numbers much more closely correlate to MLB production than AAA numbers do (I can explain why if neccessary) so a few more ABs in Charlotte don't mean much to me. I also stand by the obvious, that his minor league avg was something less than .280. We aren't talking about Wade Boggs reincarnate, here. And he damn sure ain't Mike Schmidt. He's not going to produce like Crede or even Ventura. Defensively he's going to really dissapoint because he's just an adequate 3B. In short, just remember I told ya so.

JRIG
06-13-2007, 04:55 AM
Admittedly I left out this years ABs at Charlotte.

I absolutely stand by the assertion that AA numbers much more closely correlate to MLB production than AAA numbers do (I can explain why if neccessary) so a few more ABs in Charlotte don't mean much to me. I also stand by the obvious, that his minor league avg was something less than .280. We aren't talking about Wade Boggs reincarnate, here. And he damn sure ain't Mike Schmidt. He's not going to produce like Crede or even Ventura. Defensively he's going to really dissapoint because he's just an adequate 3B. In short, just remember I told ya so.

I'll agree, he ain't Ventura with the glove -- there's a reason he almost moved to left field. But I think he'll be serviceable at worst defensively.

I understand your point about AA numbers, but I don't understand why you'd still rely on those numbers that are now two years old. You're not considering that he might have improved over the past year and a half. If he were in AA again right now, don't you think he'd put up a much better line?

But that's kind of the fun in baseball though. You see a disappointment, I see a guy with a great shot at throwing up a .265/.340/.460 line if given a chance to play the rest of the way, and I'll certainly take that.

MRM
06-13-2007, 04:56 AM
He was "barely mediocre" at AA two years ago. He had an awful month down there where he hit like .150 which drove down his numbers.

LOL are you his momma? Thats one of the worst excuses I've ever seen. :D:

MRM
06-13-2007, 05:08 AM
I'll agree, he ain't Ventura with the glove -- there's a reason he almost moved to left field. But I think he'll be serviceable at worst defensively.

I understand your point about AA numbers, but I don't understand why you'd still rely on those numbers that are now two years old. You're not considering that he might have improved over the past year and a half. If he were in AA again right now, don't you think he'd put up a much better line?

But that's kind of the fun in baseball though. You see a disappointment, I see a guy with a great shot at throwing up a .265/.340/.460 line if given a chance to play the rest of the way, and I'll certainly take that.

See, I can't live with "serviceable" at 3B, SS, or CF. Anywhere else I can wrap my mind around it, but not those 3 positions. Especially not with the offensive numbers you just threw up there (which I don't believe he will even meet). A "serviceable" 3B better be a stud with the bat to make up for all the runs he's going to cost you in the field. A mediocre hitter better be an awe inspiring defender at the hot corner. Fields projects to be mediocre at both. Jose Valentin, at best.

Grzegorz
06-13-2007, 05:27 AM
Give the kid a chance. The 2007 version of the Chicago White Sox are going nowhere; let the prospects prove/disprove themselves.

wassagstdu
06-13-2007, 06:18 AM
You're missing the grand plan that Sox scouts have been hatching for years. Forget the 3-run homer. It's Fields to Owens for 6.

"Don't give me tools, give me players." (OG)

russ99
06-13-2007, 07:06 AM
Give the kid a chance. The 2007 version of the Chicago White Sox are going nowhere; let the prospects prove/disprove themselves.

The only problem with that is that none of the Sox hitting prospects have proven themselves lately.

I have no gripe with Fields, I just don't think he's ready - he looks lost at the plate. As for defense, he's no Crede, but he plays the position well, probably better than anyone else on the team that's healthy. Losing Ozuna really hurts right now.

Can Sweeney play 3b? :D:

Flight #24
06-13-2007, 07:38 AM
I'll agree, he ain't Ventura with the glove -- there's a reason he almost moved to left field. But I think he'll be serviceable at worst defensively.

It's interesting that you mention Ventura - because I'm now convinced that had Ozzie been managing when Robin came up, he'd have been sent back down pretty quickly and not gotten any significant time that year. Thankfully, that wasn't the case and he was allowed to work out of it.

This season should be proof to Sox fans that anyone can slump, and many man times you need to let them play to work their way out of it. Or should Oz be benching Konerko/Dye/AJ/Crede/etc?

It's quite common for youngsters to struggle when they come up while the adjust to the bigs and the caliber of play. But if you don't let them do that, then you a)hit their confidence and b)prolong the transition. Plus if you yank them in & out of the lineup, it seems to become mental (see Anderson, Brian).

Season's just about over folks. Andy Gonzalez is neither a short nor long term solution. The Sox need to find out what Fields can do if plugged in every day and allowed to work through his slumps. Same for BA and possibly Sweeney. Playing Andy Gonzalez regularly smacks of Dusty throwing Neifi Perez out there on a consistent basis - it doesn't really help the team in any way. And by the way - the same can be said for Erstad when he comes back.

The Immigrant
06-13-2007, 07:50 AM
Playing Andy Gonzalez regularly smacks of Dusty throwing Neifi Perez out there on a consistent basis - it doesn't really help the team in any way. And by the way - the same can be said for Erstad when he comes back.

We have our own Neifi - his name is Alex.

salty99
06-13-2007, 08:24 AM
Can Jim Thome play third?

Frater Perdurabo
06-13-2007, 08:34 AM
It's interesting that you mention Ventura - because I'm now convinced that had Ozzie been managing when Robin came up, he'd have been sent back down pretty quickly and not gotten any significant time that year. Thankfully, that wasn't the case and he was allowed to work out of it.

Uh oh. You're beginning to sound like ondafarm! Have you forgotten that criticizing Ozzie is illegal?
:tongue:

EMachine10
06-13-2007, 08:39 AM
alex gordon.....

balke
06-13-2007, 08:48 AM
I guess if anything it shows Ozzie hasn't given up on the season. If he's not willing to throw Fields out there and call it a day, and is ready to make changes if he doesn't perform, that shows he still cares about winning.


I'm kinda undecided on Fields. All of these prospects we have that are supposed to be future MLBers haven't shown anything with the bat. And there's not one guy that came out swinging .330 or 340 in the minors. So far .300 in the minors has translated into .260 or less with these guys.

Fields is also a Boras client, don't know if that has anything to do with anything, but its something to keep in mind as he develops with the Sox.

Bobby Thigpen
06-13-2007, 08:48 AM
The only problem with that is that none of the Sox hitting prospects have proven themselves lately.

I have no gripe with Fields, I just don't think he's ready - he looks lost at the plate. As for defense, he's no Crede, but he plays the position well, probably better than anyone else on the team that's healthy. Losing Ozuna really hurts right now.

Can Sweeney play 3b? :D:


None of the Sox major league hitters have hit anything lately either. What's the difference?

Dan Mega
06-13-2007, 08:53 AM
None of the Sox major league hitters have hit anything lately either. What's the difference?

Ding ding ding!

I'll take a prospect hitting .260 over a vet hitting .220.

roylestillman
06-13-2007, 08:56 AM
I think its important to figure out if Fields is the future at third base. If it becomes obvious over the next few months that he is progressing toward our everyday third baseman, even if his numbers aren't quite there yet, we can plan accordingly with Crede. If he aint it we're back to square one and a rehabbed Joe looks awfully good.

UserNameBlank
06-13-2007, 09:13 AM
As one poster said, everyone earns his spot.

Josh has earned his. He's performed in Triple A and shown that he is ready to start learning how to play the ML game. Give him his shot.

Another poster brought up Alex Gordon. Great point. Alex has been very bad this year but it's not because he's a bad prospect. It just takes time to figure all this stuff out. And speaking of KC 3B, that Mark Teahan, who is now an OF, had some pretty bad struggles coming up too. He's become a very solid player.

If Ozzie ****s this one up he deserves to be canned ASAP. Josh has enough pressure on him already, but for some messed up reason I can already see Ozzie calling him out in the papers a week from now for not producing. Ozzie had better learn how to manage young players quick because that is the direction we have to take.

Flight #24
06-13-2007, 09:22 AM
See, I can't live with "serviceable" at 3B, SS, or CF. Anywhere else I can wrap my mind around it, but not those 3 positions. Especially not with the offensive numbers you just threw up there (which I don't believe he will even meet). A "serviceable" 3B better be a stud with the bat to make up for all the runs he's going to cost you in the field. A mediocre hitter better be an awe inspiring defender at the hot corner. Fields projects to be mediocre at both. Jose Valentin, at best.

Your projection of Fields differs from most others I've seen. But regardless, any rookie who puts up those "serviceable" numbers projects to be a lot more than serviceable within another year or so. It's not like if Cintron puts them up (or Andy Gonzalez, who doesn't project to do much better if at all than those numbers).

If you never let rookies get through their rookie struggles, then you'll never have any rookies come through (unless your farm can consistently produce ROYs).

russ99
06-13-2007, 09:26 AM
Ding ding ding!

I'll take a prospect hitting .260 over a vet hitting .220.

I'd love to see Fields hit .260.

But seriously, he's a vastly better option than anyone else the Sox have so let's give him a few months to settle in before rushing to judgment.

INSox56
06-13-2007, 09:27 AM
Said it before and I'll say it again....Ozzie has issues with rookies, whether intentionally or not. He just has zero patience. Granted the team sucks, so what better time to exibit patience.

ND_Sox_Fan
06-13-2007, 09:35 AM
Said it before and I'll say it again....Ozzie has issues with rookies, whether intentionally or not. He just has zero patience. Granted the team sucks, so what better time to exibit patience.

I just don't get it. I have no problem with the attitude that one has to preform to continue to play, but why blab this stupid comment to the media? Keep it in the clubhouse. This idiotic comment is only going to fuel the mediots to continue to ask Josh questions and hound him as long as he struggles. Why put on the added pressure?

I also think that Fields has earned himself a shot at 100-200 at bats here before any judgments are made about him this season.

If I am Kenny, I want to see how Fields progresses during this season, so I know what I have going into 2008.

INSox56
06-13-2007, 09:42 AM
I just don't get it. I have no problem with the attitude that one has to preform to continue to play, but why blab this stupid comment to the media? Keep it in the clubhouse. This idiotic comment is only going to fuel the mediots to continue to ask Josh questions and hound him as long as he struggles. Why put on the added pressure?

I also think that Fields has earned himself a shot at 100-200 at bats here before any judgments are made about him this season.

If I am Kenny, I want to see how Fields progresses during this season, so I know what I have going into 2008.Don't you know? That's Ozzie's "tough love" approach. Same as he used with BA! Sometimes you just need to tell them "you suck ass and we have people that can do the job if you can't", even if they are just rookies (and/or you put them in positions to not succeed in the first place as an added difficulty). Don't you get it?

ND_Sox_Fan
06-13-2007, 09:49 AM
Don't you know? That's Ozzie's "tough love" approach. Same as he used with BA! Sometimes you just need to tell them "you suck ass and we have people that can do the job if you can't", even if they are just rookies (and/or you put them in positions to not succeed in the first place as an added difficulty). Don't you get it?


http://images.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/_photos/2006-08-09-girardi.jpg

"You said something about managing rookies?"

oeo
06-13-2007, 10:01 AM
I'll agree, he ain't Ventura with the glove -- there's a reason he almost moved to left field. But I think he'll be serviceable at worst defensively.

I understand your point about AA numbers, but I don't understand why you'd still rely on those numbers that are now two years old. You're not considering that he might have improved over the past year and a half. If he were in AA again right now, don't you think he'd put up a much better line?

But that's kind of the fun in baseball though. You see a disappointment, I see a guy with a great shot at throwing up a .265/.340/.460 line if given a chance to play the rest of the way, and I'll certainly take that.

I disagree...I think Fields will be more than a serviceable defender. He's got a stronger and more accurate arm than Crede (from what I've seen), it's just a matter of getting that experience. Crede was never a great defender in the minor leagues, he didn't become one until he was called up.

Flight #24
06-13-2007, 10:02 AM
Just for snicks, I wen back to '04 and checked Ozzie's history with rookies/young players.

2004:
Willie Harris got regular ABs despite hitting about .200 for 3 of the last 4 months of the year.
Joe Borchard played about 2/3 of the time after being called up (IIRC, part of that was because of injuries and that there wasn't anyone else).

2005:
No young player got more than 200 ABs.

2006:
Anderson - everyone knows this story.

2007:
To date, Sweeney, Terrero, & Anderson have combined for 106ABs (by comparison, Konerko has 217). And outside of maybe Terrero at this point, none of them has been given any regular play. Lucky for Luis, he's hitting .273.

Seems to me that while the sample size is a bit small, Ozzie is fairly unforgiving of youngsters who struggle and prefers veterans, even if they struggle. The problem is that the only way to be successful, even as a relatively big market team, is to fill in with good young players. And in order to have good young players, you need to give them some time to work out initial struggles, get comfortable, and start playing to their talent level. Ozzie seems to make up his mind on guys relatively quickly, especially if they struggle early. That's what happened with Anderson, that's what happened with Sweeney (despite Ozzie raving about him initially, he only played in 15 games), and to some extent that's what happened with Willie Harris (although he got some time so I can't blame Oz for that).

oeo
06-13-2007, 10:06 AM
2007:
To date, Sweeney, Terrero, & Anderson have combined for 106ABs (by comparison, Konerko has 217). And outside of maybe Terrero at this point, none of them has been given any regular play. Lucky for Luis, he's hitting .273.

Seems to me that while the sample size is a bit small, Ozzie is fairly unforgiving of youngsters who struggle and prefers veterans, even if they struggle. The problem is that the only way to be successful, even as a relatively big market team, is to fill in with good young players. And in order to have good young players, you need to give them some time to work out initial struggles, get comfortable, and start playing to their talent level. Ozzie seems to make up his mind on guys relatively quickly, especially if they struggle early. That's what happened with Anderson, that's what happened with Sweeney (despite Ozzie raving about him initially, he only played in 15 games), and to some extent that's what happened with Willie Harris (although he got some time so I can't blame Oz for that).

Sweeney was over-matched the last time he was up. We had guys that could fill in for him, so he did need to be sent back down. Sweeney appears to have taken his average up 40 points since being sent down...I can't wait to see him again.

Anderson was over-matched last year, and still over-matched once again this year. He's batting .256 in Charlotte, so he's not helping anyone out that says he could be batting .250 up here.

And I'd hardly call Terrero a youngster. Unless he turns his career around, I hope the only organizational plans for him have to do with ass touching pine.

He also gave Owens every start at leadoff until he went down to that hamstring injury. The situation is different now, since we have to play these guys. With no bullpen, and a rookie third baseman, I don't like our chances. Last year, we had a good shot at making the postseason, that's why Ozzie didn't let Anderson play everyday...he couldn't hit.

Randar68
06-13-2007, 10:11 AM
Totally different situation than the one Anderson was in.

WHAT? Anderson was learning on the job, hit well the second half of last year, was making progress, played better than the other CF candidates in spring, then he gets like 14 AB's the first month of the season...

You still don't know about Anderson. When it looked like he turned the corner Ozzie stopped playing him.

Is Ozzie going to do the same thing with Fields? Let him flounder, struggle, and when he starts turning the corner sit him on the bench?

Randar68
06-13-2007, 10:14 AM
Anderson was over-matched last year, and still over-matched once again this year. He's batting .256 in Charlotte, so he's not helping anyone out that says he could be batting .250 up here.


Anderson didn't play for a month to start the season and has been playing with a dinged-up shoulder in AAA (not sure how bad it is, no reports on that)... Thankfully we have that very conclusive summary of his batting average to tell us "how he's doing".

Can he be worse than Mackowiak or Uribe? Not likely based on his second half last year.

oeo
06-13-2007, 10:16 AM
WHAT? Anderson was learning on the job, hit well the second half of last year, was making progress, played better than the other CF candidates in spring, then he gets like 14 AB's the first month of the season...

He did the same thing in Spring Training the year before and was garbage when the regular season rolled around. Do you not remember him jumping out of the way of strikes on the inside corner? Look at his Spring Training numbers of the past three seasons, they're very similar; and it looked like we were going to get similar numbers to 2006. HIs AAA numbers right now certainly are not proving me wrong.

You still don't know about Anderson. When it looked like he turned the corner Ozzie stopped playing him.

Is Ozzie going to do the same thing with Fields? Let him flounder, struggle, and when he starts turning the corner sit him on the bench?When was that? People keep telling me he played less in the second half, but that's just not true. Ozzie had him in that platoon role all year long.

Randar68
06-13-2007, 10:18 AM
Just for snicks, I wen back to '04 and checked Ozzie's history with rookies/young players.

2004:
Willie Harris got regular ABs despite hitting about .200 for 3 of the last 4 months of the year.
Joe Borchard played about 2/3 of the time after being called up (IIRC, part of that was because of injuries and that there wasn't anyone else).

2005:
No young player got more than 200 ABs.

2006:
Anderson - everyone knows this story.

2007:
To date, Sweeney, Terrero, & Anderson have combined for 106ABs (by comparison, Konerko has 217). And outside of maybe Terrero at this point, none of them has been given any regular play. Lucky for Luis, he's hitting .273.

Seems to me that while the sample size is a bit small, Ozzie is fairly unforgiving of youngsters who struggle and prefers veterans, even if they struggle. The problem is that the only way to be successful, even as a relatively big market team, is to fill in with good young players. And in order to have good young players, you need to give them some time to work out initial struggles, get comfortable, and start playing to their talent level. Ozzie seems to make up his mind on guys relatively quickly, especially if they struggle early. That's what happened with Anderson, that's what happened with Sweeney (despite Ozzie raving about him initially, he only played in 15 games), and to some extent that's what happened with Willie Harris (although he got some time so I can't blame Oz for that).


Post of the YEAR.

Ozzie is essentially a clinical schizophrenic. He goes against the book when it is the right thing to do, and with it when it's the wrong thing. He has no patience for anything. Everyone loved it when we won in 2005, but it grates on you. Drives you crazy to watch (even when they're winning to a degree)...

I just have never thought it to be a sustainable model. You can't keep jerking around all the young players you have just because they didn't hit for a couple of days.

Randar68
06-13-2007, 10:19 AM
When was that? People keep telling me he played less in the second half, but that's just not true. Ozzie had him in that platoon role all year long.

How about since "Opening Day 2007"?

oeo
06-13-2007, 10:22 AM
How about since "Opening Day 2007"?

Again, his AAA numbers are not helping you out, at all. Sure, he could have come up here and hit .275. Considering he's only batting .256 in AAA, and the rest of our lineup can't hit, I find that highly unlikely.

The Immigrant
06-13-2007, 10:24 AM
KW must have put his fist through the nearest wall when he read Ozzie's comments.

puckereduppiet
06-13-2007, 10:26 AM
Seems Ozzaroo really doesn't seem to have patience with young players.Does he have Dusty syndrome?

the fans don't have patience with the young players either.

FedEx227
06-13-2007, 10:27 AM
I'm not too surprised Ozzie would rather put a low-ceiling older prospect latino player over Fields. It's the Ozzie way.

CLR01
06-13-2007, 10:29 AM
It's time to see if he can produce, if he can't get the hell outta the way for someone who can. That should ALWAYS be the attitude no matter the record.

And still Uribe gets run out there everyday without second thought.

:uribe:

"What can I say? When you got it, you got it."

Randar68
06-13-2007, 10:37 AM
Again, his AAA numbers are not helping you out, at all. Sure, he could have come up here and hit .275. Considering he's only batting .256 in AAA, and the rest of our lineup can't hit, I find that highly unlikely.

And when he was sent back down the kid hadn't played in a month and promptly injured his shoulder. So again, what do those numbers really mean?

Anderson's OPS last year by month...


April .554
May .572
June .601
July .797
August .804
September .558

So, in his first full major league season I'll give him a break on September as "wearing down", but he essentially improved at the plate every month. That looks like a pretty steady progression. Kid was adjusting to everyday major league life and then we go and sit him on the bench to start 2007 after he has a nice spring...

Randar68
06-13-2007, 10:39 AM
I'm not too surprised Ozzie would rather put a low-ceiling older prospect latino player over Fields. It's the Ozzie way.

Is Mackowiak Latino? Doesn't really seem to matter much, but Mackowiak looks more overmatched at the plate than Ryan Sweeney did...

FedEx227
06-13-2007, 10:44 AM
Is Mackowiak Latino? Doesn't really seem to matter much, but Mackowiak looks more overmatched at the plate than Ryan Sweeney did...

I should probably reiterate. Ozzie would rather play low-risk, low-reward older prospects/veterans or Latino players over Fields, Sweeney, Anderson or any of our other non-Latino or potentially medium/high-reward prospects.

ewokpelts
06-13-2007, 10:47 AM
when crede was HORRIBLE, they kept him in there. i say give fields the same treatment, especially since crede was an ass**** for NOT having winter surgery and retaining boras as an agent.

**** joe crede, let's see fields.

I seem to remember ALOT of people here that defended crede when he sucked ass. give his replacement a chance. and i sure as hell dont want to see mack-a-whack either in third.

sox1970
06-13-2007, 10:51 AM
I'm not going to bash Crede, since he very well could have been World Series MVP, but there's no doubt he should have surgery after last season. I'm ready to turn the page and give Josh Fields the rest of the year to see what he can do. If he does ok, good bye Joe.

Jaffar
06-13-2007, 10:56 AM
Bottom line is we need to know what Fields has to offer at the Majore League level and anything less then regular playing time for an extended period of time will not tell us if what our future at 3rd base is going to be and we need to know by about this time next year because Kenny will have some decisions to make.

102605
06-13-2007, 11:10 AM
I'm not too surprised Ozzie would rather put a low-ceiling older prospect latino player over Fields. It's the Ozzie way.

Your comment is unreal. Awful.

Flight #24
06-13-2007, 11:22 AM
And when he was sent back down the kid hadn't played in a month and promptly injured his shoulder. So again, what do those numbers really mean?

Anderson's OPS last year by month...


April .554
May .572
June .601
July .797
August .804
September .558


And interestingly, around July-Aug is when Ozzie started publicly calling him out as needing to turn things around. It's pretty clear that when it comes to BA, Ozzie's got more going on than his on-field performance.

It's pretty tough to say when a kid is "overmatched" v. "adjusting to the bigs". Sweeney got all of 44ABs to prove it. Fields now has had what - 20? If the kid had hit 8HR you wouldn't know what his real level and you don't know it now either. For Ozzie to even hint that he's thinking of replacing him makes it sound like he's never been a rookie.

The Sox NEED their prospects to come through and contribute. That means between the GM, manager, and farm system they need to figure out how. Somewhere in that chain, so far, they're failing miserably and it's put the team is a horrible position. If these 3 don't pan out, you're looking at either a)finding FAs to fill a lot more spots (expensive) or b)going with AAAA players who might not hit .200, but who won't be everyday contributors to any contending team.

What's also funny about this is that Ozzie suffered through Garland & Vazquez's struggles. But when it comes to position players, he doesn't seem to have anywhere near the same patience.

Huisj
06-13-2007, 11:27 AM
Just for snicks, I wen back to '04 and checked Ozzie's history with rookies/young players.

2004:
Willie Harris got regular ABs despite hitting about .200 for 3 of the last 4 months of the year.
Joe Borchard played about 2/3 of the time after being called up (IIRC, part of that was because of injuries and that there wasn't anyone else).

2005:
No young player got more than 200 ABs.

2006:
Anderson - everyone knows this story.

2007:
To date, Sweeney, Terrero, & Anderson have combined for 106ABs (by comparison, Konerko has 217). And outside of maybe Terrero at this point, none of them has been given any regular play. Lucky for Luis, he's hitting .273.

Seems to me that while the sample size is a bit small, Ozzie is fairly unforgiving of youngsters who struggle and prefers veterans, even if they struggle. The problem is that the only way to be successful, even as a relatively big market team, is to fill in with good young players. And in order to have good young players, you need to give them some time to work out initial struggles, get comfortable, and start playing to their talent level. Ozzie seems to make up his mind on guys relatively quickly, especially if they struggle early. That's what happened with Anderson, that's what happened with Sweeney (despite Ozzie raving about him initially, he only played in 15 games), and to some extent that's what happened with Willie Harris (although he got some time so I can't blame Oz for that).

I think maybe part of it is that Guillen is fixated with speed and quickness. Willie Harris definitely can run--he's a prototypical small speedy pesky player (well, pesky when he's playing well, which he didn't do a ton of with the sox). Owens is that sort of player too, and he threw him right into he leadoff spot. Somehow, these sorts of players have a way of still appearing less pathetic when they aren't hitting than a more powerful hitter who isn't hitting looks. When a power type hitter (like Fields or Anderson) is doing bad, they tend to look way off and out of wack. When a slap hitter with speed is doing bad, they still tend to look like they could reach out and slap a ball somewhere and beat it out on the bases even if they are hitting .150.

EDIT: In other words, Guillen really likes grinders, and he really likes speedy grinders.

letsgosox1592
06-13-2007, 11:32 AM
I'm not going to bash Crede, since he very well could have been World Series MVP,


yea that was 2 years ago... u dont look at what the players been doing in the past, you look at what he was doing right now. the past is gone and crede deserves most of the blame for his back for not having surgery in the offseason...if he did do that we most likely would not be talking about this... as for fields he deserves to play everyday. if we dont play fields everyday and just let him sit on the bench it will hurt his development as a play and it will make him think that hes not good enough for majors and that can get into his head and screw him up. JOSH FIELDS IS THE FUTURE OF THE SOX AND HE DESERVES TO PLAY!!!!

sox1970
06-13-2007, 11:35 AM
yea that was 2 years ago... u dont look at what the players been doing in the past, you look at what he was doing right now. the past is gone and crede deserves most of the blame for his back for not having surgery in the offseason...if he did do that we most likely would not be talking about this... as for fields he deserves to play everyday. if we dont play fields everyday and just let him sit on the bench it will hurt his development as a play and it will make him think that hes not good enough for majors and that can get into his head and screw him up. JOSH FIELDS IS THE FUTURE OF THE SOX AND HE DESERVES TO PLAY!!!!

No ****, but I'm refraining from bashing the guy because he was a big part of a championship here. No question he should have had surgery after 2006. And no question you can't live in the past when it comes to making personnel decisions.

ewokpelts
06-13-2007, 11:40 AM
Your comment is unreal. Awful.

I'm not too surprised Ozzie would rather put a low-ceiling older prospect latino player over Fields. It's the Ozzie way.

But it's true. Ozzie LOVES his latin players.

letsgosox1592
06-13-2007, 11:41 AM
No ****, but I'm refraining from bashing the guy because he was a big part of a championship here. No question he should have had surgery after 2006. And no question you can't live in the past when it comes to making personnel decisions.

i understand how u dont want to bash him for what he did in 2005, but he kind of screwed the sox right now cause i really dont think the sox were ready to call up josh fields yet....he was starting to finally hit in the minors from that horific start and now we have to talk about what the sox are going to do. yes crede shouldnt of been so selfish and not get back surgery (got dam scott boras) and now he proabably lost his self some money cause teams might be cautious on a player with a bad back. as for the personnel decision i think scott boras had more to say in that than crede did. boras probably thought if he could just let it heal in the offseason and give it some rest he would be hitting the jackpot for one of the top 3rd basemen in the game but he made a big mistake for him and for crede's future.

ewokpelts
06-13-2007, 11:41 AM
And interestingly, around July-Aug is when Ozzie started publicly calling him out as needing to turn things around. It's pretty clear that when it comes to BA, Ozzie's got more going on than his on-field performance.

It's pretty tough to say when a kid is "overmatched" v. "adjusting to the bigs". Sweeney got all of 44ABs to prove it. Fields now has had what - 20? If the kid had hit 8HR you wouldn't know what his real level and you don't know it now either. For Ozzie to even hint that he's thinking of replacing him makes it sound like he's never been a rookie.

The Sox NEED their prospects to come through and contribute. That means between the GM, manager, and farm system they need to figure out how. Somewhere in that chain, so far, they're failing miserably and it's put the team is a horrible position. If these 3 don't pan out, you're looking at either a)finding FAs to fill a lot more spots (expensive) or b)going with AAAA players who might not hit .200, but who won't be everyday contributors to any contending team.

What's also funny about this is that Ozzie suffered through Garland & Vazquez's struggles. But when it comes to position players, he doesn't seem to have anywhere near the same patience.ozzie got plenty of opprotunities to play everyday on a ****burger of a team.

letsgosox1592
06-13-2007, 11:44 AM
But it's true. Ozzie LOVES his latin players.

i think ozzie is racist of white players. he hates brian anderson, sweeney got the boot fast this year and fields if getting talked about not playing cause hes struggling a little bit. fields has like 25 at bats.

sox1970
06-13-2007, 11:53 AM
i think ozzie is racist of white players. he hates brian anderson, sweeney got the boot fast this year and fields if getting talked about not playing cause hes struggling a little bit. fields has like 25 at bats.

Fields is playing today. It's up to him to get the hits.

102605
06-13-2007, 11:59 AM
i think ozzie is racist of white players. he hates brian anderson, sweeney got the boot fast this year and fields if getting talked about not playing cause hes struggling a little bit. fields has like 25 at bats.

GIVE ME A BREAK! Was that you running onto the field a few games ago?

oeo
06-13-2007, 12:00 PM
i think ozzie is racist of white players. he hates brian anderson, sweeney got the boot fast this year and fields if getting talked about not playing cause hes struggling a little bit. fields has like 25 at bats.

:rolleyes:

Yep, he absolutely hates those guys named Jim Thome, Paul Konerko, Rob Mackowiak, Darin Erstad, Bobby Jenks,...should I go on? I absolutely hate how race is brought up into everything in this society. Yes, everyone is a ****ing racist. :rolleyes:

CLR01
06-13-2007, 12:01 PM
Fields is playing today. It's up to him to get the hits.


So is Uribe. He just needs to show up with his glove and game shoes.

oeo
06-13-2007, 12:02 PM
So is Uribe. He just needs to show up with his glove and game shoes.

I'm all for giving Uribe the boot, but right now he's our best option.

102605
06-13-2007, 12:03 PM
:rolleyes:

Yep, he absolutely hates those guys named Jim Thome, Paul Konerko, Rob Mackowiak, Darin Erstad, Bobby Jenks,...should I go on? I absolutely hate how race is brought up into everything in this society. Yes, everyone is a ****ing racist. :rolleyes:

:thumbsup:

kitekrazy
06-13-2007, 12:30 PM
From the "You've Got To Be ****ing Kidding Me" department:

http://blogs.dailysouthtown.com/whalen/2007/06/crede_done_fields_not_a_given.html



It's a blog. I don't give a lot of credibility to them.

upperdeckusc
06-13-2007, 12:36 PM
Of course Gonzalez isn't the answer at 3rd. That wasn't what Ozzie was getting at. He was saying the same thing he's said all year...if you don't produce, you dont play. Why should the rook at 3B be any different than the rook in the pen or the rook starter? If you can't handle the big league game we aren't going to subject you to it. This ain't rocket science.

apparently all he's been doing is "saying" this. a lot of people havent been producing in our lineup that are still there (ie most of our offense). rookies dont come up from the minors and just TEAR IT UP. c'mon. if he's the future, give him the time to get comfortable, and not having to worry if every at bat is his last. weird how we had all that patience in the world with crede and now ozzie says this crap one wk into fields' 07 mlb season. its not like he's 0-30 with 25 k's. just let him get some experience under his belt, and he'll be impressing a lot of ppl very shortly. fields IS our answer at 3b this yr and quite possibly for the next handful of years. i usually dont have a problem with ozzie, but right now, SHUT UP and let the kid play

mjmcend
06-13-2007, 12:36 PM
I'm all for giving Uribe the boot, but right now he's our best option.

And Fields is our best option at third. So play him.

southside rocks
06-13-2007, 12:38 PM
It's a blog. I don't give a lot of credibility to them.

It's a blog written by the beat writer who covers the White Sox for the Daily Southtown.

Not saying that it's gospel, but it's not just some internet babbling from some self-appointed guru of everything. Nate Whalen's a pretty good sportswriter.

southside rocks
06-13-2007, 12:43 PM
apparently all he's been doing is "saying" this. a lot of people havent been producing in our lineup that are still there (ie most of our offense). rookies dont come up from the minors and just TEAR IT UP. c'mon. if he's the future, give him the time to get comfortable, and not having to worry if every at bat is his last. weird how we had all that patience in the world with crede and now ozzie says this crap one wk into fields' 07 mlb season. its not like he's 0-30 with 25 k's. just let him get some experience under his belt, and he'll be impressing a lot of ppl very shortly. fields IS our answer at 3b this yr and quite possibly for the next handful of years. i usually dont have a problem with ozzie, but right now, SHUT UP and let the kid play

Is it possible that Ozzie wants the kid to play only if he has some success and does well, so that repeated failure -- especially on this team, in this difficult season -- doesn't mess up the kid's head?

Is it possible that Ozzie is maybe managing his players, not just being a jerk in order to spite the fans?

That might be kind of a bizarre idea, I know. I haven't really gotten the hang of this "hate Ozzie Guillen" thing yet, but I'm working on it, so bear with me.

ewokpelts
06-13-2007, 12:43 PM
apparently all he's been doing is "saying" this. a lot of people havent been producing in our lineup that are still there (ie most of our offense). rookies dont come up from the minors and just TEAR IT UP. c'mon. if he's the future, give him the time to get comfortable, and not having to worry if every at bat is his last. weird how we had all that patience in the world with crede and now ozzie says this crap one wk into fields' 07 mlb season. its not like he's 0-30 with 25 k's. just let him get some experience under his belt, and he'll be impressing a lot of ppl very shortly. fields IS our answer at 3b this yr and quite possibly for the next handful of years. i usually dont have a problem with ozzie, but right now, SHUT UP and let the kid playexactly

russ99
06-13-2007, 12:56 PM
Yikes. You know it's going really bad for the Sox when people start labelling our World Series winning manager as a racist.

ewokpelts
06-13-2007, 01:10 PM
Yikes. You know it's going really bad for the Sox when people start labelling our World Series winning manager as a racist.i dont think he's racist. i think he either feel an obligation to get more latinos inthe game, or simply prefers latinos over american players.

Flight #24
06-13-2007, 01:19 PM
I'll give it until the end of the month. If by then things havent dramatically turned around, I'd go as far as saying the OF needs to feature at least 2 of Owens-Anderson-Sweeney with Fields at 3B every day. Erstad & Pods can platoon in the 3d OF slot and you trade Dye for whatever you can get.

And it almost doesn't matter how much they struggle because you need to find out one way or another if they can battle through the eventual ups & downs of an MLB season and come out OK. If after playing regularly they can't hack it, then you at least know where you need to go get help.

champagne030
06-13-2007, 01:25 PM
Is it possible that Ozzie wants the kid to play only if he has some success and does well, so that repeated failure -- especially on this team, in this difficult season -- doesn't mess up the kid's head?

No, 20 AB's is not repeated failure. Sure, if he's got 150 AB's and is hitting less than a buck he may want to send him down to prevent future damage.

Is it possible that Ozzie is maybe managing his players

More like mismanagement.

southside rocks
06-13-2007, 02:14 PM
No, 20 AB's is not repeated failure. Sure, if he's got 150 AB's and is hitting less than a buck he may want to send him down to prevent future damage.


Oh, I missed the part where Ozzie said that Fields would only get 20 AB this year. I thought Ozzie meant that if Fields struggles after more AB's, he would put someone else in at third.

And since Fields is playing today, I guess Ozzie hasn't cashed in the kid after just 20 AB. :redneck

Randar68
06-13-2007, 02:16 PM
I'll give it until the end of the month. If by then things havent dramatically turned around, I'd go as far as saying the OF needs to feature at least 2 of Owens-Anderson-Sweeney with Fields at 3B every day. Erstad & Pods can platoon in the 3d OF slot and you trade Dye for whatever you can get.

And it almost doesn't matter how much they struggle because you need to find out one way or another if they can battle through the eventual ups & downs of an MLB season and come out OK. If after playing regularly they can't hack it, then you at least know where you need to go get help.

Yep, well said.

I don't want to see "The kids can play II", but unless you're Boston or NY, you have to develop your on players/stars of the future, otherwise you will be awful, old, and slow, before you know it.

southside rocks
06-13-2007, 02:17 PM
i dont think he's racist. i think he either feel an obligation to get more latinos inthe game, or simply prefers latinos over american players.

That's why Mark Buehrle and Jon Garland are back, and Freddy Garcia was traded.

That's why the opening-day lineup had non-Latino players at catcher, first base, second base, third base, right field, center field, and left field.

Yeah, I see what you mean.

Randar68
06-13-2007, 02:21 PM
That's why Mark Buehrle and Jon Garland are back, and Freddy Garcia was traded.

That's why the opening-day lineup had non-Latino players at catcher, first base, second base, third base, right field, center field, and left field.

Yeah, I see what you mean.


I don't think it has anything to do with Latinos. I think it has everything to do with "established veterans" vs "young players requiring patience/development"

Ozzie is not a patient person, this can be both good and bad, but when you have few veteran alternatives worth the dirt they walk on, it's a severe fault.

Man Soo Lee
06-13-2007, 02:30 PM
You still don't know about Anderson. When it looked like he turned the corner Ozzie stopped playing him.

The monthly splits don't support this. Anderson's largest at-bat totals were in April (62 ABs) when he was given an opportunity, July (64) and August (71) when he played well, and September (65) when he had been doing well and no one else was hitting either.

He got the least playing time in May (48) and June (51) when he had been awful.

And interestingly, around July-Aug is when Ozzie started publicly calling him out as needing to turn things around. It's pretty clear that when it comes to BA, Ozzie's got more going on than his on-field performance.

Actually it was in early June, with Anderson's average in the .150s, that Ozzie talked about possibly sending him down. He was then given a vote of confidence after a meeting with KW and Ozzie and started to rebound on June 11 in the near-comeback vs. Cleveland.

weird how we had all that patience in the world with crede and now ozzie says this crap one wk into fields' 07 mlb season.

It's because Crede is a speedy Latino.

southside rocks
06-13-2007, 02:33 PM
I don't think it has anything to do with Latinos. I think it has everything to do with "established veterans" vs "young players requiring patience/development"

Ozzie is not a patient person, this can be both good and bad, but when you have few veteran alternatives worth the dirt they walk on, it's a severe fault.

An interesting quote from Greg Couch's column today:

''Let's be honest,'' Seattle GM Bill Bavasi said before the game. ''Managers hate kids. They do. And with good reason.''

Article is here: http://www.suntimes.com/sports/couch/425259,CST-SPT-greg13.article

I don't disagree with you at all. I think that Ozzie is not unlike most managers in this, however. Joe Girardi is not the norm in MLB management when it comes to young players, and that's too bad.

Randar68
06-13-2007, 02:57 PM
I don't disagree with you at all. I think that Ozzie is not unlike most managers in this, however. Joe Girardi is not the norm in MLB management when it comes to young players, and that's too bad.

You don't have to like it in order to understand and work with it, but there are only a handful of good veteran-laden teams in a given year. You have to be able to develop your way back to that once you reach that "old, injured, overpayed" threshold every few years. You can not afford to have a manager who just throws his hands up and looks for the oldest guy standing around him to put him in the game irrespective of talent, potential, etc. I feel like that is what Ozzie has done...

Randar68
06-13-2007, 03:00 PM
The monthly splits don't support this. Anderson's largest at-bat totals were in April (62 ABs) when he was given an opportunity, July (64) and August (71) when he played well, and September (65) when he had been doing well and no one else was hitting either.

He got the least playing time in May (48) and June (51) when he had been awful.

And after coming along nicely last year and having a pretty good spring, Ozzie give him about 2 AB's a week to start the season. *** is that? That is what I am talking about. I don't even agree with the way he worked the platoon last year. He sat Anderson against a bunch of meatball righties and then started him every time the Sox faced one of the top lefties in the game like Santana, Rogers, etc. If you're going to sit him against tough match-ups, I'd rather sit him against the toughest pitchers PERIOD, at least until he's hitting!

peeonwrigley
06-13-2007, 03:00 PM
You don't have to like it in order to understand and work with it, but there are only a handful of good veteran-laden teams in a given year. You have to be able to develop your way back to that once you reach that "old, injured, overpayed" threshold every few years. You can not afford to have a manager who just throws his hands up and looks for the oldest guy standing around him to put him in the game irrespective of talent, potential, etc. I feel like that is what Ozzie has done...

http://www.autographedtoyou.com/celebpics/dusty_baker5.jpg

"Worked so well for me, dude."

Flight #24
06-13-2007, 03:07 PM
Actually it was in early June, with Anderson's average in the .150s, that Ozzie talked about possibly sending him down. He was then given a vote of confidence after a meeting with KW and Ozzie and started to rebound on June 11 in the near-comeback vs. Cleveland.


I was referring to the repeated comments in the 2d half of the season regarding how Anderson needed to improve his game, how he had to decide "is he a power or speed guy", etc. All after he'd worked through his initial slump and was hitting pretty well.

In July, Anderson got 3+ABs in 17/25 games & hit .313.
In August, Anderson got 3+ABs in 20/29 games & hit .296.
In September, Anderson got 3+Abs in 14/29 games & hit .225.

He was also on a roll at the end of august, with hits in his last 7 games in which he was more than a PH (he was 0-1 in one game).

However, entering September, what happened to this rookie who apparently had figured things out and was playing well? He saw decent time (3+ABs) in only 5 of the first 12 games and 8 of the first 20.

It seems like a recipe to jerk around a young player, and it's counter to what Ozzie said at the start of the year when he said as long as he played good D he didn't care about his bat.

getonbckthr
06-13-2007, 03:27 PM
This sounds like last year with Anderson. He wasn't batting .300 with 20 hrs and 70 RBI's at the allstar break therefor he split time with Groundoutwiak. Right now baseball has a problem with Pujolsitis. Baseball feels that if these high profile rookies don't come in and perform like allstars they are useless and worthless. They are kids they need time to adjust and learn.

getonbckthr
06-13-2007, 03:30 PM
I was referring to the repeated comments in the 2d half of the season regarding how Anderson needed to improve his game, how he had to decide "is he a power or speed guy", etc. All after he'd worked through his initial slump and was hitting pretty well.

In July, Anderson got 3+ABs in 17/25 games & hit .313.
In August, Anderson got 3+ABs in 20/29 games & hit .296.
In September, Anderson got 3+Abs in 14/29 games & hit .225.

He was also on a roll at the end of august, with hits in his last 7 games in which he was more than a PH (he was 0-1 in one game).

However, entering September, what happened to this rookie who apparently had figured things out and was playing well? He saw decent time (3+ABs) in only 5 of the first 12 games and 8 of the first 20.

It seems like a recipe to jerk around a young player, and it's counter to what Ozzie said at the start of the year when he said as long as he played good D he didn't care about his bat.
July and August he played in 70% of those games, September he played in under 50%. Probably lost his feeling of comfort. As far as this season he was never given an oppertunity to play everyday.

Man Soo Lee
06-13-2007, 04:10 PM
I don't even agree with the way he worked the platoon last year. He sat Anderson against a bunch of meatball righties and then started him every time the Sox faced one of the top lefties in the game like Santana, Rogers, etc. If you're going to sit him against tough match-ups, I'd rather sit him against the toughest pitchers PERIOD, at least until he's hitting!

What option did Ozzie have against the top lefties? Anderson probably had a better chance against them than Mackowiak and he would at least catch the ball. Giving yourself the best chance to win takes precedence over development when you're in the race.

Williams deserves blame for giving Ozzie a raw rookie CF and no one else on the roster capable of playing the position.

However, entering September, what happened to this rookie who apparently had figured things out and was playing well? He saw decent time (3+ABs) in only 5 of the first 12 games and 8 of the first 20.

Drawing the line at 3+ ABs excludes a number of games where Anderson started and had a least two (and sometimes three) plate appearances before being replaced by a pinch hitter. He started 7 of the first 12 and 13 of the first 20 games in September.

Tragg
06-13-2007, 05:19 PM
It won't take long to determine if Fields is ready. You don't just leave him there if he's not. I don't get what your problem is with what Ozzie said?

If he can't handle it and he gets left out there we'll be hearing about how Ozzie mis-used yet another superstar in waiting the same way he did with Anderson.
I'm editing to say Right on Randar and Flight...you guys express it a lot better than I ever could.

Flight #24
06-13-2007, 05:31 PM
What option did Ozzie have against the top lefties? Anderson probably had a better chance against them than Mackowiak and he would at least catch the ball. Giving yourself the best chance to win takes precedence over development when you're in the race.

Williams deserves blame for giving Ozzie a raw rookie CF and no one else on the roster capable of playing the position.



Drawing the line at 3+ ABs excludes a number of games where Anderson started and had a least two (and sometimes three) plate appearances before being replaced by a pinch hitter. He started 7 of the first 12 and 13 of the first 20 games in September.

The ptching was the main problem last year, and Anderson wasn't the cause of the offensive struggles. Most if not all rookies are raw, so unless you're willing to let them get seasoned, you'll never have young players to plug in.

As for the games started, 7/12 for a rookie who's coming on is not great. And I don't buy the pinch hitter deal - yanking him out after 1-2 ABs isn't that much different confidence and "settling in" wise from banching him randomly. Especially given that the replacement was roughly equivalent in terms of overall value to the team (better hitter, worse D).

JB98
06-13-2007, 05:37 PM
I don't expect any of the callups to be Albert Pujols and Ryan Howard. I would, however, like someone to come up from the minors and hit .250. Just go 1-for-4, get a big hit every now and then and play your ****ing position. Is that too much to ask for crying out loud? With recent Sox "prospects," apparently it is.

Jerome
06-13-2007, 06:03 PM
are you kidding me

Fields should be in every day

of course this is the same manager who...ehh never mind, BA should be in there every day in my mind but there are others who don't feel that way and I can't argue with them strongly

Jerome
06-13-2007, 06:04 PM
Give the kid a chance. The 2007 version of the Chicago White Sox are going nowhere; let the prospects prove/disprove themselves.


!!!

soxinem1
06-13-2007, 06:08 PM
This season is over, so they really should see what Feilds can do full-time for the remainder of the season.

Also, they should bring back BA and let him go, full-time for the remainder of the year.

Since Pods and Erstad will NOT be returning starters for 2008, it's time to put the farm system, and the guys responsible for drafting them, to the test and let them play.

I'd aslo trade Buerhle and Contreras and let Floyd and Gonzalez start. I really doubt that either of these two (meaning MB and Contreras) are in the future plans of the team and they should just be traded. Uribe, Iguchi, Dye, and Cintron all should be heading out, and everyone in the pen minus Logan and Jenks should be shipped out too.

This team is lifeless, and the bullpen implosions are just incredible. They make last year's pen look like Cy Young.

They have to find out sooner or later if these guys have the tools and ability to play in the majors. And if they don't it's time to start making the guys who drafted them a little more accountable for their decisions.

Why **** around, get the retooling started.

CLR01
06-13-2007, 06:17 PM
This season is over, so they really should see what Feilds can do full-time for the remainder of the season.

Also, they should bring back BA and let him go, full-time for the remainder of the year.

Since Pods and Erstad will NOT be returning starters for 2008, it's time to put the farm system, and the guys responsible for drafting them, to the test and let them play.

I'd aslo trade Buerhle and Contreras and let Floyd and Gonzalez start. I really doubt that either of these two (meaning MB and Contreras) are in the future plans of the team and they should just be traded. Uribe, Iguchi, Dye, and Cintron all should be heading out, and everyone in the pen minus Logan and Jenks should be shipped out too.

This team is lifeless, and the bullpen implosions are just incredible. They make last year's pen look like Cy Young.

They have to find out sooner or later if these guys have the tools and ability to play in the majors. And if they don't it's time to start making the guys who drafted them a little more accountable for their decisions.

Why **** around, get the retooling started.

Anderson is hurt. Bringing him up right now wouldn't help anyone.

soxinem1
06-13-2007, 06:21 PM
Anderson is hurt. Bringing him up right now wouldn't help anyone.

You are right, I heard that yesterday and forgot. Let Owens play then until BA is ready, I stick by the rest of the choices.

TheOldRoman
06-13-2007, 07:42 PM
Your comment is unreal. Awful.
Yeah, he must spend time on the short bus (Soxtalk). To them, it is an established fact. That site is full of miserable, loathesome people who all "know insiders", but don't really know much about baseball at all. And they put the "dark clouds" here to shame, even when the Sox are doing good. They don't just think the Sox will lose, they want the Sox to lose to prove their hypothesis right. Oh, and the Sox have the worst farm system in the history of baseball, so we'd better get used to 100 loss seasons (because payroll will be cut in half over the next two years). So yeah, Ozzie is a big racist.

As for these comments, I just hope they are to motivate Fields. I want him playing every single game the rest of the year (well, a few off days). And when we mercifully trade Dye, I want to see an outfield of Terrero, Anderson, and Sweeney the entire season. Let Erstad and Mackowiak sub. Or even trade them, I don't give a ****. If we have nothing to play for, I want to see the kids play.

santo=dorf
06-13-2007, 08:02 PM
I wonder if Ozzie's expects more out of rookies because he was ROY.

Just for Fun:
Ozzie (1985): Great defensively, .273/.291/.358
Brian Anderson (2006): Great defensively, .225/.290/.359
Brian Anderson walked more times (30) in his 400 PA rookie season than Ozzie ever did in a single season (26 in 542 PA's in 1990.)

Yet somehow Ozzie feels Brian failed in his chance to impress the club and he'll probably follow the path of Sean Tracey and Brandon McCarthy.

soxinem1
06-13-2007, 08:22 PM
I wonder if Ozzie's expects more out of rookies because he was ROY.

Just for Fun:
Ozzie (1985): Great defensively, .273/.291/.358
Brian Anderson (2006): Great defensively, .225/.290/.359
Brian Anderson walked more times (30) in his 400 PA rookie season than Ozzie ever did in a single season (26 in 542 PA's in 1990.)

Yet somehow Ozzie feels Brian failed in his chance to impress the club and he'll probably follow the path of Sean Tracey and Brandon McCarthy.

Not only that, but a player of Guillen's caliber would find it difficult to break a ML line up today. Almost every team has a SS that can hit with some pop. Guillen's type of production, unless he stole a lot and scored a lot (which he did not), would find it very difficult to be more than a utility guy today.

Brian26
06-13-2007, 08:31 PM
I dont' care if they go 62-100 you don't just keep sticking the kid out there if he's failing. That's definately not fair to the rest of the team. Let alone the kid, himself.

They did that with Robin Ventura and it worked out fine. Patience is a virtue.

Brian26
06-13-2007, 08:32 PM
Secondly, if Fields is the lone option at 3rd long term I sure hope Kenny has the Yankees and Scott Boras on speed dial working feverishly to get ARod at any cost.


If ARod miraculously came to the Sox, he'd be penciled in at SS way before 3B.

Frontman
06-13-2007, 08:33 PM
Now, I know I'm coming in PAGES late to this one, but isn't this just a post on a bloggers site?

I just took the following from WhiteSox.com

"Defensively, he's never going to be Joe Crede," added Guillen, praising Crede as opposed to chastising his new starting third baseman. "I'm sorry, but I'm just being honest. Right now, Fields is a guy who will play third base the most but he's not the everyday third baseman. It's up to him how many at-bats he will get."

The whole Scott Merkin column is at the link below.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070612&content_id=2021755&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

From that quote, it doesn't sound "Short leash" at all. Ozzie says "he'll play third the most."

What do you all think?

Brian26
06-13-2007, 08:39 PM
I'm not too surprised Ozzie would rather put a low-ceiling older prospect latino player over Fields. It's the Ozzie way.

Wow, that's an ignorant statement.

southside rocks
06-13-2007, 09:10 PM
Now, I know I'm coming in PAGES late to this one, but isn't this just a post on a bloggers site?



Yes and no.

Yes, it's a blog. No, it's not just a blogger's site, the blogger is the beat writer who covers the Sox for the Daily Southtown. He does actually talk to Ozzie on a daily basis.

However, I think that the quote from Ozzie was taken out of context, and I don't think that Ozzie meant that Fields is a 'maybe' at 3rd base UNLESS he performs absolutely terribly.

PeoriaSoxFan
06-13-2007, 09:37 PM
It won't take long to determine if Fields is ready. You don't just leave him there if he's not. I don't get what your problem is with what Ozzie said?

If he can't handle it and he gets left out there we'll be hearing about how Ozzie mis-used yet another superstar in waiting the same way he did with Anderson.


I agree. But, the words Anderson and superstar should never be used in the same sentence. Hopefully, people really don't think that.

JB98
06-13-2007, 09:40 PM
I agree. But, the words Anderson and superstar should never be used in the same sentence. Hopefully, people really don't think that.

Some do, and those people firmly believe that Ozzie has ruined Anderson's career.

Flight #24
06-13-2007, 09:46 PM
Some do, and those people firmly believe that Ozzie has ruined Anderson's career.

I don't think Anderson's a star, but I do think Ozzie has ruined his career (so far). I believe he was likely to be an excellent defensive CF who hit .280 with 15HR. But I believe that Ozzie decided he was never going to amount to anything (or had other reasons to dislike him) and so didn't really give him much of a chance.

Tragg
06-13-2007, 09:50 PM
Brian Anderson walked more times (30) in his 400 PA rookie season than Ozzie ever did in a single season (26 in 542 PA's in 1990.)

Yet somehow Ozzie feels Brian failed in his chance to impress the club and he'll probably follow the path of Sean Tracey and Brandon McCarthy.
I don't think that ozzie sees much value in walking; or I haven't seen any evidence of it.
And to be fair. you can live with bad offense out of SS; but CF has got to hit.
Tracey, Rauch and Anderson all crossed Ozzie -but they weren't stellar performers either - so I don't know what the deal is.

JB98
06-13-2007, 09:53 PM
I don't think Anderson's a star, but I do think Ozzie has ruined his career (so far). I believe he was likely to be an excellent defensive CF who hit .280 with 15HR. But I believe that Ozzie decided he was never going to amount to anything (or had other reasons to dislike him) and so didn't really give him much of a chance.

Anderson got the same opportunity last year that Terrero has gotten this year. Terrero has performed better in that role. I hope the Sox trade Anderson. There are obviously quite a few people here who think BA is going to be a good player. Hopefully, some GM out there agrees. If so, I'd move him immediately.

Tragg
06-13-2007, 10:03 PM
Anderson got the same opportunity last year that Terrero has gotten this year. Terrero has performed better in that role. I hope the Sox trade Anderson. There are obviously quite a few people here who think BA is going to be a good player. Hopefully, some GM out there agrees. If so, I'd move him immediately.

We wouldn't get squat for Anderson right now. That's big time selling low. Torrero's numbers in the small sample size of 48 at bats are really good but that's a small sample size (and expanding to the 2 prior years doesn't add comfort); his D isn't Anderson's quality.

JB98
06-13-2007, 10:14 PM
We wouldn't get squat for Anderson right now. That's big time selling low. Torrero's numbers in the small sample size of 48 at bats are really good but that's a small sample size (and expanding to the 2 prior years doesn't add comfort); his D isn't Anderson's quality.

BA is better in the outfield than Terrero, but Terrero has shown that he can be effective in all three outfield positions. His defense, while not gold-glove caliber, is of major-league quality. And he's far more dangerous with the bat than Anderson at this point. At any rate, Anderson's defenders here believe he is failing because of Ozzie. If that's the case, shouldn't another GM recognize Anderson's talent and be willing to take him?

Hitmen77
06-13-2007, 10:46 PM
Anderson is hurt. Bringing him up right now wouldn't help anyone.

What is the nature of his injury and what is his recovery time?

Frontman
06-13-2007, 11:17 PM
Yes and no.

Yes, it's a blog. No, it's not just a blogger's site, the blogger is the beat writer who covers the Sox for the Daily Southtown. He does actually talk to Ozzie on a daily basis.

However, I think that the quote from Ozzie was taken out of context, and I don't think that Ozzie meant that Fields is a 'maybe' at 3rd base UNLESS he performs absolutely terribly.


You mean, like all 25 guys are right now? There's nothing for certain on this team at all.

Flight #24
06-14-2007, 12:07 AM
Anderson got the same opportunity last year that Terrero has gotten this year. Terrero has performed better in that role. I hope the Sox trade Anderson. There are obviously quite a few people here who think BA is going to be a good player. Hopefully, some GM out there agrees. If so, I'd move him immediately.

So ~50ABs tells you that Terrero will be a solid major leaguer? And his previous~440 ABs hitting ~.230 don't mean all that much when stacked up against this season's 50?:rolleyes:

For reference, how about a guy who in similar ABs hit .313? Or .298? Because there's BA's July & August for you.

I'm not saying those months mean BA's going to be a solid major leaguer, I'm saying that Terrero's 50 don't tell you squat. As another reference point, Robin Ventura started 0-46, but ended up a good hitter. Anderson started 28-161. He then turned it around, hitting ~.300 over his next 135ABs, but then instead of seeing his time increase to build on that, started playing about half-time, not playing multiple days in a row, and frequently getting yanked in mid-game after 1-2 ABs.

What that means is that the Sox (and the fans) also don't know what BA can do and whether he's really a .200 guy from the first few months or more like the .280-.300 guy he was in July & August.. Unfortunately for them and us.

Name the team with successful young players and I'll show you a team that's generally willing to let guys struggle a bit when they come up. As an example, check the team leading the division. Victor Martinez, Travis Hafner, Grady Sizemore all had poor and/or inconsistent starts including multiple months batting in the low .200s. But they continued to be played regularly and were able to adjust and come around.

It's hard enough for a rookie to adjust to the bigs with a set routine and confidence that his manager believes in him and is trying to help him succeed. When he doesn't know if & when he'll play and why he's being yanked in & out (i.e. yanked out after hitting well), it must be significantly harder.

FedEx227
06-14-2007, 12:14 AM
Wow, that's an ignorant statement.

Possibly, but starting Luis Terrero over Ryan Sweeney and Brian Anderson proves my point. And when he begins playing Andy Gonzalez and Alex Cintron over Josh Fields we'll talk.

The fact that Andy Gonzalez and Luis Terrero are in the majors and Anderson and Sweeney in the minors is a complete joke. It is a real problem when you're making decisions that show up your GM and his ability to draft. Sure Kenny makes the decisions, but Ozzie will not play Anderson or Sweeney if they were up here, he proved that.

So instead of working with the general manager who drafted both Anderson/Sweeney very highly in the draft, he wants two "veterans" who both happen to be Latino, and beings giving them more playing time then Sweeney and Anderson combined.

Vazquez doesn't plunk a Ranger, no problem. Garland and Tracey fail to, they get a chewing out.

I'm not saying he's racist at all... people keep putting words in my mouth. I even said it's a natural bias that Ozzie clearly has. Unfortunately this bias and stubbornness is not helping us for the future... yes it's not bad for the present, Terrero isn't doing too bad, but why not see what these guys are made of so we can either move on with them or break ties. Terrero is not our future and it's time to see if Fields/Sweeney/Anderson are our future.

Name the team with successful young players and I'll show you a team that's generally willing to let guys struggle a bit when they come up. As an example, check the team leading the division. Victor Martinez, Travis Hafner, Grady Sizemore all had poor and/or inconsistent starts including multiple months batting in the low .200s. But they continued to be played regularly and were able to adjust and come around. For some reason a lot of these guys think they still have a fighting chance, like they've seen SOMETHING from this team that means they can still compete in the AL.

oeo
06-14-2007, 12:38 AM
So ~50ABs tells you that Terrero will be a solid major leaguer? And his previous~440 ABs hitting ~.230 don't mean all that much when stacked up against this season's 50?:rolleyes:

For reference, how about a guy who in similar ABs hit .313? Or .298? Because there's BA's July & August for you.

I'm not saying those months mean BA's going to be a solid major leaguer, I'm saying that Terrero's 50 don't tell you squat. As another reference point, Robin Ventura started 0-46, but ended up a good hitter. Anderson started 28-161. He then turned it around, hitting ~.300 over his next 135ABs, but then instead of seeing his time increase to build on that, started playing about half-time, not playing multiple days in a row, and frequently getting yanked in mid-game after 1-2 ABs.

What that means is that the Sox (and the fans) also don't know what BA can do and whether he's really a .200 guy from the first few months or more like the .280-.300 guy he was in July & August.. Unfortunately for them and us.

Name the team with successful young players and I'll show you a team that's generally willing to let guys struggle a bit when they come up. As an example, check the team leading the division. Victor Martinez, Travis Hafner, Grady Sizemore all had poor and/or inconsistent starts including multiple months batting in the low .200s. But they continued to be played regularly and were able to adjust and come around.

It's hard enough for a rookie to adjust to the bigs with a set routine and confidence that his manager believes in him and is trying to help him succeed. When he doesn't know if & when he'll play and why he's being yanked in & out (i.e. yanked out after hitting well), it must be significantly harder.

I just want to know why you think he's going to be even a solid big league player. So far, his AAA statistics are not backing you up, so right now I have to say that the organization has made the right decision. Hopefully he can turn it around, but right now I'm not expecting him to be in our future outfield.

I do agree that Terrero shouldn't become a starter, though. Until Anderson can turn himself around in Charlotte, he needs to stay there. Sweeney should be called back up if we continue to struggle. Since being sent down, he's brought his average up 40 points; if we continue on our down-slide, he should be our starting LF for the rest of the year.

Frontman
06-14-2007, 07:31 AM
Possibly, but starting Luis Terrero over Ryan Sweeney and Brian Anderson proves my point. And when he begins playing Andy Gonzalez and Alex Cintron over Josh Fields we'll talk.


For cryin' out loud, FedEx; Anderson isn't as good as everyone makes him out to be. He had his chance last year and stunk up the joint. Considering how bad its been this year, another full year of Anderon's hack attack at the plate isn't going to do anything. And considering what I've seen with Terrero here; I'd take him over Anderson. Anderson is a better fielder, yes.

However, Terrero in his limited time here has hit more home runs than Erstad and Mackowiak combined, has the second best OBP after Jim Thome; has the top slugging percentage on the team. Yes, that is from a smaller pool, but honestly, can you look at any 22 games from Brian Anderson last season where he performed like that? I certainly didn't see it.

And Ozzie has said Josh is going to get the majority of time at 3rd base. (See the "short leash" thread on Fields' status) But from what I've seen already out of him, he needs time to mature. Anderson got a full season last year. We'll see what the season brings, but Fields hasn't done much so far to have me put my confidence in him as the third baseman of the future.

Only time will tell.

Jaffar
06-14-2007, 08:18 AM
For cryin' out loud, FedEx; Anderson isn't as good as everyone makes him out to be. He had his chance last year and stunk up the joint. Considering how bad its been this year, another full year of Anderon's hack attack at the plate isn't going to do anything. And considering what I've seen with Terrero here; I'd take him over Anderson. Anderson is a better fielder, yes.

However, Terrero in his limited time here has hit more home runs than Erstad and Mackowiak combined, has the second best OBP after Jim Thome; has the top slugging percentage on the team. Yes, that is from a smaller pool, but honestly, can you look at any 22 games from Brian Anderson last season where he performed like that? I certainly didn't see it.

And Ozzie has said Josh is going to get the majority of time at 3rd base. (See the "short leash" thread on Fields' status) But from what I've seen already out of him, he needs time to mature. Anderson got a full season last year. We'll see what the season brings, but Fields hasn't done much so far to have me put my confidence in him as the third baseman of the future.

Only time will tell.

I like Anderson and was really pulling for him but I am not over the top about defending/bashing players because nothing I say can change who plays but I figured I'd toss out that somebody can find a really good 22 game run for Anderson considering in his final 204 AB's of 2006 he hit .265 which is higher then Terrero's avg right now in 1/4 of the AB's.

Frontman
06-14-2007, 08:21 AM
I like Anderson and was really pulling for him but I am not over the top about defending/bashing players because nothing I say can change who plays but I figured I'd toss out that somebody can find a really good 22 game run for Anderson considering in his final 204 AB's of 2006 he hit .265 which is higher then Terrero's avg right now in 1/4 of the AB's.

That's true that at the very end of the year, where he wasn't in everyday, did Anderson do his best hitting.

balke
06-14-2007, 08:54 AM
I like Anderson and was really pulling for him but I am not over the top about defending/bashing players because nothing I say can change who plays but I figured I'd toss out that somebody can find a really good 22 game run for Anderson considering in his final 204 AB's of 2006 he hit .265 which is higher then Terrero's avg right now in 1/4 of the AB's.

Yeah, but the only thing that matters is having 5 early HR's. If you extrapolate those 5 homeruns in 50 AB's, you'll see Terrero is a MOUNTAIN OF POWER. And who cares if he never hits a double or triple, and he drops routine flyballs while his avg. sits at .255? THIS GUY HIT 5 HOMERUNS! He should be starting everyday, and Sweeney should hit in front of him to show him how to look good striking out. This way all the Sox fans can feel comforted that if the moon and stars aline, and there is a year long eclipse that the 2007 minor leaguers are all better than 2007 Darin Erstad.

Flight #24
06-14-2007, 09:47 AM
I just want to know why you think he's going to be even a solid big league player. So far, his AAA statistics are not backing you up, so right now I have to say that the organization has made the right decision. Hopefully he can turn it around, but right now I'm not expecting him to be in our future outfield.

I do agree that Terrero shouldn't become a starter, though. Until Anderson can turn himself around in Charlotte, he needs to stay there. Sweeney should be called back up if we continue to struggle. Since being sent down, he's brought his average up 40 points; if we continue on our down-slide, he should be our starting LF for the rest of the year.

This is why:

2003 (college/rookie): ~.380avg
2004 (A/AA)): ~.295 avg
2005 (AAA): .295 avg

2006 was a year with wild swings, but to me the progression was positive up through August and mimicked what I've heard about his in-season progression in the minors (start slow, adjust, do well).

I discount severely his 2007 minor league #s based on a)small sample size, b)reported injury and c)shattered confidence because if I can tell that his manager isn't going to give him a fair shake, I'm sure it's blatantly obvious to him. The whole rumored "fight with Oz Jr" only adds to that.

If he were called up, told (like he was to start 2006) - "go out there, play good D, don't worry about your bat and as long as that happens you'll get to play for a couple months relatively consistently" then I think he'd produce in line with his July/Aug-06 numbers.

I'm still amazed that after putting up ~.300 avg for those 2 months, he suddenly was cut to playing ~half-time.

FedEx227
06-14-2007, 10:01 AM
However, Terrero in his limited time here has hit more home runs than Erstad and Mackowiak combined, has the second best OBP after Jim Thome; has the top slugging percentage on the team. Yes, that is from a smaller pool, but honestly, can you look at any 22 games from Brian Anderson last season where he performed like that? I certainly didn't see it.


You know you're right...

Oh wait, no... you're wrong:

July: 64 ABs, .313/.328/.469
August: 71 ABs, .296/.367/.437

Terrero has shown some great stuff at the plate, but is a 27-year old, 10th year prospect who's a career .237 hitter our future in the OF?

It's really not even about Anderson for me, he looked god awful at the plate early in the year... to me it's about Sweeney getting some time. Anderson got last year now he knows what to work on, the cup of coffee Sweeney got won't help him at all, if anything all it did was intimidate him.

INSox56
06-14-2007, 10:24 AM
For cryin' out loud, FedEx; Anderson isn't as good as everyone makes him out to be. He had his chance last year and stunk up the joint. Considering how bad its been this year, another full year of Anderon's hack attack at the plate isn't going to do anything. For about the 10th time, I'll post this (though it'll probably get ignored like the rest of the times). Walker has admitted to knowing of major flaws in Anderson's swing and did nothing to help him last year, letting "his natural ability work things out" (a ****ty way to coach IMO, but that's beside the point). I don't think you can judge Anderson's 2006 at all without acknowledging this fact; and if you do, come to the conclusion that it's a bad sample to pick from. His 2007 performance shouldn't be judged either...ask any player in the bigs...you can't get into any type of hitting rhythm or see well at the plate if you go 5 games between appearances (especially if you're young). And as his 2007 continues to suck in the minors, we should look at this...did Ozzie screw up what (Walker admitted to be) a much improved swing in Spring Training by not playing him, killing his rhythem, and losing what progress he made? I just think the whole BA's 2006 sucked major ass and it's because he sucks as a player argument is unfounded.

CLR01
06-14-2007, 10:45 AM
What is the nature of his injury and what is his recovery time?

Upper Arm/Shoulder/Neck something like that.

Recovery time who knows. He has played 15 games since the 21st and only 2 of them were in CF, the rest as DH. Following the two he played in the field (31st, 1st) he was held out out the lineup for 3 games. I don't know if he re-injured himself in the field or if it is the same injury suffered on the 21st. I have heard rumors that he was attempting to rob a church and carjack some nuns but the nuns fought back and kicked his ass. I have been unable to confirm that though.

He has missed 6 games since the 21st and 5 of them in June.

russ99
06-14-2007, 10:54 AM
For about the 10th time, I'll post this (though it'll probably get ignored like the rest of the times). Walker has admitted to knowing of major flaws in Anderson's swing and did nothing to help him last year, letting "his natural ability work things out" (a ****ty way to coach IMO, but that's beside the point).

I'm pretty peeved at Walker right now, but in that case it was the right thing to do. If you're a rookie hitter, the last thing you want is a hitting coach constantly telling you to adjust your swing. Anderson would have been completely out of sync and never had the decent July numbers he had.

I still think giving Anderson the rest of the year to get his confidence back is the right thing to do. There will probably be 2 open outfield spots next spring and if Anderson shows the club some progress and maturity, he'll likely be a starting outfielder next year.

INSox56
06-14-2007, 11:14 AM
I'm pretty peeved at Walker right now, but in that case it was the right thing to do. If you're a rookie hitter, the last thing you want is a hitting coach constantly telling you to adjust your swing. Anderson would have been completely out of sync and never had the decent July numbers he had.

I still think giving Anderson the rest of the year to get his confidence back is the right thing to do. There will probably be 2 open outfield spots next spring and if Anderson shows the club some progress and maturity, he'll likely be a starting outfielder next year.Yeah I guess I can understand that with Walker regarding rookies. I just would think that if that's the case, then why get on the guy and take away his at bats, especially after that horrible season and him coming around with his swing. It made, and still makes, zero sense to me.

assrevolution
06-14-2007, 11:21 AM
I just think the whole BA's 2006 sucked major ass and it's because he sucks as a player argument is unfounded.

Well, at what point in time is BA held accountable for not producing? Some guys just go out there and get the job done. He's not yet one of them.

UserNameBlank
06-14-2007, 11:21 AM
Damn it.

Anderson is hurt. He shouldn't be playing. Sweeney and Fields should be up here playing everyday IMO.

Terrero is 27 and producing for the first time in his career. Let him play. Some guys don't break out until later in their careers. If he doesn't put up good numbers in regular playing time, fine. But if he does, you can't look at his numbers in AZ and in the minors for AZ, ignore the progress he's made the last two years, and then say "he's a 4th OF."

I seriously can't understand why some people are trying so hard to make it look like Luis hasn't been productive for us. He's been more productive than Owens, Sweeney, or Anderson this year and somehow he still shouldn't be playing? Wake the **** up, the season is over. I've defended our minor leaguers at every opportunity, but none of our minor league OF's are any more of an "answer" for this year or next than Terrero. For all we know, Sweeney still isn't ready, Anderson still doesn't have any plate discipline, and Owens still hasn't proven over a full year that he can hit Triple A pitching.

BTW, who gives a flying **** if Andy Gonzalez plays? So far he's looked better than Cintron. Deal Alex and let him have a shot at backup IF.

champagne030
06-14-2007, 11:29 AM
Well, at what point in time is BA held accountable for not producing? Some guys just go out there and get the job done. He's not yet one of them.

As has been mentioned several times, very, very few players come up from the minor leagues and produce right out of the box. It's a period of adjustment. He sucked with the bat for first 2 1/2 months last season, then he hit roughly .290 for 2 1/2 months. He then had problems in September when he was given inconsistent playing time. He produced this spring, yet was given 17 AB's in the 1st month of the season.

So, he's cut loose because he didn't produce in 17 AB's during April of this season? :rolleyes:

assrevolution
06-14-2007, 11:32 AM
Terrero is 27 and producing for the first time in his career. Let him play. Some guys don't break out until later in their careers. If he doesn't put up good numbers in regular playing time, fine. But if he does, you can't look at his numbers in AZ and in the minors for AZ, ignore the progress he's made the last two years, and then say "he's a 4th OF."


BTW, who gives a flying **** if Andy Gonzalez plays? So far he's looked better than Cintron. Deal Alex and let him have a shot at backup IF.

Terrero seems to be the only guy driving in runs these days so I agree that he should be on the field. Cintron is useless. He had a few game winners last year but is terrible in the field and has done nothing to make anyone think he could start on this team. He's a great pinch runner!

assrevolution
06-14-2007, 11:38 AM
As has been mentioned several times, very, very few players come up from the minor leagues and produce right out of the box. It's a period of adjustment. He sucked with the bat for first 2 1/2 months last season, then he hit roughly .290 for 2 1/2 months. He then had problems in September when he was given inconsistent playing time. He produced this spring, yet was given 17 AB's in the 1st month of the season.

So, he's cut loose because he didn't produce in 17 AB's during April of this season? :rolleyes:

He's been struggling when he plays everyday and when he gets inconsistent playing time. I'm only seeing one pattern here. If he's not ready then he's not ready, but many other teams are getting production over .210 out of rookie/2nd/3rd year players. With Erstad, Dye, and Podsednik out there he shouldn't have gotten more thn 17 ABs.

champagne030
06-14-2007, 11:42 AM
He's been struggling when he plays everyday and when he gets inconsistent playing time. I'm only seeing one pattern here. If he's not ready then he's not ready, but many other teams are getting production over .210 out of rookie/2nd/3rd year players. With Erstad, Dye, and Podsednik out there he shouldn't have gotten more thn 17 ABs.

When did he struggle with playing everyday? The closest he came to playing everyday was July-Aug when he hit .290. He outperformed GrindErstad in the spring. How do we know that wouldn't have continued if given the opportunity?

assrevolution
06-14-2007, 11:55 AM
When did he struggle with playing everyday? The closest he came to playing everyday was July-Aug when he hit .290. He outperformed GrindErstad in the spring. How do we know that wouldn't have continued if given the opportunity?

He played in 134 games last year. That's 82.7% of the games. and he hit .225 for the year. so outside of those fluky two months he blew ass. major ass.

mjmcend
06-14-2007, 12:07 PM
He played in 134 games last year. That's 82.7% of the games. and he hit .225 for the year. so outside of those fluky two months he blew ass. major ass.


And throughour his entire career except a fluky year in 2000, GrindErstad has blew ass. Major ass.

Lip Man 1
06-14-2007, 12:11 PM
"It's not easy to play at this level, play in Chicago. You can play at this level when you have a young team, [but] we are trying to win."-- Ozzie Guillen to the Chicago media after yesterday's game. He was responding to questions about why the Sox minor league call up's haven't contributed much.

He went on to say he thinks they eventually will contribute but that in his opinion they need another year at Triple A and also possibly playing Winter-ball.

Lip

CLR01
06-14-2007, 12:28 PM
He played in 134 games last year. That's 82.7% of the games. and he hit .225 for the year. so outside of those fluky two months he blew ass. major ass.

And he batted in only 72%. Got more than 1 at bat in only 65%. Got more than 2 at bats in 61%.

UserNameBlank
06-14-2007, 12:29 PM
"It's not easy to play at this level, play in Chicago. You can play at this level when you have a young team, [but] we are trying to win."-- Ozzie Guillen to the Chicago media after yesterday's game. He was responding to questions about why the Sox minor league call up's haven't contributed much.

He went on to say he thinks they eventually will contribute but that in his opinion they need another year at Triple A and also possibly playing Winter-ball.

Lip
I could see that about Owens and maybe Sweeney, but Anderson and Fields don't need to face Triple A pitching anymore. Especially Fields. These guys are going to have to struggle to learn, and it's better to struggle now when the team isn't doing anything than it is when the expectation to win is there.

If Ozzie still expects this team to win he should be cut loose. If he thinks Fields needs to crush AAA pitching for another year, he should be cut loose. If the manager isn't willing to go along with the direction the team is heading in, he is of no value to us.

oeo
06-14-2007, 12:35 PM
This is why:

2003 (college/rookie): ~.380avg
2004 (A/AA)): ~.295 avg
2005 (AAA): .295 avg

2006 was a year with wild swings, but to me the progression was positive up through August and mimicked what I've heard about his in-season progression in the minors (start slow, adjust, do well).

I discount severely his 2007 minor league #s based on a)small sample size, b)reported injury and c)shattered confidence because if I can tell that his manager isn't going to give him a fair shake, I'm sure it's blatantly obvious to him. The whole rumored "fight with Oz Jr" only adds to that.

If he were called up, told (like he was to start 2006) - "go out there, play good D, don't worry about your bat and as long as that happens you'll get to play for a couple months relatively consistently" then I think he'd produce in line with his July/Aug-06 numbers.

I'm still amazed that after putting up ~.300 avg for those 2 months, he suddenly was cut to playing ~half-time.

You say 2006 was 'a year with wild swings.' He had those same problems this year, and is obviously still having them. Luis Terrero also tore up the minor leagues, now he's a journeyman. I don't have very high expectations for BA anymore. He still has a lot more proving to do before he gets a starting job (unlike a lot of people here feel). I'm hoping and praying he can become a solid centerfielder, but I'm certainly not going to expect it to happen.

I could see that about Owens and maybe Sweeney, but Anderson and Fields don't need to face Triple A pitching anymore. Especially Fields. These guys are going to have to struggle to learn, and it's better to struggle now when the team isn't doing anything than it is when the expectation to win is there.

Anderson is batting .256 against AAA pitching.

Lip Man 1
06-14-2007, 12:43 PM
User:

But isn't the same "philosophy" coming from Kenny? (Based on his quotes in the papers about 'contending every season,' 'Yankee-sized payroll's' and 'winning another World Series.')

Not saying you're wrong, just that the possibility exist that Kenny feels the same way as Ozzie.

Lip

Flight #24
06-14-2007, 12:48 PM
You say 2006 was 'a year with wild swings.' He had those same problems this year, and is obviously still having them. Luis Terrero also tore up the minor leagues, now he's a journeyman. I don't have very high expectations for BA anymore. He still has a lot more proving to do before he gets a starting job (unlike a lot of people here feel). I'm hoping and praying he can become a solid centerfielder, but I'm certainly not going to expect it to happen.



Anderson is batting .256 against AAA pitching.

With an injury after getting yanked around in the bigs. I put a lot more stock into his hundreds of ABs over the past few years than 50-odd ABs this year with an injury.

Frontman
06-14-2007, 01:12 PM
For about the 10th time, I'll post this (though it'll probably get ignored like the rest of the times). Walker has admitted to knowing of major flaws in Anderson's swing and did nothing to help him last year, letting "his natural ability work things out" (a ****ty way to coach IMO, but that's beside the point). I don't think you can judge Anderson's 2006 at all without acknowledging this fact; and if you do, come to the conclusion that it's a bad sample to pick from. His 2007 performance shouldn't be judged either...ask any player in the bigs...you can't get into any type of hitting rhythm or see well at the plate if you go 5 games between appearances (especially if you're young). And as his 2007 continues to suck in the minors, we should look at this...did Ozzie screw up what (Walker admitted to be) a much improved swing in Spring Training by not playing him, killing his rhythem, and losing what progress he made? I just think the whole BA's 2006 sucked major ass and it's because he sucks as a player argument is unfounded.

Then no matter who they bring up, until they get rid of Walker, raw talented batters will NOT get better until Walker either gets off his rear and works with them, or else they get a new hitting coach.

Lip Man 1
06-14-2007, 02:27 PM
FYI the Dodgers just fired Eddie Murray as their hitting coach today.

Lip

assrevolution
06-14-2007, 02:38 PM
And throughour his entire career except a fluky year in 2000, GrindErstad has blew ass. Major ass.


Yeeeaaaaaahhh.......Erstad is a career .285 hitter and this is his 12th year. ????????? He got hurt last year and had his worst numbers. Ask anyone who knows anything about baseball, and they'll tell you Erstad is no fluke.

assrevolution
06-14-2007, 02:42 PM
And he batted in only 72%. Got more than 1 at bat in only 65%. Got more than 2 at bats in 61%.

True. He did come in as a defensive replacement in a lot of games......because he couldn't hit. ha!

balke
06-14-2007, 03:00 PM
FYI the Dodgers just fired Eddie Murray as their hitting coach today.

Lip


That's his second firing is it not? Why is that?

Randar68
06-14-2007, 03:24 PM
Some do, and those people firmly believe that Ozzie has ruined Anderson's career.

Where are the hyperbole police? That statement is simply ignorant and preposterous in general. The lowest form of debate... stick words in someone else's mouth and exhaggerate their stance. Well done, Karl Rove Jr.

We're saying Anderson is a better option than the horse-do-do Ozzie is trotting out there everyday. Even if he isn't he has a chance to be MUCH better than them, and you'll never find out if you have that player or not unless youplay them. Anderson made strides last year only to have the door shut in his face by Ozzie in favor of a bunch of washed-up "veterans" and injury-prone part-timers.

Sorry if we don't sit back and enjoy the wonders of TinkerBell, Mack-a-whack, and crew and think about how much better they are than Brian Anderson... :rolleyes:

UserNameBlank
06-14-2007, 03:25 PM
User:

But isn't the same "philosophy" coming from Kenny? (Based on his quotes in the papers about 'contending every season,' 'Yankee-sized payroll's' and 'winning another World Series.')

Not saying you're wrong, just that the possibility exist that Kenny feels the same way as Ozzie.

Lip
Everyone wants to have a shot at the WS every year, but that's simply not feasible unless you're like the Braves or Yankees and you are constantly bringing up players with impact potential.

KW has to know this season is lost. Throw out everything he has said in the past and let's see how he approaches these next few weeks. It's mid-June already and it's time for him to start dealing veterans and play his prospects and projects. If he decides against building for the future and actually supports Ozzie in his decisions to play veterans over some of the guys who may be able to contribute in the future, we're ****ed.

Randar68
06-14-2007, 03:32 PM
Anderson is batting .256 against AAA pitching.

After sitting on the bench for a month+ and then promptly injuring his shoulder...

Are you going to address this point in your argument or just continue to ignore the facts and spout off nonsense about that .256 in AAA meaning a damn thing? He hit .295 in AAA a year after starting out in High-A. He only had a half season in each of High-A and AA and yet hit .295 in AAA. I think I'll take that as the low-point of my realistic expectations instead of a 120 injury-plagued at-bats following almost live pitching for 30 days...

JB98
06-14-2007, 04:04 PM
After sitting on the bench for a month+ and then promptly injuring his shoulder...

Are you going to address this point in your argument or just continue to ignore the facts and spout off nonsense about that .256 in AAA meaning a damn thing? He hit .295 in AAA a year after starting out in High-A. He only had a half season in each of High-A and AA and yet hit .295 in AAA. I think I'll take that as the low-point of my realistic expectations instead of a 120 injury-plagued at-bats following almost live pitching for 30 days...

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Anderson's supporters are full of excuses.

JB98
06-14-2007, 04:06 PM
Where are the hyperbole police? That statement is simply ignorant and preposterous in general. The lowest form of debate... stick words in someone else's mouth and exhaggerate their stance. Well done, Karl Rove Jr.

We're saying Anderson is a better option than the horse-do-do Ozzie is trotting out there everyday. Even if he isn't he has a chance to be MUCH better than them, and you'll never find out if you have that player or not unless youplay them. Anderson made strides last year only to have the door shut in his face by Ozzie in favor of a bunch of washed-up "veterans" and injury-prone part-timers.

Sorry if we don't sit back and enjoy the wonders of TinkerBell, Mack-a-whack, and crew and think about how much better they are than Brian Anderson... :rolleyes:

You just proved my point that you said was hyperbolic. Thanks.

wmc
06-14-2007, 04:07 PM
Everyone wants to have a shot at the WS every year, but that's simply not feasible unless you're like the Braves or Yankees and you are constantly bringing up players with impact potential.

KW has to know this season is lost. Throw out everything he has said in the past and let's see how he approaches these next few weeks. It's mid-June already and it's time for him to start dealing veterans and play his prospects and projects. If he decides against building for the future and actually supports Ozzie in his decisions to play veterans over some of the guys who may be able to contribute in the future, we're ****ed.

Agreed. Our chances this year in this division are very slim. When BA is healthy he should be playing in favor of aging vets/bench players who don't figure into our future. Perhaps Owens/Sweeney are not quite ready. Maybe they shouldn't be pushed this year, but I think one could argue that BA should be evaluated this year to see whether he is our future CF. At least he will have had a reasonable chance to prove himself. What do we have to gain by having Erstad out there this year, since we are now basically out of contention?

UserNameBlank
06-14-2007, 04:16 PM
Excuses, excuses, excuses. Anderson's supporters are full of excuses.
And so are the grinderlovers who can't see the wild inconsistency of Darin Erstad's career.

Brian wasn't given a chance this year. I think that most, if not all of the Anderson supporters here just want to see him get a chance, nothing more. No one is saying he's going to be great, but 416 career AB's after shooting through the minor leagues isn't enough to call someone a bust/AAAA player.

FedEx227
06-14-2007, 04:57 PM
And so are the grinderlovers who can't see the wild inconsistency of Darin Erstad's career.

Brian wasn't given a chance this year. I think that most, if not all of the Anderson supporters here just want to see him get a chance, nothing more. No one is saying he's going to be great, but 416 career AB's after shooting through the minor leagues isn't enough to call someone a bust/AAAA player.

Truth. Most of us don't ever expect him to hit .320 and hit 25-30 HR. Anything .260+ would be fine for a great defensive CF.

Plus, it's not just Brian Anderson for me or alot of his fans, it's more or less being a fan of young players. Most of my favorite players in the majors today are under 26 years old because I can identify with them, being a 20-year old. Thus, I'd like to see these guys get a chance.

So that ties into being a White Sox fan and seeing your organizational constantly suffer in the position player category of minor league development. It's not just about 08-09, but the entire future of the White Sox organization, if we continue to not give prospects a chance to show themselves at the MLB level. Yes, you'll go through some bumpy periods, hell the Braves won 14 straight division titles, inserted a lot of growing prospects one year missed the playoffs and are now back.

We as an organization haven't really wanted to do that, and we've sort of been skewed by 2000 when a lot of youngsters played out of their minds and won us a division. So we then think that anytime a youngster comes up if he doesn't play great he's worthless.

I'm fine with a losing season sandwiched in between successful ones, only if we're having this losing season while building for the future. We aren't doing that. We're losing and setting ourselves up for even more losing in the coming years.

mjmcend
06-14-2007, 04:59 PM
Yeeeaaaaaahhh.......Erstad is a career .285 hitter and this is his 12th year. ????????? He got hurt last year and had his worst numbers. Ask anyone who knows anything about baseball, and they'll tell you Erstad is no fluke.

With a career OPS of .753. Nothing to go dancing in the streets about.

oeo
06-14-2007, 05:25 PM
After sitting on the bench for a month+ and then promptly injuring his shoulder...

Are you going to address this point in your argument or just continue to ignore the facts and spout off nonsense about that .256 in AAA meaning a damn thing? He hit .295 in AAA a year after starting out in High-A. He only had a half season in each of High-A and AA and yet hit .295 in AAA. I think I'll take that as the low-point of my realistic expectations instead of a 120 injury-plagued at-bats following almost live pitching for 30 days...

Before he "hurt" his shoulder (I thought it was just sore), he was in a 3-20 slump (if you'd call it that) and was batting .264/.354/.403 to that point. And after going 0-fer in his first two games after being sent down, he had a few pretty good games, so being on the bench is not an excuse, either. He's performing way below expectations, injury or no injury.

Frontman
06-14-2007, 05:32 PM
Excuses, excuses, excuses. Anderson's supporters are full of excuses.

Actually, I'm not a BA supporter and I agree with those points, JB. You can't look at numbers for someone who is currently hurt and expect anything upon their return. He could be better, he could be worse. He could remain the same.

santo=dorf
06-14-2007, 05:48 PM
Yeeeaaaaaahhh.......Erstad is a career .285 hitter and this is his 12th year. ????????? He got hurt last year and had his worst numbers. Ask anyone who knows anything about baseball, and they'll tell you Erstad is no fluke.
In 12 years Grinderstad has batted .285 or better in a season 4 times. The last two times were in 2004 and 2000.

So are you on Darin's right cheek, or is Hawk letting you work the left Mr. assrevolution?

MRM
06-14-2007, 06:39 PM
Actually, I'm not a BA supporter and I agree with those points, JB. You can't look at numbers for someone who is currently hurt and expect anything upon their return. He could be better, he could be worse. He could remain the same.

Ozzie gets blamed regularly for Andersons (lack of) progression, but none of us know what was/is going on behind the scenes. There is evidence that he wasn't always into the game (flirting with girls in the stands while playing the field) and he's admitted to long mental lapses at the plate, at times. Seems to me BAs problems are at least as likely to stem from what's between the ears as anything Ozzie did. The list of physically gifted athletes who dominated the lower levels but were unable to perform at the highest levels of their sport would fill an encyclopedia. Something about the sizes of fish and ponds...

santo=dorf
06-14-2007, 07:06 PM
Ozzie Guillen shouldn't be the one criticizing players for not being in the game and engaging with the fans. He fell for the hidden ball trick twice in a season, and gave choking signs to Slider in 2005 and Cub fans in 2003.

Frontman
06-14-2007, 07:14 PM
Ozzie Guillen shouldn't be the one criticizing players for not being in the game and engaging with the fans. He fell for the hidden ball trick twice in a season, and gave choking signs to Slider in 2005 and Cub fans in 2003.

Yeah, since he's the first to ever do that sort of behavior. Shame on him.

santo=dorf
06-14-2007, 07:18 PM
Yeah, since he's the first to ever do that sort of behavior. Shame on him.
Ever hear of "the pot calling the kettle black?" That's exactly what this is, although I don't know if anyone fell for the hidden ball trick twice in a season before Guillen.
Same rookie numbers, same skirt-chasing personality, yet the leader is burying the young guy.

MRM
06-14-2007, 07:33 PM
Ozzie Guillen shouldn't be the one criticizing players for not being in the game and engaging with the fans. He fell for the hidden ball trick twice in a season, and gave choking signs to Slider in 2005 and Cub fans in 2003.

What position was Ozzie playing at the time in '03 and '05? Having fun is far different from not having your head in the game when you are supposed to be playing. The "hidden ball trick" is hardly not having your head in the game. That's why it's called a "trick". It's little different than ARod running behind the 3B and yelling whatever he yelled at the 3B trying to make a play. Not technically cheating, but not exactly playing "fair", either.

MRM
06-14-2007, 07:35 PM
Ever hear of "the pot calling the kettle black?" That's exactly what this is, although I don't know if anyone fell for the hidden ball trick twice in a season before Guillen.
Same rookie numbers, same skirt-chasing personality, yet the leader is burying the young guy.

Guillen was a great defensive SS in an era where NO SS not named Ripken were very good hitters. Anderson plays a position that demands offensive production. Apples and Oranges.

champagne030
06-14-2007, 09:03 PM
Ozzie gets blamed regularly for Andersons (lack of) progression, but none of us know what was/is going on behind the scenes.

Actually, people in the Major League Operations Department of the White Sox are under the impression that a fight did occur/nearly occur between Oswaldo Jr. and BA last season. They also know that shortly afterwards, Ozzie said that BA needed to go down and he wasn't ready. He was denied that demand, at that time, by KW. I have ZERO doubt there's personal issues that Ozzie had with BA last season and it had ZERO to do with baseball.

Frontman
06-14-2007, 11:16 PM
Ever hear of "the pot calling the kettle black?" That's exactly what this is, although I don't know if anyone fell for the hidden ball trick twice in a season before Guillen.
Same rookie numbers, same skirt-chasing personality, yet the leader is burying the young guy.

And besides being rookie of the year and a few all-star apperances, did Ozzie achieve anything of note as a player? No, he did not. No championship ring, no appearance even IN a World Series.

Santo=Dorf, ever heard the phrase "Do as I say, not as I do (or in this case) did? Ozzie knows the results of that off the field behavior gets first-hand. Why as the manager of a team, he'd say, "Well, I can't say anything, I did worse when I was his age!"

That's just silly logic.

Nellie_Fox
06-14-2007, 11:20 PM
Actually, people in the Major League Operations Department of the White Sox are under the impression that a fight did occur/nearly occur between Oswaldo Jr. and BA last season. Name them. Otherwise it's all hearsay, and I have no reason to believe that you have these inside connections.

MRM
06-15-2007, 12:32 AM
Actually, people in the Major League Operations Department of the White Sox are under the impression that a fight did occur/nearly occur between Oswaldo Jr. and BA last season. They also know that shortly afterwards, Ozzie said that BA needed to go down and he wasn't ready. He was denied that demand, at that time, by KW.

Source?

MRM
06-15-2007, 12:33 AM
Name them. Otherwise it's all hearsay, and I have no reason to believe that you have these inside connections.

Exactly.

nodiggity59
06-15-2007, 12:52 AM
If BA was anything more than an average player, another team would have traded for him by now. His offensive stats indicate he is not.


I have no doubt that some people's conspiracy theories are rooted in the truth (at least somewhat), but none of the Ozzie bashers can answer this:

WHY DOESN'T ANYONE ACQUIRE BRIAN ANDERSON???

And don't talk about us not knowing what KW's asking price is; I might as well say we don't know what happened between Ozzie and BA.

Answer my question, please.

MRM
06-15-2007, 01:04 AM
If BA was anything more than an average player, another team would have traded for him by now. His offensive stats indicate he is not.


I have no doubt that some people's conspiracy theories are rooted in the truth (at least somewhat), but none of the Ozzie bashers can answer this:

WHY DOESN'T ANYONE ACQUIRE BRIAN ANDERSON???

And don't talk about us not knowing what KW's asking price is; I might as well say we don't know what happened between Ozzie and BA.

Answer my question, please.

Interesting question. If BA is all that, why aren't teams beating down Kennys door to acquire him?

Does Kenny overvalue him the way WSI does? I doubt it as WSI regulars largely thought Kenny was an idiot for the Garcia and McCarthy trades, as is well documented.

So. If the Sox are further motivated (unsubstantiated rumors of problems with Guillen) to move Anderson, and he is such a hot prospect, and trader Kenny loves to deal (unquestioned), why hasn't Brian been traded to siberia for two years worth of ice, yet?

Man Soo Lee
06-15-2007, 01:52 AM
I'm still amazed that after putting up ~.300 avg for those 2 months, he suddenly was cut to playing ~half-time.

He sucked with the bat for first 2 1/2 months last season, then he hit roughly .290 for 2 1/2 months. He then had problems in September when he was given inconsistent playing time.

Anderson's playing time wasn't cut and wasn't any more inconsistent in September (65 ABs) than it had been during July (64 ABs) and August (71 ABs). He was just bad during the last month, showing the same holes in his swing that made him one of the worst position players in baseball for the first two and a half months of the season.

Name the team with successful young players and I'll show you a team that's generally willing to let guys struggle a bit when they come up.

Teams that are willing to let young guys struggle for long stretches don't usually expect to compete for a championship that year. A few people in this thread have cited Ventura as an example of being patient with a young player. He debuted on a team that won 69 games and finished last in the AL West. His 0/41 streak occurred between mid-April and early-May of the following year on a team with no expectations.

Barring a miracle, the Sox will probably be out of the race this year and have two to three months to allow young guys to play without pressure. As long as Fields can keep his head above water, he'll likely get 300+ ABs. I'd bet Sweeney finishes the year with 200+ ABs also.

MRM
06-15-2007, 02:07 AM
As long as Fields can keep his head above water, he'll likely get 300+ ABs. I'd bet Sweeney finishes the year with 200+ ABs also.

While I agree with most of what you said, I certainly hope you are wrong about these two things.

Unlike most in here I'm not ready to "give up" on the season and even if I was, i'm not willing to just GIVE ABs to folks until they earn them.

Man Soo Lee
06-15-2007, 02:27 AM
While I agree with most of what you said, I certainly hope you are wrong about these two things.

Unlike most in here I'm not ready to "give up" on the season and even if I was, i'm not willing to just GIVE ABs to folks until they earn them.

As long as he's not a disaster, Fields will play a lot of 3rd by default. I guess Mackowiak could play there some when the outfield is healthier, but they aren't going to play Cintron or Andy Gonzalez regularly.

My prediction about Sweeney was assuming the Sox were out of contention and Dye was traded.

MRM
06-15-2007, 02:48 AM
As long as he's not a disaster, Fields will play a lot of 3rd by default. I guess Mackowiak could play there some when the outfield is healthier, but they aren't going to play Cintron or Andy Gonzalez regularly.

My prediction about Sweeney was assuming the Sox were out of contention and Dye was traded.

I guess you are among the contigent that is convinced the Sox won't make a move to improve this year, then?

Man Soo Lee
06-15-2007, 04:16 AM
I guess you are among the contigent that is convinced the Sox won't make a move to improve this year, then?

I think we'll see a couple of moves, like the Contreras and Everett deals in '04, that might help this year and will begin the roster makeover for next season.

MRM
06-15-2007, 04:24 AM
I think we'll see a couple of moves, like the Contreras and Everett deals in '04, that might help this year and will begin the roster makeover for next season.

Reasonable. Doubtful, but reasonable.

santo=dorf
06-15-2007, 06:14 AM
If BA was anything more than an average player, another team would have traded for him by now. His offensive stats indicate he is not.


I have no doubt that some people's conspiracy theories are rooted in the truth (at least somewhat), but none of the Ozzie bashers can answer this:

WHY DOESN'T ANYONE ACQUIRE BRIAN ANDERSON???

And don't talk about us not knowing what KW's asking price is; I might as well say we don't know what happened between Ozzie and BA.

Answer my question, please.
Perhaps the Sox don't want to trade him at his lowest value? KW is not Jim Hendry.
Perhaps KW still believes in Brian Anderson and thinks he still has a future with the White Sox?

Both the Marlins and Rangers were interested in Anderson in the offseason.
Nobody hasn't acquire Dukes yet. That doesn't mean he isn't talented young player.

Frater Perdurabo
06-15-2007, 07:18 AM
Didn't Ted Williams say that a hitter needs 1,000 ABs in order to figure out what kind of hitter he is?

I'm not saying that Anderson or Sweeney or Fields "deserve" 1000 ABs.

But, the three of them are no worse than some of the absolute garbage that Ozzie trots out on the field on a regular basis.

After the sweep in Philly, this season is all but lost. There's nothing to lose by playing the youngsters. We already know what the mediocre bench veterans like Mackowiak and Cintron can do; they have proven what they are over and over again - over more than 1,000 ABs.

We don't know what Anderson, Sweeney and Fields will become. As Daver said, you don't learn to hit MLB pitching by playing at AAA. So, let's see what we've got in the three of them. Isn't it better to find out now?

Flight #24
06-15-2007, 09:21 AM
Anderson's playing time wasn't cut and wasn't any more inconsistent in September (65 ABs) than it had been during July (64 ABs) and August (71 ABs). He was just bad during the last month, showing the same holes in his swing that made him one of the worst position players in baseball for the first two and a half months of the season.

Earlier, I posted the stats that belie the totals. A significant portion of Anderson's September ABs came in PH roles or in games in which he was yanked after 1-2 ABs. I don't count that as playing him regularly. In July 7 August, he put up #s while getting 3-4ABs/game, which is what you want to see. However, as soon as September rolled around, he was on the bench (after coming off of a solid hitting streak, including hits in ~8 straight games in which he started).


Teams that are willing to let young guys struggle for long stretches don't usually expect to compete for a championship that year. A few people in this thread have cited Ventura as an example of being patient with a young player. He debuted on a team that won 69 games and finished last in the AL West. His 0/41 streak occurred between mid-April and early-May of the following year on a team with no expectations.

Barring a miracle, the Sox will probably be out of the race this year and have two to three months to allow young guys to play without pressure. As long as Fields can keep his head above water, he'll likely get 300+ ABs. I'd bet Sweeney finishes the year with 200+ ABs also.

That's true for teams that plug in multiple rookies at once. But many very successful teams including Minnesota, Atlanta, Oakland plug in a rookie or 2 on a veteran team, let them work out their struggles, and compete. That's how they're able to "reload" instead of "rebuild".

If the Sox don't give Anderson, Sweeney, Fields, and Owens all significant MLB ABs in 2007, they're shooting themselves in the foot.

CLR01
06-15-2007, 10:22 AM
If BA was anything more than an average player, another team would have traded for him by now. His offensive stats indicate he is not.


I have no doubt that some people's conspiracy theories are rooted in the truth (at least somewhat), but none of the Ozzie bashers can answer this:

WHY DOESN'T ANYONE ACQUIRE BRIAN ANDERSON???

And don't talk about us not knowing what KW's asking price is; I might as well say we don't know what happened between Ozzie and BA.

Answer my question, please.

I guess Cotts, McCarthy and Garcia were the only players we had that can be considered anything more than average. I mean, if Buerhle, Garland, Vaz, Danks, Jose, AJ, Konerko, Iguchi, Uribe, Fields, Crede, Cintron, Gonzalez, Pods, Mack, Ersty, Terrerro, Dye, Hall, Owens, Thome, Jenks, Thornton, Logan, Day, Masset, Prinz, Bukvich or any of the stiffs we have hanging out in the minors were any good they would have been traded for.



Hooray stupid questions.

assrevolution
06-15-2007, 03:21 PM
In 12 years Grinderstad has batted .285 or better in a season 4 times. The last two times were in 2004 and 2000.

So are you on Darin's right cheek, or is Hawk letting you work the left Mr. assrevolution?

So how many times would he need to hit over .285 to be acceptable? He was hurt in '06 so within 2 years of that he hit it. We can spin stats all day.

mod deleted... Care to throw around more insults or should we take this outside?

Jaffar
06-15-2007, 03:25 PM
He Gawn!

UserNameBlank
06-15-2007, 03:26 PM
So how many times would he need to hit over .285 to be acceptable? He was hurt in '06 so within 2 years of that he hit it. We can spin stats all day.

?
I won't quote the last part because the mods don't like it apparently, but...

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:qUWEfX7gercqbM:http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/images/team/broadcasters/broadcaster_cws_jackson.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/images/team/broadcasters/broadcaster_cws_jackson.jpg&imgrefurl=http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/team/broadcasters.jsp%3Fc_id%3Dcws&h=135&w=90&sz=7&hl=en&start=3&sig2=PjeI8bItWUvXK5uao1ch6A&tbnid=qUWEfX7gercqbM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=61&ei=6PVyRpbKA4yCiQGoofT-Bg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddarrin%2Bjackson%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D 10%26hl%3Den)
"Uh-oh.."

UserNameBlank
06-15-2007, 03:31 PM
Earlier, I posted the stats that belie the totals. A significant portion of Anderson's September ABs came in PH roles or in games in which he was yanked after 1-2 ABs. I don't count that as playing him regularly. In July 7 August, he put up #s while getting 3-4ABs/game, which is what you want to see. However, as soon as September rolled around, he was on the bench (after coming off of a solid hitting streak, including hits in ~8 straight games in which he started).




That's true for teams that plug in multiple rookies at once. But many very successful teams including Minnesota, Atlanta, Oakland plug in a rookie or 2 on a veteran team, let them work out their struggles, and compete. That's how they're able to "reload" instead of "rebuild".

If the Sox don't give Anderson, Sweeney, Fields, and Owens all significant MLB ABs in 2007, they're shooting themselves in the foot.
I agree with all of this, but I don't get the difference between "rebuild" and "reload." It sounds like the same thing to me because you wouldn't have to reload if you had any ammunition left. Starting highly-touted young players surrounded by a solid veteran core is more or less giving the youngsters a chance to prove themselves without as much pressure. Ozzie OTOH immediately put extra pressure on Brian every time he had the chance. Not that Brian shouldn't have been able to overcome it, but that's not a very smart way to build confidence in a young player.

CLR01
06-15-2007, 03:40 PM
Care to throw around more insults or should we take this outside?

Everyone take cover.

http://www.news2wkrn.com/john/archives/Jack%20%26%20Di%20Kress%20005.jpg


:rolleyes:

mjmcend
06-15-2007, 03:40 PM
So how many times would he need to hit over .285 to be acceptable? He was hurt in '06 so within 2 years of that he hit it. We can spin stats all day.

....


Excellent, ad hominem attacks and threatening physical harm. All we need know is to call someone a Nazi and we have the vaunted message board trifecta.

Flight #24
06-15-2007, 04:16 PM
I agree with all of this, but I don't get the difference between "rebuild" and "reload." It sounds like the same thing to me because you wouldn't have to reload if you had any ammunition left. Starting highly-touted young players surrounded by a solid veteran core is more or less giving the youngsters a chance to prove themselves without as much pressure. Ozzie OTOH immediately put extra pressure on Brian every time he had the chance. Not that Brian shouldn't have been able to overcome it, but that's not a very smart way to build confidence in a young player.

Rebuild to me implies tear down, rebuild from scratch. Reload = phase in a young player or 2 at a time so that as your vets age those guys reach their prime and you can continue to contend with rebuilding as defined in the first sentence.

champagne030
06-15-2007, 07:09 PM
Name them. Otherwise it's all hearsay, and I have no reason to believe that you have these inside connections.

So, if I would tell you which one on this list below told ME the story then you believe the story is true? :rolleyes: It would still be hearsay because I didn't witness anything.

FWLIW -