PDA

View Full Version : Phil Rogers: Arizona first wanted BA, KW offered Young instead


Frater Perdurabo
10-05-2007, 06:13 AM
It's good to see an ex-Sox prospect beat up on the Cubs.

In today's Trib (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-071004rogers,1,7847315.column?coll=cs-home-headlines), Rogers claims that during the 2005-06 offseason, when KW asked for Javier Vazquez, Arizona initially wanted Brian Anderson, but KW said no, and offered Chris Young instead.

Can anyone confirm or refute this?

It was my understanding, based on what I've read here, that Arizona wanted Young from the outset. But then again, I never read such a statement from a beat reporter or journalist, or in a quote (or paraphrase) attributed to KW or Arizona management.

I don't want to re-hash the trade AGAIN (it's been done a million times elsewhere), but I'm curious if anyone else has heard or read anything that confirms or refutes Rogers' claim.

Phil, if you're reading, can you give us a hint as to the source who gave you this info?

itsnotrequired
10-05-2007, 06:25 AM
Reading that article, one would think Young was traded for a bag of balls, not a workhouse starting pitcher that has thrown nearly 420 innings with close to 400 Ks over the last two seasons.

:rolleyes:

Despite throwing 14 more innings in 2007 when compared to 2006, Vazquez has given up fewer hits, fewer runs, fewer walks while at the same time throwing more strikeouts, lowering his ERA, lowering his WHIP and picking up 4 more wins and 4 fewer losses.

But if only the Sox had Young this last season instead on Vazquez. Then we would be the ones talking postseason.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Frater Perdurabo
10-05-2007, 06:49 AM
Reading that article, one would think Young was traded for a bag of balls, not a workhouse starting pitcher that has thrown nearly 420 innings with close to 400 Ks over the last two seasons.

:rolleyes:

Despite throwing 14 more innings in 2007 when compared to 2006, Vazquez has given up fewer hits, fewer runs, fewer walks while at the same time throwing more strikeouts, lowering his ERA, lowering his WHIP and picking up 4 more wins and 4 fewer losses.

But if only the Sox had Young this last season instead on Vazquez. Then we would be the ones talking postseason.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Come on, man. I wasn't trying to re-hash the trade or rip on Phil. :(:

I just wanted to know if anyone could confirm or refute what Phil reported about Arizona first wanting BA.

The Immigrant
10-05-2007, 07:00 AM
I don't need to read the article to tell you that Phil is full of crap, as always. Either way, what's done is done.

DumpJerry
10-05-2007, 07:09 AM
So what? Really. At the time, they made the deal they made. At the time, BA was rated higher than Young, of course Arizona would have wanted him.

The way people are reacting to the loss of Young, you'd think we got Mike Sirotka for him.

itsnotrequired
10-05-2007, 07:35 AM
Come on, man. I wasn't trying to re-hash the trade or rip on Phil. :(:

I just wanted to know if anyone could confirm or refute what Phil reported about Arizona first wanting BA.

I'm not trying to re-hash the trade either. The Sox needed a starting pitcher, the D-Backs needed outfield help. We had a plethora of outfielders at the time so it made sense for both sides. Young vs. Anderson is irrelevent at this point. Both sides got what they needed. Who knew Anderson would struggle as he has or that Young would blossom so quickly? I liked the trade then and I like the trade now.

I am going to take a jab at Phil for only mentioning Javy is passing, as if the Sox picked up some token pitcher for mop-up duty. He had his struggles last season but this season, Javy was a stud. Phil could have at least mentioned how well the trade has worked out for the Sox.

nccwsfan
10-05-2007, 07:36 AM
Hindsight makes a lot of us look smarter than we actually are. I was happy with the Vazquez trade then and I'm happy about it now. I'll take the proven pitcher (who was our best starter in 2007, FWIW) over the prospect.

voodoochile
10-05-2007, 07:38 AM
I can confirm it, but if anyone asks, I'm denying the confirmation came from me and I'll refute anyone who says otherwise...

CLR01
10-05-2007, 07:57 AM
It's not true and the citizens of Arizona should be grateful. That place would be a desert if satan had come to play there.

tebman
10-05-2007, 08:02 AM
I am going to take a jab at Phil for only mentioning Javy is passing, as if the Sox picked up some token pitcher for mop-up duty. He had his struggles last season but this season, Javy was a stud. Phil could have at least mentioned how well the trade has worked out for the Sox.

According to Phil Rogers, Brandon McCarthy was the reincarnation of Cy Young. If only KW had not made that "despicable" trade, the Sox would have been marching arm-in-arm to Valhalla showered in rose petals. The Vazquez-Young trade is yet another example of the White Sox's shortsightedness and imprudence.

The Cubs were so much wiser.

(add teal as needed)

oeo
10-05-2007, 08:05 AM
I just wanted to know if anyone could confirm or refute what Phil reported about Arizona first wanting BA.

Who cares? It's in the past.

Everytime I see Young hit a dinger, or steal a base, or speed around the bases; I get this weird feeling in my stomach that he could be with us, but he's not. What's done is done, and we got a pretty good starting pitcher out of him.

RowanDye
10-05-2007, 08:13 AM
It's not true and the citizens of Arizona should be grateful. That place would be a desert if satan had come to play there.

Not to mention all of the children that would have gone missing...

nsolo
10-05-2007, 08:53 AM
Who cares? It's in the past.

Everytime I see Young hit a dinger, or steal a base, or speed around the bases; I get this weird feeling in my stomach that he could be with us, but he's not. What's done is done, and we got a pretty good starting pitcher out of him.
Yeah, its in the past. Water under the bridge, that train has departed, blah blah blah.... But, wouldn't it have been nice if Young was still here...along with the stud pitcher we would have got for B.A.? Call it rehashing if you will, but I can't help but wonder how that may have solved last years c.f. problems.

Yet maybe the original poster to this thread just wanted to know if B.S. was the Diamondbacks first choice. If so, Kenny made a bad decision, a statement that seems ruffle too many feathers on this site.

Dolemite79
10-05-2007, 08:57 AM
Well there's no doubt Chris Young would have solved a lot of our problems, but at least he made the Cubs suffer, which brings a giant smile to my face

kittle42
10-05-2007, 08:57 AM
If Young was on the Sox in 2007, half the people here would have wanted to kill him for not taking enough walks and being another "all or nothing" type with the homers.

cleanwsox
10-05-2007, 09:13 AM
We could have used another .230 hitter this year.

slavko
10-05-2007, 09:17 AM
I do recall Kenny saying at the time of the trade that Young would be the first one he traded that could turn out to be a star player, but that could have been bluster. So Rogers takes the DBacks preference for BA over Young, couples it with our preference for BA over Young, and makes it into a bad thing, all the while ignoring the success of Vazquez. There's a spin job for you.

I haven't given up on BA yet, either.

jabrch
10-05-2007, 09:18 AM
Yeah, its in the past. Water under the bridge, that train has departed, blah blah blah.... But, wouldn't it have been nice if Young was still here...

.237 batting average (31 pts lower than Owens)

.295 on base percentage (29 pts lower than Owens)


All he provides is the 30 HRs. 30 good ABs don't outweight the cost of his 550 bad ones.

SOXPHILE
10-05-2007, 09:19 AM
If Young was on the Sox in 2007, half the people here would have wanted to kill him for not taking enough walks and being another "all or nothing" type with the homers.

:rolling:


http://t1.images.live.com/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1375253366920&id=42c6eea0f37a46e0015aa063fb297e39 "It's funny, because it's TRUE !"

Domeshot17
10-05-2007, 09:28 AM
.237 batting average (31 pts lower than Owens)

.295 on base percentage (29 pts lower than Owens)


All he provides is the 30 HRs. 30 good ABs don't outweight the cost of his 550 bad ones.


Now Im not going to to ride Kenny for this trade because we all thought BA was going to be good, but are you seriously telling me you would take Jerry Owens OVER Chris Young.

Young reminds me of Josh Fields with speed. His rookie year, he is adjusting to hitting a breakingball, but when someone makes a mistake, he rips it. Add that to the fact he steals a lot of bases and is probably twice the defensive CF Owens is, this is a no brainer.

Owens, we saw what his max is I think. Not too many hitters actually develop in there LATE 20s, which is what Owens is looking down, Where as Young is in his early 20s.

Like I said I wont debate BA vs Young because at the time, we thought BA was a ball player, but trying to debate Owens vs Young is senseless.

Young also played a september schedule loaded with games against a lot of teams fighting for playoff sports. Owens got the sox sept. schedule to fluff his stats with including games against the Twins rookies, the Tigers who had been knocked out and those ever powerful Royals.

Martinigirl
10-05-2007, 09:36 AM
When I read it I just thought Phil was taking the opportunity to take another shot at Kenny.

spiffie
10-05-2007, 09:41 AM
.237 batting average (31 pts lower than Owens)

.295 on base percentage (29 pts lower than Owens)


All he provides is the 30 HRs. 30 good ABs don't outweight the cost of his 550 bad ones.
And of course a .467 slugging percentage (155 pts higher than Owens)

and 29 doubles (20 higher than Owens, over 162 game season averages 16 more than Owens)

All I can think is that if Jerry Owens had been the traded guy, and Young was here, the argument would go

"Young hit .260+ with a great eye in the minors. All Owens can do is steal bases, and his minor league numbers are greatly inflated by one good year at Birmingham. Young will be a 30/30 or even a 40/40 guy, and once he gets used to major league pitching (you know the same argument we use to justify Anderson, Fields, Sweeney, Owens, Richar, and any other Sox rookie's inability to get much past the Mendoza Line in the majors) he'll settle into a 260-270 hitter with a decent OBP and a great combo of speed and power. And all you people questioning Williams for trading away a speed guy like Owens need to look at the stud pitcher we got for him, and we still have an awesome player in Young."

But he got traded, so he obviously sucks and only has 30 good AB's a year (despite having 135 hits, including nearly 30 doubles) and is much better replaced by a slap hitter with a low OBP for a leadoff guy and no discernible skills beyond stealing bases. And of course Young will always be a low OBP player who can't hit in the majors but Owens will obviously improve next year.

Of course, none of this would have ever happened if the Sox hadn't signed Darin Erstad. Then Anderson would have hit 350 this year, and all the rookies would have tied for Rookie of the Year. But evil Grindy McGrinderson and his dark magick caused all of them to hit 240 or lower. Bummer.

dickallen15
10-05-2007, 09:44 AM
.237 batting average (31 pts lower than Owens)

.295 on base percentage (29 pts lower than Owens)


All he provides is the 30 HRs. 30 good ABs don't outweight the cost of his 550 bad ones.
You probably think Fields and Richar suck also.

oeo
10-05-2007, 09:47 AM
Yeah, its in the past. Water under the bridge, that train has departed, blah blah blah.... But, wouldn't it have been nice if Young was still here...along with the stud pitcher we would have got for B.A.? Call it rehashing if you will, but I can't help but wonder how that may have solved last years c.f. problems.

Yeah, it would be nice, I've already said that, but it didn't happen that way; I'm not going to sit here and gripe about it. For every Freddie Garcia trade, you're going to have a Javy Vazquez trade. When you take chances, sometimes you get burned; oh well...I hope Young has a great career, and hopefully we find someone to fill that void in center.

voodoochile
10-05-2007, 09:49 AM
:deadhorse:

asindc
10-05-2007, 09:56 AM
Yes, Chris Young would have obviously filling a gaping need, but it seems a lot of people are ignoring that we would not have had Vazquez pitching for us this year. Instead, probably McCarthy. So, the bottom line is CY would have won a few games, but McCarthy (based on his performance this year with the Rangers) would have given at least some of those games back. Whether it would have been a net gain or net loss, it is only for us to speculate.

October26
10-05-2007, 10:05 AM
Woulda, shoulda, coulda? This is indeed beating a dead horse.

All I know is that Chris Young is a member of the D'Backs team right now and he hit a HR last night that helped beat the Cubs. And I'm hoping for one more D'Backs win on Saturday to get this overwith as soon as possible.

kittle42
10-05-2007, 10:07 AM
And of course a .467 slugging percentage (155 pts higher than Owens)

and 29 doubles (20 higher than Owens, over 162 game season averages 16 more than Owens)

All I can think is that if Jerry Owens had been the traded guy, and Young was here, the argument would go

"Young hit .260+ with a great eye in the minors. All Owens can do is steal bases, and his minor league numbers are greatly inflated by one good year at Birmingham. Young will be a 30/30 or even a 40/40 guy, and once he gets used to major league pitching (you know the same argument we use to justify Anderson, Fields, Sweeney, Owens, Richar, and any other Sox rookie's inability to get much past the Mendoza Line in the majors) he'll settle into a 260-270 hitter with a decent OBP and a great combo of speed and power. And all you people questioning Williams for trading away a speed guy like Owens need to look at the stud pitcher we got for him, and we still have an awesome player in Young."

But he got traded, so he obviously sucks and only has 30 good AB's a year (despite having 135 hits, including nearly 30 doubles) and is much better replaced by a slap hitter with a low OBP for a leadoff guy and no discernible skills beyond stealing bases. And of course Young will always be a low OBP player who can't hit in the majors but Owens will obviously improve next year.

Of course, none of this would have ever happened if the Sox hadn't signed Darin Erstad. Then Anderson would have hit 350 this year, and all the rookies would have tied for Rookie of the Year. But evil Grindy McGrinderson and his dark magick caused all of them to hit 240 or lower. Bummer.

You just summed up the usual lines of argument at WSI in a nutshell.

soxinem1
10-05-2007, 10:08 AM
:deadhorse:


Amen. This topic should rest. It's time to move on.

Next 'Ex-Sox Player Turned Into A Star' thread, please................

TomBradley72
10-05-2007, 10:09 AM
Reading that article, one would think Young was traded for a bag of balls, not a workhouse starting pitcher that has thrown nearly 420 innings with close to 400 Ks over the last two seasons.

:rolleyes:

Despite throwing 14 more innings in 2007 when compared to 2006, Vazquez has given up fewer hits, fewer runs, fewer walks while at the same time throwing more strikeouts, lowering his ERA, lowering his WHIP and picking up 4 more wins and 4 fewer losses.

But if only the Sox had Young this last season instead on Vazquez. Then we would be the ones talking postseason.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I'd still rather have Young than Vazquez....in 2006....he was 37th in the AL in wins (w/an ERA just under 5.00)...this year 15th. He's been a solid starter...but Young is proving to be a true difference maker and future All Star. IMHO it's harder to find 30/30 CFs who play good defense than to find #3/#4 starters who deliver 12-15 wins/year. Plus Young will be a very cheap All Star for several years before he's arbitration eligible/free agency, etc.

dickallen15
10-05-2007, 10:17 AM
I'd still rather have Young than Vazquez....in 2006....he was 37th in the AL in wins (w/an ERA just under 5.00)...this year 15th. He's been a solid starter...but Young is proving to be a true difference maker and future All Star. IMHO it's harder to find 30/30 CFs who play good defense than to find #3/#4 starters who deliver 12-15 wins/year. Plus Young will be a very cheap All Star for several years before he's arbitration eligible/free agency, etc.
Not to mention the money freed up would have probably gone to more pitching. But it is beating a dead horse at this point.

TomBradley72
10-05-2007, 10:20 AM
"Young hit .260+ with a great eye in the minors. All Owens can do is steal bases, and his minor league numbers are greatly inflated by one good year at Birmingham. Young will be a 30/30 or even a 40/40 guy, and once he gets used to major league pitching (you know the same argument we use to justify Anderson, Fields, Sweeney, Owens, Richar, and any other Sox rookie's inability to get much past the Mendoza Line in the majors) he'll settle into a 260-270 hitter with a decent OBP and a great combo of speed and power. And all you people questioning Williams for trading away a speed guy like Owens need to look at the stud pitcher we got for him, and we still have an awesome player in Young."

But he got traded, so he obviously sucks and only has 30 good AB's a year (despite having 135 hits, including nearly 30 doubles) and is much better replaced by a slap hitter with a low OBP for a leadoff guy and no discernible skills beyond stealing bases. And of course Young will always be a low OBP player who can't hit in the majors but Owens will obviously improve next year.

Of course, none of this would have ever happened if the Sox hadn't signed Darin Erstad. Then Anderson would have hit 350 this year, and all the rookies would have tied for Rookie of the Year. But evil Grindy McGrinderson and his dark magick caused all of them to hit 240 or lower. Bummer.

:worship::worship::worship:

Thank You.

The same people that see great hope in guys like Fields (stikes out alot, still struggles defensively),Owens(has a wuss arm, turns 27 in February), Richar (hit .230 without power), Danks (5.50 ERA puts him in Danny Wright territory) and Anderson (there are pitchers in the NL who are better hitters, and he turns 26 in March) don't think Young is legitimate because he struck out alot his rookie season. Even though in the 100+ history of majorl league baseball, not a single rookie has EVER delivered the combination of power/speed (HR's/SB's) that Chris Young did this year.

We need to face it...we traded what will become a great CF for a decent middle of the rotation starter.

TomBradley72
10-05-2007, 10:21 AM
Not to mention the money freed up would have probably gone to more pitching. But it is beating a dead horse at this point.

It is.

I'm more venting frustration than anything else.

HomeFish
10-05-2007, 10:23 AM
We need to face it...we traded what will become a great CF for a decent middle of the rotation starter.

Yes, but we did it to make a run at a championship. No way would Chris Young have helped us in 2006 the way that he is helping Arizona in 2007, and we were playing for 2006, not for the future.

Baseball is all about taking calculated risks. Sometimes, they fail.

voodoochile
10-05-2007, 10:38 AM
The sketch:
A Poster enters a WSI thread:
Young: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The Young Hater does not respond.)
Young Lover: 'Ello, Miss?
Young Hater: What do you mean "miss"?
Young Lover: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Young Hater: We're closin' for lunch.
Young Lover: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this ‘orse what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
Young Hater: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Young Lover: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Young Hater: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Young Lover: Look, matey, I know a dead ‘orse when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Young Hater: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable ‘orse, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful markings!
Young Lover: The markings don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Young Hater: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
Young Lover: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up! (shouting at the ‘orse) 'Ello, Mister Ed ‘orse! I've got a lovely fresh bag ‘o oats for you if you
show...
(Young Hater shoves the trailer hard)
Young Hater: There, he moved!
Young Lover: No, he didn't, that was you shoving the trailer!
Young Hater: I never!!
Young Lover: Yes, you did!
Young Hater: I never, never did anything...
Young Lover: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO ‘orsey!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!
(enters trailer lifts horse’s head and thumps its head on the floor. Pulls it to its feet and watches it slump to the floor.)
Young Lover: Now that's what I call a dead ‘orse.
Young Hater: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Young Lover: STUNNED?!?
Young Hater: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.
Young Lover: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That ‘orse is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour
ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged run.
Young Hater: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.
Young Lover: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?
Young Hater: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable ‘orse, id'nit, squire? Lovely markings!
Young Lover: Look, I took the liberty of examining that ‘orse when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been standing in the trailer in the
first place was that it had been NAILED there.
(pause)
Young Hater: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that ‘orse down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its ‘orseshoe, and
VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
Young Lover: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this ‘orse wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Young Hater: No no! 'E's pining!
Young Lover: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This ‘orse is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e
rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the trailer 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the
bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-’ORSE!!
(pause)
Young Hater: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh,
we're right out of ‘orses.
Young Lover: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Young Hater: I got a slug.
(pause)
Young Lover: Pray, does it run?
Young Hater: Nnnnot really.
Young Lover: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Young Hater: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Young Lover: Well.
(pause)
Young Hater: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
Young Lover: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

itsnotrequired
10-05-2007, 10:40 AM
:worship::worship::worship:

Thank You.

The same people that see great hope in guys like Fields (stikes out alot, still struggles defensively),Owens(has a wuss arm, turns 27 in February), Richar (hit .230 without power), Danks (5.50 ERA puts him in Danny Wright territory) and Anderson (there are pitchers in the NL who are better hitters, and he turns 26 in March) don't think Young is legitimate because he struck out alot his rookie season. Even though in the 100+ history of majorl league baseball, not a single rookie has EVER delivered the combination of power/speed (HR's/SB's) that Chris Young did this year.

We need to face it...we traded what will become a great CF for a decent middle of the rotation starter.

Another classic example of the pessimists treating a traded player as way over-valued and players on the team as way under-valued.

KW should be shot for never doing anything right.

:rolleyes:

HomeFish
10-05-2007, 10:45 AM
Another classic example of the pessimists treating a traded player as way over-valued and players on the team as way under-valued.

KW should be shot for never doing anything right.

:rolleyes:

The value of Chris Young in the long-term vs the value of Javy in the long-term is actually pretty irrelevant, if we assume that KW's motive was to win a championship in 2006, which it clearly was. What matters is the value of Chris Young in 2006 vs the value of Javy in 2006, and the latter is clearly larger. Javy might have had a lot of bad outings, but would el duque have done better? Doubtful.

(And I say that as somebody who has loved el duque since well before he was with the Sox)

rdivaldi
10-05-2007, 10:45 AM
Going back to the original topic, I have never heard that Arizona wanted BA and Kenny refused and offered Young instead. There were rumblings that Arizona had originally asked for Sweeney, but that was never confirmed either. I don't want to bash Phil, but I'm calling him out for BS until proven otherwise.

kitekrazy
10-05-2007, 10:49 AM
I don't need to read the article to tell you that Phil is full of crap, as always. Either way, what's done is done.

I like that answer.

jabrch
10-05-2007, 11:02 AM
You probably think Fields and Richar suck also.

I never said anyone "sucks". That's not a word I'd use to describe most major league players.

I don't think Richar looks like he is ready to play every day. The difference between Fields and Young is that Fields has hit for average and got on base at nearly every level he has been at. Fields has done it at AA and AAA recently. Young's best season was back in rookie ball.

itsnotrequired
10-05-2007, 11:12 AM
The value of Chris Young in the long-term vs the value of Javy in the long-term is actually pretty irrelevant, if we assume that KW's motive was to win a championship in 2006, which it clearly was. What matters is the value of Chris Young in 2006 vs the value of Javy in 2006, and the latter is clearly larger.

Agreed on that. The Sox looked ready to ride in 2006. Too bad it didn't work out.

My point was more in regards to TomBradley72 throwing a bunch of the other young guys under the bus, even though they have nothing to do with Young, Anderson, Javy or the trade.

jabrch
10-05-2007, 11:15 AM
Now Im not going to to ride Kenny for this trade because we all thought BA was going to be good, but are you seriously telling me you would take Jerry Owens OVER Chris Young.

Nope - never said that.

Just said that I still don't get the folks gooing themselves over Chris Young since he has yet to prove he can hit for average or get on base.

Young reminds me of Josh Fields with speed. His rookie year, he is adjusting to hitting a breakingball, but when someone makes a mistake, he rips it.

The difference is that if you look at their last two years in the high minors, one is clearly a better overall hitter than the other.


And of course a .467 slugging percentage (155 pts higher than Owens)

and 29 doubles (20 higher than Owens, over 162 game season averages 16 more than Owens)


Paging Dave Kingman...paging Dave Kingman...


All I can think is that if Jerry Owens had been the traded guy, and Young was here, the argument would go

It would all depend. My guess is that a bunch of people would be bashing KW for trading a great player and keeping a slug. And the KW bashing would continue. There'd be a few people wanting to sit back, relax, and see how it pans out, and a bunch of geinues saying that we just traded away someone who is going to be an elite leadoff hitter - something the Sox haven't had.



We need to face it...we traded what will become a great CF for a decent middle of the rotation starter.

I'd bet if it were the other way around you'd be talking about the stud starter we gave up for just another OF prospect.

Another classic example of the pessimists treating a traded player as way over-valued and players on the team as way under-valued.

Absolutely - I'm nearly 100% certain if we kept Young and traded BA, we'd be having the same damn disucssion about BA.

Chris Young has potential. But right now his OBP is below .300. His numbers in AA and AAA weren't great either. I really don't care how many HRs he hits if he can't get himself a hit more than 23% of the time or on base more than 30%. Some of the very same people lauding Owens for his 30 good ABs would be TORCHING him if he were still here for most of the other 550 ABs.

AZChiSoxFan
10-05-2007, 11:27 AM
I'm not trying to re-hash the trade either. The Sox needed a starting pitcher, the D-Backs needed outfield help. We had a plethora of outfielders at the time so it made sense for both sides. Young vs. Anderson is irrelevent at this point. Both sides got what they needed. Who knew Anderson would struggle as he has or that Young would blossom so quickly? I liked the trade then and I like the trade now.

I am going to take a jab at Phil for only mentioning Javy is passing, as if the Sox picked up some token pitcher for mop-up duty. He had his struggles last season but this season, Javy was a stud. Phil could have at least mentioned how well the trade has worked out for the Sox.


I'm not a KW basher at all. I think he has done a great job. However, wasn't it his job (or that of his scouts) to know that Young was better than BA? I don't regret at all getting Javy. However, it would be great to have Javy and Young and not have BA anymore. To me, when looking at the job KW has done, this goes in the ledger on the negative side (not the trade in general, but apparantly the fact that we could have sent them BA instead of Young). I know Young isn't the greatest thing (too much of a free swinger), however, he is clearly better than BA.

Also, I'm not sure how much of this is just hindsight. Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to remember several here at WSI who stated AT THE TIME, that Young was much better than BA. I believe Maurice was one of them.

Finally, I know that here at WSI it's protocol to believe that if it's in the Sun times or Trib, then that automatically means it's a bold faced lie. However, why on Earth would Phil write something that's a point of fact, that could easily be refuted by one of the parties involved? In this case, I tend to believe Phil.

AZChiSoxFan
10-05-2007, 11:32 AM
I do recall Kenny saying at the time of the trade that Young would be the first one he traded that could turn out to be a star player, but that could have been bluster. So Rogers takes the DBacks preference for BA over Young, couples it with our preference for BA over Young, and makes it into a bad thing, all the while ignoring the success of Vazquez. There's a spin job for you.

I haven't given up on BA yet, either.

:rolleyes: Nobody is saying that we would be fine without Javy. We're saying that we could have Javy and Young, and not have BA anymore.

I used to be one of the hardcore BA fans on this site, but even I have totally given up on the guy. He simply has no idea what he's doing at the dish.

AZChiSoxFan
10-05-2007, 11:36 AM
[quote=jabrch;1695147]Absolutely - I'm nearly 100% certain if we kept Young and traded BA, we'd be having the same damn disucssion about BA.

quote]

GMAB. There's no way we would because BA would have spent all the time since the trade playing for the Tucson Sidewinders. BA has never been able to stay in the majors for very long at a time. Chris Young started all year and hit 30 some homers.

jackbrohamer
10-05-2007, 11:38 AM
Rogers is such an embarrassment. Only he can try to make a serious argument that the Cubs are losing now becasue KW is a bad general manager. What a yutz

itsnotrequired
10-05-2007, 11:44 AM
GMAB. There's no way we would because BA would have spent all the time since the trade playing for the Tucson Sidewinders. BA has never been able to stay in the majors for very long at a time. Chris Young started all year and hit 30 some homers.

How do you know he would be in the minors the whole time? BA got the shaft here for reasons that aren't toally clear (got into a fight with Ozzie Jr?) and ended up not getting a fair shake. If Young was treated the same way, who's to say he wouldn't be viewed as a struggling rookie?

chaerulez
10-05-2007, 11:49 AM
As much ripping I did on Javy in 2006 (and rightfully so), he was damn good in 2007. He posted his second best strikeout rate of his career and his WHIP of 1.14 was very good. If he could lower his home runs given up total a little bit, he would be a Cy Young caliber pitcher.

spiffie
10-05-2007, 12:02 PM
How do you know he would be in the minors the whole time? BA got the shaft here for reasons that aren't toally clear (got into a fight with Ozzie Jr?) and ended up not getting a fair shake. If Young was treated the same way, who's to say he wouldn't be viewed as a struggling rookie?
If Brian Anderson hit 32 HR and stole 27 bases, I don't think he would have "gotten the shaft." But since he could hit for neither power nor average, and mostly just looked confused at the plate, he wasn't handed a starting job the next year. Apparently not giving a .220 hitter the job is "shafting him".

oscars gamble
10-05-2007, 12:07 PM
Speaking of Rogers, Today on the channel 9 morning news he said "if the Cubs get to a game 5 you have to favor Lilly and the Cubs over Webb and the D-Backs." Huh? And this is based on what? The guy has so much Cubbie love that he cannot look at anything objectively.

veeter
10-05-2007, 12:08 PM
I like Chris Young, but when he's the same player three years from now, he won't be such a hot comodity. Rogers is out to embarass Kenny for some reason. I'll take Javy over Young, even with hindsight.

Zisk77
10-05-2007, 12:22 PM
:worship::worship::worship:

Thank You.

The same people that see great hope in guys like Fields (stikes out alot, still struggles defensively),Owens(has a wuss arm, turns 27 in February), Richar (hit .230 without power), Danks (5.50 ERA puts him in Danny Wright territory) and Anderson (there are pitchers in the NL who are better hitters, and he turns 26 in March) don't think Young is legitimate because he struck out alot his rookie season. Even though in the 100+ history of majorl league baseball, not a single rookie has EVER delivered the combination of power/speed (HR's/SB's) that Chris Young did this year.

We need to face it...we traded what will become a great CF for a decent middle of the rotation starter.

Yeah, Field's eye won't improve in his career. many of those k's came when he was first brought up and was simply overpowered by fastballs. This happened less as the season progressed.

Richar hit 6 hr's in how many abouts? For a full year how many hr's would that be? It seems to me he has a little pop for a second baseman and a whole lot more range and a better arm then Tad.

Yep, Danks didn't win the Cy Young his rookie year he's Danny Wright. Nevermind that he pitched great the first month and a 1/2 of the season but our offense couldn't score any runs for him....see Jon Garland.

B.A. sorry i have nothing here.

Owens does have a bad arm, he also steals a ton of bases and if he learns to bunt he could become a decent hitter. Oh wait he has no power. You can't win without power in a leadoff hitter. just look at how many homers that guy in 2005 hit for us. :cool:

I sure would like to have Chris Young patrolling Cf for us. I'm also glad Javy is pitching for us.

I loved Carlos Lee too, but 2005 probably isn't a special year for us if he is playing Left.

jabrch
10-05-2007, 12:38 PM
GMAB. There's no way we would because BA would have spent all the time since the trade playing for the Tucson Sidewinders. BA has never been able to stay in the majors for very long at a time. Chris Young started all year and hit 30 some homers.

Lovely - he made a great fantasy baseball player. But he hit .237 with a .295 OBP. Those statistics don't wow me.

Apparently not giving a .220 hitter the job is "shafting him".

I don't get it either. I'd lump any hitter unable to hit for a decent average, or get on base at a decent clip in the pile.

itsnotrequired
10-05-2007, 12:53 PM
If Brian Anderson hit 32 HR and stole 27 bases, I don't think he would have "gotten the shaft." But since he could hit for neither power nor average, and mostly just looked confused at the plate, he wasn't handed a starting job the next year. Apparently not giving a .220 hitter the job is "shafting him".

Anderson needed consistant playing time in 2006 to see what he could do. He did not get this. Mackowiak was brought out game after game, even when Anderson was hitting well. And at the start of 2007, Anderson got shoved around again.

I wasn't suggesting he be "awarded" the job but forwhatever reason, Ozzie didn't want to play him. Chalk it up to Ozzie's preference for veterans, chalk it up to off-field actions, chalk it up to whatever. Until Anderson gets that consistant playing time, I feel it us unfair to say he sucks.

I mean, look at Young's struggles to start the season. He hit .232 in April, had a nice May but then tanked it in June (.194/.245/.392) yet still got 111 PAs that month. Anderson never had more than 80 PAs in ANY month in 2006. In contrast, Young has never had FEWER than 80 PAs in any month.

Was Anderson benched so often because he wasn't hitting well or was he not hitting well because he was benched? It is a more complicated situation than simply saying "he hits poorly so should be benched".

balke
10-05-2007, 01:05 PM
Anderson is a letdown so far, and probably for good. I'm not completely given up on him as a player yet. Some players grow with time ala Aaron Rowand.

I can't believe Lilly threw Young a fastball last night. Young refused to even swing at his breaking pitches for strikes, then just hopped all over that fastball. Lilly probably threw his glove down because he was angry he threw it in the first place.

tebman
10-05-2007, 01:10 PM
Lilly probably threw his glove down because he was angry he threw it in the first place.

I thought he did that because he wants to be like Zambrano when he grows up.

champagne030
10-05-2007, 01:32 PM
Lovely - he made a great fantasy baseball player. But he hit .237 with a .295 OBP. Those statistics don't wow me.


Well, .244/.308, 33%K rate and limited defense don't wow me either, so I guess that I can at least count on Josh's future fantasy career.

I like Josh's future and if you do too then there's zero reason to not like Young's future. There's no reason (other than pure bias) to believe Young won't be right with Josh in BA/OBA.

fquaye149
10-05-2007, 01:38 PM
Isn't it kind of a moot point?

I mean Ozzie's so petrified of low batting averages that even if Young were OPSing 950 for the Sox, Ozzie'd only play him every third day.....


sometimes it feels like Ozzie puts our rookies (NOT JUST BA) in positions where failure is more likely than success...who's to say that Young would have risen above a manager who doesn't seem to be interested in letting prospects develop?

TomBradley72
10-05-2007, 01:45 PM
Agreed on that. The Sox looked ready to ride in 2006. Too bad it didn't work out.

My point was more in regards to TomBradley72 throwing a bunch of the other young guys under the bus, even though they have nothing to do with Young, Anderson, Javy or the trade.

Wasn't throwing those guys under the bus...most of my statements have do with fans looking at things objectively...I've read posters on these boards that think Jerry Owens or Brian Anderson are legitimate prospects...but write off Chris Young because of a high strike out count his rookie year....that doesn't make sense to me.

oeo
10-05-2007, 01:50 PM
sometimes it feels like Ozzie puts our rookies (NOT JUST BA) in positions where failure is more likely than success...who's to say that Young would have risen above a manager who doesn't seem to be interested in letting prospects develop?

Oh, here we go with this bull**** argument again.

Yep, Ozzie's goal as manager is to make sure the youth of the team fails. He just wants bad things for the organization. :rolleyes:

You keep thinking up your conspiracy theories...the fact of the matter is, Brian Anderson sucked and still continues to suck. And until he can act like a big leaguer both on and off the field (both of which may never happen, although you'd have to think someday he would act like a big boy), he's not going to play...it's that simple.

TomBradley72
10-05-2007, 01:51 PM
Was Anderson benched so often because he wasn't hitting well or was he not hitting well because he was benched? It is a more complicated situation than simply saying "he hits poorly so should be benched".

He had 365 ABs in 2006....that's plenty of time for a rookie to prove he can hit at least .250. He was hitting .192 at the All Star break after 180 ABs...that's more than a fair shot. The issue isn't that Anderson hasn't been given a chance...the issue is what he delivered when given the opportunity. This year was no different....and he continued to struggle at AAA. He's approaching his 26th birthday...time is running out for him to become anything more than Rusty Kuntz.

fquaye149
10-05-2007, 01:59 PM
Oh, here we go with this bull**** argument again.

Yep, Ozzie's goal as manager is to make sure the youth of the team fails. He just wants bad things for the organization. :rolleyes:

Don't distort the issue. Dusty Baker wanted to win too. And sometimes he did win. That doesn't mean he didn't prefer veterans to rookies.

Ozzie's desire to win is precisely why I believe he is so loathe to let rookies fail on the field--he would rather win today than develop his players.

To a certain extent, I agree with him--wins in April and May count as much as wins in August and September.

That's not to say he's ever developed a position player, even though we've had some pretty good talent come through the past couple years.


You keep thinking up your conspiracy theories...the fact of the matter is, Brian Anderson sucked and still continues to suck. And until he can act like a big leaguer both on and off the field (both of which may never happen, although you'd have to think someday he would act like a big boy), he's not going to play...it's that simple.


It's not just about BA. It was something I saw with Fields and Richar as well.

fquaye149
10-05-2007, 02:00 PM
He had 365 ABs in 2006....that's plenty of time for a rookie to prove he can hit at least .250. He was hitting .192 at the All Star break after 180 ABs...that's more than a fair shot. The issue isn't that Anderson hasn't been given a chance...the issue is what he delivered when given the opportunity. This year was no different....and he continued to struggle at AAA. He's approaching his 26th birthday...time is running out for him to become anything more than Rusty Kuntz.

So if he hit .230 on the season and hit .192 before the allstar break, I am not so surprised you refused to bring up his 2nd half stats.

Should we take a look at Chris Young's first half stats this year?

Domeshot17
10-05-2007, 02:02 PM
Yeah, Field's eye won't improve in his career. many of those k's came when he was first brought up and was simply overpowered by fastballs. This happened less as the season progressed.


Did you watch the WHITE Sox his season? I agree Fields will get better, but the Strike Outs did not come on fastballs not even close. It was pretty obviously for a while that you SHOULDNT throw Fields a fastball because he can get around on those, its the outside slider that was causing him the K at such a high rate. Then Ozzie moved him to the 2 hole because he would see more fastballs infront of Thome and PK. Its the breaking ball Fields couldnt hit, he was our modern day Pedro Cerrano, without the whole voodoo thing.

oeo
10-05-2007, 02:02 PM
Don't distort the issue. Dusty Baker wanted to win too. And sometimes he did win. That doesn't mean he didn't prefer veterans to rookies.

Ozzie's desire to win is precisely why I believe he is so loathe to let rookies fail on the field--he would rather win today than develop his players.

To a certain extent, I agree with him--wins in April and May count as much as wins in August and September.

That's not to say he's ever developed a position player, even though we've had some pretty good talent come through the past couple years.

Ozzie didn't play BA because he wasn't getting results. You're right, he wanted to win. And if the guy that was giving him results was BA and not Mackowiak, he would have played BA. It has nothing to do with who has more service time, or their ethnic background (like some people like to bring up), it's all about results.

And it's not Ozzie's job to develop a player. The player is supposed to be developed when they get here. This isn't Charlotte, they should be ready to go. The organization made a big mistake with CF, trading Rowand and then having so much confidence in BA, when he either wasn't ready or never will be (we still don't know), that they didn't even have a Plan B.

It's not just about BA. It was something I saw with Fields and Richar as well.This statement could not be any more vague. What did you see? :?:

fquaye149
10-05-2007, 02:07 PM
Ozzie didn't play BA because he wasn't getting results. You're right, he wanted to win. And if the guy that was giving him results was BA and not Mackowiak, he would have played BA. It has nothing to do with who has more service time, or their ethnic background (like some people like to bring up), it's all about results.

It's not worth getting into this. I don't really care that much about BA. He's gone. I care about future prospects at this point, because Anderson's a done deal with the Sox.


This statement could not be any more vague. What did you see? :?:When Fields came up and struggled, even though we were well out of contention, he wasn't getting a solid shot until crede and ozuna got injured. I would suggest that
KW traded Tad because he knew that Richar would never get playing time, even in garbage time (i.e. August and September) as long as Iguchi was on the roster.

Just the way I see things--if Ozzie has a veteran option hitting slightly higher, he prefers to start that player...and this is to say nothing about his handling of the CF position in the 2nd half of last year

JorgeFabregas
10-05-2007, 02:12 PM
When Fields came up and struggled, even though we were well out of contention, he wasn't getting a solid shot until crede and ozuna got injured
Fields wasn't called up in 2007 till Crede was DLed. He was never up and not getting playing time.

oeo
10-05-2007, 02:13 PM
When Fields came up and struggled, even though we were well out of contention, he wasn't getting a solid shot until crede and ozuna got injured. I would suggest that

:?:

Fields wasn't called up until Crede was injured. When it was announced that Crede was going to have surgery, that's when they called up Fields. Crede/Fields were never on the roster together. Same with Ozuna...Fields wasn't called up until two weeks after Ozuna got hurt.

KW traded Tad because he knew that Richar would never get playing time, even in garbage time (i.e. August and September) as long as Iguchi was on the roster.

This is pure speculation on your part, and there's probably about a 95% chance that it's false.

fquaye149
10-05-2007, 02:17 PM
clearly you see things different. That's fine.

But tell me this...since we ARE talking about 06, can you really see Ozzie having any sort of patience with Young's .240 06 average (and that against the much weaker NL WEST...remember that the AL Central had by far the best pitching in baseball in 06)?

If so, I guess we just have a completely different conception of Ozzie's managerial style

fquaye149
10-05-2007, 02:18 PM
Fields wasn't called up in 2007 till Crede was DLed. He was never up and not getting playing time.

I guess I just bricked on this---so you're saying Fields was never on the same active roster as Crede OR Ozuna?

I could have sworn that was the case. If it's not, my bad

oeo
10-05-2007, 02:20 PM
clearly you see things different. That's fine.

But tell me this...since we ARE talking about 06, can you really see Ozzie having any sort of patience with Young's .240 06 average (and that against the much weaker NL WEST...remember that the AL Central had by far the best pitching in baseball in 06)?

If so, I guess we just have a completely different conception of Ozzie's managerial style

Young only had 70 ABs in 2006 (very small sample size). There's no way of even knowing if he would have hit .240 for an entire season (probably not). I doubt Young would have started the season with the team in 2006, anyway. One of the reasons Kenny probably picked BA over Young is because BA appeared to be ready to go in 2006. Rowand had already been traded, and Chris Young was still 'a year away.'

fquaye149
10-05-2007, 02:27 PM
Young only had 70 ABs in 2006 (very small sample size). There's no way of even knowing if he would have hit .240 for an entire season (probably not). I doubt Young would have started the season with the team in 2006, anyway. One of the reasons Kenny probably picked BA over Young is because BA appeared to be ready to go in 2006. Rowand had already been traded, and Chris Young was still 'a year away.'

Well then let's use his first half of 2007 when he hit around .230

is that a better comparison to you?

oeo
10-05-2007, 02:31 PM
Well then let's use his first half of 2007 when he hit around .230

is that a better comparison to you?

In which he also hit 13 HRs, and was 9/9 in SB...yes, he would have stuck with him. BA was not contributing, at all.

jabrch
10-05-2007, 02:40 PM
but write off Chris Young

I don't think anyone wrote off Chris Young. That's complete bullcrap.

Zisk77
10-05-2007, 10:57 PM
Did you watch the WHITE Sox his season? I agree Fields will get better, but the Strike Outs did not come on fastballs not even close. It was pretty obviously for a while that you SHOULDNT throw Fields a fastball because he can get around on those, its the outside slider that was causing him the K at such a high rate. Then Ozzie moved him to the 2 hole because he would see more fastballs infront of Thome and PK. Its the breaking ball Fields couldnt hit, he was our modern day Pedro Cerrano, without the whole voodoo thing.


Yes I did watch them this season. In the first Month and a half Josh was basically a breaking ball hitter. Good fastballs especially middle in were thrown right by him. Somewhere aroung July that all changed and hr's started to come in droves. His bat speed picked up and it was much harder to get a fb by him.
Sliders then gave him fits because they look like fb than break....curves however he still banged around. He will now have to make an adjustment to the sliders and he will. then he'll prolly see more change-ups...

ChiSoxFan35
10-06-2007, 01:16 AM
Come now, I know I didn't second guess, let's not act like some people didn't think Chris Young would be great at the time of the trade! He wasn't some unknown scrub. BA we knew some at that time, it'd be all defense and we'd have to wait for some offense. Chris Young you also knew the D would be good, but he also had some great speed and some pop. I just liked that extra tool game, I never have trusted guys like Sweeney, or the guy we gave away in the Sea trade (loved that deal too), but I felt more potential with this kid.

I am happy to see him succeed though. Read he still keeps up with Fields and minor league buddies

TheOldRoman
10-06-2007, 02:13 AM
Not only is this report utter bull****, it is typical Cubune trash.

Let's see, it is no coincidence that this report came days after Rogers declared the Cubs had the a better offense, starting pitching, and bullpen than the D-backs. He promised the Cubs would walk away with this, then the "powerhouse" Cubbies crapped themselves two days in a row, and made Rogers look like a fool.

He is mad. I think he is particularly mad at the Sox fans enjoying the pounding the Cubs are taking, and he probably read in on this board. Phil couldn't have that, so he randomly throws out a "Yeah, **** you Sox fans. KW is a terrible GM. He is stupid, he is despicable, and you will never be as good as the Cubs." He didn't just chronicle Young, he took this as another opportunity to bash the Sox. There was more behind this story than the fact that the Cubs are playing Young's team.

JB98
10-06-2007, 02:58 AM
This isn't the first time I've read that Arizona wanted BA and not Young in the Vazquez deal. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that people think this is new news.

It's aggravating to continue to read threads on WSI where Ozzie gets accused of screwing young players. Fields, Owens, Richar, Gonzalez, Floyd and Wassermann all got extended looks this season with varying degrees of success.

I just think the BA excuse-makers have decided that Ozzie hates young players, and they are dogmatic in that belief. BA has showed us absolutely nothing offensively. He's had two terrible years in a row, and he's too old to be a prospect anymore. Yet people still side with that guy while criticizing a manager who has a .531 winning percentage and a World Series championship to his credit. I don't get it.

Grzegorz
10-06-2007, 04:54 AM
He's had two terrible years in a row, and he's too old to be a prospect anymore.

So in your world if BA shows improvement over the winter and in spring training he's not worthy of a shot because he's twenty-six years old and is no longer considered a prospect?

Yet people still side with that guy while criticizing a manager who has a .531 winning percentage and a World Series championship to his credit. I don't get it.

It's all about results; the team has been trending downward over the last two years. There seems to be much ado about certain coaches not teaching the fundamentals: base running, defense, situational hitting, etc.

Those coaches were placed with his blessing. The buck stops at the top. I want to see the team built Ozzie's way: his coaches, players, & clubhouse staff.

I do not want any excuses...

To me I get tired of hearing about the past. Ozzie does not have unlimited capital.

Now do you get it?

Frater Perdurabo
10-06-2007, 06:44 AM
This isn't the first time I've read that Arizona wanted BA and not Young in the Vazquez deal. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that people think this is new news.

It's aggravating to continue to read threads on WSI where Ozzie gets accused of screwing young players. Fields, Owens, Richar, Gonzalez, Floyd and Wassermann all got extended looks this season with varying degrees of success.

I just think the BA excuse-makers have decided that Ozzie hates young players, and they are dogmatic in that belief. BA has showed us absolutely nothing offensively. He's had two terrible years in a row, and he's too old to be a prospect anymore. Yet people still side with that guy while criticizing a manager who has a .531 winning percentage and a World Series championship to his credit. I don't get it.

First, thank you. You're among the few to answer my question posted in the very first post of this thread.

Second, you and others greatly exaggerate the position of many on this board.

Ozzie is a good manager who happens to have a few weaknesses. He's a human being. All human beings have faults. Ozzie's faults are a general impatience with young players and a stubborn predictability in managing the bullpen. It is true that he played some youngsters this year, but in many cases he had no choice because of injuries and trades. I also recognize that the bullpen generally sucked this year (other than Jenks).

I'm not asking you (plural, not just you, JB) to agree with me. All I'm asking is that you (plural) stop misrepresenting my position. Why is this so hard for so many of you to understand?

FarWestChicago
10-06-2007, 07:20 AM
Not only is this report utter bull****, it is typical Cubune trash.

Let's see, it is no coincidence that this report came days after Rogers declared the Cubs had the a better offense, starting pitching, and bullpen than the D-backs. He promised the Cubs would walk away with this, then the "powerhouse" Cubbies crapped themselves two days in a row, and made Rogers look like a fool.

He is mad. I think he is particularly mad at the Sox fans enjoying the pounding the Cubs are taking, and he probably read in on this board. Phil couldn't have that, so he randomly throws out a "Yeah, **** you Sox fans. KW is a terrible GM. He is stupid, he is despicable, and you will never be as good as the Cubs." He didn't just chronicle Young, he took this as another opportunity to bash the Sox. There was more behind this story than the fact that the Cubs are playing Young's team.Excellent post! This whole thread is basically a hijack by various camps. You are totally correct. The column was a pathetic attempt by the writer to cover up his foolishness and get in a dig at a man he hates at the same time. It's really no better than a Windsock "column".

JB98
10-06-2007, 12:13 PM
So in your world if BA shows improvement over the winter and in spring training he's not worthy of a shot because he's twenty-six years old and is no longer considered a prospect?



It's all about results; the team has been trending downward over the last two years. There seems to be much ado about certain coaches not teaching the fundamentals: base running, defense, situational hitting, etc.

Those coaches were placed with his blessing. The buck stops at the top. I want to see the team built Ozzie's way: his coaches, players, & clubhouse staff.

I do not want any excuses...

To me I get tired of hearing about the past. Ozzie does not have unlimited capital.

Now do you get it?

Get what?

I'm done with Brian Anderson. I don't care what he does over the winter or in spring training. It's time to cut our losses and go in a different direction.

The team is trending downward for the last two years? Well, what a surprise. There is nowhere to go but down after you reach the top of the mountain. I don't hold a lot of anger about 2006. It was a 90-win year. That gets you in the playoffs in many seasons.

This season was ridiculous, and Ozzie, KW and everybody else are accountable. If you think I'm arguing that Ozzie has unlimited capital, you're wrong. I am saying he has capital left from 2005. He and KW have earned the opportunity to fix this mess. A couple more 90-loss seasons, and I'll start advocating major changes. But I firmly believe that will not happen.

JB98
10-06-2007, 12:24 PM
First, thank you. You're among the few to answer my question posted in the very first post of this thread.

Second, you and others greatly exaggerate the position of many on this board.

Ozzie is a good manager who happens to have a few weaknesses. He's a human being. All human beings have faults. Ozzie's faults are a general impatience with young players and a stubborn predictability in managing the bullpen. It is true that he played some youngsters this year, but in many cases he had no choice because of injuries and trades. I also recognize that the bullpen generally sucked this year (other than Jenks).

I'm not asking you (plural, not just you, JB) to agree with me. All I'm asking is that you (plural) stop misrepresenting my position. Why is this so hard for so many of you to understand?


I don't know what I'm exaggerating. I repeatedly read that Ozzie treats young players unfairly. When I ask for examples, it invariably comes back to BA, a guy that I believe played himself out of the majors.

Yeah, he played young players because of injuries and trades. But let's face it: If Joe Crede is healthy and playing well, are you going to sit him to give Josh Fields a chance? Certainly not. Crede is one of the best in the business when healthy.

Here's the bottom line: Ozzie could have stuck Cintron at 3B and Pods in LF everyday. He didn't. He let Fields play. Ozzie could have put Erstad back in CF. He could have had Pods hitting leadoff. He didn't do those things. He gave Owens an opportunity. So what's the gripe?

I agree that Ozzie has faults. I disagree with the way he handles the bullpen. I simply do not get this constant griping about young players getting screwed. I just don't see it.

AnkleSox
10-06-2007, 12:28 PM
...time is running out for him to become anything more than Rusty Kuntz.

And his name isn't nearly as cool.

StillMissOzzie
10-06-2007, 01:14 PM
Sheeesh! Anything to divert attention from the Cubs' dismal performance in AZ. "It's all the White Sox fault for their stupid trade that the Cubbies are looking down the barrel of a 3 and out post-season. Wahhh!"

SMO
:whiner::whiner:

fquaye149
10-06-2007, 06:13 PM
First, thank you. You're among the few to answer my question posted in the very first post of this thread.

Second, you and others greatly exaggerate the position of many on this board.

Ozzie is a good manager who happens to have a few weaknesses. He's a human being. All human beings have faults. Ozzie's faults are a general impatience with young players and a stubborn predictability in managing the bullpen. It is true that he played some youngsters this year, but in many cases he had no choice because of injuries and trades. I also recognize that the bullpen generally sucked this year (other than Jenks).

I'm not asking you (plural, not just you, JB) to agree with me. All I'm asking is that you (plural) stop misrepresenting my position. Why is this so hard for so many of you to understand?

That's pretty much how I feel.

I think Ozzie has a lot of great qualities, especially in his ability to take the burden of the media onto his shoulders entirely. Without that ability to make the press focus on him, I have doubts we would have won in 05. Thank God for Ozzie.

I just think that he doesn't develop players as well as other managers, probably because he's so much more scrutinized than other managers.

Fact is, Young was in a much better situation being in Arizona in 07 than he would have been playing for the White Sox in 06

TheOldRoman
10-07-2007, 01:21 AM
Uh oh, Rogers must be REALLY pissed now. I think I know what he will write for his sequel to this article.:rolleyes:
"Unfortunately, Williams' stupid decisions haven't stopped there. In December of 2004, the Sox traded Carlos Lee to the Brewers for Scott Podsednik - a despicable trade that will haunt them for years. What most fans don't know is what Williams passed on. The Brewers were dying to unload the salaries of a few youngsters - Brady Clark, Prince Fielder, and Ryan Braun. They wanted to ship them along with Podsednik. In return? They wanted Brian Anderson and Shingo Takatsu. Kenny Williams thought that was too much talent to part with, so it didn't go through...

But it gets worse. Weeks after the Sox hoisted the trophy, Williams already started his despicable plan to despicably disassemble the world champs and turn them into the Pirates. He traded Aaron Rowand for Jim Thome. Philadelphia wanted to keep Thome - they were trying to unload no-name first baseman Ryan Howard. the Phillies even agreed to throw in current phenom Cole Hammels, but Williams backed away from the table. It would be Thome or nothing...

Before this season, Williams nearly had a blockbuster deal worked out. He has long had interest in Alex Rodriguez, and he almost got him. The Yankees would have shipped Alex Rodriguez, along with $12 million of his salary, to the White Sox along with Melky Cabrera in exchange for Juan Uribe, Brian Anderson, and Augustin Montero. Williams was so insulted that he nearly flipped over the buffet table. The Yankees increased their offer, throwing in Phillip Hughes, but Williams hung up the phone...

The Cubs may have lost, but they are still loveable. Suck it, Sox fans.

Scottiehaswheels
10-07-2007, 01:26 AM
Uh oh, Rogers must be REALLY pissed now. I think I know what he will write for his sequel to this article.:rolleyes:Ha nice!

Jerome
10-07-2007, 01:45 AM
yeah but at the time the trade was made there was no way to predict

a. that BA would have such a dreadful first half to his rookie year
b. that our manager would develop an irrational hatred of him and never give him another fair shot again

plus I still like Javier. He was one of the few bright spots on the sox last year

Jerome
10-07-2007, 01:45 AM
Fact is, Young was in a much better situation being in Arizona in 07 than he would have been playing for the White Sox in 06

I agree with this also

Nellie_Fox
10-07-2007, 01:52 AM
b. that our manager would develop an irrational hatred of him and never give him another fair shot againYou guys spouting this stuff are so tiresome. What evidence do you have to back up your contention that Ozzie has an "irrational hatred," particularly the "irrational" part? Never is a long time. Anderson spent a large part of last season injured and thus unavailable for another "fair shot."

If you are correct, and Anderson is only being held down by irrationality, and hasn't been given a fair shot, I'm sure other teams will be knocking down Kenny's door with offers.

fquaye149
10-07-2007, 02:09 AM
Uh oh, Rogers must be REALLY pissed now. I think I know what he will write for his sequel to this article.:rolleyes:

poorshowing OldRoman. You neglected to include about 500 or so "Despicables"

fquaye149
10-07-2007, 02:13 AM
You guys spouting this stuff are so tiresome. What evidence do you have to back up your contention that Ozzie has an "irrational hatred," particularly the "irrational" part? Never is a long time. Anderson spent a large part of last season injured and thus unavailable for another "fair shot."

If you are correct, and Anderson is only being held down by irrationality, and hasn't been given a fair shot, I'm sure other teams will be knocking down Kenny's door with offers.

Look...whether it's out there or not and whether it's true or not, a lot of good baseball minds have acknowledged that BA wasn't exactly set up to succeed.

It's time to move on because, right or wrong, BA's worn out his welcome here (and some might say he wore it out by May of 06)...but let's not pretend like BA and C. Young got the same uninterrupted opportunity to work through their kinks.

In the words of WSI's most knowledgable baseball mind, Daver (and I say that with all sincerity)

He was put in an unfair position and failed.

period.

The Dude
10-07-2007, 02:20 AM
:threadsucks

Another great Frater thread!:rolleyes:

Maybe we should have traded Paulie for Vasquez?:rolleyes:

Jerome
10-07-2007, 02:35 AM
You guys spouting this stuff are so tiresome. What evidence do you have to back up your contention that Ozzie has an "irrational hatred," particularly the "irrational" part? Never is a long time. Anderson spent a large part of last season injured and thus unavailable for another "fair shot."

If you are correct, and Anderson is only being held down by irrationality, and hasn't been given a fair shot, I'm sure other teams will be knocking down Kenny's door with offers.

well i can't disagree with a lot of what you are saying but Ozzie's handling of BA in general just pisses me off.

The guy was a highly touted prospect, but struggles in his rookie year. Is that so uncommon in baseball? And after that horrid first half of the year, he shows some signs of improvement, and Ozzie plays Rob Machowiack out of position for all those games. How many wins did his horrid defense cost the team in 06?

And then the next year he gives ****ing Darin Erstad the job in spring training the next year.

I'm not saying that BA is going to be an all star but it would have been nice to him to play every day his rookie year and if not because of the understandable raised stakes of the playoff push of 06, at least to give him the job every day right off the bat in 07. Before the injuries and what not. BA as a platoon player? worthless IMO

Frater Perdurabo
10-07-2007, 06:53 AM
:threadsucks

Another great Frater thread!:rolleyes:

Maybe we should have traded Paulie for Vasquez?:rolleyes:

Yet another enlightening contribution from the poster formerly known as JoseCanseco6969.
:dtroll:

The Dude
10-07-2007, 11:48 AM
Yet another enlightening contribution from the poster formerly known as JoseCanseco6969.
:dtroll:

Jose Canseco is the man!:D:

I think I posted this last night because I read some horrible posts in this thread and then thought you started the thread in a possible KW is an idiot fashion. Sorry for the smartass post!:redface:

Frater Perdurabo
10-07-2007, 02:07 PM
Jose Canseco is the man!:D:

I think I posted this last night because I read some horrible posts in this thread and then thought you started the thread in a possible KW is an idiot fashion. Sorry for the smartass post!:redface:

It's Sunday. I've been to church. All is forgiven. :cool:

You're right; there are some horrible posts in here. I just wanted to see if anyone could confirm or refute Rogers' claim.

:)

Tragg
10-07-2007, 06:06 PM
You guys spouting this stuff are so tiresome. What evidence do you have to back up your contention that Ozzie has an "irrational hatred," particularly the "irrational" part? Never is a long time. Anderson spent a large part of last season injured and thus unavailable for another "fair shot."

If you are correct, and Anderson is only being held down by irrationality, and hasn't been given a fair shot, I'm sure other teams will be knocking down Kenny's door with offers.
I'm sure gms are knocking on his door trying to get him on the cheap.

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence - Ozzie benched him for a terrible defender in Mack; despite a good spring and pretty good 2nd half of 2006, he then benched him for Erstad and his .310 obp. Further, the fact that Mack played ZERO games in CF in 2006, despite CF production from Erstad more impotent than Anderson delivered in 2005, suggests that the treatment was far less than even-handed and was not based on baseball production.

And also, Ozzie's affirmately marginalized several other players.


That said, I think Rogers is full of it...Anderson was not rated higher than Young.

champagne030
10-07-2007, 06:19 PM
What evidence do you have to back up your contention that Ozzie has an "irrational hatred," particularly the "irrational" part?

It was irrational to play Mack O' Wack in CF. He cannot catch a cold, let alone a routine fly.

Daver
10-07-2007, 06:26 PM
That said, I think Rogers is full of it...Anderson was not rated higher than Young.

Actually, I would have rated him higher, he's a better defensive player with a superior throwing arm. When he was taken in the draft some speculated that the Sox would convert him back to a pitcher.

MarySwiss
10-07-2007, 06:43 PM
Actually, I would have rated him higher, he's a better defensive player with a superior throwing arm. When he was taken in the draft some speculated that the Sox would convert him back to a pitcher.

I agree; at the time, IIRC, BA had already been up with the club and Young was only a prospect, albeit a good one.

I was a big BA supporter; still am. But as good as he is defensively, his offense--for the most part--sucked. Again IMO, the whole "Ozzie hated him and tried to make him fail" argument, true or false, is irrelevant. Ozzie is the manager; BA is a guy trying to make the team. So it's up to BA to prove he deserves to be there, not to Ozzie to nurse him along. Does anyone honestly think that Ozzie was hoping he wouldn't achieve? And if so, why?

drewcifer
10-07-2007, 06:48 PM
I agree; at the time, IIRC, BA had already been up with the club and Young was only a prospect, albeit a good one.

I was a big BA supporter; still am. But as good as he is defensively, his offense--for the most part--sucked. Again IMO, the whole "Ozzie hated him and tried to make him fail" argument, true or false, is irrelevant. Ozzie is the manager; BA is a guy trying to make the team. So it's up to BA to prove he deserves to be there, not to Ozzie to nurse him along. Does anyone honestly think that Ozzie was hoping he wouldn't achieve? And if so, why?

You're exactly right, Mary. BA was KWs choice; he can't hit. Ozzie can't make him flop, it's his job to hit when he gets his chances to lock in the position of CF.

This thread has gone on for 7 pages... It must be the 3rd time that this **** has come up b/w Chris Young and BA. We've talked about it to death.
Whatever happened to get Vazquez, I don't think we got fleeced at all. A solid SP of his caliber (especially when partially funded) for guys the likes of Chris Young is a good trade.

spiffie
10-07-2007, 07:33 PM
Just one thing. It seems to have become an article of faith amongst those who support Anderson and think he was ill-treated that he was shunted down to the bench after his bad first few months.

Here's an exercise for you. See if, without looking at baseball-reference.com or any other site, you can match the month with the number of games Anderson started and PA's he got. If there is any sort of noticeable trend in Ozzie benching Anderson and giving him short shrift it shouldn't be too hard:

15 starts - 56 PA's
21 starts - 80 PA's
16 starts - 58 PA's
17 starts - 67 PA's
20 starts - 72 PA's
17 starts - 72 PA's

fquaye149
10-07-2007, 08:25 PM
Actually, I would have rated him higher, he's a better defensive player with a superior throwing arm. When he was taken in the draft some speculated that the Sox would convert him back to a pitcher.

I thought the conventional thinking went:

-BA is most likely to have an immediate impact
-Young is most likely to become an all-star
-Owens has the highest ceiling

or something like that

fquaye149
10-07-2007, 08:26 PM
I agree; at the time, IIRC, BA had already been up with the club and Young was only a prospect, albeit a good one.

I was a big BA supporter; still am. But as good as he is defensively, his offense--for the most part--sucked. Again IMO, the whole "Ozzie hated him and tried to make him fail" argument, true or false, is irrelevant. Ozzie is the manager; BA is a guy trying to make the team. So it's up to BA to prove he deserves to be there, not to Ozzie to nurse him along. Does anyone honestly think that Ozzie was hoping he wouldn't achieve? And if so, why?


I doubt anyone, besides the "BA fought Ozzie's son" conspiracy theorists would say that.

I personally don't think Ozzie had anything against BA besides, perhaps, thinking he had a bad attitude (BA/B.ad A.ttitude...coincidence?)

My problem is that I think Ozzie just doesn't have much patience for a rookie struggling at the plate and that Ozzie is overly obsessed with high Batting Average rather than high OBP

i dunno...just the way things seem to me

Daver
10-07-2007, 08:32 PM
I thought the conventional thinking went:

-BA is most likely to have an immediate impact
-Young is most likely to become an all-star
-Owens has the highest ceiling

or something like that

Since when do I have to be held by the confines of conventional thinking?

There is no rookie player that will ever have a guaranteed immediate impact, the question is more will the adjustment period be long or short.

Brian Anderson of the three is the best defensive player.

Chris Young projected as a better power hitter.

Jerry Owens is a left fielder, and not a very good one.

Lip Man 1
10-07-2007, 08:46 PM
Folks:

It's not 'just' oh 'Ozzie hates Anderson.'

Remember when the Sox were in Cleveland early in the year and one of the writers wrote that (paraphrasing) 'Sox coaches were amazed when two players were watching TV instead of watching tape on Cleveland's pitcher.'

I contacted a friend who is a Sox beat writer..he told me one of those two players was Anderson.

Don't think that didn't get back to Ozzie.

Lip

fquaye149
10-07-2007, 09:34 PM
Since when do I have to be held by the confines of conventional thinking?

You're a pretty conventional guy. I just figured you'd PLAY BALL.

But I though I remembered you and Maurice and Randar (the big 3 in farm talk) kind of agreeing on that.

I have a bad memory


There is no rookie player that will ever have a guaranteed immediate impact, the question is more will the adjustment period be long or short.

Brian Anderson of the three is the best defensive player.

Chris Young projected as a better power hitter.

Jerry Owens is a left fielder, and not a very good one.

I didn't say there was anything guaranteed....just trying to remember what people said.

jabrch
10-07-2007, 11:20 PM
Look...whether it's out there or not and whether it's true or not, a lot of good baseball minds have acknowledged that BA wasn't exactly set up to succeed.

It's time to move on because, right or wrong, BA's worn out his welcome here (and some might say he wore it out by May of 06)...but let's not pretend like BA and C. Young got the same uninterrupted opportunity to work through their kinks.

In the words of WSI's most knowledgable baseball mind, Daver (and I say that with all sincerity)



period.



I don't believe for one moment that if BA was productive and healthy down there in the minors this spring/summer that he'd have been getting playing time in the fall. Brian hit .255/.318/.435 in Charlotte this year. He hasn't earned a callup. I would love to see Brian succeed. But until he shows some aptitude to hit at the minor league level I don't see how anyone can say he is being treated unfairly by not being up.

fquaye149
10-07-2007, 11:33 PM
I don't believe for one moment that if BA was productive and healthy down there in the minors this spring/summer that he'd have been getting playing time in the fall. Brian hit .255/.318/.435 in Charlotte this year. He hasn't earned a callup. I would love to see Brian succeed. But until he shows some aptitude to hit at the minor league level I don't see how anyone can say he is being treated unfairly by not being up.


I was talking more about the events that led to his being sent down this year.

I don't deny that BA has played his way out of this team's future and I don't claim that anyone MADE him fail.

I just don't think he was really put in the ideal position to succeed considering he was a blue-chip rookie

MisterB
10-08-2007, 03:13 AM
I don't believe for one moment that if BA was productive and healthy down there in the minors this spring/summer that he'd have been getting playing time in the fall. Brian hit .255/.318/.435 in Charlotte this year. He hasn't earned a callup. I would love to see Brian succeed. But until he shows some aptitude to hit at the minor league level I don't see how anyone can say he is being treated unfairly by not being up.

He hit .295/.360/.469 at Charlotte in '05.

This year he got a whole 17 AB's in April before being sent down. He shortly thereafter developed tendonitis in his throwing shoulder which limited him to primarily DH duty, and then injured his wrist which ended his season after 200 AB's. That isn't exactly what I'd call a good baseline for judging his aptitude to hit in the minors.

Grzegorz
10-08-2007, 10:39 AM
My problem is that I think Ozzie just doesn't have much patience for a rookie struggling at the plate and that Ozzie is overly obsessed with high Batting Average rather than high OBP

i dunno...just the way things seem to me

I am not sure that I buy that Ozzie cared about batting average (BA) or on base percentage regarding his rookies. Look at the those stats for the following two players: Fields & Richar. Fields had a BA of .244 and an OBP of .308. Richar had a BA of .230 and a OBP of .289.

bryPt
10-08-2007, 12:03 PM
Nevermind.

Mod Edit: Please stop spamming for your blog.
Mod Edit: Please leave the moderating to the mods.

itsnotrequired
10-08-2007, 12:07 PM
Mod Edit: Please leave the moderating to the mods.

Not only is it relevant, it is more or less the answer to the whole thread. Here is a direct quote from the then-GM saying how Young was the guy the Diamondbacks wanted all along. Of course, KW haters will say it is all lip service and the guy is saying he wanted Young to make him look like a genius. KW scresw up again!

:rolleyes:

voodoochile
10-08-2007, 12:18 PM
Not only is it relevant, it is more or less the answer to the whole thread. Here is a direct quote from the then-GM saying how Young was the guy the Diamondbacks wanted all along. Of course, KW haters will say it is all lip service and the guy is saying he wanted Young to make him look like a genius. KW scresw up again!

:rolleyes:

The point is the flubune conspiracy crap is old and tired. Yes they promote their product, but there is simply no evidence that Phil Rogers maliciously made up this story to have a negative impact on the Sox fanbase. Perhaps his source said differently or he was talking to some D'back front office type years ago when the deal went through and Anderson's name came up and he simply misremembered. Heck, maybe the guy quoted by Levine (now THERE'S a trustworthy source of information :rolleyes: ) was making it up to make himself look better. It really doesn't matter. It's still the same old woe is me crap that makes the team and fanbase look like whiners.

I like Jeff's posts. I think he adds insight into some things. I also think he's no better than Hangar when it comes to his unbiased viewpoint. There's a reason all this crap goes here in the WTS forum.

Edit: In addition, instead of linking to his blog, Jeff could have linked directly to the quote from Levine. Jeff didn't break the story, Bruce did.

fquaye149
10-08-2007, 12:47 PM
I am not sure that I buy that Ozzie cared about batting average (BA) or on base percentage regarding his rookies. Look at the those stats for the following two players: Fields & Richar. Fields had a BA of .244 and an OBP of .308. Richar had a BA of .230 and a OBP of .289.

who else was he going to play at 2B and SS?

if he had someone who was hitting .280 with a .300 OBP i bet they would have played over those two....

but of course this is just conjecture based heavily on my opinion on the issue

fquaye149
10-08-2007, 12:49 PM
The point is the flubune conspiracy crap is old and tired. Yes they promote their product, but there is simply no evidence that Phil Rogers maliciously made up this story to have a negative impact on the Sox fanbase.


I would more likely suggest that IF a writer like Phil Rogers did fabricate (or exaggerate) a source, his motivation would more likely have been to make himself look better for his constant KW bashing...especially after his asinine crowning of Brandon McCarthy was proven to be just that

itsnotrequired
10-08-2007, 01:01 PM
The point is the flubune conspiracy crap is old and tired. Yes they promote their product, but there is simply no evidence that Phil Rogers maliciously made up this story to have a negative impact on the Sox fanbase. Perhaps his source said differently or he was talking to some D'back front office type years ago when the deal went through and Anderson's name came up and he simply misremembered. Heck, maybe the guy quoted by Levine (now THERE'S a trustworthy source of information :rolleyes: ) was making it up to make himself look better. It really doesn't matter. It's still the same old woe is me crap that makes the team and fanbase look like whiners.

I like Jeff's posts. I think he adds insight into some things. I also think he's no better than Hangar when it comes to his unbiased viewpoint. There's a reason all this crap goes here in the WTS forum.

Edit: In addition, instead of linking to his blog, Jeff could have linked directly to the quote from Levine. Jeff didn't break the story, Bruce did.

No doubt the conspiracy thing is totally over the top. I just liked the post as it was a source saying that it was Young the Diamondbacks wanted all along, which was Frater's original question. I wasn't suggesting that Rogers was twirling his moustache as he wrote the article, hatching some type of master plan to smear the Sox.

The thread got out of hand and turned into a KW-was-so-stupid-for-letting-Young-go tirade by the KW haters with no basis whatsoever, either from the article's or trade's standpoint.

Grzegorz
10-08-2007, 01:50 PM
Folks:

It's not 'just' oh 'Ozzie hates Anderson.'

Remember when the Sox were in Cleveland early in the year and one of the writers wrote that (paraphrasing) 'Sox coaches were amazed when two players were watching TV instead of watching tape on Cleveland's pitcher.'

I contacted a friend who is a Sox beat writer..he told me one of those two players was Anderson.

Don't think that didn't get back to Ozzie.

Lip

Lip,

Enlighten me on the whole tape watching process. Is watching tape on the opposing pitcher a mandatory team event, or is watching tape on the opposing pitcher conducted with the hitting coach and the player?

Or perhaps it is a less structured process?

TornLabrum
10-08-2007, 02:47 PM
Lip,

Enlighten me on the whole tape watching process. Is watching tape on the opposing pitcher a mandatory team event, or is watching tape on the opposing pitcher conducted with the hitting coach and the player?

Or perhaps it is a less structured process?

Let me put it to you this way, even if watching tape is "optional":

You're a rookie. You've seen minimal playing time around the league. What do you think you're expected to do?

voodoochile
10-08-2007, 03:03 PM
Let me put it to you this way, even if watching tape is "optional":

You're a rookie. You've seen minimal playing time around the league. What do you think you're expected to do?

Well after a hard night's drinking, reruns of Laverne and Shirley sounds about right. Throw in some Twinkees and Gatorade and 'sol good...

Lip Man 1
10-08-2007, 03:30 PM
Greg:

Hal's got it spot on. Watching tape is 'optional' but expected (kind of like 'voluntary' off season drills in the NFL.)

Making matters worse is that if memory serves, the Indians pitcher that night was a rookie or someone with very little time in the bigs. He was basically an unknown.

Instead of watching tape to at least get a sense of what the kid throws, how it breaks and so forth, two Sox players (the story said both were newcomers) were watching TV.

If guys like Konerko, Thome and Dye watch tape regularly with all that they have accomplished in the major leagues, one would think kids would be watching it as well.

Like I said I'm sure this got back to Ozzie and figured into his decisions. If he thought BA was 'unprepared' my guess is that he wasn't going to play him. Coupled with the other rumors about going out at night and things, it didn't paint him in the best light.

Lip

Jerome
10-08-2007, 05:04 PM
Greg:

Hal's got it spot on. Watching tape is 'optional' but expected (kind of like 'voluntary' off season drills in the NFL.)

Making matters worse is that if memory serves, the Indians pitcher that night was a rookie or someone with very little time in the bigs. He was basically an unknown.

Instead of watching tape to at least get a sense of what the kid throws, how it breaks and so forth, two Sox players (the story said both were newcomers) were watching TV.

If guys like Konerko, Thome and Dye watch tape regularly with all that they have accomplished in the major leagues, one would think kids would be watching it as well.

Like I said I'm sure this got back to Ozzie and figured into his decisions. If he thought BA was 'unprepared' my guess is that he wasn't going to play him. Coupled with the other rumors about going out at night and things, it didn't paint him in the best light.

Lip

all of that stuff, while bad, does not give Rob Mackowiack or Darin Erstad the right to play every day in CF, both hurting the team on the field and hurting the development of the team in the future. I'm not a BA lover but anyone can see that those guys are not every day CFs.

eriqjaffe
10-08-2007, 05:07 PM
all of that stuff, while bad, does not give Rob Mackowiack or Darin Erstad the right to play every day in CF, both hurting the team on the field and hurting the development of the team in the future. I'm not a BA lover but anyone can see that those guys are not every day CFs.To be fair, Erstad is actually a very good center fielder, he's just injury prone. Mackowiak was playing out of position, and was simply overmatched.

Grzegorz
10-08-2007, 08:45 PM
Greg:

Hal's got it spot on. Watching tape is 'optional' but expected (kind of like 'voluntary' off season drills in the NFL.)

Making matters worse is that if memory serves, the Indians pitcher that night was a rookie or someone with very little time in the bigs. He was basically an unknown.

Instead of watching tape to at least get a sense of what the kid throws, how it breaks and so forth, two Sox players (the story said both were newcomers) were watching TV.

If guys like Konerko, Thome and Dye watch tape regularly with all that they have accomplished in the major leagues, one would think kids would be watching it as well.

Like I said I'm sure this got back to Ozzie and figured into his decisions. If he thought BA was 'unprepared' my guess is that he wasn't going to play him. Coupled with the other rumors about going out at night and things, it didn't paint him in the best light.

Lip

Can tapes be watched on personal time?

JB98
10-08-2007, 08:55 PM
all of that stuff, while bad, does not give Rob Mackowiack or Darin Erstad the right to play every day in CF, both hurting the team on the field and hurting the development of the team in the future. I'm not a BA lover but anyone can see that those guys are not every day CFs.

No question, but we haven't had an everyday CF on this team at any point in the last two years. And Ozzie has to put *somebody* out there.

Brian26
10-08-2007, 09:02 PM
This falls under the "for what its worth category" and the "take it with a grain of salt" department at the same time.

Coppock and Levine interviewed Mike Rizzo on Saturday morning during their Talking Baseball Show. Rizzo is the assistant GM for the Nationals and used to be the head of scouting for Arizona (up until mid-2006).

The focus of the interview was first on the Cubs and Soriano (Coppock claimed Soriano has the quickest hands in baseball). The latter part of the interviewed turned to Chris Young.

Rizzo claims that Arizona had targeted Chris Young during the 2005 season and had wanted him all along. He said the goal of a good scouting program is to discover guys in other systems before the secret is out, long before they're on magazine covers and playing in Futures games.

Levine's last question, point blank, was, "Is it true that Arizona asked for Brian Anderson first and was told that he was unavailable?" Rizzo flat-out denied it.

Take that for what its worth. Notwithstanding tampering rules, there's probably not much for Rizzo to gain at this point by admitting he wanted Anderson if that really is the case. He sounded convincing when he was talking about Chris Young, but, again, that could be revisionist history too. It was a good interview.

DumpJerry
10-08-2007, 11:42 PM
This falls under the "for what its worth category" and the "take it with a grain of salt" department at the same time.

Coppock and Levine interviewed Mike Rizzo on Saturday morning during their Talking Baseball Show. Rizzo is the assistant GM for the Nationals and used to be the head of scouting for Arizona (up until mid-2006).

The focus of the interview was first on the Cubs and Soriano (Coppock claimed Soriano has the quickest hands in baseball). The latter part of the interviewed turned to Chris Young.

Rizzo claims that Arizona had targeted Chris Young during the 2005 season and had wanted him all along. He said the goal of a good scouting program is to discover guys in other systems before the secret is out, long before they're on magazine covers and playing in Futures games.

Levine's last question, point blank, was, "Is it true that Arizona asked for Brian Anderson first and was told that he was unavailable?" Rizzo flat-out denied it.

Take that for what its worth. Notwithstanding tampering rules, there's probably not much for Rizzo to gain at this point by admitting he wanted Anderson if that really is the case. He sounded convincing when he was talking about Chris Young, but, again, that could be revisionist history too. It was a good interview.
This account is credible. If the D-Backs were asking for Young at the time of the deal, I don't see how asking for Anderson instead would be tampering. Also, what's in it for Rizzo to alter the facts? It's not like Anderson's career has been light years ahead of Young's and he would look like a fool for picking Young over Anderson.

Kenny (and I assume all other GMs) look at other teams' farm systems for hidden nuggets they would like to pick off. While It would have been nice to have Young's potential in our stable, I'm not complaining given what we received for him.

fquaye149
10-08-2007, 11:54 PM
This account is credible. If the D-Backs were asking for Young at the time of the deal, I don't see how asking for Anderson instead would be tampering. Also, what's in it for Rizzo to alter the facts? It's not like Anderson's career has been light years ahead of Young's and he would look like a fool for picking Young over Anderson.

Kenny (and I assume all other GMs) look at other teams' farm systems for hidden nuggets they would like to pick off. While It would have been nice to have Young's potential in our stable, I'm not complaining given what we received for him.
the issue of tampering would be if, when asked NOW if he had wanted anderson instead of young, rizzo would have said yes.

if he HAD done that, it would be tampering because it would be a GM implying that he wants a player. this was given as one reason why we might CONCEIVABLY be doubtful of rizzo as a source in terms of whether the d-backs asked for Anderson over Young....but a reason that is likely discarded