PDA

View Full Version : Sox Prospects on the Clock


voodoochile
10-15-2007, 10:23 AM
Early report from the AFL...

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-071014soxfutures,1,7327778.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

kjhanson
10-15-2007, 10:48 AM
The article was rather bland, except for one part: Juan Silverio

Who is this guy? $600K signing bonus for a 16 year-old SS? Can somebody offer any more insight?

The Immigrant
10-15-2007, 11:11 AM
The article was rather bland, except for one part: Juan Silverio

He's one of the first guys signed under the Dave Wilder regime. Hopefully this is a sign of a renewed emphasis on scouting and signing free agents from the Dominican.

Here's a little more information on Silverio from Scott Merkin: http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071012&content_id=2262347&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

sox1970
10-15-2007, 11:17 AM
He's one of the first guys signed under the Dave Wilder regime. Hopefully this is a sign of a renewed emphasis on scouting and signing free agents from the Dominican.

Here's a little more information on Silverio from Scott Merkin: http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071012&content_id=2262347&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws


So is his name Juan or Jose?

kjhanson
10-15-2007, 11:24 AM
So is his name Juan or Jose?

I don't trust Mark Gonzales. Jose sounds good to me. We don't need another SS named Juan. Then again, Jose Valentin wasn't always a treat either. Now I'm not sure what to call him.

HomeFish
10-15-2007, 11:34 AM
I don't trust Mark Gonzales. Jose sounds good to me. We don't need another SS named Juan. Then again, Jose Valentin wasn't always a treat either. Now I'm not sure what to call him.

We haven't had much luck with Julio either.

KyWhiSoxFan
10-15-2007, 12:23 PM
We haven't had much luck with Julio either.

Or Royce.

soxfanatlanta
10-15-2007, 12:35 PM
Sweeney batted .200 in 45 at-bats when he was called up for a brief look in May, then hit .270 with 10 homers and 47 RBIs in 105 games at Charlotte. He's still only 22, but the Sox seem to have reservations about his long-term potential.

Another outfield prospect on the hot seat. I can remember a time when we were all high on all of the outfield talent we had coming up through the minors. Amazing.

itsnotrequired
10-15-2007, 12:37 PM
Another outfield prospect on the hot seat. I can remember a time when we were all high on all of the outfield talent we had coming up through the minors. Amazing.

To be fair, Sweeney has had some wrist issues this season.

Lefty34
10-15-2007, 12:42 PM
Well hopefully now, after seeing what happened last season, the Sox will not feel the need to go after aging journeymen to fill the glaring holes in our lineup. Prospects that are developed in-house are one of the best sources of talent in the MLB (that is, if you don't want to spend big money in the Free Agent market). Hopefully guys like Sweeney and Brian Anderson can finally get shots in the majors instead of being "developed" in the minor leagues. The only way these kids are going to be able to hit major league pitching is after they SEE major league pitching for awhile. Some will adjust and be able to hit (those are the good ones) and others will not be able to make the tweaks to their game and will be sent down, but a one month stint in the league is hardly enough time to determine if a player can make it at the next level.

And with this 16 year old SS: is this like a Rookie of the Year type of thing? And if it is, who's going to be is Chet Stedman? Uribe?

upperdeckusc
10-15-2007, 12:49 PM
Well hopefully now, after seeing what happened last season, the Sox will not feel the need to go after aging journeymen to fill the glaring holes in our lineup. Prospects that are developed in-house are one of the best sources of talent in the MLB (that is, if you don't want to spend big money in the Free Agent market). Hopefully guys like Sweeney and Brian Anderson can finally get shots in the majors instead of being "developed" in the minor leagues. The only way these kids are going to be able to hit major league pitching is after they SEE major league pitching for awhile. Some will adjust and be able to hit (those are the good ones) and others will not be able to make the tweaks to their game and will be sent down, but a one month stint in the league is hardly enough time to determine if a player can make it at the next level.

And with this 16 year old SS: is this like a Rookie of the Year type of thing? And if it is, who's going to be is Chet Stedman? Uribe?

one man comes to mind. royce clayton.....

jabrch
10-15-2007, 12:56 PM
Hopefully guys like Sweeney and Brian Anderson can finally get shots in the majors instead of being "developed" in the minor leagues.

Brian has been given a shot. Several in fact.

Sweeney wasn't healthy this season - or he'd have gotten a shot.

But while it is true you won't know for sure if a guy can hit MLB pitching til he does it, it is a fairly safe bet that if he can't hit minor league pitching (.255/.318/.435 is BA's minor league line) then he will have very little chance of hitting major leaguers.

You can easily argue that Jerry Owens MAJOR LEAGUE numbers have been better than BAs minor league numbers.

102605
10-15-2007, 01:09 PM
I don't trust Mark Gonzales. Jose sounds good to me. We don't need another SS named Juan. Then again, Jose Valentin wasn't always a treat either. Now I'm not sure what to call him.

J-Sil

:D:

Vestigio
10-15-2007, 02:41 PM
Or Royce.

Or Roberto

Britt Burns
10-15-2007, 02:43 PM
He's one of the first guys signed under the Dave Wilder regime. Hopefully this is a sign of a renewed emphasis on scouting and signing free agents from the Dominican.



No kidding. I also have to think that with Ozzie being so popular in Venezuela the Sox could be bigger players in that area...I know there isn't the sheer volume of talent you see in the Dominican and some of the other Latin American countries, but still...

Nellie_Fox
10-15-2007, 04:13 PM
No kidding. I also have to think that with Ozzie being so popular in Venezuela the Sox could be bigger players in that area...I know there isn't the sheer volume of talent you see in the Dominican and some of the other Latin American countries, but still...The White Sox were very popular in Venezuela even before Ozzie was manager due to the string of Venezuelan shortstops (Carasquel, Aparicio, Guillen) and Chico doing the Spanish-language broadcasts for the Sox.

TheCommander
10-15-2007, 05:06 PM
We haven't had much luck with Julio either.

A Luis would be nice! :supernana:

JB98
10-15-2007, 07:04 PM
Brian has been given a shot. Several in fact.

Sweeney wasn't healthy this season - or he'd have gotten a shot.

But while it is true you won't know for sure if a guy can hit MLB pitching til he does it, it is a fairly safe bet that if he can't hit minor league pitching (.255/.318/.435 is BA's minor league line) then he will have very little chance of hitting major leaguers.

You can easily argue that Jerry Owens MAJOR LEAGUE numbers have been better than BAs minor league numbers.

It wasn't so long ago that Owens was considered the weakest of our four outfield prospects (Anderson, Young, Sweeney, Owens). Of course, Young was traded, and although I'm not a big Owens fan, Jerry has clearly blown right past BA and Sweeney on the organizational depth chart.

Not a good sign, although Sweeney is still only 22. I have higher hopes that he can recover from a disappointing 2007 than I do for the 26-year-old BA.

TDog
10-15-2007, 08:52 PM
A Luis would be nice! :supernana:

That must have been the logic for trading Luis Aparicio for Mike Andrews and Luis Alvarado before the 1971 season. Funny thing, we could tell the difference between the two Luises. Not having a good shortstop in 1972 probably spelled the difference between the Sox having the third best record in baseball and possibly going to the World Series.

I hope this 16-year-old shortstop turns out to be a star. Unfortunately, the problem with signing a player so young is that he has to come up to the majors at a young age or the Sox could lose him after making an investment in developing him.

oeo
10-15-2007, 09:10 PM
It wasn't so long ago that Owens was considered the weakest of our four outfield prospects (Anderson, Young, Sweeney, Owens). Of course, Young was traded, and although I'm not a big Owens fan, Jerry has clearly blown right past BA and Sweeney on the organizational depth chart.

Not a good sign, although Sweeney is still only 22. I have higher hopes that he can recover from a disappointing 2007 than I do for the 26-year-old BA.

Exactly, which makes him still the top dog. You're acting like he was up here for a long time...it was just a few weeks, and he had some problems...who doesn't?

Grzegorz
10-15-2007, 09:33 PM
Chicago White Sox prospects on the clock. Interesting but how about a story about Chicago White Sox management being on the clock?

JB98
10-15-2007, 09:45 PM
Exactly, which makes him still the top dog. You're acting like he was up here for a long time...it was just a few weeks, and he had some problems...who doesn't?

I'm not even speaking about Sweeney's major-league performance. He had a struggling, injury-plagued year at Charlotte. That's why I referred to his season as "disappointing." He didn't take a step forward over what he did in 2006.

oeo
10-15-2007, 09:48 PM
I'm not even speaking about Sweeney's major-league performance. He had a struggling, injury-plagued year at Charlotte. That's why I referred to his season as "disappointing." He didn't take a step forward over what he did in 2006.

It was inconsistent, until he got hurt and things just got worse. He started out on the rough side, but after being called up and sent back down, he got his average back up ~.300. Then he started having the injury issues, and that's when his numbers took a fall. I don't think you can hold that against him.

JB98
10-15-2007, 09:58 PM
It was inconsistent, until he got hurt and things just got worse. He started out on the rough side, but after being called up and sent back down, he got his average back up ~.300. Then he started having the injury issues, and that's when his numbers took a fall. I don't think you can hold that against him.

I don't hold it against him because he's 22. However, he shouldn't be in the Sox plans for 2008. He needs another year in Charlotte. Owens has passed him by. Jerry probably merits a bench role on the big club next season.

Tragg
10-15-2007, 11:42 PM
Well hopefully now, after seeing what happened last season, the Sox will not feel the need to go after aging journeymen to fill the glaring holes in our lineup. Prospects that are developed in-house are one of the best sources of talent in the MLB (that is, if you don't want to spend big money in the Free Agent market). Hopefully guys like Sweeney and Brian Anderson can finally get shots in the majors instead of being "developed" in the minor leagues.
I agree with your point about aging journeyman 100%. We can only hope that the Sox abandon this failed approach. Ozzie loves his mediocre veterans though, so we'll see. And Ozzie really wasn't interested in the rookies until Crede's injury forced his hand (Fields) and, once the Sox were out of it, Owens. He benched Anderson (despite a strong spring) for the woeful Erstad (and earlier for Mack).

Tragg
10-15-2007, 11:57 PM
But while it is true you won't know for sure if a guy can hit MLB pitching til he does it, it is a fairly safe bet that if he can't hit minor league pitching (.255/.318/.435 is BA's minor league line) then he will have very little chance of hitting major leaguers.

You can easily argue that Jerry Owens MAJOR LEAGUE numbers have been better than BAs minor league numbers.
That's Anderson's line this year, when he was hurt. That is not his real minor league line.
Anderson got his one and only shot in 2006. During that time, he consistently batted 8th or 9th, was platooned, and was publically berated by the manager. Maybe he can't play, but "several chances" - no indeed.

Owens played only when the Sox were out of it, was given the benefit of the 1 hole, and with a late September tear, had a .324 OBP and .312 slugging percentage (numbers which, if repeated, will go a long way to another 72 win year).

jabrch
10-16-2007, 12:51 AM
Tragg - all baseball dogma aside - do you really not believe that Jerry Owens, based on his performance since July 5 after being called up for good wouldn't be able to be very productive making the league minimum?

And, again, putting the dogma aside, what have you seen in BAs 400+ MLB ABs that lead you to believe he can hit MLB pitching consistently?

Cuz I saw Owens, in 281 ABs after the all-star break, go .279/.339 and steal 27 of 33. BAs good half season ended up .257/.301/.393 with 1 SB and 5 CS.

I'll be just content going into next season with Owens trends the way they are.

oeo
10-16-2007, 12:55 AM
That's Anderson's line this year, when he was hurt. That is not his real minor league line.
Anderson got his one and only shot in 2006. During that time, he consistently batted 8th or 9th, was platooned, and was publically berated by the manager. Maybe he can't play, but "several chances" - no indeed.

Batting 8th and 9th is bad for a rookie? :?:

And when was he 'publically berated?' All the crap about Ozzie hating Anderson has just been speculation.

Tragg
10-16-2007, 11:54 AM
Tragg - all baseball dogma aside - do you really not believe that Jerry Owens, based on his performance since July 5 after being called up for good wouldn't be able to be very productive making the league minimum?

And, again, putting the dogma aside, what have you seen in BAs 400+ MLB ABs that lead you to believe he can hit MLB pitching consistently?

Cuz I saw Owens, in 281 ABs after the all-star break, go .279/.339 and steal 27 of 33. BAs good half season ended up .257/.301/.393 with 1 SB and 5 CS.

I'll be just content going into next season with Owens trends the way they are.
Owens doesn't have the arm for center; I don't like the debasement of defense that's occurred the last 2 years.. You could make an argument to put Owens in left. More to the point: Owens can't drive the ball...his hits are doinks over or between infielders. His patience is only fair. I just don't see anything there that says he will achieve the consistent .350 OBP that he needs to be. (which would make him a Podsednik, which would be fine)

Anderson can drive the ball. He can also play the position like no one on this team can. Owens was given plate protection and was absolutely left alone for 3 months in a no-pressure situation. Anderson never received that opportunity. Honestly, I don't know if Anderson's a major leaguer or not.

I would not be comfortable with Owens in center because I don't think he'll ever be a ML center fielder. I would be comfortable with Anderson there, but only because I think he could develop into one (not because he's a ML quality hitter now). I like playing young players with potential.

We need an impact hitter added to the team. The easiest place to find that is in left; and if they like Owens, he belongs in left ....but that's where Fields is. I don't really have much of an idea what Williams and Guillen are going with this. We certainly need a major bench upgrade, so it would help that.

soxfanatlanta
10-16-2007, 12:23 PM
Anderson can drive the ball. He can also play the position like no one on this team can. Owens was given plate protection and was absolutely left alone for 3 months in a no-pressure situation. Anderson never received that opportunity. Honestly, I don't know if Anderson's a major leaguer or not.

Let me state that I would love to see Brian Anderson succeed in the bigs. I have to disagree with your comments, though. He did get the opportunity to improve his swing and place approach in Charlotte. No playoff contention, no pressure there. Unfortunately, the kid gets hurt after only 200 plate appearances so 2007 was a wash for him. For better or worse, his time is running out here.

I do agree with you in that Owens would be a great player from the bench next year.

russ99
10-16-2007, 02:21 PM
Anderson can drive the ball. He can also play the position like no one on this team can. Owens was given plate protection and was absolutely left alone for 3 months in a no-pressure situation. Anderson never received that opportunity. Honestly, I don't know if Anderson's a major leaguer or not.

I would not be comfortable with Owens in center because I don't think he'll ever be a ML center fielder. I would be comfortable with Anderson there, but only because I think he could develop into one (not because he's a ML quality hitter now). I like playing young players with potential.

We need an impact hitter added to the team. The easiest place to find that is in left; and if they like Owens, he belongs in left ....but that's where Fields is. I don't really have much of an idea what Williams and Guillen are going with this. We certainly need a major bench upgrade, so it would help that.

While Anderson is an above average fielder, his biggest problems are his mental approach at the plate and immaturity in the clubhouse, both of which are not tolerated by the current White Sox manager and GM.

I really think the Sox should let the kid get a shot with another team, especially if the Sox sign a center fielder in the offseason.

I also disagree that LF is an easier position to replace this offseason. There are 3 solid FAs at CF and The Sox would have to trade a good player for a decent LF option. I just don't see it, especially if the reasoning behind trading a good player away is just so they can play Anderson every day.

Brian has an awful lot to prove to even have a shot at a major league spot with the Sox, it's probably best he gets a fresh start with another team, and the Sox can get a decent prospect or fellow change-of-scener in return like in the Borchard deal.

PatK
10-16-2007, 03:10 PM
And when was he 'publically berated?' All the crap about Ozzie hating Anderson has just been speculation.

The only thing I've ever heard in public has been praise for BA, not berating.

Nellie_Fox
10-16-2007, 03:15 PM
The only thing I've ever heard in public has been praise for BA, not berating.Don't let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

ode to veeck
10-16-2007, 03:45 PM
one man comes to mind. royce clayton.....

you mean ....

:thechoice:

jabrch
10-16-2007, 03:47 PM
Owens can't drive the ball

That's true.

Anderson can drive the ball


That's not.

He can also play the position like no one on this team can.

Owens plays the position well enough with the only exception being his arm.


I don't know if Anderson's a major leaguer or not.

I've seen nothing to convince me he is. Meanwhile I saw a great second half from Owens that convinces me that he can be.

I would not be comfortable with Owens in center because I don't think he'll ever be a ML center fielder. I would be comfortable with Anderson there, but only because I think he could develop into one (not because he's a ML quality hitter now)

I'm truly amazed that you'd admit this, after what we have seen from both of them.

. I like playing young players with potential.

I like playing young players who have proven that they can play.


and if they like Owens, he belongs in left

Owens has enough range and enough skill to play CF. His arm is weak - but he's not the first rag armed CF. He won't be the last. Teams have won WS with guys in CF with the same calibre arm.

Take a look at Owens' second half. That's his first half season of playing ball. For the league minimum, I'm surprised you are so attached to SLG% that you don't see value to Owens in CF.

soxfanatlanta
10-16-2007, 05:06 PM
For the league minimum, I'm surprised you are so attached to SLG% that you don't see value to Owens in CF.

Value != Winning.

You want good value, then trot out all the younger players and hope for the best. You want to win, then try to get a solid proven CF to solidify the middle defense. I like Owen's 2nd half numbers, but I will always take September production with a grain of salt. He still has much to prove before he can play every day.

That's just me.

voodoochile
10-16-2007, 05:19 PM
Value != Winning.

You want good value, then trot out all the younger players and hope for the best. You want to win, then try to get a solid proven CF to solidify the middle defense. I like Owen's 2nd half numbers, but I will always take September production with a grain of salt. He still has much to prove before he can play every day.

That's just me.

Personally, I'm less concerned about the middle of the lineup than I am the edges. Leadoff and late were big problem spots for the Sox most of 2007.

If Owens late season bloom was a sign of progress then he may be the Sox best option as a leadoff hitter barring them signing someone better (and who that will be I would love to read).

If not, one more big bat for the middle of the lineup isn't going to cut it. We need OBP giuys with some speed for 8-9-1. I expect Richar to be the starting 2B and batting 9th next year. I won't be shocked to see Uribe back at SS and batting 8th. If Crede is back then does Fields move to LF and bat second? After that you've got one slot to fill - CF/leadoff and none of the FA names is really a leadoff guy.

Some people are advocating trading for Crawford. If the Sox can actually acquire him, great. If not, how do you fill that hole?

soxfanatlanta
10-16-2007, 05:24 PM
Some people are advocating trading for Crawford. If the Sox can actually acquire him, great. If not, how do you fill that hole?

I have no solution. Hopefully KW is cooking something good.

jabrch
10-16-2007, 05:26 PM
Value != Winning

I'm not sure what your notation means. But WINNING is a result of a lot of things. There is no single input that results in winning. One of the most critical inputs is talent. We have a talented CF who covers a lot of ground, and hit pretty well in the second half who is slated to earn the league minimum. That is value. That enables us to go out and spend other money in other places where we don't have that sort of organizational value.

I'm not sure who this "solid proven CF" is that you are talking about. 15mm+ and 5+ years for Rowand or Hunter is a bad idea in my eyes, when you have Owens, BA and Sweeney all sitting around. One of them has to be able to play the position. So far, only Owens has shown at the MLB level that he can do it - but who knows if the others can.

Value is very important. You can't win in MLB by paying top dollar for every player unless you have a 200mm payroll - and even that has proven to not work alone. Look at the teams who made the NL and ALCS. All of them have VALUE. You think the Red Sox would be here withouot Okajioma, Papelbon, Youk, Bucholz, Ellisbury and Pedroia? Cleveland without Sizemore, Carmona, etc. Colorado with....everyone except Helton? Arizona without everyonoe except RJ, Livan and Byrnes?

Value is what enables teams to go out and get better. Jerry Owens second half stats, for a guy in his first partial season in baseball, is a tremendous value regardless of his arm or his lack of power.

voodoochile
10-16-2007, 05:31 PM
I'm not sure what your notation means. But WINNING is a result of a lot of things.

!= means "not equal". It's a computer way of typing the old slash through the equals sign.

jabrch
10-16-2007, 05:40 PM
!= means "not equal". It's a computer way of typing the old slash through the equals sign.

Ok - thanks

Then - No kidding? Value doesn't equal winning? Thanks for the lesson

GMAB

Owens for 300K and 20mm to spend on SS, 2B, or the bullpen or Rowand or Hunter for 15mm and Uribe - or Hunter/Rowand and no changes in the bullpen?

If we have no value anywhere, we are in for a world of hurt.

Not having any value is a sure-fire way to lose unless you have $200mm+ to spend.

ode to veeck
10-16-2007, 05:53 PM
Personally, I'm less concerned about the middle of the lineup than I am the edges. Leadoff and late were big problem spots for the Sox most of 2007.


Leadoff's been a key role for Sox success and non-success over the last several years. Without a good leadoff guy, they've been generally mediocre at best on offense. With a healthy leadoff, they've been strong and figure out how to win games.

soxfanatlanta
10-16-2007, 06:19 PM
Value is what enables teams to go out and get better. Jerry Owens second half stats, for a guy in his first partial season in baseball, is a tremendous value regardless of his arm or his lack of power.

I know what value you is jabrch; I've always maintained that Iguchi-san was a great value in 2005 and 2006.

Owens last two months...

August .229.302 - Horrible
September .370 .396 - Good

His best production was in a month that I do not give credence to. The only thing this proves is that he deserves a long look in the spring - no guarantees. All of the names you mentioned above are good to very good baseball players who have a low to reasonable salary (your definition of value, no?). The only thing that Owens has in common with them at this point in time is the salary, IMO. That may change next year; he might become a good player and solve our lead off or CF hole. I will believe it when I see it.

ode to veeck
10-16-2007, 06:35 PM
His best production was in a month that I do not give credence to. The only thing this proves is that he deserves a long look in the spring - no guarantees. All of the names you mentioned above are good to very good baseball players who have a low to reasonable salary (your definition of value, no?). The only thing that Owens has in common with them at this point in time is the salary, IMO. That may change next year; he might become a good player and solve our lead off or CF hole. I will believe it when I see it.

Royce Clayton used to hit great late in the season after the Sox were out of it, just below the Mendoza line much of the time early in the season when it was needed. Owens needs to be given a look next year, but he's gotta earn it when it counts.

voodoochile
10-16-2007, 06:43 PM
I know what value you is jabrch; I've always maintained that Iguchi-san was a great value in 2005 and 2006.

Owens last two months...

August .229.302 - Horrible
September .370 .396 - Good

His best production was in a month that I do not give credence to. The only thing this proves is that he deserves a long look in the spring - no guarantees. All of the names you mentioned above are good to very good baseball players who have a low to reasonable salary (your definition of value, no?). The only thing that Owens has in common with them at this point in time is the salary, IMO. That may change next year; he might become a good player and solve our lead off or CF hole. I will believe it when I see it.

Someone broke down Owens' September AB and showed that he didn't get fat off of call ups. Given who they played that month, it's not that surprising. Lots of meaningful games at least to the other guys.

Hot cold hot is the way his season months went which is exactly what you expect from a rookie trying to figure it out who actually has. I'm not saying Owens has actually turned the corner and it's nothing but blue skies and AS games ahead, but he deserves a look on some level. I agree he would be more suited for LF, but to do that, the Sox probably need to work a sign and trade with Crede so Fields' bat can be in the lineup everyday.

Heck, make Owens part of the deal for Crawford, throw in a couple of those can't miss pitching prospects including choice of Danks or Floyd and let the chips fall where they may...

Lip Man 1
10-16-2007, 07:48 PM
Owens deserves to get a chance but remember what Ozzie himself said in September as reported by the newspapers (I'm paraphrasing...) 'you can't tell anything from spring training or September numbers...'

Lip

soxfanatlanta
10-16-2007, 09:14 PM
I'm not saying Owens has actually turned the corner and it's nothing but blue skies and AS games ahead, but he deserves a look on some level.

:yup:

On that, I agree.

Grzegorz
10-16-2007, 09:19 PM
Royce Clayton used to hit great late in the season after the Sox were out of it, just below the Mendoza line much of the time early in the season when it was needed.

This sounds similar to someone on the current roster...

Grzegorz
10-16-2007, 09:21 PM
Owens deserves to get a chance but remember what Ozzie himself said in September as reported by the newspapers (I'm paraphrasing...) 'you can't tell anything from spring training or September numbers...'

Lip

Bull, you can tell a lot coming out of spring training such as who does and does not have a grab on the fundamentals.

ode to veeck
10-16-2007, 09:44 PM
Bull, you can tell a lot coming out of spring training such as who does and does not have a grab on the fundamentals.

If I remember correctly Brian Anderson didn't look too bad in Spring Training

upperdeckusc
10-16-2007, 10:29 PM
If I remember correctly Brian Anderson didn't look too bad in Spring Training

true. im pretty sure he outperformed erstad. but apparently he had to double erstad's numbers to take away darin's starting job. i was so excited that this yr brian was going to breakout, especially after his double in his 1st AB. then.............not so much

Tragg
10-16-2007, 10:41 PM
Owens has enough range and enough skill to play CF. His arm is weak - but he's not the first rag armed CF. He won't be the last. Teams have won WS with guys in CF with the same calibre arm.

Take a look at Owens' second half. That's his first half season of playing ball. For the league minimum, I'm surprised you are so attached to SLG% that you don't see value to Owens in CF.
Jabrch, every team has weaknesses. So you look at the weakest spot on a WS team and say, "See, it can be done". Well no kidding. The yankees won a WS with a 1B with no power. The Redbirds won a WS with a bunch of weaknesses.
So of course, you can win with a given weakness. But the Sox have a lot of weaknesses. We give up arm strength for what? A .327 OBP hitter with no power? Whoop de do. And that was accomplished with no pressure and plate protection and support from the manager that other rookies haven't come close to receiving. And a .327 hitter who doesn't seem to have the skills to do much better....his patience isn't that good so it's either his doinks get through or they don't.
So let me ask you this. Do you agree that Owens is a liability if he can't get his OBP to at least .350?

ilsox7
10-16-2007, 10:42 PM
true. im pretty sure he outperformed erstad. but apparently he had to double erstad's numbers to take away darin's starting job. i was so excited that this yr brian was going to breakout, especially after his double in his 1st AB. then.............not so much

Were you at spring training every day watching each player's every move? If not, you have no idea who outperformed who.

upperdeckusc
10-16-2007, 10:53 PM
Were you at spring training every day watching each player's every move? If not, you have no idea who outperformed who.

i'm sorry, what's the purpose of "stats" again? unless every one of anderson's hits were bloops and broken bat singles, and all of erstad's outs were line drives and diving catches, anderson had a better spring than erstad.

JB98
10-16-2007, 11:24 PM
i'm sorry, what's the purpose of "stats" again? unless every one of anderson's hits were bloops and broken bat singles, and all of erstad's outs were line drives and diving catches, anderson had a better spring than erstad.

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

Sometimes I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, and I don't know why you've been bringing me down....

C'mon, everybody sing! You all know the words!

A. Cavatica
10-16-2007, 11:31 PM
They were actually fairly close last spring. Erstad batted .301 in 73 AB, Anderson .292 in 48 AB. Anderson had 2 HR and 2 doubles, Erstad had 1 HR and 4 doubles. I have no idea about walks or stolen bases.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/springStats?team=chw&year=2007&type=bat

ilsox7
10-16-2007, 11:34 PM
i'm sorry, what's the purpose of "stats" again? unless every one of anderson's hits were bloops and broken bat singles, and all of erstad's outs were line drives and diving catches, anderson had a better spring than erstad.

Spring training stats mean absolutely nothing. Guys play in games on back fields that go unseen. Some guys work on certain things (like going the other way, bunting, etc) that skew stats. If you're relying on stats from spring training to tell you much, you're going about it the wrong way.

The ironic thing is, as posted by A. Cavatica, Erstad's numbers in the spring were better. Regardless, they mean nothing.

jabrch
10-16-2007, 11:45 PM
Do you agree that Owens is a liability if he can't get his OBP to at least .350?

If Owens repeats his second half (.278/.339), he is not a liability for 300K. If he shows any sort of improvement, which is certainly possible for someone who just completed his first half+ season in the bigs, he is definitely not a liability.

I can tell you this. I've watched enough of him and of BA to tell you that it is my opinion that, Jerry Owens is more equipped to hit against major league pitching on opening day of 2008. He makes contact more, swings at better pitches, and does more once he puts wood on the ball. BA has two things over JO. Untapped power and a superior arm. The former he renders irrelevant by his failure to make contact enough. The latter is a very small piece of the puzzle relative to the other components of defense as well as the offensive side.

billcissell
10-17-2007, 11:32 AM
Yes, based on his performance to date, Owens deserves a shot at a regular spot next year. But IMO, he is a classic #4 outfielder. He could be of value starting once or twice a week and coming off the bench as a pinchrunner or defensive replacement in LF in the late innings.

As far as Anderson is concerned, we should look to move him since he apparently isn't going to get another chance to play for us on a regular basis. I'm not sure we'd get much for him, though. Probably another borderline "prospect".

I'm hoping Sweeney can step up next year and help us in the outfield in some capacity.

jabrch
10-17-2007, 11:54 AM
As fas as Anderson, we should look to move him since he apparently isn't going to get another chance to play for us on a regular basis.

If he earns a shot, I see no reason to believe he wouldn't get it. Had he been healthy and hitting last season, I'm sure he'd have had a chance. Hell - we may not have resigned JD if BA proved himself capable of playing effectively. He just didn't do it last year - either because he wasn't healthy, or because he still isn't a MLB level good hitter.

santo=dorf
10-17-2007, 12:20 PM
Spring training stats mean absolutely nothing. Guys play in games on back fields that go unseen. Some guys work on certain things (like going the other way, bunting, etc) that skew stats. If you're relying on stats from spring training to tell you much, you're going about it the wrong way.

The ironic thing is, as posted by A. Cavatica, Erstad's numbers in the spring were better. Regardless, they mean nothing.
The spring training stats also don't keep track of how many times a player misreads a ball which leads to a huge inning. Erstad had at least one of those last spring.

...and I know you say they mean "nothing," but I want to post some stats that Cavatica's link did not have:
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/stats/sortable_player_stats.jsp?c_id=cws&baseballScope=CHA&teamPosCode=all&statType=Overview&timeSubFrame=23&sitSplit=&venueID=&Submit=Submit&timeFrame=1
Erstad: 80 at-bats (yeah, no bias there. He was brought here to compete) .300 AVG, .329 OBP (garbage,) .388 SLG (not good.) 14 K's / 4 BB's
Anderson: 52 at-bats, .308 AVG, .393 OBP, .462 SLG, 8 K's /8 BB's

Better numbers my ass.

upperdeckusc
10-17-2007, 12:42 PM
The spring training stats also don't keep track of how many times a player misreads a ball which leads to a huge inning. Erstad had at least one of those last spring.

...and I know you say they mean "nothing," but I want to post some stats that Cavatica's link did not have:
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/stats/sortable_player_stats.jsp?c_id=cws&baseballScope=CHA&teamPosCode=all&statType=Overview&timeSubFrame=23&sitSplit=&venueID=&Submit=Submit&timeFrame=1
Erstad: 80 at-bats (yeah, no bias there. He was brought here to compete) .300 AVG, .329 OBP (garbage,) .388 SLG (not good.) 14 K's / 4 BB's
Anderson: 52 at-bats, .308 AVG, .393 OBP, .462 SLG, 8 K's /8 BB's

Better numbers my ass.

thank you. especially if the guy who has better stats is our CF of the future, one would think he would get the nod over the journeyman. erstad even said he signed in chicago because he wanted to win, not because os playing time, because he would have played more with other teams (FL). he admitted he knew he was going to be a bench player. but apparently ozzie didnt feel the same way, and anderson became the "pinch hitter in games that are a lost cause" guy. and the rest........is history

Tragg
10-17-2007, 01:10 PM
If Owens repeats his second half (.278/.339), he is not a liability for 300K.
That, coupled with his zero power, is a liability at any price. Any price.
It's Jock Jones without the power.

jabrch
10-17-2007, 01:16 PM
That, coupled with his zero power, is a liability at any price. Any price.

That's untrue. It is just flat out untrue.

It's Jock Jones without the power.

And for $300K, if he had Owens speed, he wouldn't be a liability either.

upperdeckusc
10-17-2007, 01:27 PM
That, coupled with his zero power, is a liability at any price. Any price.
It's Jock Jones without the power.

i'm sorry. when did power become a necessity for a leadoff hitter??

FedEx227
10-17-2007, 01:39 PM
Yeah, who's worried about Owens power.

I'm more worried about his lack of extra-base hits, but I'm not even going to expect a 20-HR season from a lead-off man, if you get it it's great but there aren't a whole lot of Grady Sizemore/Jimmy Rollins in the game.

JB98
10-17-2007, 07:11 PM
Yeah, who's worried about Owens power.

I'm more worried about his lack of extra-base hits, but I'm not even going to expect a 20-HR season from a lead-off man, if you get it it's great but there aren't a whole lot of Grady Sizemore/Jimmy Rollins in the game.

I'd just like to see Owens drive the ball down the lines or in the gaps with more frequency. He has good enough speed to turn singles into doubles. He just doesn't hit the ball with authority often enough.

Forget home runs. That's Konerko's job. That's Thome's job. Let's see doubles and triples from Owens.

Tragg
10-17-2007, 08:24 PM
i'm sorry. when did power become a necessity for a leadoff hitter??
It isn't a necessity. it isn't the most important thing. It's kind of nice to have a leadoff hitter to pop out 15 or so homers, though. Owens can't even hit doubles. With his speed, if he could gap something, he could leg out a triple. Instead it's a grounder and pray.
I'm trying to find something to counterbalance a .337 OBP from a leadoff hitter. (that was achieved with zero pressure).
Johnny Damon has a .350 OBP and a noodle arm...he also cracks out 15-20 a year.

I'm reading the least common denominator throughout this thread. That's how you get to 72 wins...everyone has a fault.

And they're already piling up for 2008. Look at the OF defense for 2008.. An obviously slowed Dye, Fields and a noodle arm in CF. Ouch.

Tragg
10-17-2007, 08:28 PM
That's untrue. It is just flat out untrue.



And for $300K, if he had Owens speed, he wouldn't be a liability either.
That's your opinion. I think .337 obps doesn't produce anywhere close to enough runs to. You're tallking about a cut below Podsednik. We loaded up with low OBP, low power players in 2007, and the results were the league's worst offense.
There are different philosophies. Many on the board want Owens, they want Eckstein, they think we should keep Erstad if he'll take a little cut....to me, they're slappers and embody the changed philosophy that wrought 72 wins.
We'll see what happens

gregory18n
10-17-2007, 11:51 PM
move owens to left/leadoff, get hunter for center/third & dye is dye. stop trying to put fields & sweeney into the game, they're not ready!

jabrch
10-17-2007, 11:56 PM
Let's see doubles and triples from Owens.

I really don't mind singles when he is as effective as he is of stealing bases. I'd rather see more singles than a guy who tries to hit more XBH and ends up making worse contact as a result.

jabrch
10-18-2007, 12:03 AM
Johnny Damon has a .350 OBP and a noodle arm...he also cracks out 15-20 a year.

Tragg - take a look at Damon in year 1 - .282/.324/.441
How bout year 2 - .271/.313/.368
Year 3? .275/.338/.386

Really?

Where's this power? Where's this high OBP? I think you are completely ignoring this improvement in JO that you seem to think is a lock for BA.

I can't believe someone who seems to understand the game as much as you do would be so eager to trash a rookie who showed the kind of play the second half that Owens did. It is really remarkable.

jabrch
10-18-2007, 12:06 AM
they're slappers and embody the changed philosophy that wrought 72 wins.
We'll see what happens

You are ignoring a lot of other factors that resulted in a bad season. I'd blame injuries and ineffectiveness from the middle of our order, 2 ineffective starters and a crappy bullpen before I'd blame Owens, Erstad and Pods for our failures.

Sargeant79
10-18-2007, 09:08 AM
move owens to left/leadoff, get hunter for center/third & dye is dye. stop trying to put fields & sweeney into the game, they're not ready!

That only works if you can trade Crede, which is highly unlikely at this point. I'm not sure we'd even want to do that either...ideally, the leadoff spot would be filled by a new shortstop.

Regarding your second point, Sweeney isn't ready but Fields is. A year at AAA does nothing for his development at this point.

gregory18n
10-18-2007, 11:50 AM
To me, fields feels like a fraud in the field & a K @ the plate. we have plenty of power but not enough agility in the lineup. if we go get a proven leadoff at 2nd or ss, that's great; i still want to see owens in the lineup. i hope crede is well & will ignore his agent to stay home. keeping garland is another key to our future, he's real, and we'll regret it if we lose him.

Craig Grebeck
10-18-2007, 12:23 PM
I honestly have no idea how someone can say that they're not concerned with power from a hitter. I don't give a **** if he leads off, as long as he gets on base a sufficient amount and does more than bloop the ball over the second baseman, he can play on this team.

How anyone can compare BA's rookie season with Jerry's is beyond me. JO was given every opportunity from his call up whereas BA was misused from day one. There's no doubt in my mind he should have started over Erstad.

People said, "he will not just be given the job, he has to go out and earn it."

Well kicking ass in the spring apparently isn't enough to earn it.

ode to veeck
10-18-2007, 12:54 PM
I honestly have no idea how someone can say that they're not concerned with power from a hitter. I don't give a **** if he leads off, as long as he gets on base a sufficient amount and does more than bloop the ball over the second baseman, he can play on this team.

How anyone can compare BA's rookie season with Jerry's is beyond me. JO was given every opportunity from his call up whereas BA was misused from day one. There's no doubt in my mind he should have started over Erstad.

People said, "he will not just be given the job, he has to go out and earn it."

Well kicking ass in the spring apparently isn't enough to earn it.

Without a legitimate leadoff the Sox offense sucks plain and simple. One more or less power hitter is epsilon to the Sox offense without a leadoff.

Craig Grebeck
10-18-2007, 01:10 PM
I just don't understand that logic. It's better if EVERYONE gets on base. The leadoff hitter should get on base, plain and simple. That above all else is the number one qualification for a player who receives the most PA.`

JB98
10-18-2007, 02:22 PM
Why are people on this board so fixated with Brian Anderson?

The guy sucks. Forget about him.

DickAllen72
10-18-2007, 04:58 PM
Why are people on this board so fixated with Brian Anderson?

The guy sucks. Forget about him.
Yes.

Tragg
10-18-2007, 06:36 PM
I honestly have no idea how someone can say that they're not concerned with power from a hitter. I don't give a **** if he leads off, as long as he gets on base a sufficient amount and does more than bloop the ball over the second baseman, he can play on this team.

How anyone can compare BA's rookie season with Jerry's is beyond me. JO was given every opportunity from his call up whereas BA was misused from day one. There's no doubt in my mind he should have started over Erstad.

People said, "he will not just be given the job, he has to go out and earn it."

Well kicking ass in the spring apparently isn't enough to earn it.
I agree.
The difference between the way Guillen treated Anderson v. Owens is striking.

upperdeckusc
10-18-2007, 07:26 PM
To me, fields feels like a fraud in the field & a K @ the plate. we have plenty of power but not enough agility in the lineup. if we go get a proven leadoff at 2nd or ss, that's great; i still want to see owens in the lineup. i hope crede is well & will ignore his agent to stay home. keeping garland is another key to our future, he's real, and we'll regret it if we lose him.

fields probably has the best combination of power AND speed on the basepaths than anyone on our team.

soxfanreggie
10-18-2007, 08:55 PM
A 16 year old...I hope we have tutors in the minors making sure he gets at least a high school diploma. Hopefully part of that money went in a trust fund as well.