PDA

View Full Version : Anderson On Way Out???


Lip Man 1
10-30-2007, 01:39 PM
Based on a story now at White Sox. com and his apparent refusal to play winter ball, it looks like Brian Anderson's days in the organization are now numbered.

Lip

spiffie
10-30-2007, 01:44 PM
Based on a story now at White Sox. com and his apparent refusal to play winter ball, it looks like Brian Anderson's days in the organization are now numbered.

Lip
Obviously another fiendish plot by Darin Erstad and Ozzie Guillen to derail the brightest prospect since young Mickey Mantle first roamed the outfield.

rdwj
10-30-2007, 01:45 PM
That's too bad. I still believe he's going to be a special player one of these days. As much as I like Ozzie, I think the way he handled Anderson is his biggest failure to date.

tebman
10-30-2007, 01:47 PM
Based on a story now at White Sox. com and his apparent refusal to play winter ball, it looks like Brian Anderson's days in the organization are now numbered.

Lip
A real shame if it comes to that. Anderson does have good baseball instincts; maybe a change of scenery will make the difference.

Lip Man 1
10-30-2007, 01:49 PM
Here's the link to story:

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071030&content_id=2288196&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

Lip

voodoochile
10-30-2007, 01:54 PM
That's too bad. I still believe he's going to be a special player one of these days. As much as I like Ozzie, I think the way he handled Anderson is his biggest failure to date.

Doesn't sound like anyone in this situation is blameless. Anderson certainly didn't help himself by refusing to play ball this fall and if he thinks he deserves a shot at the big league club simply because he had a good spring last year than he needs to get his head on straight.

I think he's a great defensive player who has good offensive potential, but honestly think his maturity is lacking at this stage of the game. That's strictly based on the stories I have read about him. I obviously don't know BA personally.

You want to move up in any job and your boss isn't letting you, there are two choices:


Bust your hump, do whatever they tell you to do and find a way to become the employee they need/want you to be.
Blame your boss, mope around, refuse to do the extra training they ask you to do.BA sounds like more of a #2 type guy. Hope he gets his chance elsewhere and has a long and productive career, but I honestly can't blame the Sox here.

ilsox7
10-30-2007, 01:55 PM
BA seems to have a major attitude problem.

Tragg
10-30-2007, 01:56 PM
"If the White Sox are really worried about me getting at-bats, well, I sat on [the bench] and had 17 at-bats for the whole first month [last season]"

It certainly is a strange and dubious thing to say about your employer.

Substantively, of course, he's right.....he was benched in 2006 in favor of a grizzled .320 obp no-power hacker with whom the manager was and is infatuated. And when supposedly "given" the position in 2005, he was never left alone for as much as a week.

I'd hate to see the Sox give him way, but they've debased his value to pretty much that point.

Sargeant79
10-30-2007, 02:01 PM
"If the White Sox are really worried about me getting at-bats, well, I sat on [the bench] and had 17 at-bats for the whole first month [last season]"

It certainly is a strange and dubious thing to say about your employer.

Substantively, of course, he's right.....he was benched in 2006 in favor of a grizzled .320 obp no-power hacker with whom the manager was and is infatuated. And when supposedly "given" the position in 2005, he was never left alone for as much as a week.

I'd hate to see the Sox give him way, but they've debased his value to pretty much that point.

You're a year off on both of those, buddy. However, you're about right. I don't think he was put in the best position to be successful but he certainly hasn't done anything in the last year or so to help his own cause.

kittle42
10-30-2007, 02:08 PM
One less headache.

jenn2080
10-30-2007, 02:12 PM
That is unfortunate. I became a big fan of his. I hope he can succeed somewhere else because I do not think Sox were a right fit for him, not while Ozzie is there.

itsnotrequired
10-30-2007, 02:13 PM
BA seems to have a major attitude problem.

Seems like the organization does as well. The whole situation is just so bizarre.

ilsox7
10-30-2007, 02:14 PM
Seems like the organization does as well. The whole situation is just so bizarre.

Yea. Lots of blame to go around. All I know is that what BA has said publicly has been awful. If that's how he acts behind the scenes, then I can't really blame the Sox for not liking him. But who knows (certainly not anyone here).

Paulwny
10-30-2007, 02:17 PM
Anderson probably wants out of the sox organization, refusing to play winter ball may hasten his departure.

Soxfest
10-30-2007, 02:18 PM
BA can go anytime, anywhere. Goodbye

Rocky Soprano
10-30-2007, 02:20 PM
That's too bad. I still believe he's going to be a special player one of these days. As much as I like Ozzie, I think the way he handled Anderson is his biggest failure to date.

I completely agree.

BainesHOF
10-30-2007, 02:20 PM
The sooner we get rid of Anderson, the better.

ilsox7
10-30-2007, 02:21 PM
That's too bad. I still believe he's going to be a special player one of these days. As much as I like Ozzie, I think the way he handled Anderson is his biggest failure to date.

The problem is, if BA acted in private how he has acted in public, can you really blame Ozzie?

Red Barchetta
10-30-2007, 02:26 PM
The irony is that Anderson was in Ozzie's dog house not so much for his statistics, rather his inability to go deep in the count. Ironic because we all know Ozzie during his playing days swung at anything.

I remember listening to interview Ozzie had last year when he indicated he was frustrated the Anderson wasn't going deeper into the count when he had specific orders to take pitches and work the count.

It's the little things like that that ruin your options within any organization. If you fail, fail together and then work on a new solution. Ozzie was simply trying to get the kid to see more pitches and hopefully learn.

DumpJerry
10-30-2007, 02:28 PM
BA seems to have a major attitude problem.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

One less headache.
Amen to that.

All up and down the organization it seems BA has done his best to annoy the very people who are in a position to help him along. Sending him down to Charlotte and now trading him may be the kick in the rear he needs to get his act together. If he gets it together, he will be an All-Star.

veeter
10-30-2007, 02:38 PM
Brian's personality never meshed with Ozzie's. Even before the 2006 season I remember AJ saying, with a straight face, "Brian just needs to keep his mouth shut." I think he's kind of a flake. He's good though, and would be o.k in the NL, IMO. It's too bad, because I think he'd make some legendary catches roaming center field.

DumpJerry
10-30-2007, 02:52 PM
Brian's personality never meshed with Ozzie's. Even before the 2006 season I remember AJ saying, with a straight face, "Brian just needs to keep his mouth shut." I think he's kind of a flake. He's good though, and would be o.k in the NL, IMO. It's too bad, because I think he'd make some legendary catches roaming center field.
Like I said, he is future All-Star. He needs to learn more about hitting Major League pitching (he does quite well with AAA pitching). The Sox could package him with someone else to get a pretty good trade.

I think he is going through what I call the High School Hero Syndrome. Until he hit the Boig Show, he was told over and over he is a great player. He was a top-rated prospect in our farm system, etc. That gets to a guy's head sometimes. He needs to wake up and realize he is no longer hitting the winning home run in the State High School Turny. He is one of 25 guys who were all total studs on their high school baseball teams.

102605
10-30-2007, 03:21 PM
That's too bad. I still believe he's going to be a special player one of these days. As much as I like Ozzie, I think the way he handled Anderson is his biggest failure to date.

LOL! Anderson isn't worth a couple of fungo bats. Get over it.

Domeshot17
10-30-2007, 03:40 PM
This is why I love WSI

Im not a Rowand bandwagon guy, I liked him and all but he wasnt too hard to let go. That said, He was an all star, but everyone here comments on how he sucks!

Magglio Sucks! Chris Young really sucks!

But our soft hitting loud *****ing craptacular CF Anderson is going to be an all star? *****. The guy didnt have "1 bad half of baseball". He had a bad YEAR. .257 is not good enough. It isnt when Owens hits it, not when Anderson does, and When Sweeney does it it still won't be. Then he got sick in Mexico and took the rest of the offseason off. Then he came back, had an up and down spring, and looked TERRIBLE in limited at bats in 2007.

Heres the thing about Brian, After the *****ing he does, and after how awesome he thinks he is, and after the interviews and autographs and thinking he knows more then the hitting coach manager GM etc., he has no approach at the plate. He walks up, swings real hard 3 times, walks back to the dug out. You watch so many of his at bats, and he takes the same swing 3 times. Well in high school college and even AAA ball, that swing works, because pitchers are not talented enough to pitch around it. But in the pros, They take advantage of all that is wrong with this swing. Hes got a huge hole in it, a small hitch in his hands, his body ackwardly flies open on his swing, and until he lets someone fix that, he will never be anything.

munchman33
10-30-2007, 03:45 PM
The irony is that Anderson was in Ozzie's dog house not so much for his statistics, rather his inability to go deep in the count. Ironic because we all know Ozzie during his playing days swung at anything.



Except Ozzie was a slap hitter, always hit the ball on the ground, saw a lot of pitches because he fouled off great "pitchers" pitches, and almost never struck out.

Brian needed to work counts because his swing had too many holes not too.

102605
10-30-2007, 03:45 PM
Heres the thing about Brian, After the *****ing he does, and after how awesome he thinks he is, and after the interviews and autographs and thinking he knows more then the hitting coach manager GM etc., he has no approach at the plate. He walks up, swings real hard 3 times, walks back to the dug out. You watch so many of his at bats, and he takes the same swing 3 times. Well in high school college and even AAA ball, that swing works, because pitchers are not talented enough to pitch around it. But in the pros, They take advantage of all that is wrong with this swing. Hes got a huge hole in it, a small hitch in his hands, his body ackwardly flies open on his swing, and until he lets someone fix that, he will never be anything.

:thumbsup: I can't believe someone said he is going to be an all-star. :tongue:

spiffie
10-30-2007, 03:51 PM
This is why I love WSI

Im not a Rowand bandwagon guy, I liked him and all but he wasnt too hard to let go. That said, He was an all star, but everyone here comments on how he sucks!

Magglio Sucks! Chris Young really sucks!

But our soft hitting loud *****ing craptacular CF Anderson is going to be an all star? *****. The guy didnt have "1 bad half of baseball". He had a bad YEAR. .257 is not good enough. It isnt when Owens hits it, not when Anderson does, and When Sweeney does it it still won't be. Then he got sick in Mexico and took the rest of the offseason off. Then he came back, had an up and down spring, and looked TERRIBLE in limited at bats in 2007.

Heres the thing about Brian, After the *****ing he does, and after how awesome he thinks he is, and after the interviews and autographs and thinking he knows more then the hitting coach manager GM etc., he has no approach at the plate. He walks up, swings real hard 3 times, walks back to the dug out. You watch so many of his at bats, and he takes the same swing 3 times. Well in high school college and even AAA ball, that swing works, because pitchers are not talented enough to pitch around it. But in the pros, They take advantage of all that is wrong with this swing. Hes got a huge hole in it, a small hitch in his hands, his body ackwardly flies open on his swing, and until he lets someone fix that, he will never be anything.
:wooty::nod::worship::yup::thumbsup::moonwalk:

That about says it all for me on this post.

JorgeFabregas
10-30-2007, 04:02 PM
Kenny's quote doesn't sound like they're all that down on him.

"He's still going to be a [heck] of a player. He just needs a good break, that's all," Williams said of Anderson. "As much as he might be frustrated, please understand that this frustration comes vs. the same people who have given you the opportunity, factoring him into the equation, and have not turned away."

Really, I'm not sure what he's supposed to do if his wrist is not healed enough to play yet. His comments certainly seem babyish.

Tragg
10-30-2007, 04:33 PM
Except Ozzie was a slap hitter, always hit the ball on the ground, saw a lot of pitches because he fouled off great "pitchers" pitches, and almost never struck out.

Brian needed to work counts because his swing had too many holes not too.
Ozzie didn't strike out, but he didn't get on base worth a flip either and had little power. Sort of like his ".400 quality" hitter of 2006.
A slapper who can't walk is a bad hitter (with a few rare exceptions).
Anderson certainly needed a lot of offensive work. But even moresoe than a young Ozzie, he had the D down pat.

santo=dorf
10-30-2007, 04:57 PM
The problem is, if BA acted in private how he has acted in public, can you really blame Ozzie?
No, because that's none of our business. Based on what I heard and read about Ozzie, he's just as bad, if not worse (I don't think Anderson has a wife to cheat on. :o:)
The irony is that Anderson was in Ozzie's dog house not so much for his statistics, rather his inability to go deep in the count. Ironic because we all know Ozzie during his playing days swung at anything.
Anderson's rookie year: .225/.290/.359
Ozzie's Rookie (of the) year: .271/.291/.358

Anderson walked 30 times in less than 400 PA's. Ozzie Guillen's season high walk total was 26, and it took him over 530 PA's.

thomas35forever
10-30-2007, 05:00 PM
Our attitude towards BA is not going to get any better because he is not going to get any better as long as he is in the organization. If he's not going to be playing fall ball to make up for his somewhat lost season, he should pack his bags and take his business elsewhere. Getting rid of BA is a must for this offseason.

TDog
10-30-2007, 05:04 PM
BA seems to have a major attitude problem.

Clues to this have been around since he was annoited as Rowand's replacement on the defending World Series champion White Sox in 2006. I'm guessing Anderson wouldn't have lasted nearly as long with another organization as he has with the Sox.

balke
10-30-2007, 05:09 PM
I give him a 75% chance to go somewhere else and end up in the majors. If I were him and ever read some of the stuff here and heard some of the fans at games, I wouldn't want to play for this team. Could be for the best with him. I don't think Ozzie would be fun to play with if you were ever on his bad side either. Plus, get him away from Coop.

Martinigirl
10-30-2007, 05:18 PM
Anderson probably wants out of the sox organization, refusing to play winter ball may hasten his departure.


That is exactly what I thought when I read the article. He wants out because he thinks he is a major league player and knows he won't get that shot with the Sox.

fquaye149
10-30-2007, 05:21 PM
Seems like the organization does as well. The whole situation is just so bizarre.

The difference is, when you're talking about an organization and a player being "stubborn", especially when it's a player who hasn't proven anything, you can't really blame the organization. Their party line, which is hard to disprove, is that they've treated BA the same as they would anyone. What can BA say for his refusal to make concessions--

Goddamn, I mean, I'm the biggest BA supporter you'll find, but there's no excuse not to go to winter-ball. Period.

fquaye149
10-30-2007, 05:23 PM
Clues to this have been around since he was annoited as Rowand's replacement on the defending World Series champion White Sox in 2006. I'm guessing Anderson wouldn't have lasted nearly as long with another organization as he has with the Sox.

:?:

Anderson certainly has an attitude problem, but it's unlikely that most skippers would have had such a short leash with him in his rookie season. Look at the treatment Chris Young got in Arizona putting up similarly (thought not quite as) poor numbers.

Who knows what would have happened elsewhere, but it's not like Chicago treated him with softer gloves than any other organization would have

oeo
10-30-2007, 05:24 PM
No, because that's none of our business. Based on what I heard and read about Ozzie, he's just as bad, if not worse (I don't think Anderson has a wife to cheat on. :o:)

So now we're going to start spreading nasty rumors?

Honestly, what was the point of this post? To let us know that you're in some sort of unknown 'loop' and have some inside information about Ozzie's personal life? Do you have buddies that stalk him or something? What gives?

I don't think ilsox was talking about Brian's personal life, more of what goes on inside the clubhouse. Then you bring up something that really is none of our business.

ilsox7
10-30-2007, 05:32 PM
I don't think ilsox was talking about Brian's personal life, more of what goes on inside the clubhouse. Then you bring up something that really is none of our business.

Yep. I have no clue nor do I care about their personal lives. I was simply talking about what BA says and does on the job, away from the public eye.

MisterB
10-30-2007, 05:39 PM
Goddamn, I mean, I'm the biggest BA supporter you'll find, but there's no excuse not to go to winter-ball. Period.

Simply put, the injury suffered at the plate during a July 6 contest for Triple-A Charlotte isn't completely stable enough for Anderson to compete.

Apparently some folks kind of missed this line. :dunno:

fquaye149
10-30-2007, 05:48 PM
Apparently some folks kind of missed this line. :dunno:


My bad:redface:

So BA remains a-ok with me!

soxinem1
10-30-2007, 05:48 PM
So now we're going to start spreading nasty rumors?

Honestly, what was the point of this post? To let us know that you're in some sort of unknown 'loop' and have some inside information about Ozzie's personal life? Do you have buddies that stalk him or something? What gives?

I don't think ilsox was talking about Brian's personal life, more of what goes on inside the clubhouse. Then you bring up something that really is none of our business.

Personally, I know a lot about OG's life as a player. Fisk, Dotson, Thigpen, and many others too.

But this is not the place to discuss that stuff, it makes no difference to what the team does.

To the topic:

BA was never given a full shot in CF. If Guillen was as patient with him as he was with Uribe, Crede, Rowand, Jenks, MacDougal, Garland, and many others who had some real rough stretches, I could buy more into the dumping on this guy. If they gave him even 450-500 AB's and he hit .220 with 29 RBI's, then there would have been something to criticize.

All I know is that the team didn't need his offense when he was in CF, and he was one of the very few steady defensive performers on a sketchy 2006 White Sox team.

And if he had been given CF in 2007 and wound up hitting .220 with 29 RBI's in 500 AB's again, then there would have been grounds to question BA's talents, dedication, etc.

BA had a good ST in 2007, and Guillen chose to go away from the plan and put Erstad in CF when he was brought in to be a backup and push BA to bring his game up a level.

They should just let him go to anotyher team like OAK or SD who will let him start over, as he is obviously not in their plans for 2008 and beyond.

Lip Man 1
10-30-2007, 05:49 PM
Mister B:

I think it was more BA's directly quoted comments that have fans buzzing.

Lip

santo=dorf
10-30-2007, 05:54 PM
So now we're going to start spreading nasty rumors?

Honestly, what was the point of this post? To let us know that you're in some sort of unknown 'loop' and have some inside information about Ozzie's personal life? Do you have buddies that stalk him or something? What gives?

I don't think ilsox was talking about Brian's personal life, more of what goes on inside the clubhouse. Then you bring up something that really is none of our business.
I just posted it to piss off internet tough guys.

ilsox7 was speculating about Brian, so I responded back about the guy who is supposed to lead the team.

My intent wasn't to spread anything, as I was told by someone who has zero interest in baseball, let alone the White Sox, and his "source" was the person (I won't say if it's a guy or a girl) that was seeing a certain manager of a Chicago baseball team at a Chicago College campus.

oeo
10-30-2007, 05:57 PM
I just posted it to piss off internet tough guys.

Aren't you one of those? :rolleyes:

ilsox7 was speculating about Brian, so I responded back about the guy who is supposed to lead the team.As he mentioned later, he was speculating about his attitude in the clubhouse. Not about his personal life.

My intent wasn't to spread anything, as I was told by someone who has zero interest in baseball, let alone the White Sox, and his "source" was the person (I won't say if it's a guy or a girl) that was seeing a certain manager of a Chicago baseball team at a Chicago College campus.There's was no need to post that bull****; it wasn't relevant to the topic at all. It's very nice to hear that you have some friend that knows someone that knows someone that knows someone is cheating with Ozzie, but it's really not relevant...and you don't need to let the whole world know.

ilsox7
10-30-2007, 06:06 PM
A

As he mentioned later, he was speculating about his attitude in the clubhouse. Not about his personal life.



And even beyond that, I was not saying BA is doing this in private. I simply stated that if he acted the same way in private that he has in public, then I can see why the Sox have treated him like they have. It's absurd to bring people's personal lives into this.

The ironic thing is, I never even said, "Well I heard BA is like this in private, too." Nope. I said IF he carried the same attitude in private that he did in public. Then again, it does not surprise me that some people (in this case, one person) obviously cannot understand this.

CLR01
10-30-2007, 06:06 PM
Heres the thing about Brian, After the *****ing he does, and after how awesome he thinks he is, and after the interviews and autographs and thinking he knows more then the hitting coach manager GM etc., he has no approach at the plate. He walks up, swings real hard 3 times, walks back to the dug out. You watch so many of his at bats, and he takes the same swing 3 times. Well in high school college and even AAA ball, that swing works, because pitchers are not talented enough to pitch around it. But in the pros, They take advantage of all that is wrong with this swing. Hes got a huge hole in it, a small hitch in his hands, his body ackwardly flies open on his swing, and until he lets someone fix that, he will never be anything.

Proof that he thinks he is smarter than everyone in the organization and refuses to listen to anyone?

Who the **** knows what our hitting coach thinks other than lift and pull? Hell, I can show you quotes from the genius hitting coach saying that he wanted satan to keep doing what he was doing and that he wanted his natural ability to get him through it. Seems to me that he followed that advice to the letter. What an arrogant *******. Walker then went and lost some money to Ozzie in a poker game so he is still employed.

santo=dorf
10-30-2007, 06:14 PM
Aren't you one of those? :rolleyes:

As he mentioned later, he was speculating about his attitude in the clubhouse. Not about his personal life.

There's was no need to post that bull****; it wasn't relevant to the topic at all. It's very nice to hear that you have some friend that knows someone that knows someone that knows someone is cheating with Ozzie, but it's really not relevant...and you don't need to let the whole world know.
LOL. You are so testy. Did your subscription (http://fuzzyslogic.com/blerk/internet_tough_guy_mag.jpg) run out?

It wasn't a friend of a friend of a friend's neighbor's dog thing like you are trying to make it. It was a person's friend. That's it.

Ilsox, you're missing my point. How would his playing opportunities be different if his private life is like how he is acting in public? He's burying his own grave with the public comments he made/makes. I doubt the private life stuff (which has to be a reference to the infamous B-Mac/BA thread) will change this situation.

fquaye149
10-30-2007, 06:14 PM
Should BA have towed the Nuke Laloosh line? Absolutely.

Does him not doing that absolve the organization from any mistakes they may have made? Absolutely not.

Look, no matter who you blame for Anderson's lack of success with the Sox, the fact of the matter is one of our top prospects is now almost completely worthless to our organization.

Right or wrong, you have to acknowledge that the way he was handled as a rookie and 2nd year player is very different from the way most organizations treat rookies who have been deemed "MLB-ready". Did BA mouth off to the media, watch TV instead of film, punch Ozzie's kid? Who knows. But in the end, BA's a bust for the Sox, and the organization had a certain amount to do with that

JB98
10-30-2007, 09:16 PM
I don't give a damn how BA is in private. Frankly, I don't care about these public comments either. If I thought BA could play, I would look past them. However, I don't think BA can play.

TDog
10-30-2007, 09:17 PM
:?:

Anderson certainly has an attitude problem, but it's unlikely that most skippers would have had such a short leash with him in his rookie season. Look at the treatment Chris Young got in Arizona putting up similarly (thought not quite as) poor numbers.

Who knows what would have happened elsewhere, but it's not like Chicago treated him with softer gloves than any other organization would have

I think the White Sox cut Anderson more slack than most teams would have. His biggest problem never has been his performance but his attitude in relation to his performance. Apparently he wouldn't work with coaches before he got to the majors.

Lip Man 1
10-30-2007, 09:30 PM
fquaye:

Well it was reported he watched TV in Cleveland instead of watching tape of the Indians pitcher. So on at least one occasion, yes, he did.

Lip

fquaye149
10-30-2007, 09:36 PM
fquaye:

Well it was reported he watched TV in Cleveland instead of watching tape of the Indians pitcher. So on at least one occasion, yes, he was reported to.

Lip

fixed it for you. i saw that the first time you posted it.

it's all he said she said right now re: why Anderson's in the doghouse since no one will come out and say anything about

a.) Anderson's supposed lack of effort or preparation
b.) The so-called fight with Ozzie's kid
c.) Compromising photos Mackowiack may have had of Ozzie that caused Ozzie to play him in CF so much in 06

Bucky F. Dent
10-30-2007, 09:43 PM
No, because that's none of our business. Based on what I heard and read about Ozzie, he's just as bad, if not worse (I don't think Anderson has a wife to cheat on. :o:)



Where did THAT come from?

And how in the world is it relevant to this conversation?

FarWestChicago
10-30-2007, 09:45 PM
It wasn't a friend of a friend of a friend's neighbor's dog thing like you are trying to make it. It was a person's friend. That's it.This would be much more credible if any of us actually believed you have/had any friends. :wink:

ChiSoxGirl
10-30-2007, 09:55 PM
BA seems to have a major attitude problem.

Agreed!

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!


Amen to that.

All up and down the organization it seems BA has done his best to annoy the very people who are in a position to help him along. Sending him down to Charlotte and now trading him may be the kick in the rear he needs to get his act together. If he gets it together, he will be an All-Star.

Since that day in November 2005 that Aaron Rowand was traded, the pressure has been on Anderson to not only make the big club, but be a productive, everyday starter. Anderson and his skills have been under the microscope for almost two seasons and other than some pretty good defense and an OK second half in 2006, there hasn't been much to look at.

Heres the thing about Brian, After the *****ing he does, and after how awesome he thinks he is, and after the interviews and autographs and thinking he knows more then the hitting coach manager GM etc., he has no approach at the plate. He walks up, swings real hard 3 times, walks back to the dug out. You watch so many of his at bats, and he takes the same swing 3 times. Well in high school college and even AAA ball, that swing works, because pitchers are not talented enough to pitch around it. But in the pros, They take advantage of all that is wrong with this swing. Hes got a huge hole in it, a small hitch in his hands, his body ackwardly flies open on his swing, and until he lets someone fix that, he will never be anything.

This is key. Ever since I saw him at his seminar last year at SoxFest, I've thought he's got a real attitude problem. The way he carried himself up on that stage, he came off as being so arrogant & cocky and as such a know-it-all when it comes to baseball, when, in fact, he has a lot to learn. His arrogance never subsided, and considering his performance at the plate, he has no business, nor has he earned the right to be arrogant & cocky.

Our attitude towards BA is not going to get any better because he is not going to get any better as long as he is in the organization. If he's not going to be playing fall ball to make up for his somewhat lost season, he should pack his bags and take his business elsewhere. Getting rid of BA is a must for this offseason.

He may be one of those guys who needs a change of scenery, ala Joe Borchard. :dunno:

Lip Man 1
10-30-2007, 09:55 PM
fquaye:

For what it's worth I asked one of the Sox beat writers specifically about this. He said BA was one of the two individuals who were watching TV.

Take it for whatever you think that's worth.

Lip

jabrch
10-30-2007, 10:01 PM
That's too bad. I still believe he's going to be a special player one of these days. As much as I like Ozzie, I think the way he handled Anderson is his biggest failure to date.


If the story is true, and he chose to not play winter ball despite being asked, I still don't get how it is Ozzie mishandling him.

It is Brian not being a professional - again.

CLR01
10-30-2007, 10:10 PM
Anderson and his skills have been under the microscope for almost two seasons and other than some pretty good defense and an OK second half in 2006, there hasn't been much to look at.

What two seasons? 17 at bats now equals a season or are we counting the injury riddle stint in AAA?

If the story is true, and he chose to not play winter ball despite being asked, I still don't get how it is Ozzie mishandling him.

It is Brian not being a professional - again.


Even if the wrist is still injured as the report says? What an unprofessional jagoff. :rolleyes:

cwsfannick
10-30-2007, 10:10 PM
And yet another bust 1st round draft choice of Sox. Add BA to the long and distinguished list.

ChiSoxGirl
10-30-2007, 10:15 PM
What two seasons? 17 at bats now equals a season or are we counting the injury riddle stint in AAA?

I was speaking in general regarding "two seasons," not implying he had 350-500 ABs in each. I'm well aware of the fact that he barely had one full season in the Majors, let alone two. I was just thinking in general about much this guy has been under the microscope by us and so many others.

sox1970
10-30-2007, 10:18 PM
He may be one of those guys who needs a change of scenery, ala Joe Borchard. :dunno:

Doesn't that imply Borchard succeeded after he left?

Vernam
10-30-2007, 10:31 PM
Kenny's quote doesn't sound like they're all that down on him . . .Really, I'm not sure what he's supposed to do if his wrist is not healed enough to play yet. His comments certainly seem babyish.Kenny needs to maintain some trade value for BA, so I wouldn't expect him to bad-mouth the kid. Until the moment the deal is made, naturally. :cool:

If I'm Ozzie, here's my thought process: "This kid was a smart ass as a rookie, he was a smart ass when we sent him down this year, and if anything he's even more obnoxious in going awol from winter ball. Best case scenario is that he turns his career around with the Sox but then becomes a complete pain in the ass to have in the clubhouse. So good riddance."

When someone behaves this poorly behind absolutely no production, it's a major red flag, IMO. Humility is part of being a good teammate, and there's no indication Anderson is capable of taking responsibility for his own situation.

Vernam

Tragg
10-30-2007, 10:31 PM
Guillen has an "attitude" himself, to say the least.

And this seems to be a trend...Anderson has an attitude problem; Rauch had an attitude problem; Tracey had an attitude problem. Anybody else? The latter 2 Williams dumped. I expect Anderson to be dumped for some ozzie-style mediocre veteran - perhaps a career middle reliever.

One of the challenges of management is to deal with diverse personalities and people and develop them and get the most out of them. On the White Sox, players are marginalized, not developed. Time and time again.

ChiSoxGirl
10-30-2007, 10:32 PM
Doesn't that imply Borchard succeeded after he left?

He didn't succeed, but he did OK for awhile; he did better anywhere else than he did here.

Boy, am I sorry I said anything in this thread. I think I'll take my comments to another thread.

TDog
10-30-2007, 10:41 PM
Guillen has an "attitude" himself, to say the least.

And this seems to be a trend...Anderson has an attitude problem; Rauch had an attitude problem; Tracey had an attitude problem. Anybody else? The latter 2 Williams dumped.

One of the challenges of management is to deal with diverse personalities and people and develop them and get the most out of them. On the White Sox, players are marginalized, not developed. Time and time again.

That's quite the oversimplication.

You might add that Bobby Jenks had an attitude problem, too ... when he was in the Angels far system.

FedEx227
10-30-2007, 10:42 PM
He didn't succeed, but he did OK for awhile; he did better anywhere else than he did here.

Boy, am I sorry I said anything in this thread. I think I'll take my comments to another thread.

How dare you have any positive thoughts about Brian Anderson and his future.

He's a terrible baseball player and an even worse human being.

Rex Grossman and him feast on the corpses of dead children while hassling the elderly and causing stars in the galaxy to explode.

JB98
10-30-2007, 10:50 PM
Oh dare you have any positive thoughts about Brian Anderson and his future.

He's a terrible baseball player and an even worse human being.

Rex Grossman and him feast on the corpses of dead children while hassling the elderly and causing stars in the galaxy to explode.

Yeah, but at least Grossman had some success last season.

FedEx227
10-30-2007, 10:52 PM
Yeah, but at least Grossman had some success last season.

Really? Ask 89% of Bears fans about that. The majority called for his head all season.

Thome25
10-30-2007, 10:52 PM
Somewhere you can hear the sounds of all the Rowand Haters/BA lovers tears.

soxfanreggie
10-30-2007, 10:54 PM
Read his comments, support trading him for whatever scrap value we can get.

JB98
10-30-2007, 10:56 PM
Really? Ask 89% of Bears fans about that. The majority called for his head all season.

Count me in that other 11 percent of Bears fans.

FarWestChicago
10-30-2007, 10:59 PM
One of the challenges of management is to deal with diverse personalities and people and develop them and get the most out of them. On the White Sox, players are marginalized, not developed. Time and time again.I guess you don't have much management experience. If you have a recalcitrant assclown, no matter how talented, the best thing is to get rid of said assclown. Any successful manager learns this very early in their career. Mollycoddling jagbags is totally destructive to the rest of the employees. Now, do I know for a fact BA is an assclown? I can't say that I do. But, if I were forced to bet a few mortgage payments, I would lay the money down on him being an immature, RWAC. It's the old smoke/fire deal.

FedEx227
10-30-2007, 11:00 PM
Count me in that other 11 percent of Bears fans.

Good, which is why I respect your football opinion and agreed with you so far in all the Grossman = Anti-Christ debates.

CLR01
10-30-2007, 11:04 PM
Somewhere you can hear the sounds of all the Rowand Haters/BA lovers tears.

I haven't cried at all. What do BA/lovers have to cry about? The fact that he's not taking useless swings in Mexico with a bum wrist?

FarWestChicago
10-30-2007, 11:06 PM
IThe fact that he's not taking useless swings in Mexico with a bum wrist?At least we can all agree about the "bum" part. :D:

FedEx227
10-30-2007, 11:08 PM
I haven't cried at all. What do BA/lovers have to cry about? The fact that he's not taking useless swings in Mexico with a bum wrist?

And somehow we've become Rowand haters too. I love that.

By the way, I own a Rowand jersey. So yeah, I really hate the guy. I'm just a realist when it comes to him. I look at what he's done on the field, numbers-wise and see he's an above-average offensive CFer with some decent, but not HOF worthy defense.

I don't see him as this 600-ft superstar that emits passion and fire with every step and is an integral part of any World Series team because of the energy and "all-outness" that he brings.

Yeah, he was a great part of 2005, he was probably my favorite player on the team because I liked how he played. But he wasn't the reason we won, we won because of amazing starting pitching and a lights out bullpen. That's it.

For the right price he'd be a nice addition to the team, but I'd love to see where else we can go, what different directions we can go in. Right now we need a leadoff hitter, so why not try and get some real speed out in CF, that we can hopefully translate to the leadoff role? That's it. If we can get Rowand at $6-7 million a year, great. But for what he's asking, for what he does.... no thank you.

Jerome
10-30-2007, 11:26 PM
Substantively, of course, he's right.....he was benched in 2006 in favor of a grizzled .320 obp no-power hacker with whom the manager was and is infatuated. And when supposedly "given" the position in 2005, he was never left alone for as much as a week.


this is the reason for my belief that no matter how bad BA's attitude is, Ozzie handled him and the CF situation in 06 horribly. to bench a kid a few months into his rookie year...when he had been a pretty highly touted prospect and had success in every level of the minors...in favor of AN OUT OF POSITION ROB MACKOWIACK????:angry:

I don't recall Jerry Owens getting treated that poorly by Ozzie last year when he was struggling. of course that's only because his boy Erstad was hurt on and off.

No matter what you feel about BA, you have to admit that a team needs to develop its prospects to win. A team full of Mackowiacks and Erstads and Timo Perezs and whatever other garbage the Sox have tried in CF the past few years aren't going to win anything.

jabrch
10-30-2007, 11:28 PM
I guess you don't have much management experience. If you have a recalcitrant assclown, no matter how talented, the best thing is to get rid of said assclown. Any successful manager learns this very early in their career. Mollycoddling jagbags is totally destructive to the rest of the employees. Now, do I know for a fact BA is an assclown? I can't say that I do. But, if I were forced to bet a few mortgage payments, I would lay the money down on him being an immature, RWAC. It's the old smoke/fire deal.

That's well said West. All the talent in the world sometimes doesn't make up for being a douchebag. If BA was Manny Ramirez, that might be one thing. But BA is not Manny Ramirez.

JB98
10-30-2007, 11:29 PM
this is the reason for my belief that no matter how bad BA's attitude is, Ozzie handled him and the CF situation in 06 horribly. to bench a kid a few months into his rookie year...when he had been a pretty highly touted prospect and had success in every level of the minors...in favor of AN OUT OF POSITION ROB MACKOWIACK????:angry:

I don't recall Jerry Owens getting treated that poorly by Ozzie last year when he was struggling. of course that's only because his boy Erstad was hurt on and off.

No matter what you feel about BA, you have to admit that a team needs to develop its prospects to win. A team full of Mackowiacks and Erstads and Timo Perezs and whatever other garbage the Sox have tried in CF the past few years aren't going to win anything.

2006 and 2007 were far different situations, however. We could afford to let young players struggle and work out their problems in 2007 because we were woefully out of the race.

We need a legit CF who can hit and play defense. That rules out BA, Erstad, Mackowiak and everyone else the Sox have put at the position the last two years.

Jerome
10-30-2007, 11:30 PM
To the topic:

BA was never given a full shot in CF. If Guillen was as patient with him as he was with Uribe, Crede, Rowand, Jenks, MacDougal, Garland, and many others who had some real rough stretches, I could buy more into the dumping on this guy. If they gave him even 450-500 AB's and he hit .220 with 29 RBI's, then there would have been something to criticize.

All I know is that the team didn't need his offense when he was in CF, and he was one of the very few steady defensive performers on a sketchy 2006 White Sox team.

And if he had been given CF in 2007 and wound up hitting .220 with 29 RBI's in 500 AB's again, then there would have been grounds to question BA's talents, dedication, etc.

BA had a good ST in 2007, and Guillen chose to go away from the plan and put Erstad in CF when he was brought in to be a backup and push BA to bring his game up a level.


this is what kills me

CLR01
10-30-2007, 11:30 PM
For the right price he'd be a nice addition to the team, but I'd love to see where else we can go, what different directions we can go in. Right now we need a leadoff hitter, so why not try and get some real speed out in CF, that we can hopefully translate to the leadoff role? That's it. If we can get Rowand at $6-7 million a year, great. But for what he's asking, for what he does.... no thank you.

I wouldn't give him $6-$7 dollars. I guess some might unfairly lump me into the haters category. :D:

this is the reason for my belief that no matter how bad BA's attitude is, Ozzie handled him and the CF situation in 06 horribly. to bench a kid a few months into his rookie year...when he had been a pretty highly touted prospect and had success in every level of the minors...in favor of AN OUT OF POSITION ROB MACKOWIACK????:angry:


Months?

Jerome
10-30-2007, 11:34 PM
I wouldn't give him $6-$7 dollars. I guess some might unfairly lump me into the haters category. :D:



Months?

didn't he get benched pretty early into 06? or are you saying it was less than a few months?

champagne030
10-30-2007, 11:38 PM
I guess you don't have much management experience. If you have a recalcitrant assclown, no matter how talented, the best thing is to get rid of said assclown. Any successful manager learns this very early in their career. Mollycoddling jagbags is totally destructive to the rest of the employees. Now, do I know for a fact BA is an assclown? I can't say that I do. But, if I were forced to bet a few mortgage payments, I would lay the money down on him being an immature, RWAC. It's the old smoke/fire deal.

So you're asking why doesn't Kenny get rid of Ozzie?

CLR01
10-30-2007, 11:39 PM
didn't he get benched pretty early into 06? or are you saying it was less than a few months?

I guess it depends on how you define benched. Some might included that to mean him sitting on his ass for the second game of the season so Mack could play after "getting the starting CF job handed to him in spring training with no competition" as the haters like to say. But what the hell do I know?

JB98
10-30-2007, 11:42 PM
No one around here is beating a dead horse or anything.

Who cares what has happened in CF the last two years? It's over.

I don't want Anderson in CF for 2008.
I don't want Erstad in CF for 2008.
I don't want Mackowiak in CF for 2008.
I don't want Owens in CF for 2008.

Let's sign Hunter or Rowand and move forward already.

Thome25
10-30-2007, 11:46 PM
I haven't cried at all. What do BA/lovers have to cry about? The fact that he's not taking useless swings in Mexico with a bum wrist?

UMMMM let's see. The fact that a vast majority of the BA lovers on here beat the BA doubters into submission with the idea that BA was the second coming of Christ/Mickey Mantle?

There was a faction of WSIers that loved BA and hated and mocked anyone who didn't believe that his plaque was being dusted off in cooperstown.

Score one for those of us who saw right through BA and his gigantic swing (which was full of holes)

The guy never got a chance and never deserved one either because he was never ready for MLB athletically speaking and mentally speaking as well.

champagne030
10-30-2007, 11:50 PM
No one around here is beating a dead horse or anything.

Who cares what has happened in CF the last two years? It's over.

I don't want Anderson in CF for 2008.
I don't want Erstad in CF for 2008.
I don't want Mackowiak in CF for 2008.
I don't want Owens in CF for 2008.

Let's sign Hunter or Rowand and move forward already.

Since Ozzie will be the manager in '08, I agree that I don't want any of the players you listed on our team (maybe Owens, if we sign a legit veteran to start in CF). :smile:

jabrch
10-30-2007, 11:56 PM
Let's sign Hunter or Rowand and move forward already.

I can't see giving either of them 5+ years and 15+ mm

JB98
10-31-2007, 12:05 AM
I can't see giving either of them 5+ years and 15+ mm

I have no idea what those players are asking. All I know is all this rhetoric about competing for championships is going to fall flat if we open next season with an outfield of Fields, Owens and Dye.

We need some help. I expect KW to get us that help. If Rowand and Hunter price themselves out of our range, then I expect KW to make a trade.

The status quo sucks. KW has admitted it sucks. I expect him to take significant action. I have confidence that he will.

Tragg
10-31-2007, 12:10 AM
I guess you don't have much management experience. If you have a recalcitrant assclown, no matter how talented, the best thing is to get rid of said assclown. Any successful manager learns this very early in their career. Mollycoddling jagbags is totally destructive to the rest of the employees. Now, do I know for a fact BA is an assclown? I can't say that I do. But, if I were forced to bet a few mortgage payments, I would lay the money down on him being an immature, RWAC. It's the old smoke/fire deal.
Oh, I've hired a few people in my day.
I wouldn't be suprised if he is an assclown. No one said a manager's job is easy. Deal with it and let's get the most that you can out of the players.
Hell, Ozzie's an assclown. But Williams deals with him.
Ozzie can therefore deal with his players, instead of marginalizing them.
What young player has he developed into a productive major league regular player?

JB98
10-31-2007, 12:25 AM
Oh, I've hired a few people in my day.
I wouldn't be suprised if he is an assclown. No one said a manager's job is easy. Deal with it and let's get the most that you can out of the players.
Hell, Ozzie's an assclown. But Williams deals with him.
Ozzie can therefore deal with his players, instead of marginalizing them.
What young player has he developed into a productive major league regular player?

Garland. Jon did not have the confidence of the previous manager, therefore he did not have confidence in himself. That changed under Ozzie.

How about Jenks? Does Ozzie get any credit for him?

kittle42
10-31-2007, 12:52 AM
UMMMM let's see. The fact that a vast majority of the BA lovers on here beat the BA doubters into submission with the idea that BA was the second coming of Christ/Mickey Mantle?

There was a faction of WSIers that loved BA and hated and mocked anyone who didn't believe that his plaque was being dusted off in cooperstown.

Score one for those of us who saw right through BA and his gigantic swing (which was full of holes)

The guy never got a chance and never deserved one either because he was never ready for MLB athletically speaking and mentally speaking as well.

How dare you? Obviously, you can't judge whether a player is major-league ready until he has had 1200-1800 ABs.

white sox bill
10-31-2007, 08:02 AM
BA should never don another Sox uniform. But good luck with another team

Jollyroger2
10-31-2007, 08:54 AM
UMMMM let's see. The fact that a vast majority of the BA lovers on here beat the BA doubters into submission with the idea that BA was the second coming of Christ/Mickey Mantle?

There was a faction of WSIers that loved BA and hated and mocked anyone who didn't believe that his plaque was being dusted off in cooperstown.

Score one for those of us who saw right through BA and his gigantic swing (which was full of holes)

The guy never got a chance and never deserved one either because he was never ready for MLB athletically speaking and mentally speaking as well.

Very well said. Never liked the guy and his results at the plate and with his mouth proved me right over and over. I'm glad he's finally moving on hopefully.

jabrch
10-31-2007, 10:24 AM
I have no idea what those players are asking. All I know is all this rhetoric about competing for championships is going to fall flat if we open next season with an outfield of Fields, Owens and Dye.

Were you saying the same about an OF of Pods, Rowand and Dye in the winter of 2004 when Pods was coming off a .244/.313/.364 season, Dye was coming off .265/.329/.464 and Aaron had just finished his first full/decent season of his career?

An OF of Fields, Owens and Dye does not preclude us from contending.

fquaye149
10-31-2007, 10:33 AM
fquaye:

For what it's worth I asked one of the Sox beat writers specifically about this. He said BA was one of the two individuals who were watching TV.

Take it for whatever you think that's worth.

Lip

I'm not saying I doubt your story. What I'm saying is everything is he-said she-said at this point

spiffie
10-31-2007, 10:59 AM
I guess it depends on how you define benched. Some might included that to mean him sitting on his ass for the second game of the season so Mack could play after "getting the starting CF job handed to him in spring training with no competition" as the haters like to say. But what the hell do I know?
I assume that Iguchi was benched as well, since he too sat out the second game of the 2006 season, as Alex Cintron played 2B that day. Shame about Crede being benched, what with Pablo Ozuna playing 3B in the final game of that first series of the year. And they never were the same after Ozzie benched Podsednik and Pierzynski in that fourth game of the season.

Brian Anderson started 106 out of 162 games in 2006. In the entire AL only 4 rookies had more AB's in 2006 than Brian Anderson. I'll point out the 4 rookies above him in AB's also put up OPS numbers of 783, 799, 752, and 801, compared to Brian's 649. Only 2 rookies with lower OPS than Brian were given as many as 150 AB's in 2006, and one of those guys got only 183, and the other 251. No other rookie in the AL in 2006 performed as poorly, yet was given as many chances to perform that poorly at the plate as Brian Anderson. He appeared in 80% of the games that year, and started 2/3 of them. So I guess the question is would the extra 45-60 at bats that might have come from another 15 or so starts have really made the difference and turned him around? Or more likely would he simply have a similar line but with 100 more plate appearances to bolster it?

fquaye149
10-31-2007, 11:04 AM
I assume that Iguchi was benched as well, since he too sat out the second game of the 2006 season, as Alex Cintron played 2B that day. Shame about Crede being benched, what with Pablo Ozuna playing 3B in the final game of that first series of the year. And they never were the same after Ozzie benched Podsednik and Pierzynski in that fourth game of the season.

Brian Anderson started 106 out of 162 games in 2006. In the entire AL only 4 rookies had more AB's in 2006 than Brian Anderson. I'll point out the 4 rookies above him in AB's also put up OPS numbers of 783, 799, 752, and 801, compared to Brian's 649. Only 2 rookies with lower OPS than Brian were given as many as 150 AB's in 2006, and one of those guys got only 183, and the other 251. No other rookie in the AL in 2006 performed as poorly, yet was given as many chances to perform that poorly at the plate as Brian Anderson. He appeared in 80% of the games that year, and started 2/3 of them. So I guess the question is would the extra 45-60 at bats that might have come from another 15 or so starts have really made the difference and turned him around? Or more likely would he simply have a similar line but with 100 more plate appearances to bolster it?

Yeah dude, comparing the way established hitters are handled with the way a rookie looking for a semblance of consistency is handled is a completely sound mode of argumentation...

spiffie
10-31-2007, 11:04 AM
Oh, I've hired a few people in my day.
I wouldn't be suprised if he is an assclown. No one said a manager's job is easy. Deal with it and let's get the most that you can out of the players.
Hell, Ozzie's an assclown. But Williams deals with him.
Ozzie can therefore deal with his players, instead of marginalizing them.
What young player has he developed into a productive major league regular player?
Joe Crede sure busted out under Ozzie.

spiffie
10-31-2007, 11:12 AM
Yeah dude, comparing the way established hitters are handled with the way a rookie looking for a semblance of consistency is handled is a completely sound mode of argumentation...
Oh for the love of God you make it sound like he's a lost fawn searching for the mama doe. He was platooned for a guy hitting 308/384/453 against RH pitching, and lost some starts. Yes, it turned out that Mackowiak had issues in CF, and you can question whether or not he should have been out there later in the season. But in the early part of the year, when the team has the potential to try and get back to the World Series, how do you justify keeping a bat like that out of the lineup twice a week when the other guy couldn't hit a midget's weight? Yes, it might have been nice for Brian Anderson to play 162 games, but with the team as it was, and the fact that Ozzie Guillen's primary job is to win baseball games, not to try and develop a hopelessly confused looking rookie, it would have been tremendously unfair to the other 24 guys not to put Mackowiak in when appropriate. And through all that Brian Anderson still got 2/3 of the starts. He was still the primary CF. For whatever people want to say about Ozzie talking to the media or whatever Anderson pretty much started 2 out of 3 games every series all season long, whether he hit like **** (like he did 4 out of 6 months) or hit well (like he did 2 out of 6 months).

Bottom line is if Brian Anderson, a young man who has played baseball most of his life, and a man who is supposed to be a professional baseball player is not mentally capable of doing his job because he is not given just the right circumstances in which to play, then perhaps he might not be cut out for the job he was given.

Jerome
10-31-2007, 11:17 AM
Oh for the love of God you make it sound like he's a lost fawn searching for the mama doe. He was platooned for a guy hitting 308/384/453 against RH pitching, and lost some starts. Yes, it turned out that Mackowiak had issues in CF, and you can question whether or not he should have been out there later in the season. But in the early part of the year, when the team has the potential to try and get back to the World Series, how do you justify keeping a bat like that out of the lineup twice a week when the other guy couldn't hit a midget's weight? Yes, it might have been nice for Brian Anderson to play 162 games, but with the team as it was, and the fact that Ozzie Guillen's primary job is to win baseball games, not to try and develop a hopelessly confused looking rookie, it would have been tremendously unfair to the other 24 guys not to put Mackowiak in when appropriate. And through all that Brian Anderson still got 2/3 of the starts. He was still the primary CF. For whatever people want to say about Ozzie talking to the media or whatever Anderson pretty much started 2 out of 3 games every series all season long, whether he hit like **** (like he did 4 out of 6 months) or hit well (like he did 2 out of 6 months).

Bottom line is if Brian Anderson, a young man who has played baseball most of his life, and a man who is supposed to be a professional baseball player is not mentally capable of doing his job because he is not given just the right circumstances in which to play, then perhaps he might not be cut out for the job he was given.

you are totally right that he did not have a very good rookie year. Again, ROOKIE year. I personally think those two months when he hit well should have been enough to give him the 07 job, at least to start the season, over Darin ****ing Erstad, who was brought in to be a bench player at most.

chisox77
10-31-2007, 12:03 PM
I always thought that BA had talent.

But obviously, things are not working out for him with the White Sox. That happens in every organization with certain players. I hope he is able to play elsewhere.

Honestly, I have been wishing for the Sox to pursue Torii Hunter. As much as I like Rowand, I would never pay him what he is asking, and if that's the case, then go all out for someone like Hunter. That would be the best way to move on from our CF problems in '06 and '07.


:cool:

October26
10-31-2007, 12:53 PM
I always thought that BA had talent.

But obviously, things are not working out for him with the White Sox. That happens in every organization with certain players. I hope he is able to play elsewhere.

Honestly, I have been wishing for the Sox to pursue Torii Hunter. As much as I like Rowand, I would never pay him what he is asking, and if that's the case, then go all out for someone like Hunter. That would be the best way to move on from our CF problems in '06 and '07.


:cool:

Chisox77:

You're not worried about Hunter's knees?(after he's played all those years in the Metrodome).

As for BA, I am sorry that it has come to this, but it appears that he is out the door. It's a shame, because the kid did have defensive talent, but his hitting was atrocious.

jabrch
10-31-2007, 01:01 PM
Bottom line is if Brian Anderson, a young man who has played baseball most of his life, and a man who is supposed to be a professional baseball player is not mentally capable of doing his job because he is not given just the right circumstances in which to play, then perhaps he might not be cut out for the job he was given.


That's really well said Spiff.

The Immigrant
10-31-2007, 01:02 PM
BA is going nowhere. Sure he's frustrated and lashing out like a petulant 10-year old, but his trade value is at its absolute lowest at this point and there is no way KW will just cut him loose, especially after the organization decided to keep him over Chris Young. If he is healthy, BA will likely start the year in Charlotte and will have a chance to prove himself.

As for the title of this thread, :rolleyes: is all I have to say.

KyWhiSoxFan
10-31-2007, 01:16 PM
I get the impression that BA is not liked within the organization not because of his attitude but because he does not work hard. Maybe that is attitude, but if you don't work hard at the major league level, you will fail, whichi is what BA did with the Sox.

fquaye149
10-31-2007, 01:34 PM
Oh for the love of God you make it sound like he's a lost fawn searching for the mama doe. He was platooned for a guy hitting 308/384/453 against RH pitching, and lost some starts. Yes, it turned out that Mackowiak had issues in CF, and you can question whether or not he should have been out there later in the season. But in the early part of the year, when the team has the potential to try and get back to the World Series, how do you justify keeping a bat like that out of the lineup twice a week when the other guy couldn't hit a midget's weight? Yes, it might have been nice for Brian Anderson to play 162 games, but with the team as it was, and the fact that Ozzie Guillen's primary job is to win baseball games, not to try and develop a hopelessly confused looking rookie, it would have been tremendously unfair to the other 24 guys not to put Mackowiak in when appropriate. And through all that Brian Anderson still got 2/3 of the starts. He was still the primary CF. For whatever people want to say about Ozzie talking to the media or whatever Anderson pretty much started 2 out of 3 games every series all season long, whether he hit like **** (like he did 4 out of 6 months) or hit well (like he did 2 out of 6 months).

Bottom line is if Brian Anderson, a young man who has played baseball most of his life, and a man who is supposed to be a professional baseball player is not mentally capable of doing his job because he is not given just the right circumstances in which to play, then perhaps he might not be cut out for the job he was given.

No I'm not. I'm saying it's asinine to act like a rookie who's seen maybe 50 MLB atbats previous should be treated the exact same as a Joe Crede and a Tad Iguchi.

See, for instance, Chris Young :rolleyes:

I can guaran-damn-tee you he didn't sit the second game of 2007

I can tell you, having played baseball, that it's very difficult to adjust to a certain level of pitching without consistent atbats. Mistakes get magnified and fundamnetal flaws are allowed to overtake natural hitting ability at the plate. Hitting is a very tricky skill, especially when making as big a leap in talent as from AAA to MLB. It' snot like you just go out there at any given time and put up whatever number you're "as good as". Especially at the beginning of a career there's maddening inconsistency as you adjust. Remember the kid you mentioned, Joe Crede? How long did it take him to figure out to hit. Maybe Anderson will never be Joe Crede...in fact he probably won't....but the fact is, it takes time, and second-guessing by your manager doesn't help you. It's not a "mental midget" issue. It took Crede like 2.5 years to start hitting well. And I don't think he's a "mental midget"

Fact is, most rookies get consistent atbats their rookie year,, even after they struggle. I'm not saying BA didn't get a fair shake, but the 2nd day sitting is a stupid move for a rookie. It just makes no sense, and frankly, my opinion is that Ozzie's handling throughout the season didn't make much sense. But that's up for debate.

What's not up for debate is that Ozzie did in fact sit a rookie player "handed the CF job" in THE SECOND GAME OF THE YEAR. And what is also not up for debate is the way you treat a rookie in terms of lineup decisions is different from the way you treat a vet like Crede or Tad...at least it is if you know what the hell you're doing.

spiffie
10-31-2007, 01:56 PM
No I'm not. I'm saying it's asinine to act like a rookie who's seen maybe 50 MLB atbats previous should be treated the exact same as a Joe Crede and a Tad Iguchi.

See, for instance, Chris Young :rolleyes:

I can guaran-damn-tee you he didn't sit the second game of 2007
No, he was sat the third game of 2007 :tongue:

I can tell you, having played baseball, that it's very difficult to adjust to a certain level of pitching without consistent atbats. Mistakes get magnified and fundamnetal flaws are allowed to overtake natural hitting ability at the plate. Hitting is a very tricky skill, especially when making as big a leap in talent as from AAA to MLB. It' snot like you just go out there at any given time and put up whatever number you're "as good as". Especially at the beginning of a career there's maddening inconsistency as you adjust. Remember the kid you mentioned, Joe Crede? How long did it take him to figure out to hit. Maybe Anderson will never be Joe Crede...in fact he probably won't....but the fact is, it takes time, and second-guessing by your manager doesn't help you. It's not a "mental midget" issue. It took Crede like 2.5 years to start hitting well. And I don't think he's a "mental midget"

Fact is, most rookies get consistent atbats their rookie year,, even after they struggle. I'm not saying BA didn't get a fair shake, but the 2nd day sitting is a stupid move for a rookie. It just makes no sense, and frankly, my opinion is that Ozzie's handling throughout the season didn't make much sense. But that's up for debate.
Who are these rookies getting more consistent AB's? Like I said above, only 4 AL rookies got more AB's than Anderson did in 2006.

What's not up for debate is that Ozzie did in fact sit a rookie player "handed the CF job" in THE SECOND GAME OF THE YEAR. And what is also not up for debate is the way you treat a rookie in terms of lineup decisions is different from the way you treat a vet like Crede or Tad...at least it is if you know what the hell you're doing.[/quote]
Yes he was sat the second game of the year. Because the manager believed he could put a solid hitter out there, in a situation that would be helpful for the team in trying to win. Where do the priorities lie? During April, May, June, when Anderson was unable to hit, and the Sox were in a tight divisional race, should Guillen have ignored Mackowiak's extreme advantage at the plate against RHP simply to help Anderson feel more comfortable? At what point does the development of a single player, a player who still got more AB's than most of his fellow rookies despite performing worse than almost all of them, have to take a backseat to the good of the team? Brian Anderson was a hinderance with his inability to play at a major league level for 2/3 of the 2006 season.

Add to this the fact that there are a lot of reports of Brian not taking his job as a major league player seriously enough and I cannot fault the team on this one. And this has nothing to do with any bull**** about him drinking or anything. Hell, I prefer alcoholics on my team, they tend to relax. But there seems to be a lot of stuff out there suggesting Mr. Anderson has no real desire to put in extra effort to improve. That may or may not be true, but it sure seems like that's the word that's out on him.

To put it in perspective, the White Sox gave 2/3 of their CF starts for the first three months of the season to a player with a sub 600 OPS. And despite that they continued to give him 2/3 of the starts in CF. If Ozzie was truly the rookie-hating ogre that people want him to be, how in the hell was Anderson still on the roster on July 1?

35th&Shields
10-31-2007, 02:05 PM
"If the White Sox are really worried about me getting at-bats, well, I sat on [the bench] and had 17 at-bats for the whole first month [last season]"


You know what they say about excuses and how everyone's got one and they all stink............................................. ..............

jabrch
10-31-2007, 02:42 PM
To put it in perspective, the White Sox gave 2/3 of their CF starts for the first three months of the season to a player with a sub 600 OPS. And despite that they continued to give him 2/3 of the starts in CF.

Stop letting facts get in the way of a good anti-Sox ***** session. Guillen hates rookies. BA was mistreated. He's a great ballplayer, if only we gave him a chance - which we didn't do - clearly - because we only game him 400 plate appearances in which he hit .225/.290/.359.

Just as a frame of reference, Jerry Owens got nearly 400 PA. He hit .267/.324/.312. Not surprsingly, JO will get more ABs because he was more productive in them.

Tragg
10-31-2007, 02:44 PM
because we only game him 400 plate appearances in which he hit .225/.290/.359.

Just as a frame of reference, Jerry Owens got nearly 400 PA. He hit .267/.324/.312. Not surprsingly, JO will get more ABs because he was more productive in them.
Using your stats, Anderson's OPS is higher than Owens, with, of course, far superior defense. And Anderson got the 9 hole and Owens had the benefit of lead off and zero pressure- absolutely none. He was put there, with the team out of it and left alone.
And with all of those advantages, Anderson outperformed Owens.
Done.

jabrch
10-31-2007, 02:54 PM
Anderson outperformed Owens.

That's your opinion.

If you believe that a guy who gets fewer hits and fewer walks has outperformed the guy with more hits and more walks because of a select group of ABs where he hit 8 HRs and a bundle of doubles (which Owens negates with his SBs), that's your choice.

There are a lot of great players out there if that's your standard - fewer hits and fewer walks.

SLG% is much less significant than AVG and OBP. And BA's arm doesn't come close to making up the difference.

Again - Brian was given 400 PAs, and failed to have an OBP over .300. I'm stunned that you think there is any reliable analytic framework that justifies the statment that he outperformed Owens.

Brian Anderson's OBP was .290. His average was .225.

nodiggity59
10-31-2007, 02:54 PM
Anderson got the 5th most ABs of any AL rookie 06, as someone stated. That is more than a fair chance. It's just too bad he isn't very good, for the Sox and of course for him. I wish him luck and hope he sticks as a 25th man somewhere.

spawn
10-31-2007, 03:00 PM
Using your stats, Anderson's OPS is higher than Owens, with, of course, far superior defense. And Anderson got the 9 hole and Owens had the benefit of lead off and zero pressure- absolutely none. He was put there, with the team out of it and left alone.
And with all of those advantages, Anderson outperformed Owens.
Done.
If memory serves me correctly, Anderson didn't beging the season in the nine hole...he began the season as the number two hitter because Ozzie wanted to drop Tadahito lower in the lineup to drive in runs.

spiffie
10-31-2007, 03:02 PM
If memory serves me correctly, Anderson didn't beging the season in the nine hole...he began the season as the number two hitter because Ozzie wanted to drop Tadahito lower in the lineup to drive in runs.
That was talked about, but Anderson started the season in the nine hole.

spawn
10-31-2007, 03:05 PM
That was talked about, but Anderson started the season in the nine hole.
You're right. My bad!

jabrch
10-31-2007, 03:06 PM
That was talked about, but Anderson started the season in the nine hole.


the 9th hole - protected by Pods, Iguchi, Konerko and Thome

as compared to Owens leading off protected by Iguchi or Fields, Konerko and Thome.

I fail to see a material difference that would explain why BA had an avg under .230 and an obp under .300. A more likely explanation is that he isn't a major league quality hitter.

fquaye149
10-31-2007, 03:15 PM
the 9th hole - protected by Pods, Iguchi, Konerko and Thome

as compared to Owens leading off protected by Iguchi or Fields, Konerko and Thome.

I fail to see a material difference that would explain why BA had an avg under .230 and an obp under .300. A more likely explanation is that he isn't a major league quality hitter.



Wow...talk about distorting the facts.

Yeah the 9 hole is protected by Pods, Iguchi and Konerko....

Now let's play spot the sophistry.

hint: it has something to do with the # of outs that are likely to be on the board when the 9 hitter comes up vs. when the 1 hitter comes up, and how the idea of lineup protection works in the first place

TheCommander
10-31-2007, 03:21 PM
I guess you don't have much management experience. If you have a recalcitrant assclown, no matter how talented, the best thing is to get rid of said assclown. Any successful manager learns this very early in their career. Mollycoddling jagbags is totally destructive to the rest of the employees. Now, do I know for a fact BA is an assclown? I can't say that I do. But, if I were forced to bet a few mortgage payments, I would lay the money down on him being an immature, RWAC. It's the old smoke/fire deal.

Can we have those two names added to the WSI Dictionary? :D:

kittle42
10-31-2007, 03:36 PM
Anderson - sucks.

Owens - sucks.

Who sucks more? Who cares?

voodoochile
10-31-2007, 03:52 PM
Anderson - sucks.

Owens - sucks.

Who sucks more? Who cares?

You must be new around these parts. Arguing the merits of crappy players has led to some of the most memorable debates in WSI history.

Let me tell you a little story about a man named Royce and they guy he was up against who had 38 errors the previous season. :tongue:

Then there were the arguments about whether a 1B should be judged based on the merits of his throwing arm. :?:

It doesn't have to be a meaningful argument to get a lot of replies. No need for facts when we've got passion, innuendo and too much free time on our hands. :bandance:

jdm2662
10-31-2007, 04:11 PM
You must be new around these parts. Arguing the merits of crappy players has led to some of the most memorable debates in WSI history.

Let me tell you a little story about a man named Royce and they guy he was up against who had 38 errors the previous season. :tongue:

Then there were the arguments about whether a 1B should be judged based on the merits of his throwing arm. :?:

It doesn't have to be a meaningful argument to get a lot of replies. No need for facts when we've got passion, innuendo and too much free time on our hands. :bandance:

It's the offseason. It's certainly hard to complain about last night's game. :redneck

jabrch
10-31-2007, 04:29 PM
Now let's play spot the sophistry.

hint: it has something to do with the # of outs that are likely to be on the board when the 9 hitter comes up vs. when the 1 hitter comes up, and how the idea of lineup protection works in the first place


The leadoff hitter leads off only once in a game. I can't imagine you are proposing that BA sucked largely because he hit 8th and Owens had a higher average and obp because he led off, and had 0 outs in his first AB every game.... No - you don't really mean that - do you?

spiffie
10-31-2007, 04:52 PM
Wow...talk about distorting the facts.

Yeah the 9 hole is protected by Pods, Iguchi and Konerko....

Now let's play spot the sophistry.

hint: it has something to do with the # of outs that are likely to be on the board when the 9 hitter comes up vs. when the 1 hitter comes up, and how the idea of lineup protection works in the first place
2006: Anderson 405 PA's. By out:
0 outs - 135 (33.33%)
1 out - 141 (34.81%)
2 out - 129 (31.85%)
less than 2 outs - 276 (68.15%)

2007 Owens 389 PA's
0 outs - 181 (46.53%)
1 out - 110 (28.28%)
2 out - 98 (25.20%)
less than 2 outs - 291 (74.80%)

So Anderson had 6% more of his PA's with 2 outs, and both had over 2/3 of their PA's with less than 2 outs. Strangely Owens hit much better with outs on the board. I guess the threat of having outs already recorded didn't bother him as much as the stress of starting an inning since his splits were:
0 outs: 224/258/265/523
1 out: 316/391/388/779
2 outs: 295/367/318/686

Anderson on the other hand was much more consistent, as his OPS never really moves much from that 650 area regardless of the number of outs:
0 outs: 228/263/402/665
1 out: 240/284/357/641
2 outs: 202/326/312/638

santo=dorf
10-31-2007, 05:43 PM
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071030&content_id=2288216&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws


Anderson did more than just feel sorrow for those touched by the disaster, joining with a few of his friends to purchase cases of water and men's and women's toiletries to deliver to Qualcomm Stadium where the fire evacuees temporarily were staying. Anderson's group was turned away because they already had enough supplies at the Stadium, but they were able to deliver the goods instead to an area near Point Loma. "They gave us options," Anderson said. "I'm just glad people were able to use it all."
That sick SOB assclown Anderson. Just look at his private life. He's refusing to play winter ball to help out a bunch of people who don't even like the Sox.

fquaye149
10-31-2007, 06:05 PM
The leadoff hitter leads off only once in a game. I can't imagine you are proposing that BA sucked largely because he hit 8th and Owens had a higher average and obp because he led off, and had 0 outs in his first AB every game.... No - you don't really mean that - do you?

I'm not proposing that at all.

I'm proposing you use logical or factual arguments like Spiffie did after you, whatever the results may be, not distorted misperceptions.

For instance, yes the leadoff hitter only hits leadoff once a game, but the 9 hitter is quite likely to make the last out of an inning, more so than the 8 hitter.

Spiffie, using solid data, showed it wasn't a preponderance of difference, but it was still a difference. Further, I would suggest that protection of Iguchi, Konerko is better than protection of Pods, Iguchi.

So basically, I don't really care what the truth is, as long as it's the truth....in this case, it looks like Owens didn't have a huge advantage

(though I would refer back to teh fact that Owens knew he'd be playing no matter what, and that might help inflate his stats....

look at Crede's 2002 stats for instance.... now compare it to the 2003 stats where he was playing for a job instead of a "no-pressure-show-em-what-you-got-when-nothing's-on-the-line" atmosphere)

Tragg
10-31-2007, 07:04 PM
The leadoff hitter leads off only once in a game. I can't imagine you are proposing that BA sucked largely because he hit 8th and Owens had a higher average and obp because he led off, and had 0 outs in his first AB every game.... No - you don't really mean that - do you?
Statistically they will lead off more than anyone else because, if your 9 hole hitter is your team's worst hitter, they have the highest chance of having an out made before they get up. If someone makes an out there's a 1/3 chance that it will be the third out. SO, they lead off once EVERY game, and presuming that your worst hitter hits 9th, leadoff more than anyone else. And if the bad hitters, in general, hit toward the bottom of the order, that will also make it happen.
Similarly, the person who bats behind the team's best obp player will leadoff the least amount of innings.

Don't you love November baseball? November and January - the two dead months.
Can't wait for those winter meetings.

CLR01
10-31-2007, 07:45 PM
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071030&content_id=2288216&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

That sick SOB assclown Anderson. Just look at his private life. He's refusing to play winter ball to help out a bunch of people who don't even like the Sox.

What kind of twisted ******* burns down someone's house and then offers to help them get though it by giving them free stuff? It's a good the the folks over at Qualcomm turned him away, there was probably a dirty bomb tucked away in the supplies.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-31-2007, 08:16 PM
It doesn't have to be a meaningful argument to get a lot of replies. No need for facts when we've got passion, innuendo and too much free time on our hands.

Allow me to pour some more gasoline onto this raging argument...
:wink:

Since the Ozzie-hating/BA-loving/Walker-hating contingent is still buzzing about my favorite iconoclast Jim Bouton's observation about major league coaches ("Their primary responsibility is being a friend to the manager and a good card player") a full 4 months after I posted it, here's what Earl Weaver once said about managing. Quoting the Earl of Baltimore:
"A manager's #1 objective is to keep the 2 guys that hate him away from the 23 others who are still undecided."
I'm guessing BA winds up in Charlotte on Earl's team, too.

Flame away...
:roflmao:

fquaye149
10-31-2007, 08:49 PM
Allow me to pour some more gasoline onto this raging argument...
:wink:

Since the Ozzie-hating/BA-loving/Walker-hating contingent is still buzzing about my favorite iconoclast Jim Bouton's observation about major league coaches ("Their primary responsibility is being a friend to the manager and a good card player") a full 4 months after I posted it, here's what Earl Weaver once said about managing. Quoting the Earl of Baltimore:"A manager's #1 objective is to keep the 2 guys that hate him away from the 23 others who are still undecided."
I'm guessing BA winds up in Charlotte on Earl's team, too.

Flame away...
:roflmao:

It's up for debate.

We don't know why Anderson was on Ozzie's bad side...if it's for being lazy and talking back, that's acceptable, but I haven't seen that.

However if it's for "not being able to hit", that's what I take issue for.

It sounds, George, like you're making the argument that Ozzie's decisions with BA had to do with more than just BA's on the field play...something I hope is true...

Grzegorz
10-31-2007, 09:18 PM
Hell, I prefer alcoholics on my team, they tend to relax.

Quote of the year...

PaleHoseGeorge
10-31-2007, 09:23 PM
It sounds, George, like you're making the argument that Ozzie's decisions with BA had to do with more than just BA's on the field play...something I hope is true...

Actually the only argument I'm making is that Earl Weaver was a far more successful manager than anybody posting in this thread. We could do far worse than hope Ozzie emulates him.
:cool:

Frater Perdurabo
10-31-2007, 09:54 PM
Actually the only argument I'm making is that Earl Weaver was a far more successful manager than anybody posting in this thread. We could do far worse than hope Ozzie emulates him.
:cool:

George, you really can't believe that Weaver was being completely honest. that sounds more like a quip spoken (or written) to be cute/funny.

OTOH, if Weaver was both honest and 100% correct, then a well-trained psychiatrist would be the best manager. Shall we hire Dr. Phil?
:tongue:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-31-2007, 10:04 PM
George, you really can't believe that Weaver was being completely honest. that sounds more like a quip spoken (or written) to be cute/funny.

This is a completely separate discussion than anything doing with Brian Anderson, but I doubt Weaver was being cute. There are lots of skills involved in being an effective manager, but the notion that any successful manager can overlook insubordination or a subversive attitude -- especially while being responsible for the performance of as many as 25 individuals -- isn't believable at all.

I don't think Earl Weaver was necessarily talking about baseball, but any sort of successful manager.

chisox77
10-31-2007, 10:05 PM
Maybe the Sox should have hired Jimmy Piersall to be BA's personal outfield coach.

:rolleyes:

DickAllen72
10-31-2007, 10:18 PM
Maybe the Sox should have hired Jimmy Piersall to be BA's personal outfield coach.

Actually that would have been a good idea. At least BA would have learned how to back up his fellow outfielders and how to hit the cut-off man and throw to the proper base.

FarWestChicago
10-31-2007, 10:29 PM
This is a completely separate discussion than anything doing with Brian Anderson, but I doubt Weaver was being cute. There are lots of skills involved in being an effective manager, but the notion that any successful manager can overlook insubordination or a subversive attitude -- especially while being responsible for the performance of as many as 25 individuals -- isn't believable at all.

I don't think Earl Weaver was necessarily talking about baseball, but any sort of successful manager.Which is exactly what I posted earlier. Thank you, George. There are things you can tolerate as the boss. There are things you must excise immediately. You learn that or fail. It doesn't matter what the field is.

kittle42
10-31-2007, 10:36 PM
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071030&content_id=2288216&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

That sick SOB assclown Anderson. Just look at his private life. He's refusing to play winter ball to help out a bunch of people who don't even like the Sox.

I'm glad he's a nice guy. Now go let him be nice and play poorly for someone else.

voodoochile
10-31-2007, 11:46 PM
This is a completely separate discussion than anything doing with Brian Anderson, but I doubt Weaver was being cute. There are lots of skills involved in being an effective manager, but the notion that any successful manager can overlook insubordination or a subversive attitude -- especially while being responsible for the performance of as many as 25 individuals -- isn't believable at all.

I don't think Earl Weaver was necessarily talking about baseball, but any sort of successful manager.

ding ding ding...

Even if you don't believe that BA was a bad apple who threatened to spoil the whole bunch, if OG believed it, he had to do what he had to do to prevent it from happening. You can blame OG's ability to judge character if you feel that to be the case, but he is our manager and if he believes someone needs to go, then go they should.

Brian26
10-31-2007, 11:56 PM
Maybe the Sox should have hired Jimmy Piersall to be BA's personal outfield coach.

:rolleyes:

Awesome reference that went over everyone's head. Kudos :thumbsup:

JB98
11-01-2007, 02:12 AM
Were you saying the same about an OF of Pods, Rowand and Dye in the winter of 2004 when Pods was coming off a .244/.313/.364 season, Dye was coming off .265/.329/.464 and Aaron had just finished his first full/decent season of his career?

An OF of Fields, Owens and Dye does not preclude us from contending.

An OF of Fields, Owens and Dye is perhaps the worst defensive outfield the Sox have ever had. Each of the three had batting averages in the .240s for most of 2007, so it isn't like their offense is going to make up for their defensive shortcomings.

Coming into 2005, I had concerns that Pods/Rowand/Dye would produce enough offense. I knew they would be a good defensive outfield, and they were. No, the situation isn't comparable.

Basically, touting an OF of Fields, Owens and Dye is an argument for the status quo. The status quo lost 90 games this year. We need to make at least one acquisition from outside the organization to play outfield. I can live with either Fields or Owens in LF. We need a legit CF if we expect to contend for a championship in 2008.

Notice I said "contend for a championship." Not hope to be competitive.

MetroPD
11-01-2007, 03:04 AM
We need a legit CF if we expect to contend for a championship in 2008.

Notice I said "contend for a championship." Not hope to be competitive.

Yeah thats all we need to beat the Tigers, Indians, and Twinkies.....just a good center fielder will do it.....

Grzegorz
11-01-2007, 05:39 AM
Even if you don't believe that BA was a bad apple who threatened to spoil the whole bunch, if OG believed it, he had to do what he had to do to prevent it from happening.

If Ozzie Guillen believes that Brian Anderson could turn an entire clubhouse against him then there can be no greater indictment of Ozzie as a leader.

For the love of all that is holy lets get some perspective; we're talking about Brian Anderson not Spartacus.

voodoochile
11-01-2007, 08:50 AM
If Ozzie Guillen believes that Brian Anderson could turn an entire clubhouse against him then there can be no greater indictment of Ozzie as a leader.

For the love of all that is holy lets get some perspective; we're talking about Brian Anderson not Spartacus.

He doesn't need to be the anti-Christ to cause problems. Even if he didn't turn the entire clubhouse against OG, if he wasn't doing the same thing every other player was expected to do it plants a bad seed. To win every team needs focus, determination and a sense of togetherness. Coaches move players who don't exhibit the same passion/commitment as the rest of the team for those concepts all the time.

It may not have been the entire reason either. BA wasn't exactly lighting the world on fire and this simply may have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

Tragg
11-01-2007, 02:11 PM
A good manager doesn't overlook insubordination. A good manager doesn't let it happen in the first place.

One insubordinate was so because he refused to do Vasquez' dirty work. Who put him in the position to be subversive?

voodoochile
11-01-2007, 02:14 PM
Considering the high number of "subversives" that Ozzie has had to eliminate from the team, perhaps it isn't a matter of "subversives" but paranoia.
Surrounding oneself with "yes men" is another sign.

Hey better to eliminate the crappy/marginal subversives than the good ones...

jabrch
11-01-2007, 02:28 PM
One insubordinate was so because he refused to do Vasquez' dirty work. Who put him in the position to be subversive?


Doesn't matter. The manager makes those calls, not the player.

jabrch
11-01-2007, 02:49 PM
Basically, touting an OF of Fields, Owens and Dye is an argument for the status quo. The status quo lost 90 games this year. We need to make at least one acquisition from outside the organization to play outfield. I can live with either Fields or Owens in LF. We need a legit CF if we expect to contend for a championship in 2008.

Lots of thoughts

1) I don't believe that saying that you can live with Fields, Dye and Owens is an arguement for "the status quo" if by that you mean the exact same team. Because if we go with that OF, it leaves more money to be spent elesewhere.

2) I don't believe the same team comes back and loses 90 games because it would nearly require all of the same injuries to happen - which if they happen, will kill us regardless of who we get to play OF.

3) You are disregarding moves that could be made elsewhere

4) You are disregarding the potential for any of those OFs to perform significantly better next year.

I'm not going to hang the entire balance of the season on any one or two decisions in isolation. I'm going to wait and see what is done in its entirety to this club. Pinning the ability to contend on who plays CF and LF, while it may end up being right, leaves you with a very real possibility of being wrong.

Put it this way, if we don't upgrade in the OF, but Dye plays like he did in 2006, Thome is healthy, Owens progresses as he did in the second half, and Fields progresses, our offense will be just fine, and we will be a contender. If Jose pitches like he did in the last few weeks, who knows? Now what about Crede? If he comes back healthy, that's a huge improvement over what we got last year from 3B. And what if KW uses this money he doesn't spend on Hunter/Rowand and gets a SS somewhere? or a 2B?

I just can't bring myself to conclude that we can't contend to win the WS with this OF given some of the teams I have seen contend for the WS with worse OFs.

GoSox2K3
11-01-2007, 03:46 PM
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071030&content_id=2288216&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

Anderson did more than just feel sorrow for those touched by the disaster, joining with a few of his friends to purchase cases of water and men's and women's toiletries to deliver to Qualcomm Stadium where the fire evacuees temporarily were staying. Anderson's group was turned away because they already had enough supplies at the Stadium, but they were able to deliver the goods instead to an area near Point Loma. "They gave us options," Anderson said. "I'm just glad people were able to use it all."

That sick SOB assclown Anderson. Just look at his private life. He's refusing to play winter ball to help out a bunch of people who don't even like the Sox.

Yeah, but I heard that Anderson really just stole that water from an orphanage and then punched a nun after he was turned away from Qualcomm.

wdelaney72
11-01-2007, 04:24 PM
Look, I like Anderson's potential as much as the next guy, but the fact is, his resume is very light and really only puts him in the position of one sentence to reply to his coaches... "ok coach!".

It's quite obvious he has chosen differently. Just another clown with all the athletic ability in the world but nothing but fecal matter between ears.

Tragg
11-01-2007, 05:16 PM
Doesn't matter. The manager makes those calls, not the player. Maybe he's supposed to blindly follow a manager's order to violate the rules and bean someone. Maybe not.

But it says a lot more about the manager.....he's instructing the player to violate the rules and to cause harm, not contemporaneous with the deed but several innings hence, in order to shield another player.

voodoochile
11-01-2007, 05:26 PM
Maybe he's supposed to blindly follow a manager's order to violate the rules and bean someone. Maybe not.

But it says a lot more about the manager.....he's instructing the player to violate the rules and to cause harm, not contemporaneous with the deed but several innings hence, in order to shield another player.

And the minute you have ANY evidence that anything Ozzie asked BA to do was against the rules, intended to injure another player or even something that would actually make BA a worse not a better player, you have a point. Until then, it's simply an argument for argument's sake...

jabrch
11-01-2007, 08:53 PM
Maybe he's supposed to blindly follow a manager's order to violate the rules and bean someone. Maybe not.

There is no maybe. He should follow the instructions. **** - he shouldn't even need to be instructed. He should be a better teammate than that.

But it says a lot more about the manager

We agree on that

.....he's instructing the player to violate the rules

That's such bull****

and to cause harm

That's even more bull****. You have to be kidding me.

in order to shield another player.

Who would you rather see ejected and possibly suspeded? Guillen was doing what's in the team's best interest.

It's not as if he was told to throw at his head until he hits him there.

You can't be serious...

JB98
11-01-2007, 09:03 PM
Yeah thats all we need to beat the Tigers, Indians, and Twinkies.....just a good center fielder will do it.....

Thanks for that. I wouldn't have known otherwise.

JB98
11-01-2007, 09:07 PM
Lots of thoughts

1) I don't believe that saying that you can live with Fields, Dye and Owens is an arguement for "the status quo" if by that you mean the exact same team. Because if we go with that OF, it leaves more money to be spent elesewhere.

2) I don't believe the same team comes back and loses 90 games because it would nearly require all of the same injuries to happen - which if they happen, will kill us regardless of who we get to play OF.

3) You are disregarding moves that could be made elsewhere

4) You are disregarding the potential for any of those OFs to perform significantly better next year.

I'm not going to hang the entire balance of the season on any one or two decisions in isolation. I'm going to wait and see what is done in its entirety to this club. Pinning the ability to contend on who plays CF and LF, while it may end up being right, leaves you with a very real possibility of being wrong.

Put it this way, if we don't upgrade in the OF, but Dye plays like he did in 2006, Thome is healthy, Owens progresses as he did in the second half, and Fields progresses, our offense will be just fine, and we will be a contender. If Jose pitches like he did in the last few weeks, who knows? Now what about Crede? If he comes back healthy, that's a huge improvement over what we got last year from 3B. And what if KW uses this money he doesn't spend on Hunter/Rowand and gets a SS somewhere? or a 2B?

I just can't bring myself to conclude that we can't contend to win the WS with this OF given some of the teams I have seen contend for the WS with worse OFs.

Name me a team that has competed for a WS with a worse outfield. Certainly the two teams that made the WS this year have far, far superior outfields. It's not even close. Hell, the Diamondbacks have a subpar outfield, but it's still better than ours.

You've got a ton of 'ifs' in this post. All teams have 'ifs,' but you can't have a question mark at six or seven positions and expect to contend.

jabrch
11-01-2007, 09:20 PM
Name me a team that has competed for a WS with a worse outfield.

The Astros that we beat had a horrible OF. Burke, Taveras and Lane

The 2006 Cards had Taguchi, Encarnacion and a broken Edmonds.

The Giants had Shinjo, Sanders and Bonds. While Bonds is great, I'd take Fields and Owens over the other two.

And those are just looking at teams that were in the WS. If we talk about teams that contended for it, there are many more.

No team is going to come in without a lot of ifs if they don't either buy them away for 175+mm or unless they go through a complete rebuild and have enough players who are pre- arbitration who are talented.

Sox fans clearly don't have the patience for the latter. We won't pay enough money for tickets for the former. And we won't spend the money if we have the ifs anyhow - which is not a bad thing. So we are always going to have ifs. Right? Ifs are fine. What teams short of Boston and NY don't have ifs?

There is no team in the AL Central that is projecting to have no ifs.

JB98
11-01-2007, 09:29 PM
The Astros that we beat had a horrible OF. Burke, Taveras and Lane

The 2006 Cards had Taguchi, Encarnacion and a broken Edmonds.

The Giants had Shinjo, Sanders and Bonds. While Bonds is great, I'd take Fields and Owens over the other two.

And those are just looking at teams that were in the WS. If we talk about teams that contended for it, there are many more.

No team is going to come in without a lot of ifs if they don't either buy them away for 175+mm or unless they go through a complete rebuild and have enough players who are pre- arbitration who are talented.

Sox fans clearly don't have the patience for the latter. We won't pay enough money for tickets for the former. And we won't spend the money if we have the ifs anyhow - which is not a bad thing. So we are always going to have ifs. Right? Ifs are fine. What teams short of Boston and NY don't have ifs?

There is no team in the AL Central that is projecting to have no ifs.

I said all teams have ifs. You can stand to have two or three ifs. Not six.
If Crede gets healthy
If Thome stays healthy
If Richar hits
If Fields can figure out how to play LF
If Owens can hit .270
If Dye returns to 2006 form
If, if, if.....

This is why we need a couple of solid acquisitions. We need someone we can count on besides Paul and AJ.

You obviously think Owens is a far better player than I do. And Fields isn't even an outfielder. I think Fields, Owens and Dye is a horrible, horrible outfield. Worse than any you cited. So we'll have to disagree.

jabrch
11-01-2007, 09:36 PM
You can stand to have two or three ifs. Not six.


How many ifs did the Rockies have going into this year? Much more than 6...

Past Holliday and Helton, I think nearly everyone was an IF.

JB98
11-01-2007, 09:51 PM
How many ifs did the Rockies have going into this year? Much more than 6...

Past Holliday and Helton, I think nearly everyone was an IF.

Their only question mark was the middle infield. Atkins hit .329 in 2006. He was an if? Hawpe hit .293 in 2006. He was an if? Torrealba is not great, but he's an experienced catcher. Tavaras is established.

The only gambles they had were Matsui and Tulo.

jabrch
11-01-2007, 11:40 PM
Their only question mark was the middle infield. Atkins hit .329 in 2006. He was an if? Hawpe hit .293 in 2006. He was an if? Torrealba is not great, but he's an experienced catcher. Tavaras is established.

The only gambles they had were Matsui and Tulo.

You are right about Atkins, my bad. Hawpe was an IF he had one good season. Their entire rotation was an IF. Their bullpen was an IF. Their closer was an IF. And as you said, their middle-IF was an IF. Torrealba? Come on...

Lots of teams have lots of IFs and win lots of games.

kraut83
11-02-2007, 08:48 AM
How many ifs did the Rockies have going into this year? Much more than 6...

Past Holliday and Helton, I think nearly everyone was an IF.

Not discounting what the Rockies did this year, but I woulkd say it's easier to get away with having more "ifs" on a National League team.

jabrch
11-02-2007, 10:28 AM
Not discounting what the Rockies did this year, but I woulkd say it's easier to get away with having more "ifs" on a National League team.


Actually, you did just discount what they did.

Every team has ifs. If you are talking abouot the sort of confluence of injuries and failures that we had last year from players who were healthy and good in the years prior, every team has the same ifs - short of the 130+mm payroll clubs.

TheVulture
11-02-2007, 02:11 PM
All this BA love is truly blowing my mind. I can't be the only one to notice BA might be the most boneheaded player to wear a sox uniform in the last few years, clearly has an attitude problem, and a horrible approach at the plate to boot, can I? I'll give him credit for having the natural ability to play a quality CF, but what good does that do when he throws to the wrong base and then gets caught in a rundown the next time he reaches base, five games later? The guy got a chance, he failed. Get over it.

wdelaney72
11-02-2007, 02:17 PM
All this BA love is truly blowing my mind. I can't be the only one to notice BA might be the most boneheaded player to wear a sox uniform in the last few years, clearly has an attitude problem, and a horrible approach at the plate to boot, can I? I'll give him credit for having the natural ability to play a quality CF, but what good does that do when he throws to the wrong base and then gets caught in a rundown the next time he reaches base, five games later? The guy got a chance, he failed. Get over it.

Go back a page and you'll see that I agree with you.

FielderJones
11-02-2007, 04:04 PM
All this BA love is truly blowing my mind. I can't be the only one to notice BA might be the most boneheaded player to wear a sox uniform in the last few years, clearly has an attitude problem, and a horrible approach at the plate to boot, can I? I'll give him credit for having the natural ability to play a quality CF, but what good does that do when he throws to the wrong base and then gets caught in a rundown the next time he reaches base, five games later? The guy got a chance, he failed. Get over it.

Hey, come on! He's Brian Freakin Anderson (http://bp2.blogger.com/_W6YuhWU3sm8/RyrELZ5x0yI/AAAAAAAAASg/pJbtUTCO9MA/s1600-h/11-2Mascot.jpg)!

Tragg
11-03-2007, 08:30 AM
The Astros that we beat had a horrible OF. Burke, Taveras and Lane

The 2006 Cards had Taguchi, Encarnacion and a broken Edmonds.

The Giants had Shinjo, Sanders and Bonds. While Bonds is great, I'd take Fields and Owens over the other two.


Sure every team has weaknesses. Where's our A Rod, Manny, Bonds or Pujols to compensate? The Astros went on a crazy roll and way overachieved. IN May, they were 10 below and blown out by Baltimore that year. We had a weakness in 2005 - offense.
And one place we do invest money is in pitching - to back up that investment with poor defense is dubious - particularly when the poor defensive players aren't great offensive players.
And that's the essence of the problem with Anderson - In 2006, the Sox replaced stellar D of a young player with poor defense at a defensive position. In 2007, a veteran hacker who played okay defense was brought it and that didn't work either.

TheVulture
11-04-2007, 12:41 PM
The Astros went on a crazy roll and way overachieved. IN May, they were 10 below and blown out by Baltimore that year.

When you've got Oswalt, Clemens and Pettite at the top of the rotation, though, it's a hell of a lot easier to overachieve.

jabrch
11-04-2007, 02:37 PM
Sure every team has weaknesses. Where's our A Rod, Manny, Bonds or Pujols to compensate? The Astros went on a crazy roll and way overachieved. IN May, they were 10 below and blown out by Baltimore that year. We had a weakness in 2005 - offense.
And one place we do invest money is in pitching - to back up that investment with poor defense is dubious - particularly when the poor defensive players aren't great offensive players.
And that's the essence of the problem with Anderson - In 2006, the Sox replaced stellar D of a young player with poor defense at a defensive position. In 2007, a veteran hacker who played okay defense was brought it and that didn't work either.


JB asked me to name teams that competed with worse OFs - I did.

What's your point?