PDA

View Full Version : Slightly Concerned w/ the Sox's OF Defense


Lukin13
02-04-2008, 09:48 PM
I believe that many of us have grown content with the idea of Swisher in CF and starting the season without a traditional leadoff hitter because:

It is easy to be excited about the upside of Carlos Quentin.

What is not to like?

The kid is projected to be an OBP monster, and before his injuries/surgery was a top flight defensive player. Two skills that have been absent from a White Sox left fielder in recent memory.

This is great, and believe me, I am on the bandwagon as much as anyone.

BUT


#1
Why are we all so confident that the Dbacks (while I realize they did have no immediate room for him) were willing to give up Quentin who was only a few years removed from being one of the biggest prospects in baseball.... in exchange for a guy who is at least three years away from the big leagues (and technically still a longshot to even play on the big club)? And even if you can convince me that the Dbacks made a mistake what were the other 30 something GMs doing when Arizona made Quentin available? I am worried that our high hopes for CQ are a little overzealous.

#2
I have seen Swisher play as much as most of you guys, but for anyone that has seen him play extensively.... will he be one of the worst defensive starting CFs in the league? I know most will say he is average, but are you sure he is an average center fielder? If so, who are the 12 or so guys that he is better than?

#3
Outside of the belief that Ozzie will never give Anderson another shot for personal reasons... why are we so content on trading him away? I have no problem with Jerry Owens' progression on offense, but he is not and never should be a center fielder. IMHO Owens was one of the worst if not worst defensive CF in '07. If Ozzie didn't shake the lineup so much I think he would have been exposed even more. So, I find it shocking to see some people's "proposed" lineups including Owens in CF and Swisher in LF.... that doesn't make much sense if these same people believe Swisher will be servicable in center.

I guess my point is that if you agree there is a chance that either situations #1 or #2 are the least bit legit I really think we should hold onto Anderson or be dead ready to make a deal for someone that at least won't kill us defensively in center.

I am a strong believer that as much as I loved Rob Mackowiak's left handed bat in the lineup and his hard nosed style that he cost us the playoffs in '06.

My sig used to read something to the effect "that the easiest way to fix the bullpen and sure up the rotation is to only sign above average defensive players". I am just afraid that if our outfield is Owens, Swisher and Dye that our pitchers will be facing an extra batter or two a night.

SoxNation05
02-04-2008, 11:36 PM
I felt bad nobody replied to your thread. :whiner:

fquaye149
02-04-2008, 11:41 PM
#1
Why are we all so confident that the Dbacks (while I realize they did have no immediate room for him) were willing to give up Quentin who was only a few years removed from being one of the biggest prospects in baseball.... in exchange for a guy who is at least three years away from the big leagues (and technically still a longshot to even play on the big club)? And even if you can convince me that the Dbacks made a mistake what were the other 30 something GMs doing when Arizona made Quentin available? I am worried that our high hopes for CQ are a little overzealous.


I don't really have time to address your entire post, but this point I thought was very interesting, and well posed.

Let me propose this though--Carter was part of the deal for Haren. Is it possible that the d-back and A's were already in Haren talks and Beane wanted a corner IF prospect to round out the deal?

Maybe that's a longshot of an idea, maybe not...just spitballing

fquaye149
02-04-2008, 11:42 PM
#3
Outside of the belief that Ozzie will never give Anderson another shot for personal reasons... why are we so content on trading him away? I have no problem with Jerry Owens' progression on offense, but he is not and never should be a center fielder. IMHO Owens was one of the worst if not worst defensive CF in '07. If Ozzie didn't shake the lineup so much I think he would have been exposed even more. So, I find it shocking to see some people's "proposed" lineups including Owens in CF and Swisher in LF.... that doesn't make much sense if these same people believe Swisher will be servicable in center.


I'm not content with trading Anderson, but since he won't play here, we might as well get something for him.

Tragg
02-05-2008, 12:01 AM
#1 is an interesting question. All I can say is we'll find out. Maybe their outfield is full right now anyway. You could ask the same thing about Richar (and I think we gave up a better prospect for him) although I think Richar will hit.

btrain929
02-05-2008, 12:10 AM
Our OF defense in '08 might be a little bit suspect, but I feel it will be strengthened greatly in '09. If Dye goes to DH, Quentin (hopefully having some success in '08 and fully recovered from injuries) can play his natural position of RF, and Swisher, defensively, is a lot better as a corner OF, so LF will suite him a lot better. So, again, that leaves us with a hole in CF (Owens/Anderson/trade/FA). But with those 2 in their natural OF positions, our OF defense in '09 will be a lot stronger than an '08 defense with Swisher in CF and Quentin in his first full season in the bigs in LF.

Either way, I don't think it will be so bad this year that it'll look like a circus or anything.

pearso66
02-05-2008, 12:13 AM
#1 is an interesting question. All I can say is we'll find out. Maybe their outfield is full right now anyway. You could ask the same thing about Richar (and I think we gave up a better prospect for him) although I think Richar will hit.

Amazingly, the Prospect we gave up for Quentin and the one we gave up for Richar are both now A's.

WhiteSox5187
02-05-2008, 12:17 AM
This is one of the best questions I've seen on WSi...as for Quentin, obviously time will tell whether or not that was the right move to make, and it's not like we gave up a whole lot for him either. There are other options for LF so we're not totally screwed if he doesn't pan out and if he does pan out and plays up to his potential, well then it's a great trade. If he doesn't pan out you look back and say "Meh, oh well."

As for Swisher, his D is a concern, but unlike Mack he has some experience playing CF before and in the midst of a playoff race too. If I recall correctly, Mack never played CF before and the fact that it was the middle of the pennant race made it all the more challenging. I don't think Swisher will be the best CF in the game, but I think he will be as serviceable as Rowand was.

The lack of a legitimate leadoff hitter and the lack of depth in the rotation are big concerns as far as I'm concerned.

Craig Grebeck
02-05-2008, 12:46 AM
Easy answer: they have Upton, Young, Gonzalez (at the time of the trade with the Sox), Parra, and Byrnes locked up for a few more years. They were thin at 1B and are not sold on Jackson for long-long term.

Tragg
02-05-2008, 12:50 AM
Amazingly, the Prospect we gave up for Quentin and the one we gave up for Richar are both now A's.
Yes and coupled with the 2 we sent for Swisher, 4 of their top 10 were ours a year ago.
Maybe I'm paranoid, but it does seem to me that our prospects immediately become more highly regarded by outside media the second we trade them. There's some logic in that, as a trade sets a value of them.
But take Gio. Last year, BP, and Joe whatshisname specifically, lambasted Williams for trading Garcia for Gio and Floyd. Now after 1 more year in AA, suddenly Gio is elite. It's not consistent to me. And I'm sure there's the obligatory beane bias involved as well.

btrain929
02-05-2008, 01:05 AM
Yes and coupled with the 2 we sent for Swisher, 4 of their top 10 were ours a year ago.
Maybe I'm paranoid, but it does seem to me that our prospects immediately become more highly regarded by outside media the second we trade them. There's some logic in that, as a trade sets a value of them.
But take Gio. Last year, BP, and Joe whatshisname specifically, lambasted Williams for trading Garcia for Gio and Floyd. Now after 1 more year in AA, suddenly Gio is elite. It's not consistent to me. And I'm sure there's the obligatory beane bias involved as well.

Well, that whole "leading the minors in strikeouts" will do that for ya....

Dub25
02-05-2008, 01:15 AM
OF defense will not be a problem every 5th day. Just neck soreness. Courtesy of Gavin Floyd.

munchman33
02-05-2008, 07:34 AM
I agree our outfield defense is suspect. We've got three corner outfielders, two of whom belong in left. And the guy that belongs in right is actually the one playing left.

goon
02-05-2008, 07:36 AM
Well, that whole "leading the minors in strikeouts" will do that for ya....

When has Gio not posted great K numbers?

Lukin13
02-05-2008, 08:13 AM
Our OF defense in '08 might be a little bit suspect, but I feel it will be strengthened greatly in '09. If Dye goes to DH, Quentin (hopefully having some success in '08 and fully recovered from injuries) can play his natural position of RF, and Swisher, defensively, is a lot better as a corner OF, so LF will suite him a lot better. So, again, that leaves us with a hole in CF (Owens/Anderson/trade/FA). But with those 2 in their natural OF positions, our OF defense in '09 will be a lot stronger than an '08 defense with Swisher in CF and Quentin in his first full season in the bigs in LF.



This was exactly my answer to... well my own questions.

That KW wanted Swisher bad enough that while he wasn't the optimal center fielder that the odds of Quentin and Dye both being healthy coupled with the chances of Thome coming back were slim.... So it would only be a year before Dye could move to DH, thus opening a corner outfield position.

I didn't throw the X factor in (thankfully) because Kenny uttered his most famous quote of the offseason; but that X factor is that there was always a chance that Crede could come out like gang busters and that Fields would need a spot in LF :(: that it would be Fields, Swisher and Dye. Now that would be a circus.

Lukin13
02-05-2008, 08:17 AM
Easy answer: they have Upton, Young, Gonzalez (at the time of the trade with the Sox), Parra, and Byrnes locked up for a few more years. They were thin at 1B and are not sold on Jackson for long-long term.


Yes, we know why the DBACKS traded Quentin, but why was Carter all this supposedly MLB ready OBS stud was worth? There are plenty of teams that would have LOVED an inexpensive third or fourth outfielder with HUGE upside.... IF Carlos is indeed ready to go.

The idea that the A's were calling for Carter so he could head north in the Haren trade, while seemingly is possible doesn't really float my boat. Ironically, I bet Beane would have prefered an MLB ready Quentin to Carter.

Frater Perdurabo
02-05-2008, 09:13 AM
As others have said, Arizona is loaded with young outfielders. That made Quentin expendable. They also probably were concerned with his health.

I too have concerns with the OF defense. Thankfully the Sox don't play 81 games at Comerica. Still, I would prefer moving Dye to left and putting Quentin in right. I also would keep BA as the 4th/5th OF, simply to be the late inning defensive replacement, and hope that he earns more playing time by hitting well.

skottyj242
02-05-2008, 09:44 AM
#1
Why are we all so confident that the Dbacks (while I realize they did have no immediate room for him) were willing to give up Quentin who was only a few years removed from being one of the biggest prospects in baseball.... in exchange for a guy who is at least three years away from the big leagues (and technically still a longshot to even play on the big club)? And even if you can convince me that the Dbacks made a mistake what were the other 30 something GMs doing when Arizona made Quentin available? I am worried that our high hopes for CQ are a little overzealous.
.


BJ Upton made him expendable.

Lukin13
02-05-2008, 04:12 PM
As others have said, Arizona is loaded with young outfielders. That made Quentin expendable. They also probably were concerned with his health.


BJ Upton made him expendable.

If you read my post (as opposed to just reading the first line), I clearly understand why the D'backs were looking to trade Quentin.

My question is, why is the top prospect in all of baseball circa 2005 only worth a AA 1st baseman that is at least two or three years away?

I sold my wife's RX330 a few months ago because she got a new car. We didn't need it anymore... therefore it was expendable. But I didn't just sell it for the first lowball offer that game rolling in; I sold it for what it is worth. Quentin is supposedly only worth Carter.

If Quentin is ready to roll, why didn't one of the other 30 GMs have little to no interest in an inexpensive outfielder with outrageous upside?

The only credible answer thusfar was that the A's wanted Carter and they were looking down the road towards the Haren deal so Arizon overpaid for him.

I am just trying to point out that if all Quentin was worth was Carter, that is by no means a sure thing to be our everyday left fielder this year.... no matter how bad we want him to be.

goon
02-05-2008, 05:18 PM
If you read my post (as opposed to just reading the first line), I clearly understand why the D'backs were looking to trade Quentin.

My question is, why is the top prospect in all of baseball circa 2005 only worth a AA 1st baseman that is at least two or three years away?

I sold my wife's RX330 a few months ago because she got a new car. We didn't need it anymore... therefore it was expendable. But I didn't just sell it for the first lowball offer that game rolling in; I sold it for what it is worth. Quentin is supposedly only worth Carter.

If Quentin is ready to roll, why didn't one of the other 30 GMs have little to no interest in an inexpensive outfielder with outrageous upside?

The only credible answer thusfar was that the A's wanted Carter and they were looking down the road towards the Haren deal so Arizon overpaid for him.

I am just trying to point out that if all Quentin was worth was Carter, that is by no means a sure thing to be our everyday left fielder this year.... no matter how bad we want him to be.

As few (fquaye) have pointed out in this thread and even you talk about , it's quite possible that Beane REALLY wanted Carter. Since Carter was flipped so fast after the trade for Quentin, that is probably the reason the D'Backs wanted him.

Think about it. Arizona had a deal in place to get Haren, all they needed to do was unload some prospects and get a piece from another organization, why not trade Quentin to the Sox if Carter is who Beane wanted? No one truly knows how it all went down, but the D'Backs essentially got Haren for Quentin, Carter and a bunch of other low ceiling prospects.

fquaye149
02-05-2008, 05:24 PM
As few (fquaye) have pointed out in this thread and even you talk about , it's quite possible that Beane REALLY wanted Carter. Since Carter was flipped so fast after the trade for Quentin, that is probably the reason the D'Backs wanted him.

Think about it. Arizona had a deal in place to get Haren, all they needed to do was unload some prospects and get a piece from another organization, why not trade Quentin to the Sox if Carter is who Beane wanted? No one truly knows how it all went down, but the D'Backs essentially got Haren for Quentin, Carter and a bunch of other low ceiling prospects.

Quentin's the perfect piece for that deal--get what you want for a guy with some value but whom you have very little use for rolling the dice on in your own system.

The only confusing thing to me is why would Beane target Carter as a deal-maker in the Haren wheelings?

SoxNation05
02-05-2008, 06:04 PM
Quentin's the perfect piece for that deal--get what you want for a guy with some value but whom you have very little use for rolling the dice on in your own system.

The only confusing thing to me is why would Beane target Carter as a deal-maker in the Haren wheelings?
I don't think Beane targeted Carter, I think KW targeted Quentin. At the trade deadline there were rumors of Garland going to AZ and Quentin being a part of the deal. He likes players who do not automatically live up to there top prospect potential. (Aardsma, Sisco, Floyd, Thortan)

Sargeant79
02-05-2008, 06:32 PM
I too have concerns with the OF defense. Thankfully the Sox don't play 81 games at Comerica. Still, I would prefer moving Dye to left and putting Quentin in right. I also would keep BA as the 4th/5th OF, simply to be the late inning defensive replacement, and hope that he earns more playing time by hitting well.

I completely agree. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll see it this year.

TomBradley72
02-06-2008, 09:39 AM
I believe that many of us have grown content with the idea of Swisher in CF and starting the season without a traditional leadoff hitter because:

It is easy to be excited about the upside of Carlos Quentin.

What is not to like?

The kid is projected to be an OBP monster, and before his injuries/surgery was a top flight defensive player. Two skills that have been absent from a White Sox left fielder in recent memory.

This is great, and believe me, I am on the bandwagon as much as anyone.

BUT


#1
Why are we all so confident that the Dbacks (while I realize they did have no immediate room for him) were willing to give up Quentin who was only a few years removed from being one of the biggest prospects in baseball.... in exchange for a guy who is at least three years away from the big leagues (and technically still a longshot to even play on the big club)? And even if you can convince me that the Dbacks made a mistake what were the other 30 something GMs doing when Arizona made Quentin available? I am worried that our high hopes for CQ are a little overzealous.

#2
I have seen Swisher play as much as most of you guys, but for anyone that has seen him play extensively.... will he be one of the worst defensive starting CFs in the league? I know most will say he is average, but are you sure he is an average center fielder? If so, who are the 12 or so guys that he is better than?

#3
Outside of the belief that Ozzie will never give Anderson another shot for personal reasons... why are we so content on trading him away? I have no problem with Jerry Owens' progression on offense, but he is not and never should be a center fielder. IMHO Owens was one of the worst if not worst defensive CF in '07. If Ozzie didn't shake the lineup so much I think he would have been exposed even more. So, I find it shocking to see some people's "proposed" lineups including Owens in CF and Swisher in LF.... that doesn't make much sense if these same people believe Swisher will be servicable in center.

I guess my point is that if you agree there is a chance that either situations #1 or #2 are the least bit legit I really think we should hold onto Anderson or be dead ready to make a deal for someone that at least won't kill us defensively in center.

I am a strong believer that as much as I loved Rob Mackowiak's left handed bat in the lineup and his hard nosed style that he cost us the playoffs in '06.

My sig used to read something to the effect "that the easiest way to fix the bullpen and sure up the rotation is to only sign above average defensive players". I am just afraid that if our outfield is Owens, Swisher and Dye that our pitchers will be facing an extra batter or two a night.

I agree with this post 100%.

Swisher is not the CF on a post season team..over a long season...he will be exposed. Quentin is a complete crap shoot. Anderson deserves one more shot in spring training before we trade him.

TomBradley72
02-06-2008, 09:42 AM
Either way, I don't think it will be so bad this year that it'll look like a circus or anything.

It's amazing how far our standards and expectations have fallen. :cool:

TomBradley72
02-06-2008, 09:46 AM
but I think he will be as serviceable as Rowand was.

Rowand is a Gold Glove winner.

Can anyone picture Swisher putting on a show at Yankee Stadium like Rowand did in 2005?

TomBradley72
02-06-2008, 09:51 AM
If Quentin is ready to roll, why didn't one of the other 30 GMs have little to no interest in an inexpensive outfielder with outrageous upside?

Hey....you're talking about the guy that was one of KW's top four priorities for an organization coming of one it's worst season in years and trying to return to the World Series.

fquaye149
02-06-2008, 11:50 AM
I agree with this post 100%.

Swisher is not the CF on a post season team..over a long season...he will be exposed. Quentin is a complete crap shoot. Anderson deserves one more shot in spring training before we trade him.

Rowand was the CF on a WS team, and by Daver's estimation (which I trust) Swisher is at least as good with the glove.

TomBradley72
02-06-2008, 12:45 PM
Rowand was the CF on a WS team, and by Daver's estimation (which I trust) Swisher is at least as good with the glove.

So you're saying Swisher is a Gold Glove CF?

Can anyone name an everyday CF in the AL who is worse defensively than Swisher? (I like him as a corner OF...just not in CF).

FedEx227
02-06-2008, 12:55 PM
So you're saying Swisher is a Gold Glove CF?

Can anyone name an everyday CF in the AL who is worse defensively than Swisher? (I like him as a corner OF...just not in CF).

Unfortunately there aren't many. Bill Hall, Wily Tavarez, Gary Matthews is close, but those guys are all either moving from CF or don't play it every day. Swisher is going to be a bit of an adventure out there.

PalehosePlanet
02-06-2008, 12:58 PM
Yes, we know why the DBACKS traded Quentin, but why was Carter all this supposedly MLB ready OBS stud was worth? There are plenty of teams that would have LOVED an inexpensive third or fourth outfielder with HUGE upside.... IF Carlos is indeed ready to go.

The idea that the A's were calling for Carter so he could head north in the Haren trade, while seemingly is possible doesn't really float my boat. Ironically, I bet Beane would have prefered an MLB ready Quentin to Carter.

Don't forget that the D'Backs and Sox (KW & Josh Byrnes) have a great working relationship. We make a lot of deals with each other because we share a spring training complex and know each others players inside and out.

There is a very good chance that Byrnes liked what he saw from Carter because he personally saw him at ST and wanted a power hitting first baseman for the future. They are overloaded at OF, in part because we traded Young to them (and Cunningham last year), and dealt from their strength.

TheVulture
02-06-2008, 01:10 PM
#1
They don't need him and like what they've picked up from the sox in the past.

#2
I think Swish will be solid but KW will be looking to move him into a corner position by '09 - Ramirez may be a future possibility in CF. Possible future OF Quentin/Ramirez/Swish - all at less than the price of a Rowand.

#3
Anderson has no sense and no respect.

fquaye149
02-06-2008, 01:58 PM
So you're saying Swisher is a Gold Glove CF?

Can anyone name an everyday CF in the AL who is worse defensively than Swisher? (I like him as a corner OF...just not in CF).

I'm not. I haven't seen him play enough.

I would say the following things:

a.) Rowand's not a gold-glove CF except in name. Rowand is in the middle of the pack defensively with the glove.

b.) I don't see why Swisher can't be as good as Rowand in CF. His instincts couldn't possibly be worse, and he has the physical tools to play the position just as well. Plus from what I hear, he's actually a pretty good CFer.

Like I said, Daver thinks he's likely to beas good as Rowand and I haven't seen anyone more credible say that he's going to be a bad CFer

TomBradley72
02-06-2008, 02:07 PM
a.) Rowand's not a gold-glove CF except in name. Rowand is in the middle of the pack defensively with the glove.



What does "except in name" mean? He won a Gold Glove last season as CF for the Phillies.

fquaye149
02-06-2008, 02:40 PM
What does "except in name" mean? He won a Gold Glove last season as CF for the Phillies.

That's exactly what it means. If you mean to suggest by calling "gold glove CF" that he is an elite defensive CF, then I disagree wholeheartedly. If you merely mean to suggest that he won the most meaningless award in baseball (gold glove), you're 100% right.

That's what I mean by "in name only".

He's a gold-glove CF the same way Derek Jeter is a gold glove SS

champagne030
02-06-2008, 03:01 PM
Rowand was the CF on a WS team, and by Daver's estimation (which I trust) Swisher is at least as good with the glove.

Daver is wrong. He obviously hasn't seen Nick playing CF. Rowand isn't great, but he's significantly better than Swisher.

fquaye149
02-06-2008, 03:49 PM
Daver is wrong. He obviously hasn't seen Nick playing CF. Rowand isn't great, but he's significantly better than Swisher.

I've seen some real mixed reviews of Swisher's OF defense. I'm not exactly confident that he'll be a good defensive CF, but nowhere have I seen any reputable source indicate that he'll be BAD in CF, especially since he played it passably in a much bigger park.

At any rate, he'll be better than the crap (Mackowiack, a crippled Erstad) we've been trotting out since Anderson was doghoused

champagne030
02-06-2008, 04:13 PM
At any rate, he'll be better than the crap (Mackowiack, a crippled Erstad) we've been trotting out since Anderson was doghoused

That we can agree upon.

TomBradley72
02-06-2008, 05:49 PM
At any rate, he'll be better than the crap (Mackowiack, a crippled Erstad) we've been trotting out since Anderson played his way into the doghouse

Fixed it.

fquaye149
02-06-2008, 05:57 PM
Fixed it.

Sure. Either way, Swisher should be better than every non-BA player we've had since Rowand. This thread's not about Anderson, so your "fixing" my post was completely unnecessary.

champagne030
02-06-2008, 05:59 PM
At any rate, he'll be better than the crap (Mackowiack, a crippled Erstad) we've been trotting out since Anderson was doghousedFixed it.

Fixed it back.........doghoused.

santo=dorf
02-06-2008, 06:16 PM
Fixed it.
Yep. He deserved that benching in the second game of the season in 2006 after going 2-3, 1 BB, 2 RBI's, 2 R on opening night.

oeo
02-06-2008, 06:26 PM
Yep. He deserved that benching in the second game of the season in 2006 after going 2-3, 1 BB, 2 RBI's, 2 R on opening night.

I've already gone through this before, but...

Ozzie gives guys days off. He doesn't use the same lineup very often. If you look back at April of 2006, Anderson was not missing any more games than any of the other starters were. There were only a couple of guys that were out there almost every single day (Konerko and AJ, I want to say).

I had a post awhile ago which proved it, but I don't feel like searching for it. You're welcome to go check out baseball-reference yourself, though.

BA has/had attitude problems; he's even admitted to them. He doesn't deserve defense, because he dug his own hole.

munchman33
02-06-2008, 06:32 PM
I've seen some real mixed reviews of Swisher's OF defense. I'm not exactly confident that he'll be a good defensive CF, but nowhere have I seen any reputable source indicate that he'll be BAD in CF, especially since he played it passably in a much bigger park.

At any rate, he'll be better than the crap (Mackowiack, a crippled Erstad) we've been trotting out since Anderson was doghoused

Most experts believe that we'll eventually move him to left or first. They wouldn't say that if he was halfway decent in center, FWIW.

champagne030
02-06-2008, 06:44 PM
I

BA has/had attitude problems; he's even admitted to them. He doesn't deserve defense, because he dug his own hole.

Ozzie Jr. doesn't agree.........

oeo
02-06-2008, 06:48 PM
Ozzie Jr. doesn't agree.........

Whatever with your bull**** about Ozzie Jr. I still haven't seen you (unless I missed it), post something that would make me believe you're not just spitting **** out of your mouth.

Brian has already admitted that he has acted childish and it is time for him to grow up...so he agrees. :dunno:

champagne030
02-06-2008, 07:04 PM
Whatever with your bull**** about Ozzie Jr. I still haven't seen you (unless I missed it), post something that would make me believe you're not just spitting **** out of your mouth.

Brian has already admitted that he has acted childish and it is time for him to grow up...so he agrees. :dunno:

Well, I've seen Ozzie Jr. spit **** about BA before the ('06) season even began and a member of the White Sox front office confirmed the altercation between doucenozzle and BA, which was confirmed by B-MAC, Walnuts, and Gload.

Does Oswaldo agree? :dunno:

****I was wishing that I could be part of the McNamee fan club, but West closed it and wouldn't let me in.............

fquaye149
02-06-2008, 07:48 PM
Most experts believe that we'll eventually move him to left or first. They wouldn't say that if he was halfway decent in center, FWIW.

Are these "most experts" kind of like the "all experts" who agree that DLS is a 5-star blue-chip prospect.

Some articles I've read say what you're saying.

A similar number of articles say that they see Swisher as being forced into the CF position and that he will do fine

Daver
02-06-2008, 08:26 PM
Daver is wrong. He obviously hasn't seen Nick playing CF. Rowand isn't great, but he's significantly better than Swisher.

I know nothing about baseball.

champagne030
02-06-2008, 08:37 PM
I know nothing about baseball.

I wouldn't go that far. I think you know baseball, but you just haven't seen Nick play.

RowanDye
02-07-2008, 11:51 AM
I know nothing about baseball.

Daver,

Do you really think Swisher will be as good as Rowand? You may be right that Swisher can get to balls adequately enough, but his arm looks very poor (link (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/best-outfield-arms-of-2007/)).

I think the problem with Swisher in CF is that it exacerbates an already mediocre defensive OF.

An OF of Owens, Swisher, and Dye may have average range, but they would be near the bottom of the league in holding runners and throwing them out.

Sargeant79
02-07-2008, 01:35 PM
Daver,

Do you really think Swisher will be as good as Rowand? You may be right that Swisher can get to balls adequately enough, but his arm looks very poor (link (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/best-outfield-arms-of-2007/)).

I think the problem with Swisher in CF is that it exacerbates an already mediocre defensive OF.

An OF of Owens, Swisher, and Dye may have average range, but they would be near the bottom of the league in holding runners and throwing them out.

An outfield of Owens, Swisher, and Dye actually would have Owens in CF, with Dye likely in RF & Swisher likely in LF. Swisher will only be in CF if Quentin is starting (probably in LF). By all scouting reports, Quentin's defense is very good.

guillen4life13
02-07-2008, 02:09 PM
FWIW, my roommate last year is a close family friend with the Guillens here in Miami from back in Venezuela. From what he says, Ozzie's kids are real brats, so anything that comes out of their mouths regarding players I would take with a big grain of salt. I know it's a secondhand account of the kids, but it is what it is.

Lukin13
02-07-2008, 02:16 PM
An outfield of Owens, Swisher, and Dye actually would have Owens in CF, with Dye likely in RF & Swisher likely in LF. Swisher will only be in CF if Quentin is starting (probably in LF).


This is the part I don't get.

Plenty say Swisher will be fine in center.

Jerry Owens is TERRIBLE in CF.

So why wouldn't JO play LF with Swisher in center?

Sargeant79
02-07-2008, 02:48 PM
This is the part I don't get.

Plenty say Swisher will be fine in center.

Jerry Owens is TERRIBLE in CF.

So why wouldn't JO play LF with Swisher in center?

I agree...I don't think that makes a whole lot of sense. But...I'm not the one making out the lineup card.

The only reason I can see for having Owens in CF instead of Swisher is his speed, which may somewhat mitigate any bad reads or other poor instincts. Swisher is not as fast, but seems to be a better outfield defender overall. I don't know much about his arm, although it is likely significantly better than Owens's.

For what it's worth, I would agree that Owens has a terrible arm, but I wouldn't characterize him as terrible overall in CF. I saw some definite improvement in his fielding by the end of the year. He's not very good, but not Mackowiak-like either.