PDA

View Full Version : Owens out longer than expected


Sockinchisox
04-06-2008, 11:24 AM
Kenny says he has no timetable for him, and after he does a rehab assignment there will be a team assessment to see if he's even needed.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/879769,CST-SPT-soxnt06.article

thedudeabides
04-06-2008, 11:29 AM
That and not wanting to go through what Pods did last year. I'm sure the staff is familiar with this injury.

soxfan21
04-06-2008, 11:35 AM
I think that right now we are doing fine without him, I just hope he doesn't rush back too soon. Let him take his time and come back 100%.

PalehosePlanet
04-06-2008, 11:37 AM
I think it's obvious to everyone, especially Ozzie, that Carlos Quentin is a much better player than Owens.

Also taking into account that Swisher actually looks good in CF means that there is no room for Jerry right now.

Hopefully there are no OF injuries and it stays this way.

jabrch
04-06-2008, 11:43 AM
I feel fairly confident that those with the most information, and the authroity to actually make decisions based on that information will make the best possible decisions based on what they know. Of course it won't always work out for the best - but I have much more faith in our management team's decision making than I would in allowing our fans to do it.

goon
04-06-2008, 11:50 AM
I hope he gets healthy... I just hope when he comes back, he's on the bench.

thomas35forever
04-06-2008, 11:51 AM
Take your time, Jerry. We seem to be managing quite well right now.

CLR01
04-06-2008, 11:51 AM
I feel fairly confident that those with the most information, and the authroity to actually make decisions based on that information will make the best possible decisions based on what they know. Of course it won't always work out for the best - but I have much more faith in our management team's decision making than I would in allowing our fans to do it.


http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/broken_record.jpg

veeter
04-06-2008, 12:08 PM
Take your time, Jerry. We seem to be managing quite well right now.Exactly. I've been in Jerry's corner, but we're not exactly waiting for Ricky Henderson in his prime. How can they justify demoting anyone. Everyone, including Anderson, got themselves ready for the season. I'm sure Jery did too, but he's got the injury bug. So unless we're in dire straights, tough **** Owens. And Swisher doesn't seem to mind batting first.

spiffie
04-06-2008, 12:08 PM
http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/broken_record.jpg
And I thought for sure this was going to be the time that Kenny decided to let the fans vote in a text message poll to make the decision!

santo=dorf
04-06-2008, 12:35 PM
And I thought for sure this was going to be the time that Kenny decided to let the fans vote in a text message poll to make the decision!
..and even sillier about his post is that it appears most Sox fans have Owens below Quentin, Ramirez and/or Anderson, so we don't want him back ASAP. :rolleyes:

champagne030
04-06-2008, 12:39 PM
I feel fairly confident that those with the most information, and the authroity to actually make decisions based on that information will make the best possible decisions based on what they know. Of course it won't always work out for the best - but I have much more faith in our management team's decision making than I would in allowing our fans to do it.

Good God, just shut your stinkin' trap. Doesn't Kenny need a coffee refill?

BainesHOF
04-06-2008, 12:49 PM
See you in the minors, Jerry.

LITTLE NELL
04-06-2008, 12:52 PM
It looks like Owens has injured himself off this team. Those things happen, just ask Willie Pipp.

jabrch
04-06-2008, 01:16 PM
just ask Willie Pipp.

WHO? :-)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Pipp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Pipp)

JoeClutch24
04-06-2008, 01:24 PM
Q

Tragg
04-06-2008, 02:03 PM
i.e. Williams knows that the only way to keep Owens from playing everyday is to keep him off the roster. For that reason, I expect Uribe to be traded or waived when Richar's healthy.
What about sending Ramirez down - kid has talent that needs every day work - call up Bourgeois or someone to play utility infielder.

LITTLE NELL
04-06-2008, 02:04 PM
WHO? :-)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Pipp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Pipp)
Hey, I was close.

PalehosePlanet
04-06-2008, 02:09 PM
..and even sillier about his post is that it appears most Sox fans have Owens below Quentin, Ramirez and/or Anderson, so we don't want him back ASAP. :rolleyes:

Owens is our 5th best OF'er. What's your point?

Dan Mega
04-06-2008, 02:32 PM
I feel fairly confident that those with the most information, and the authroity to actually make decisions based on that information will make the best possible decisions based on what they know. Of course it won't always work out for the best - but I have much more faith in our management team's decision making than I would in allowing our fans to do it.

Like playing Mack in center?

It's Dankerific
04-06-2008, 02:34 PM
Like playing Mack in center?

Or Erstad, or Uribe. You get the point. Kenny and Ozzie are right so often that you should never question their decisions. Have you played major league baseball? both of them have. game over.

russ99
04-06-2008, 02:53 PM
I think a lot of this has to do with Owens trying to come back too early this spring and re-injuring himself, more than any "burned by Pods" kind of mindset. This way he'll get a good rehab assignment in before the Sox bring him back.

Besides, Quentin's played well enough that we don't need him, except for maybe pinch running and a side start or two in CF.

My concern is that Swisher will probably play 1B when Paulie needs a day off, and we'll need Swish to move down the order. If that happens, Owens is the best player to fill in and hit leadoff.

santo=dorf
04-06-2008, 02:58 PM
Owens is our 5th best OF'er. What's your point?
Arguably, and even if he is, he doesn't belong in the everyday lineup like Guillen and some fans stuck in 2005 believe.

russ99
04-06-2008, 03:08 PM
Arguably, and even if he is, he doesn't belong in the everyday lineup like Guillen and some fans stuck in 2005 believe.

Those of us (not stuck in 2005) who appreciate a speed guy at the top of the lineup think he might. If he could get on base like Swisher we'd have something.

Since Swisher's doing well at leadoff and CF, we're OK for now.

champagne030
04-06-2008, 03:34 PM
Those of us (not stuck in 2005) If he could get on base like Swisher we'd have something.



And maybe I'll win the Lotto.

The reality is Owens is Herb Washington at this point.

spiffie
04-06-2008, 03:42 PM
Those of us (not stuck in 2005) who appreciate a speed guy at the top of the lineup think he might. If he could get on base like Swisher we'd have something.

Since Swisher's doing well at leadoff and CF, we're OK for now.
If Jerry Owens could get on base like Nick Swisher, this discussion would not be had. Instead there would be a 400-post thread about "How Good Will We Be When Jerry Owens Returns?" But Jerry Owens has never shown that kind of ability, as Nick Swisher is one of the better OBP guys in baseball.

I see the idea of keeping Owens, and I am far more charitable to it than others. But at this point I don't want either he or Anderson starting on a regular basis. I think Quentin has the highest ceiling out of all of them. It comes down mostly to if you want a defensive sub (Anderson) or a pinch runner (Owens), because if this team produces like this, even Ozzie (who is getting known for some Manuelesque tinkering) would not likely make a change.

Whatever the case, I'm not sad to see Ozzie not have Owens as an option right now. The Swisher/Dye/Quentin outfield is by far our best choice it appears.

fquaye149
04-06-2008, 03:45 PM
Those of us (not stuck in 2005) who appreciate a speed guy at the top of the lineup think he might. If he could get on base like Swisher we'd have something.

Since Swisher's doing well at leadoff and CF, we're OK for now.

Speed is awesome to have at the top of the order, assuming the player can hit.

Let's use Pods's 2005 as a benchmark. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a leadoff hitter, no matter how fast they are, to get on base 35% of the time, as Pods did in 2005.

Anything less than that is brutal, especially if that hitter has no extra base power.

jabrch
04-06-2008, 03:48 PM
Like playing Mack in center?

I never liked that move - but I'm willing to go with their judgement until they are proven to be incompetent over an extended period of time. A bad season, or even a bad season and a half, is not enough to convince me of that.

Let's make sure we are clear on this move... Mack was put in CF because BA hit .225/.290/.359 on the season, and .174/.270/.304 as of July 1. While Mack was a bad defensive CF, he hit .290/.365/.404. Sure - he cost us with the glove, but BA was costing us with his bat (or lack thereof).

Now we all agree Mack was a bad CF - but what exactly was Guillen to do? His choices were a bad defensive CF who could hit pretty well or a very good defensive CF who was hitting very poorly.

Are you really telling me that there is one, absolutely, unarguable, factually correct move, and that was putting BA in CF, and that the other option - Mackowiak - was absolutely wrong? Are you implying that had BA gotten 500 ABs that the results in 06 would have been better? Because I believe his extra 375 ABs would have cost us a bunch of runs. The question is would the defensive benefit be more than the offensive cost...while I know some people are 100% sure they know the answer to that question, I just don't believe that it can be considered factually true.

It's not like Ozzie played Mackowiak and benched a sure-fire lock, first ballot HOFer. BA wasn't hitting his weight.

Really Dan...are you saying that you believe there is absolutely no doubt that we'd have been better off with the guy hitting .174/.270/.304 as of July 1 because he played better defense?

sox1970
04-06-2008, 03:48 PM
If Jerry Owens could get on base like Nick Swisher, this discussion would not be had. Instead there would be a 400-post thread about "How Good Will We Be When Jerry Owens Returns?" But Jerry Owens has never shown that kind of ability, as Nick Swisher is one of the better OBP guys in baseball.

I see the idea of keeping Owens, and I am far more charitable to it than others. But at this point I don't want either he or Anderson starting on a regular basis. I think Quentin has the highest ceiling out of all of them. It comes down mostly to if you want a defensive sub (Anderson) or a pinch runner (Owens), because if this team produces like this, even Ozzie (who is getting known for some Manuelesque tinkering) would not likely make a change.

Whatever the case, I'm not sad to see Ozzie not have Owens as an option right now. The Swisher/Dye/Quentin outfield is by far our best choice it appears.

Spot on.

Anderson and Ramirez should go down and play everyday. If someone gets hurt, then they'll be somewhat ready. Jeff DaVanon should come up and then when Owens gets back the bench can be DaVanon, Owens, Ozuna, and Hall. That would at least handcuff Ozzie from making too many different lineups, which in my opinion is a good thing.

fquaye149
04-06-2008, 03:49 PM
Mackowiak singlehandedly was the difference in at least 2 losses because of butchered OF plays.

It's very hard to show how his hitting was responsible for more than 2-3 wins over Anderson's. And that would probably be a silly thing suggest. So yes, Mack was a mistake in CF

Daver
04-06-2008, 03:51 PM
And maybe I'll win the Lotto.

The reality is Owens is Herb Washington at this point.

The reality is Jerry Owens isn't very good at playing baseball.

champagne030
04-06-2008, 03:52 PM
I never liked that move - but I'm willing to go with their judgement until they are proven to be incompetent over an extended period of time. A bad season, or even a bad season and a half, is not enough to convince me of that.

Let's make sure we are clear on this move... Mack was put in CF because BA hit .225/.290/.359 on the season, and .174/.270/.304 as of July 1. While Mack was a bad defensive CF, he hit .290/.365/.404. Sure - he cost us with the glove, but BA was costing us with his bat (or lack thereof).

Now we all agree Mack was a bad CF - but what exactly was Guillen to do? His choices were a bad defensive CF who could hit pretty well or a very good defensive CF who was hitting very poorly.

Are you really telling me that there is one, absolutely, unarguable, factually correct move, and that was putting BA in CF, and that the other option - Mackowiak - was absolutely wrong? Are you implying that had BA gotten 500 ABs that the results in 06 would have been better? Because I believe his extra 375 ABs would have cost us a bunch of runs. The question is would the defensive benefit be more than the offensive cost...while I know some people are 100% sure they know the answer to that question, I just don't believe that it can be considered factually true.

It's not like Ozzie played Mackowiak and benched a sure-fire lock, first ballot HOFer. BA wasn't hitting his weight.

Really Dan...are you saying that you believe there is absolutely no doubt that we'd have been better off with the guy hitting .174/.270/.304 as of July 1 because he played better defense?


Blah, blah, blah......Kenneth and Oswaldo won us a World Series so they know best.......

Kenny needs a refill on his coffee....chop, chop pollyanna......

santo=dorf
04-06-2008, 04:00 PM
I never liked that move - but I'm willing to go with their judgement until they are proven to be incompetent over an extended period of time. A bad season, or even a bad season and a half, is not enough to convince me of that.

Let's make sure we are clear on this move... Mack was put in CF because BA hit .225/.290/.359 on the season, and .174/.270/.304 as of July 1. While Mack was a bad defensive CF, he hit .290/.365/.404. Sure - he cost us with the glove, but BA was costing us with his bat (or lack thereof).

Now we all agree Mack was a bad CF - but what exactly was Guillen to do? His choices were a bad defensive CF who could hit pretty well or a very good defensive CF who was hitting very poorly.

Are you really telling me that there is one, absolutely, unarguable, factually correct move, and that was putting BA in CF, and that the other option - Mackowiak - was absolutely wrong? Are you implying that had BA gotten 500 ABs that the results in 06 would have been better? Because I believe his extra 375 ABs would have cost us a bunch of runs. The question is would the defensive benefit be more than the offensive cost...while I know some people are 100% sure they know the answer to that question, I just don't believe that it can be considered factually true.

It's not like Ozzie played Mackowiak and benched a sure-fire lock, first ballot HOFer. BA wasn't hitting his weight.

Really Dan...are you saying that you believe there is absolutely no doubt that we'd have been better off with the guy hitting .174/.270/.304 as of July 1 because he played better defense?
Remember Robin Ventura's rookie year? Even Robin's second year kinda sucked.

If you are writing off BA after what you have seen so far, I'm guessing you don't have much of an understanding of how players develop over the course of time.

Ryan Howard is the exception, not the rule.
That's completely ridiculous.

Try this one on for size...

As a rookie, he struggled the first few months of the season because the game is so totally different at this level. In July, he hit .313. In August, he hit .296 with a .367 OBP.

He didn't have a good rookie year - nobody disputes that. But he had 2 damn good months. Saying he sucks, based on the little we saw of him, when he wasn't even getting in the lineup every day, is foolishly shortsighted.
Anderson should get better. He has hit well at every level he has played at. He's got tools at the dish that should translate well. He's going to be OK. (at least I hope so) As long as we can keep winning games (2/3 at home and play .500 ball on the road is a good recipie to 100 win seasons) with him playing part time, I'm cool with that.

If we can acquire a top tier CF, great - bench BA. Until then, he can contribute in the field for sure, and I'd imagine also at the dish to helping this team win.
So his hitting wasn't important.:scratch:
I have no problem with questioning their moves. Part of being a fan is being able to question things and to second guess them. Sometimes you are right - and sometimes you are wrong. Same for KW and OG. In this case, I think they are doing the smart thing. I think they are letting BA develop here, in the majors, where he will have the best opportunity to learn. Right now, he's helping the team with strong defense. So his hitting has sucked so far - big freaking deal. If he (or Uribe/Cintron) are our worst offensive players, we are JUST FINE. I want BA to have the same type of opportunity that Joe Crede had. Look how that has turned out for us.

Raise you hand if you still want to go back in time and trade Crede and a pitching prosepct to KC for Joe Randa a few years ago? I figured as such.

BA may or may not ever be what we hoped. But right now he is learning, while helping the club. OG and KW are doing the right thing IMHO.


You are ying to Mariotti's yang.

:windsock:

Daver
04-06-2008, 04:00 PM
Blah, blah, blah......Kenneth and Oswaldo won us a World Series so they know best.......

Kenny needs a refill on his coffee....chop, chop pollyanna......

Knock it off, or take the season off, your choice.

thomas35forever
04-06-2008, 04:11 PM
The reality is Jerry Owens isn't very good at playing baseball.
That and the fact that as long as we keep winning with what we have, we are not going to need him in the near future until someone gets hurt.

kevingrt
04-06-2008, 04:14 PM
That and the fact that as long as we keep winning with what we have, we are not going to need him in the near future until someone gets hurt.

I totally agree with that statement. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Dan Mega
04-06-2008, 04:40 PM
Really Dan...are you saying that you believe there is absolutely no doubt that we'd have been better off with the guy hitting .174/.270/.304 as of July 1 because he played better defense?

1) Why don't you post what BA hit in the second half?

2) BA's glove was needed with how badly some of the pitching was.

3) BA's bat didn't cost the Sox games. Its been argued that Mack playing in CF has.

4) The team's offense in 2006 was pretty good and didn't need BA to hit well to score runs.

With that being said, yes, the team would have been off with his glove as opposed to Mack's bat.

Tragg
04-06-2008, 05:16 PM
If that happens, Owens is the best player to fill in and hit leadoff.
Owens isn't good at getting on base.

jabrch
04-06-2008, 10:02 PM
1) Why don't you post what BA hit in the second half?

2) BA's glove was needed with how badly some of the pitching was.

3) BA's bat didn't cost the Sox games. Its been argued that Mack playing in CF has.

4) The team's offense in 2006 was pretty good and didn't need BA to hit well to score runs.

With that being said, yes, the team would have been off with his glove as opposed to Mack's bat.

1) Because he got benched for hitting poorly. The fact that he had a better second half in very limited play doesn't mean that he earned his spot back after how poor he hit.

2) We needed runs too. BAs glove didn't justify his bat any more than Mack's bat justified his glove. They were two crappy options - either of which would have sucked.

3) I have no idea how you can honestly say BAs crappy hitting in the first half didn't cost us any games.... Mack's glove definitely did - but BA not hitting his weight certainly had impact.

It's a matter of opinions as to which solution would have been less bad. I see no way it can be called fact that BA would have had more positive impact (or less negative impact) than Mack. The bottom line is they both sucked in 2006 and Guillen had to choose from 2 crappy options.

It's nice that he has multiple legitimate options in CF this year. I'm happy as a clam either way...
- - - A more mature BA
- - - Swish's patience and power
- - - Owens' speed and potential impact
- - - The question that is Alexie Ramirez' upside
- - - Someone said Quentin has played CF - but I have never seen it...

I could live with any OF that Ozzie puts out there with those guys and Dye. It's a nice feeling compared to the limited options we had in 06 and the struggles we had with injuries in 07.

It's very early - but this team is clearly more talented than last year's team. And if it stays healthy and if the back of the rotation can mature, it has serious potential...

chisoxmike
04-06-2008, 10:15 PM
Kenny says he has no timetable for him, and after he does a rehab assignment there will be a team assessment to see if he's even needed.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/879769,CST-SPT-soxnt06.article

Fine with me. :bandance::bandance::bandance:

fquaye149
04-06-2008, 10:26 PM
1) Because he got benched for hitting poorly. The fact that he had a better second half in very limited play doesn't mean that he earned his spot back after how poor he hit.

It was the same amount of atbats as in his first half:rolleyes:

ChiTownTrojan
04-07-2008, 12:06 AM
I think when Owens is finally ready they send Ramirez down to Charlotte. It looks like he's definitely lost his starting spot to Quentin, and the kid needs all the at-bats he can get. My only worry then is that we'd only have one guy on the bench that plays anywhere in the infield, but it could work because some of the starters can back up other IF positions (Uribe backs us SS, Swisher backs up 1B).

balke
04-07-2008, 12:37 AM
I really like Swisher leading off so far. I mean it's going to take a toll on his RBI's perhaps, but for the good of the team he should stay at leadoff I think.

This is looking like a revamped 2004 lineup v 2.0. They can really put up some monster offense on teams. No bullpen? Don't face the Sox this season. They will wear out your starter and feast on poor relievers. I'm excited to see how this season ends up.

Point of this post? Jerry probably isn't needed unless injuries pop up or trades are made. I really like the infield defense right now, so I kinda hope trades aren't made if the team keeps winning.

Konerko05
04-07-2008, 02:19 AM
Owens isn't good at getting on base.

Owens isn't good at anything.

russ99
04-07-2008, 09:53 AM
Owens isn't good at anything.

I beg to differ: 92 games, 32 SB. He also has a passable .268 career average, so if he can find a way to get on base more regularly, we could have a heck of a leadoff guy, though I'd expect he could have more of an impact a year or two down the road when the Sox eventually move Dye or Konerko into the DH spot.

Jurr
04-07-2008, 10:01 AM
The reality is Jerry Owens isn't very good at playing baseball.
:rolling:I love it.

The Immigrant
04-07-2008, 10:10 AM
While WSI will certainly be less entertaining after the fact, Carlos Quentin and Nick Swisher will finally put the Jerry Owens/Brian Anderson debate to rest.

champagne030
04-07-2008, 11:10 AM
While WSI will certainly be less entertaining after the fact, Carlos Quentin and Nick Swisher will finally put the Jerry Owens/Brian Anderson debate to rest.

Hopefully.