CWSGuy406

QUOTE(beck72 @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 09:50 PM) But the better bat? You would have a hard time making the case that BA will outhit a healthy Erstad in 2007. Really? I know you're not the most keen on the projection systsems, but the average of the more respectable ones (per SouthSideSox) have Anderson at a .253/.317/.410 line and Erstad at a .260/.317/.364 line. That's not to say that these things are right on, but I agree with the general point that should be obvious, that Erstad's power at this point in his career is more or less totally sapped, while Anderson still has a ceiling of ~.450. And this is what I don't understand. How does Darin Erstad playing more games in CF (aferall, there are more righty pitchers than lefty, so if they did a strict platoon, Erstad would see a lot more PT) equate to more wins than Anderson in CF? Does Erstad's grind, grit, and his 'little things'-ness really overcome his lesser defense in CF and lesser power at the plate? Again -- you may not believe that Erstad>Anderson, and I understand that you're telling me that it's what the Sox as an organization think. I'm just struggling to understand why Erstad is viewed as a potential starter, not as a nice bench player ala Gload last season.

Marquette down three to USF with about a minute to play. F***ing trap games... W00T! 12 seconds left, tie game, USF ball. McNeal steals the ball and finishes the game off with a layup! Marquette wins 70-68!

Not to pick on Hansen, but why would anyone want him over Broadway at this point? He's been awful in 40+ innings as a reliever at the big league level, and his K/9 in the minors is below eight, which (again) for a reliever is brutal. I agree with the general point, but bringing up Craig Hansen does nothing to back up your case.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 11:52 AM) Erstad's last 700 ab's haven't been awful. He was hitting .289/.355/.399 at the all star break in '05--hitting #1 and #2 in the lineup and playing everyday. Erstad then hurt his hip in late '05, played everyday, and tailed off to his .273 avg and /.329 obp line You can't just throw out those ABs. He's an injury prone player who chose to try and play through an injury. His OBP is close to .320 in his last 700 ABs. That's not good, any way you want to spin it. Erstad's career numbers are boosted by a year in 2000 in which he hit .355. You think it's not at all unlikely that he can slug .415, despite the fact that he hasn't done that since 2000? And you also don't think it will hurt BA's development to come off the bench as a late inning sub? So, sporadic ABs are going to help him as a young player? Hah... I guess I must be the only one who thinks it's the total opposite. I'm glad you used the word "might", because I find it very difficult to make the case that Erstad is quite clearly the better option in CF. Anderson is almost definitely the better defender at this point, and if given consistent ABs, I would bet that BA would easily outperform Erstad. Erstad's 'ceiling' is extremely limited; if we could get a 2004 like year out of him, we should consider ourselves quite lucky.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 01:02 AM) Yes, but the key difference is that the Sox have a great rotation, too, and have been adding pitching as well as hitting while the Yankees have failed to do the former. The Red Sox' rotation has potential to be great, but at this point in time I don't think you can call it great. Papelbon has never thrown more than 130 innings in his pro career; Schilling and Wakefield both will be 40 to start the year, and while that doesn't mean they're done, both will (most likely) start to slip a little bit. Dice-K will most likely be above average, but just how good will he be? I think they're the favorites in the AL to start the season, though. Their lineup is amazing and they're fairly deep, too, with Wily Mo stepping in if (when?) JD Drew gets injured. The only downsides I see are Varitek potentially falling off a cliff and Pedroia's lack of power (perhaps?) hurting him in the bigs. There's some other things (bullpen, a couple aging players and potential injury problems), but I'd rate them the top team in the AL to start the year.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 02:57 AM) The risk the sox have taken with Erstad is very minimal. At worst he provides a major league bat as insurance in LF until Pods is ready and gives Sweeney/ Fields/ another 1/3 to a 1/2 season to develop in AAA. At best, he stays healthy and moves between LF and CF [giving Pods time off and Brian some rest vs tough RHP] while hitting close to .290 with an OBP of .350 +. Not to nitpick, but the last time he had a .350 OBP was 2000, and although he's moving to a hitters park, he doesn't strike me as the type of hitter who will greatly benefit from moving to the Cell. In fact, the bigger dimensions at LA probably benefited the a 'slap' hitter like Erstad. The risk also becomes much more significant if you think of the harm it might do to Brian Anderson's development (to no fault of Erstad himself, but of Ozzie). I want Anderson to get 500+ uninterupted ABs before I decide whether or not he can hit major league pitching. With this signing, if Anderson comes out and hits .190 in April, he's not going to be the starter -- he's going to be a platoon mate, and that's going to do nothing but harm to his progression. At this point in Erstad's career, I don't think you can make the argument that the Sox would benefit significantly from having Erstad take ABs away from Anderson against righties. His last 700 ABs have been worse than 2006 Scott Podsednik -- he's been awful. I can handle Erstad being our opening day LFer and filling in for Pods while he heals, but if at any point Erstad is taking away ABs from Anderson, it becomes a bad move.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 03:09 PM) If Ozzie uses Erstad right, which we all know he won't, this can easily be a beneficial move. If he gets more than 200 at-bats, it's a bad move. In a nutshell, this is pretty much it. If Ozzie uses him correctly -- which, IMO, consists of being a late-inning sub for Konerko at first-base, and an occasional CF/LF/1B start for tough righty matchups or whenever Konerko needs a rest -- then he can be an asset. If he gets the afformentioned 120+ games, then he'll prove to be a liability, and all the punter-i-ness and grit in the world won't change a damn thing about that. The guy is not a good hitter. I would be very pissed if the Sox have (more or less) given up on Anderson after a stretch of ~350 bad ABs. That would be an awful job by Kenny Williams and everybody else in the front office. I mean, one year ago they traded away Chris Young because they said they had all the confidence in the world in BA, and now this? I'm just not getting good vibes from this move. I don't like Erstad saying that he's trying to win the starting CF job. Yeah, I know it's good for the guy to be competitive, but I hate seeing starting jobs on the line in Spring Training. Hitting well in Arizona means jack s***, and one of the most important defensive positions on the field is 'up for grabs'? Give me a f***ing break...

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 02:20 AM) Wow, you don't think Erstad deserved to win the gold glove when he won it? That came out wrong. I must have been distracted when I was typing -- I certainly know that, when healthy a couple years ago, Erstad was amazing out there. He deserved the GG, without a doubt.

QUOTE(Beltin @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 02:07 AM) Okay. I won't argue whether the GG is a joke or not with you, but do you think Erstad was worthy of a "true" GG (as opposed to the joke that it truly is) in the years he won it? No, not one bit. And at this point of time, he might still be pretty decent out there (maybe average to slightly above). QUOTE(CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 02:08 AM) Oh I get your point now. Nope, you're still oblivious to my point. You totally missed the point, but keep goin' if it makes you feel good. Yeah -- these are the same managers and coaches who have given Raffy Palmiero a GG in a year when he played 28 games, and Derek Jeter multiple GGs despite the fact that he wasn't even the best defensive SS in his division. Can we do that? Because I personally find it embarrassing that Adam Everett, arguably the best defensive SS since Ozzie Smith, has not one ONE GG. Or that a guy like Derek Jeter can win multiple GGs while Juan Uribe has won zero. And now you use the "national media" to back the Gold Glove trophy up. That's hilarious.

You just watch that replay? It started at least a couple tenths of a second after Scheyer touched the ball. STFU Mike Patrick. Best pass you've ever seen? Clemson didn't play any f***ing defense.

Clemson just jobbed. They started the f***ing clock late.

BAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!! Wow what bulls***, Duke gets over three seconds put on.

QUOTE(CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 12:32 AM) I still don't get your point . Does winning a glove glove mean you're an above average fielder , an average fielder , a poor fielder ? No; GGs are insignificant. Good fielders sometimes win them, bad fielders sometimes win them. But they shouldn't EVER be used to justify whether or not a player can play good defense. Okay? That doesn't mean a whole lot, though, as there are a LOT of guys who can do a better job than Mackowiak in CF. Really? Tell me when Derek Jeter was ever the best defensive SS in a year when he won a GG, and I'll find you a better defender. The fact that you are doing anything at all to defend the GG cracks me up. QUOTE(CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 12:44 AM) His hustle, desire, and leadership skills are useless. color] Rex Hudler? Is that you?

QUOTE(CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 06:47 PM) Whats your point , that all Gold glovers suck ? I already said there are exceptions but its not like Jeter or Palmeiro deserved "lead" gloves is it ? 18 guys get gold gloves every year. You picked 2 guys and go back to 1999 so you're going back 7 seasons. 7 x 18 =126 gold glovers. You're about naming 61 more guys short who YOU didn't think deserve it of making me change my mind. You want me to go through every list and pick out bad choices? I certainly can. Those were the off-of-top-of-my-head GG winners. The point is that YOU think that a GG means a player is good on defense, when in fact it's not true at all. Worse, you think that a guy winning a GG in the past means that the player can still play at that level. I'm not saying Erstad never was a GG caliber player, I'm saying that age and injuries have most likely diminished his skills out there. BTW, the Palmiero point apparently went right over your head. He played less than 30 games that year in the field, and he won a GG. That should tell you all you need to know about what it means to win one. And if you think Jeter is a good defensive SS, then I really don't feel compelled one bit to say anything more on the issue.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 07:07 PM) People simply don't realize how much a dropoff this team will have if Briggs goes. There is NO linebacking depth on this team, and Briggs is one of the 3 best OLB's (either OLB spot) in the game. Asante Samuel is asking for big money, he might be worth it. I will admit to not seeing New England play on a weekly basis, but damn, he seems to be one of the best corners in all of football. Just the way he jumps routes (seemingly) all the time, his quickness and speed... I'm fine with Grossman backed up by Griese as our QB situation. We don't need a great QB in here, just an average one, and I think Rex can be that. We're looking pretty good in the immediate future, really. Maybe if you can get a little younger on the O-line, that'd be nice, but other than that...

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 05:21 PM) New bracketology: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology Wow, Marquette at a three seed. Impressive considering where we were before that UConn game, looking at 0-3 in the BE without that 'W'. Ten games left in the BE, but six of them are at home. Someone else is going to have to step up and take down Pitt, though... And we can't have anymore letdowns, especially tonight at home vs Seton Hall.

QUOTE(CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 06:17 AM) But winning a GG signifies the cream of the crop defensively Yup. Like Derek Jeter winning one this year. Oh, right, he's not very good defensively at all. Or like Raffy Palmiero winning a GG in 1999 with all of 28 games played in the field that season.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 12:43 AM) What's the harm in signing him cheaply? That our manager will put him in as our starting CFer if Anderson doesn't fly out of the gates, despite the fact that Anderson is definitely the better defender of the two and at this point, probably the better hitter. Oh, and he's lefty, so we still don't have a real platoon partner for Podsednik, who can't hit lefties. We're relying on Pablo Ozuna's magic for yet another season, when there is still a guy out there who is a (seemingly) better fit in Preston Wilson. Honestly, I don't see how Luis Terrero isn't the same player. Terrero is righty and the one 'plus' about Terrero's game is his defense. He's also about six years younger. Whatever... this isn't a move that will bug me throughout the year unless Ozzie thinks that 'Proven Veteran Punter' is a better option than Anderson in CF. And I don't care if Erstad hits 1.000 in Spring Training, those stats mean jack s***. He should be the fourth OFer regardless of what he or BA does in ST.

QUOTE(Felix @ Jan 23, 2007 -> 06:14 AM) As will I (orange too, I love it) Guys, don't take offense, but what's with all the love for the orange jerseys? Maybe it's just the fact that I like the more 'classic' jerseys, but I can't stand those and would never even consider buying an orange one. You guys just dig the color, or...?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 23, 2007 -> 02:11 AM) I dont know how we could be grumpy at all. I mean maybe the hangover from drinking too much when our team actually won the chance to play in the superbowl, maybe not blowing a lead and folding on the last drive. but who knows? I really don't have a problem with Belichick. The guy just wins, sometimes with teams that are banged up all over the place. He falls into the Barry Bonds category for me (disregarding the steroid stuff); even if he is a major ass, he helps your team win games, and honestly, that's what they're paid to do. But -- I don't know how you could watch that video (I saw it live and thought the same thing as I'm saying now) and think that Belichick was very friendly to Peyton there. I also heard the interview with Manning after the game, and while Belichick was mentioned, he was one of the last ones mentioned, in an almost 'might-as-well-put-him-in-there' type of manner. I don't believe for a second that Manning puts a guy like Teddy Bruschi and Belichick on the same 'respect' level. I also hate reading into quotes, even though I sort of hinted at that above. I'm just saying that Belichick could have been a little more 'cordial' to Manning immediately after the game on the field.

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Jan 22, 2007 -> 10:50 PM) Yea, ESPN has made it a topic on all of the afternoon shows thus far. So you were right in saying just us grumpy ignorant Bears fans were the only ones who saw Belichek (sp?) slight Manning after the game.

Erstad? Ehh, he's more or less useless at this point. Haven't injuries sapped the only plus part of his game, his defense? His last 600 ABs, he's putting up a line of about .265/.320/.365. I think he's pretty much done, and it doesn't solve the problem in LF, where we could use someone who can play everyday vs lefties. I'd rather not have to rely on Ozuna again... EDIT: I didn't realize just how bad Erstad has been offensively. He hasn't had what you could call a 'good' offensive season since 2000. He was okay in 2004, but still a below average offensive player.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 22, 2007 -> 06:32 PM) Ya, plus Arizona is gonna plummet in the polls and USC should enter the polls. And Marquette will rise again, should be Top 20ish in both polls, after the win at Pitt.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 22, 2007 -> 04:58 AM) Just to verify, I found a 06 source that said the same thing. Faceguarding is completely legal in the NFL. The only thing that can cause PI is contact. There were a couple of bad calls (or non-calls) against the Pats. There was a non-call PI in the endzone against Caldwell (?) where it looked like the Colts DB innitiated some contact, and that Roughing the Passer call seemed pretty weak. That said, kudos to the Colts, and damn -- this is going to be two LONG weeks...

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jan 22, 2007 -> 01:30 AM) I mean absolutely no offense to Colts fans here, but anyone who actually thought the Patriots might lose to Indy was crazy. They never had a chance, no matter what the circumstances. This s***'s like clockwork. New England and Indianapolis meet in the playoffs, Peyton Manning sucks, strange plays go in favor of the Patriots, and the Colts inevitably lose. Err...