hitlesswonder

QUOTE(danman31 @ Apr 28, 2007 -> 01:05 AM) Why would you want to trade Garland? Garland was the pitcher the Astros were interested in IIRC. If the Sox hadn't traded Garcia, they could have moved Garland instead. I think Garland is a decent pitcher (although his lack of velocity this year is troubling), but Hirsh looks like he might be very good....

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Apr 27, 2007 -> 11:23 PM) Garcia's line from tonight -- 4.2IP, 7H, 4ER, 2BB, 8SO, 2HR, 5.65ERA. His numbers this season have hardly been stellar, but I'm still wondering how the package we aquired has helped this team in the short run. Williams did mention the trade was made to benefit the present and future, yet, I'm not seeing anything on the roster to indicate as much. I wasn't very optimistic about the acquisition of Floyd either, but I won't lay into Williams for talking up the deal he got. That's part of his job. With the caveat that it's too soon to judge a trade a month into the season, I don't think this was a disastrous move. 1 year of Garcia at 10M (+ a draft pick) versus Floyd and Gonzalez. Right now it seems like a weak but not terrible return. The question is, could Williams have gotten Taveras and Hirsh (or maybe just Hirsh) for Garcia or Garland instead? If you think the answer is yes, this deal looks quite a bit worse.

QUOTE(fathom @ Apr 25, 2007 -> 09:33 PM) You do know Terrero is awful, right? After his hot start, he's hitting .245 and has zero walks on the season. What's ironic is that Terrero and Anderson are very similar players. If Anderson doesn't hit this season, I think his career will look a lot like Terrero's.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 12:52 AM) Not that that's what I said, but anyway... I was agreeing with And I was also agreeing that trading him or waiving him right now would be foolish -- it would be selling low. I thought that was what you were saying...

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 25, 2007 -> 11:40 PM) Again, if this was all Anderson could do, he never would have made it out of A ball. We want to know what Anderson can do when he's right. I'm all in favor of sending Anderson to AAA, where he can get his abs. But dumping him now would be just foolish. You're absolutely right. He's a former 1st round pick who is cheap and under Sox control for years. It may be that he'll never hit, but sticking him in AAA should at least allow him to recoup some trade value. There's no cost to sticking him in AAA and seeing what happens.

QUOTE(max power @ Apr 24, 2007 -> 12:27 AM) Do you really think that Erstad would outperform Anderson against lefties? Anderson had a .638 OPS vs LHP last season. Erstad has a 3-year OPS vs. LHP of .630. There's not much difference.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 24, 2007 -> 12:10 AM) So why not try to develop the one who could be a future for your team instead of the one who's probably going to get injured at some point during the season if he keeps playing this much? I agree that if 2 players are going to suck, the Sox might as well go with the younger one. But I'll be surprised if Erstad doesn't end up hitting around .260 with zero power and a .310 OBP. And that's not good, but I think it would be better than what Anderson might do. Anderson should be in AAA: he would get ABs and if Erstad does hit the DL Anderson would be sharper if he replaced him. Of course, if Erstad does go on the DL I have no confidence that Guillen would play him over Terrero or Sweeney

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 24, 2007 -> 12:00 AM) You can't use 10 scattered AB's to form any sort of average and make judgments or conclusions based on the numbers. Well, 10 AB's are all we have. I know the sample size is ridiculous, but to me Anderson has looked worse than Erstad at the plate. Do you really think that if Anderson were starting everyday that he'd be better than Erstad? Maybe, but I haven't seen it. I'd rather the Sox had a CF that can hit, but I don't see one on the roster. QUOTE(max power @ Apr 24, 2007 -> 12:01 AM) You want to put mack back out in center? *shudders* Sweet Georgia Brown No! Never again! But with Pods out I'd like to see a 1-2 of Ozuna/Mack (in LF) and Iguchi. I wasn't clear that I was keeping Pods on the DL in my hypothetical situation...

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Apr 23, 2007 -> 11:42 PM) So you'd be willing to go with Ozuna/Mackowiak or Iguchi as your leadoff hitter the entire season? Ozuna/Mackowiak would better than Erstad in my opinion. I think in a platoon they could produce an OBP around .350. I don't see Erstad being able to do that. I know he's had a couple of good games, but Erstad hasn't been a high OBP player since 2000. I think he shouldn't be hitting 1 or 2.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Apr 23, 2007 -> 11:34 PM) I love the implied assumption here that Brian Anderson will be no better than his 2006 numbers. Right now, Brian Anderson is worse than his 2006 numbers. And he's been lazy in the OF. Right now, Erstad is a better player.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Apr 22, 2007 -> 09:09 PM) Looks like 15% of the balls he has made contact with have been line drives. That sucks. Wow -- excellent post. Just watching the games, I haven't seen Erstad hit much hard. It is a worrisome start, because it's not like he's just been getting unlucky...

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Apr 22, 2007 -> 08:53 PM) Until Konerko and AJ start batting above .200, I am going to withhold my judgment on Erstad. Erstad is batting .273 when leading off, so he may be best in that position if he can keep it up and get on base around a 1/3 of the time. The last time Erstad had a .330 OBP he had to hit .295 to do it. And that's still just a terrible OBP at the top of the order IMO. I'd rather see Iguchi and Mack up there 1 & 2.

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Apr 22, 2007 -> 08:45 PM) Well, Gathright and Baldelli are it...unless you prefer Willits? If the Sox get Gathright, can they replace Pods in LF with a real hitter? Two trades is probably too much to ask for and I get the impression Gathright can't actually hit. I'd probably be happy to see either Willits (good minor league OBP) or Baldelli get a shot. The DRays need a closer like crazy, maybe MacDougal and some B-level minor league pitchers (Haegar and Broadway?) could be offered. Anyway, I didn't say that I expected Williams to pull something off, but I hope he is looking. If Erstad starts hitting he'll probably still only produce a .700 OPS with a low OBP.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Apr 22, 2007 -> 08:04 PM) I'd like to see you answer his question: "Why on earth isn't BA given a consistent opportunity?" Erstad is a better player than Anderson right now. The best CF on the roster is starting everyday. The two problems with that are 1. I don't think the best CF on the roster is good. 2. Erstad shouldn't be anywhere near the top of the order. After Anderson's lack of hustle in the OF today, I think he should be in Charlotte or simply waived. It seems like he may have given up on the Sox, and he should get a shot to turn it around someplace else. Williams needs to be looking for a starting CF.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Apr 21, 2007 -> 09:06 PM) This argument holds no water. Find stats that say he's better. Find respectable scouts saying he's better. That's absolutely laughable that Erstad, at 32 (?) years old, is a better defender than Anderson. You keep beating that same damn drum, and it means nothing. Erstad has played so little CF recently that there are obviously no stats for him that are relevant. Last season Anderson was a +5 using Chris Dial's metrics which is good but not great. And the 2nd half of last season Anderson was 0 on Dial's scale, implying he neither saved nor cost runs in the field. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but Erstad was better than that when he won his GG in CF. Obviously, he's not necessarily the player he was then. The sample size is problematic, but I just don't think Anderson is some kind of defensive whiz. We have 3 people who have seen Anderson play a lot (Cowley, Gregor, and Ozzie) and all of them consider Erstad to be the better defender. You may have no respect for the opinion of any of those guys, and I'm not a big fan of them either, but they've seen both players a lot more than I have. And in any case, it's not like putting Erstad in CF over Anderson is like playing Mack there. It's a defensible move. There are reasons one might start BA over Erstad, but I don't see defense as a big reason. Anyway, since I've been officially accused of repeated drum beating, I won't post about it again. Unless Erstad racks up enough playing time to compare his 2007 with Anderson's 2006 Sadly, at the plate so far Anderson's 2006 was better....

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Apr 21, 2007 -> 08:23 PM) McCarthy a gem? Ha! It's things like that that made me want him gone in the first place and now that he is I'm happy to see him drag down a team not mine. The Sox got a guy in 14th round who put up great minor league numbers, made the majors at the age of 22(?) and then netted two good pitching prospects in return in a trade (one a very high first round draft pick). Drafting McCarthy in the 14th round was a gem of a pick, even if he doesn't pan out in the majors. I think that's what the original poster meant.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Apr 20, 2007 -> 10:09 PM) Why would you have Anderson play LF and Erstad CF? Wouldn't it make more sense to move the slower, left-handing OF'er to LF, and let the faster OF with at least equal defensive skill to CF? Erstad is actually a significantly better defensive CF than Anderson. Both Cowley and Gregor have reported that Anderson has trouble going back on balls and implied he doesn't give maximum effort in the OF. I'm pretty sure that's one reason Guillen has soured on him. Last night Ozzie said flat out that Anderson isn't as good as Erstad defensively and will not be replacing him in CF. I think Anderson's defense is greatly overrated.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Apr 19, 2007 -> 01:40 PM) As it stands, Crede must be considered one of the top five players at his position in baseball. I like Crede, but he's had one good offensive year and I don't think he's a top 5 3B. He's hitting worse than Erstad right now. I don't think the Sox could get back a prospect in the same galaxy as Brandon Wood (who has been moved to 3B) for him. If his hitting really picks up, I think he could bring a quality prospect like Aybar in return. In my opinion, zero. Anderson has no trade value right now -- it would be something like a low minors reliever (like what Chris Stewart brought, if that much).

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Apr 18, 2007 -> 02:26 PM) OTOH, Jaramillo has been under a lot of fire for the regression of hitters like Blalock, the loss of power for Texeira, Mench, Lance Nix, Brad Wilkerson, Phil Nevin...etc. Texiera was their leading HR hitter, and he didn't even get 20 in a ballpark made for power. Sure, Young's great, Kinsler is like Brian Roberts/Brady Anderson of this year (hopefully Shelton), he took some credit for GM Jr. last season Well, no hitting coach is perfect. Everyone has some failures, but it's hard to pin the faielure of some of the players you list on the hitting coach. Nevin was pretty much at the end of his career, no knows if Nix will ever hit big league pitching, and fair or not Blalock has had his work ethic questioned. Moreover, questioning someone's loss of power these days is sort of a loaded issue. I'm sure Jaramillo isn't the world's greatest hitting coach, but if Texas were to drop him I'd hope the Sox would hire him in a heartbeat.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Apr 18, 2007 -> 12:07 PM) Its just horrible to me that we have only scored 39 runs thus far in this season. Thats 21 less that the freakin twins. Speaking of the Twins...I recently saw the OPS ranks of the piranhas (2B,3B,LF,SS): Twins Positional OPS ranks among AL teams: OPS RANK C .708 5th 1B .982 1st 2B .525 13th SS .509 12th 3B .461 14th LF .384 13th CF .872 4th RF .911 5th DH .752 6th Which I think goes to show that I wouldn't want Ozzie Guillen picking out who gets to play on my team (if I owned a team). I'm sort of biased towards liking Walker because he played for the Sox when I first started paying attention to baseball (which may have been one of the great mistakes of my life). But I'm all for moving him to some other organizational job if the Sox have a decent replacement in mind (someone that's a disciple of the Texas hitting coach?). I don't think that alone will fix the Sox. The offense has been bad for several months now going back to the second half of last season. It's possible Crede's year of excellence was a fluke (or he's hurt), and AJ, Iguchi, and Dye are all of an age where diminishing skills are a possibility. Still, it's hard to sit any of those guys given their track records. The place the Sox can upgrade is the outfield where they decided to play 2 sub .700 OPS outfielders (Pods start nothwithstanding). If Williams wants to try to salvage the season, he needs to fill those spots with players that aren't complete ciphers at the plate (and I don't mean Brian Anderson). Otherwise, I think he should just get ready for a big firesale in month or so.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Apr 17, 2007 -> 11:29 PM) SAY HELLO TO YOUR NEW LEADOFF HITTER CHICAGO!!! .171/.239/.244/.483 That's right you are not seeing things, that's a .483 OPS! But who cares!? He'll grind the s*** out of your face. So, my opinion of Guillen as manager is steadily dropping. You can't blame tonight's loss on Erstad, but making him the leadoff hitter is just idiotic. He has never been a high OBP player, and it seems pretty clear he's not planning on starting to be one this year. The game tonight also clarified to me what I think I dislike most about Guillen's managing: he gives up outs with sacrifices and gives up free baserunners with IBBs more than any other manager. Sabermetricians must get physically ill watching his moves. But if you want a non-sabermetric critique, another way to look at it is that he takes his players out of the game more than any other manager. He takes the bat out of of their hands and effectively the ball from the pitcher with the SACs and IBBs. It's just overmanaging.

Delvon Roe (2008 PF, I think regarded in the top 10 juniors in the nation) verbally comitted to MSU. I also read that Alex Legion was released from his LOI to Michigan -- don't know what schools he might look at now.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 17, 2007 -> 01:52 PM) Simple example. Please, if you will...I would like for one person here to tell me that the city of Los Angeles allowing people to carry concealed weapons legally would make this city a safer place. Probably ditto New York. I think those cities would be safer with concealed carry laws. As someone has already said, studies have shown more guns results in less crime (see John Lott's book). If it works in Florida, I don't see why it wouldn't work in New York. It's not like concealed carry laws put guns in the hands of criminals -- they already have guns. Concealed carry laws arm potential victims and deter crime. Carry law advocates have numerous studies on their side. I have yet to see one study that shows that gun control laws reduce crime in the US.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 17, 2007 -> 10:59 AM) As was the right for white men, and only white men to vote. The framers also put in a mechanism for amending the constitution when it no longer meets our needs. It would be nice if they wrote in reasons for some of this stuff, like perhaps why there is a 2nd Amendment Just wondering, y'all that think more people carrying would cut down on crime, does it matter the nationality of the gun owner? I'll agree that just because something is in the constitution doesn't necessarily make it a good idea for society today (or even for society in the 18th century). So, if someone could convince me that private gun ownership was a bad idea, I'd be in favor of amending the constitution. But, right now, I happen to think private gun ownership is a good idea, and the constitution assures citizens the right to bear arms wherever they want. I'm not sure I understand the question about nationality. I think you can argue that "People" in the 2nd amendment is meant to imply only U.S. citizens. But I think the critical criteria for gun ownership would be lack of criminal histtory, lack of history of mental health issues, and official training and certification. My reading of the constitution would restrict ownership to only US citizens, but I could probably be convinced otherwise as long as the other criteria were satisfied.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Apr 17, 2007 -> 10:17 AM) Guns at home for protection. Excellent. I have no problem. If you break into my home, you will meet the business end of a glock. But that has nothing to do with Jimmy at the library who has a 45 in his pants. There are numerous examples of gun bans only increasing violence, see here. I have yet to read about any of the scenarios Texsox is describing happening in places with concealed carry laws. It's much more likely that a concealed carry law would have made the situation at VTU better, not worse. I'm all in favor of strict and enforced laws reagrding gun ownership. If people want waiting periods, background checks, strict training with periodic re-examinations (like with driver licenses), and forfeiture of gun ownership rights for committing as much as a misdemeanor offense that's fine with me. But I do believe guns in the hands of resposible citizens save lives. Also, the 2nd amendment doesn't restrict a citizen to only keep a gun in a home; it assures a citizen of the right to bear arms in public.