hitlesswonder

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 08:54 AM) Erstad not a proven veteran? He's proven that he's had problems staying healthy, but he has been a productive player (not just 2000) when he was able to play at 100%. If nothing else, he's a Gold Glover at two positions and a very solid player fundamentally who is ideally suited for the 2 hole. Erstad has proven he's not a good hitter. His OBP/OPS in recent years have been: 2001 .331 .691 2002 .313 .702 2003 .309 .642 2004 .346 .746 2005 .325 .696 2006 .279 .605 That's not good. Why is he an ideal #2 hitter? I would consider OBP the most important factor for a #2 hitter, and Erstad is not good at getting on-base. I really would rather have Iguchi hitting at #2. And please don't take all this as me suggesting Anderson is good -- he's not. But Erstad isn't either.

QUOTE(JohnCangelosi @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 04:47 PM) You guys can't really believe this team would go 74-88. They have essentially the same starting staff as last year, a better bullpen, all key players back and about the same depth (losing Hall does hurt). They absolutely played the worst baseball they could have played in the second half and still won 90 games. This team will be in the 90+ win category again this year. The big surprise for people will be when the Tigers suck a dutch d**k this year... I can believe it. I'd pick them to be .500, so 74 wins isn't out of the question. The starting staff last year sucked. And they replaced Garcia with Danks who will be lucky to post an ERA a full run higher than Garcia, and pitch 60 innings less. Why is bullpen improved? I see MacDougal being around for a full year as an improvement but that's all. And Jenks is worrisome -- terrible 2nd half and bad spring training. The back end of the pen is a 3 question marks. The Sox have downgraded the OBP at the top of the order by having Erstad and Pods bat there. And I really doubt that Dye and Thome can replicate last year's numbers. This is an old team, and it wouldn't be shocking for performances to fall off significantly.

I've suggested this elsewhere and people were unimpressed, but my solution to the backup cathcing situation is...Aaron Rowand. mlbtraderumors today posted that a trade was getting closer. You know Aaron would do anything for the team -- he'd get behind the plate and sacrifice his body to stop a Contreras forkball from becoming a wild pitch. Just imagine him running headlong into the backstop chasing a foul ball. It'd be awesome.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 03:15 PM) This basically forces, assuming Ozzie has a, well, nevermind, Perez onto the team. We need someone to hit left-handers, and if we can petition MLB to substitute a traffic cone to play LF for Eduardo, which is a wash anyways, it's a win-win. You would hope they'd keep Perez now...the lineup vs. LHP is Terrible: Can't hit LHP (or just cant hit period): Thome Iguchi (at least last year...) Erstad/Terrero Wiki Gonzalez/AJ Can't be counted on to hit: Uribe/Cintron Ozuna Can hit: Dye Konerko Crede (assuming last year wasn't a fluke) About half the lineup against LHP is at an OPS below .700 QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 03:22 PM) Is it too late to call up Sandy Alomar again, haha. This just sucks. Well, the Sox could trade Anderson to Florida for SP Yusmiero Petit (they might actually do that). And then trade Petit back to the Mets for Sandy Alomar. And, yes, I am being sarcastic -- but you know Ozzie would do that deal in a minute.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Mar 24, 2007 -> 12:40 PM) so you say it would be funny to see michigan rip illinois because illinois is embarrassing. bruce pearl isn't embarrassing? getting kicked out of high school games for harassing refs, showing up at the same games in stretch limos, being an attention whore who body paints himself to get extra pub? and michigan isn't embarrassing? they also have a hoops player who was busted this year (abram). they also are one of the few basketball programs that had final four appearances vacated from recruiting misdeeds. last i checked michigan also had two student-athletes in court last week on assault charges. glass houses, man, glass houses. Michigan has problems just like Illinois -- I wasn't holding them up as an example of a great program. I was just guessing that job might interest Pearl. As for the other stuff about Pearl, I didn't know he had gotten kicked out of high school basketball games. That's pretty lame.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Mar 24, 2007 -> 12:02 PM) Out of curiosity what team are you a fan of? Honestly, I can't say that I'm a fan of any college basketball team. I graduated from Illinois, and I've never understood the absolute hatred for Bruce Pearl that fans of Illini basketball have. I'm pretty ambivalent about college athletics in general, I think the NCAA is tremendously hypocritical and obnoxious organization and the whole system just blows. But I really like basketball. The same goes for Illinois, I want to like the University I graduated from but what's happened lately -- the DUIs, the coverup, the burglaries, the AD acting like a bad little-league baseball parent have left me pretty disgruntled. I suppose my posts about Illinois athletics are more obnoxious than they should be because I'm disappointed.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 02:22 PM) I would love to see Pearl in the big 10. I love him as a coach, and would love to see how horrid the illini feel when they lose to their favorite enemy. It would be amusing to see Pearl go to Michigan and rip Illinois repeatedly. The guy catches Illinois cheating in the recruiting process and somehow he's a villain to the Illini. Pearl is a great coach.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 04:57 PM) well, maybe we could have got more for Garcia... but i think Kenny was looking for young pitchers in return, thats not something many teams give up easily. I think Williams valued Floyd based on his projected performance if he turns things around -- by that I mean he paid for Floyd's perceived ceiling not his actual performance (it's the "I think this guy will be great with us even though he's sucked elsewhere" syndrome). It doesn't seem to be working out right now though. It's almost amazing if you read the scouting reports on Floyd (like those by John Sickels) that he can get such poor results.

So, I wouldn't make the trade from the Sox perspective because Jenks looks not good. If his arm is falling off, the Sox need MacDougal and Thornton. The rest of the bullpen is unproven (to be polite), the Sox don't have the depth right now to make the trade. I also don't think Rowand really improves the Sox that much. Second, Philadelphia wouldn't make that trade either. They wanted Linebrink for Rowand and Alex Rios for Lieber (plus they may want to hold Lieber till Garcia's health is more assured). Mack and MacDougal alone for Lieber and Rowand and CC just doesn't come close to getting it done from PHI's point of view in my opinion. Prior to Garcia getting hurt, a Phillies blog (Good Phight) speculated that a Lieber/Rowand for Fields/MacDougal/Mack trade might be a possibility. From a value for value standpint, that seems more realistic, but right now neither Lieber or MacDougal will be going anywhere I think.

In Rosenthal's latest column, he mentions that Texas is seriously looking for a RH CF that they can use to rest Lofton. They probably wouldn't mind a younger player either. Texas would seem to be a good trade partner for the Sox -- the Sox have heavily scouted their system. Plus McCarthy could then be reunited with Anderson. Would Texas do Arias for Anderson? They Sox would probably leap at that, although I wouldn't be so excited...

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 21, 2007 -> 11:28 PM) It wouldn't surprise me that if something is wrong that requires surgery, the Phillies ask for compensation. It would be ridiculous if they got it. The Sox could send Gavin Floyd back.... Seriously though, if Toronto didn't get compensated for Mike Sirotka I can't see the Phillies getting it here.

Accusing someone of being an Anderson fanboy just because they think Anderson will be better than Pods and/or Erstad is ridiculous. I don't see any posts here even claiming Anderson is good. I don't think he's good (although I do think he has some chance of being a good player someday). Look, Anderson hit better than Pods in the 2nd half of last year (and Anderson can play CF). Pods post ASB: BA .241 OBP .296 SLG .297 OPS .593 Anderson: BA .257 OBP .301 SLG .393 OPS .694 I won't post the stats, but Erstad was actually worse than Anderson last season. And sure, both Erstad and Pods were hurt last season, but Anderson has at least as good a chance to improve as they do of coming back and having great years after surgery. It's not about thinking Anderson is good -- he isn't. But right now I think it's likely Pods and Erstad will be worse this year. If the Sox want to ditch Anderson, fine by me. Then pay the price and trade for a real CF that can hit like Baldelli or someone. Don't go half-assed and bring a couple of .700 OPS guys that are in the best case scenario only a marginal improvement. It's silly to spend $100M to build a contending team and then hamstring it by sticking two lousy hitters in LF and CF.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2007 -> 08:17 AM) But what do people think about having Clark instead of Mack? Another aging mediocre 4th OF (who failed to post a .700 OPS last season). The Brewers would win that trade hands down. Is the idea to really send a message to Anderson by burying 4 down the depth chart behind Erstad, Terrero, and Clark? I don't see the point, and I really think the Sox should simply cut BA or trade him for peanuts and end the farce. He's obviously out of the Sox plans.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Mar 21, 2007 -> 12:01 AM) Well for one, damn near all of those OPS numbers you posted are better than what Pods has done so you don't think that is will help us this season? Talk about him getting 500 abs is crazy then we must be retarded then giving Pods 500+. I just think playing Erstad outside of CF loses most of his value (it looks like he still has a good glove). LF is no place for a .700 OPS. I don't think Erstad should hit 1 or 2 since his OBP is usually low. So if the Sox are going to drop Pods and play someone else in LF, why not get a real hitter? Or Josh Fields? I agree, I'm not enthusiastic about Pods. But in 2 of the last 4 years he did post a higher OBP than anything Erstad has done in a while.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 11:09 PM) Erstad I don't understand eigher. He will be a valuable option to this team this season. Whoever is saying that doesn't know jack cause his defense in LF, and I'll repeat that LF and his bat will definitely help us this season (doesn't hurt he's a lefty also) What evidence is there that Erstad's bat will help the Sox this season. .691, .702, .642,.746,.696,.605 those are Erstad's OPSs from 2001 through 2006. His avg OBP for those years was around .320. Having him as a backup CF would be OK. Giving him 500 at-bats seems crazy. Now, Erstad may have a great year and make this post look foolish. I just don't think it's likely. As for "negative posts", I think most people here simply want the Sox to win and aren't happy when the Sox don't seem to give themselves the best opportunity to do so. And there's a big difference between a post that argues with basis that Pods isn't a good LF, and one the simply says someone "sucks". I hope the Sox have a great, great season. That hope is not incompatible with thinking the Sox should try to improve on an outfiled with 2 .700 OPS guys in it. I just don't see how the Sox can invest $100M in a year and then not take the extra step to shore up the outfield.... You want some optimism? I think it's great that Adam Russell has thrown well. A big guy who apparently legitimately hits 94 MPH with regularity, can throw from different arm angles with movement...that's good stuff. It sounds like he actually has top of the rotation stuff (with the always required caveat that he needs to have better control...). Odds are against any pitching prospect, but I'm glad there's finally a power pitcher among the Sox top starting prospects.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 03:49 PM) Bunting has nothing to do with it. If you have a lead off double or a single and an SB in the first inning. Playing for the lead is VERY important, and just good baseball. Sitting back and waiting for the 3 run bomb in the first inning is not nearly as effective. The early lead not only helps your offense squeeze the opposing pitcher, but it allows a little breathing room for your SP to work a little looser. This is one of the things that made our 2005 team so dangerous is that we held an early lead in so many games making it easier on our offense as well as our pitching staff. Well, sac bunting in the first inning was what my original post was about, so it does have something to do with it. I may be wrong, but I believe the stats that bunting in the most common situation will decrease the expected number of runs scored for the inning. I'm not talking about playing for the 3 run bomb, I'm saying if you have decent hitter at the plate I don't want to take the bat out of his hands that early in the game. I have to agree with Weaver and Piniella -- if you play for one run, you will probably only score one run. So, we just disagree about the value of bunting in that situation.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 03:33 PM) im glad you are living in bizarro baseball world then, because I would love a run in every 1st inning of every game. I may be a baseball idiot (I probably am), but I just don't like playing for a single run in the first inning. I'd rather see the Sox play for multiple runs. I doubt everyone will believe it but there's this about the value of bunting. It's a little harsh, as I think the chances of scoring a run go up by 3%. I would definitely bunt in late/close situations and depending on who is hitting and who hits next. Actually, if Erstad bats second, having him bunt probably is OK....

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 03:17 PM) Why not? That's an important way to score in the regular season, so why not start now? If the goal today was just to practice moving somone over that's fine. I just don't want to see it happen in the first inning of a regular season game. I'm hoping that's not a strategy the Sox will employ.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 03:07 PM) Can't guarantee I'll be able to sit @ the computer for the whole game, but I'll contribute what I can. Gameday Audio I'm on, appears only the Oakland feed is available today. Ozuna goes 2-0 and doubles to teh wall in LF. Cintron can't get a bunt down, but grounds out to 2nd. Runner to 3rd. I know it's spring training, but what's with sac bunting in the first inning? I think I don't like Ozzieball...Grinderball...whatever it's called.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 10:50 AM) I don't believe Erstad will be any worse than Anderson and being that he's healthy again, maybe he will have a big year...all we can do is hope for the best at this point...rather than b****ing about someone whos prooven nothing thus far. I think there's a good chance Erstad will be worse than Anderson this year. And I don't think Anderson will be very good. What exactly has Erstad proven? That he was a great player for one season seven years ago? He hit worse than Anderson last season. So, he was injured and supposedly healthy now. That doesn't mean he's sure to improve any more than Anderson is sure to improve becuase he's had a year of experience now. Erstad OPS from 2001 on: .691, .702, .642, .746, .696, .605 Erstad OBP from 2001 on: .331, .313, .309, .346, .325, .279 Look at those numbers. It seems like he's a good bet for a sub-.700 OPS this season, doesn't it? A .330 OBP would be a triumph, I don't think he'll get very close to that. And Guillen just promised him 500 at-bats. If the Sox think Anderson can't play, thats fine. Then go out and a get another outfileder that can actually hit and field. A team with $100M payroll shouldn't start 2 sub-.700 OPS players in the outfield. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 11:32 AM) Am I the only one who noticed that the DeLuca story gave all of Anderson's spring numbers and none of Erstad's spring numbers? From talking about Anderson's slow start, to him getting up to .348 a week ago, to his recent 0/8, it's all in there. But Erstad's 0/4 3k day yesterday gets no mention, his .635 OPS gets no mention, but his planned 500 at bats do. I saw that too. For DeLuca, the problem with quoting Erstad's numbers is that it gets in the way of his storyline that Erstad is pushing BA, that Erstad is a professional hitter that can really handle the bat, that it's a tough competition for the CF job. Once you look at the numbers, the truth becomes more apparent: Erstad was given the starting CF job when he signed and there is no actual competition. Also, Erstad probably can't hit a baseball real well.

QUOTE(Capn12 @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 06:41 PM) I'm 87% sure he was being sarcastic...at least I hope... Yes...yes I was....

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 05:54 PM) Uribe and Anderson have combined for 11Ks. Of course they have 4 HR and 8BB between them as well. Ersty has 0 and 2, respectively, though not respectably. But we know he's a great top of the order hitter, because he's done it before. He was a very important part of that juggernaut offense the LAA ran out there the last few years. Plus, Anderson's HR today shows he's swinging for the fences instead of generating productive outs like Ersty. BA needs some more time in AAA to learn how to play the game the right way.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 05:26 PM) Coming in to today, according to MLB.com, it's Erstad with 7 (tied with A. Gonzalez, who won't be makign the team anyway) Yeah, but Ersty has nailed down the CF job with .680 OPS this spring. Clearly better than Anderson's .800 spring OPS. That cocky youngster better go down to Charlotte and learn some humilty, and maybe how to punt.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 18, 2007 -> 09:58 PM) Yeah, if. But why in the world would Chet Frazier? He's the only canidate since Brock I believe already used a non-eligibility year. OK -- this really is just speculation on my part, just to be clear. But I believe that Frazier's family is dealing with a serious illness (it's been mentioned in a couple of newspapers) and it wouldn't be out of the question for him to transfer to be closer to them. Also, I believe Frazier was named in Couch's Sun-Times column as a player who was with Jamar Smith the night of the accident. Since I don't know what happened that night, I won't guess about that. But it wouldn't be shocking for there to be more fall-out from that incident. Brock did red-shirt, and would be more of a surprise to transfer IMO.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 18, 2007 -> 09:43 PM) More internet speculation. Except I think you just made this one up yourself. Show me a source from even a CBB message board and maybe I'll believe you. The only possible transfer would be CJ Jackson, who basically hasn't played an important minute in his 2 years there and won't crack the rotation next year. Sure it's speculation -- I wrote "rumored", and I was referring to fathom's post. Aside from Jamar Smith, there are several obvious candidates to transfer (Jackson is one). If a guard transfers, you get Meacham and maybe even Wise playing a bunch of minutes next season.