Felix Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Nov 11, 2005 -> 06:38 PM) Rowand's .736 OPS is easily replaceable. It's not like he was even good offensively this past season. Don't forget his 32 walks and 116 strikeouts. How much worse could Anderson really be? Only 4 rookies in all of baseball had a higher OPS than Rowand last year. And Anderson's 12:0 K:BB ratio in his first 34 AB didnt look pretty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 QUOTE(Felix @ Nov 11, 2005 -> 11:42 PM) Only 4 rookies in all of baseball had a higher OPS than Rowand last year. And Anderson's 12:0 K:BB ratio in his first 34 AB didnt look pretty. While we're at it (judging guys on tiny sample sizes), where the hell is Joe Borchard and his 160 OPS+ (in 12 ABs, but leading the team, nonetheless) going to play next season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSH2005 Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Only 4 rookies in all of baseball had a higher OPS than Rowand last year. And Anderson's 12:0 K:BB ratio in his first 34 AB didnt look pretty. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fine. Take away those first 12 strikeouts (even though they are still his stats and you shouldn't just subtract stats to prove your point). That's still a horrible 32 walks and 104 strikeouts. All Anderson would have to do is put up an OPS around .736 and play good defense to match Rowand. That's not really the tall order you make it out to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Nov 11, 2005 -> 06:50 PM) Fine. Take away those first 12 strikeouts (even though they are still his stats and you shouldn't just subtract stats to prove your point). I didnt take away anything. Sorry if I worded it wrong, but he had 34 AB's on the year. And I know that doesnt mean anything with how he will perform next year, but if he doesn't improve his plate discipline, then what exactly would make him more valuable than A-Row? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 I'm really interested in seeing what Chad Tracy does in 2006. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSH2005 Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 (edited) I didnt take away anything. Sorry if I worded it wrong, but he had 34 AB's on the year. And I know that doesnt mean anything with how he will perform next year, but if he doesn't improve his plate discipline, then what exactly would make him more valuable than A-Row? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry, my mistake. I thought you were talking about Rowand. Well, those first 34 at bats were the first he has seen in his career. It's not like Anderson is going to strikeout 12 times and never walk ever 34 at bats. It's a small sample size. Were Rowand's 116 strikeouts pretty? I'm really interested in seeing what Chad Tracy does in 2006. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What Tracy does in 2006 won't have any bearing on what Rowand did in the past or will do in the future. Edited November 11, 2005 by SSH2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 I know its a small sample size, but if you are going to criticize Rowand for his lack of plate discipline, which you have all rights to do, I mean, he really needs to work on it, then why not criticize Anderson as well? What indicates that his will be much better than Rowands? In AAA last year, he had a 115:44 strikeouts to walks ratio. As far as I can tell, their plate discipline is basically equal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 QUOTE(Felix @ Nov 11, 2005 -> 05:57 PM) I know its a small sample size, but if you are going to criticize Rowand for his lack of plate discipline, which you have all rights to do, I mean, he really needs to work on it, then why not criticize Anderson as well? What indicates that his will be much better than Rowands? In AAA last year, he had a 115:44 strikeouts to walks ratio. As far as I can tell, their plate discipline is basically equal. Equal. Exactly. Which means that Anderson projects to be not much worse than Rowand. His defense is as good if not better than Rowand's too. I'm not saying he'll hit 40 HR's, but the fact that we have Anderson, makes Rowand expendable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSH2005 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Equal. Exactly. Which means that Anderson projects to be not much worse than Rowand. His defense is as good if not better than Rowand's too. I'm not saying he'll hit 40 HR's, but the fact that we have Anderson, makes Rowand expendable. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks for wording it perfectly. Now I don't have to write the same post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Nov 11, 2005 -> 05:54 PM) What Tracy does in 2006 won't have any bearing on what Rowand did in the past or will do in the future. Did I say it would? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Nov 11, 2005 -> 07:00 PM) Equal. Exactly. Which means that Anderson projects to be not much worse than Rowand. His defense is as good if not better than Rowand's too. I'm not saying he'll hit 40 HR's, but the fact that we have Anderson, makes Rowand expendable. Personally, I havent really seen Anderson play defense, although I have heard a lot about it, so I won't judge how equal it is. Basically, I'm just not confident that a rookie can put up numbers similar, or better, than those which Rowand put up last year, and I also believe that Rowand will put up better numbers next year than he did this year. However, thats just speculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSH2005 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Did I say it would? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, but you seemed to infer that it would. Afterall, this thread is about Rowand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Nov 11, 2005 -> 06:04 PM) No, but you seemed to infer that it would. Afterall, this thread is about Rowand. I'm just wondering what D-Backs fans reactions would be like if Tracy had a down year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Nov 11, 2005 -> 06:00 PM) Equal. Exactly. Which means that Anderson projects to be not much worse than Rowand. His defense is as good if not better than Rowand's too. I'm not saying he'll hit 40 HR's, but the fact that we have Anderson, makes Rowand expendable. That's the whole point, IF we can make Aaron the center piece of a deal for a big bat he is expendable because of Anderson. Don't get me wrong, I love Aaron and don't think he needs to be traded or anything like that, I want him to stay but he makes the most sense to trade because he has value and because of BA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 11, 2005 -> 11:34 PM) Why do the Sox need a starter ready to step in for 2006? Isn't that what Haigwood/Broadway are for? If things go as planned, they should be just about ready for '06, with Liotta and Gonzalez also knocking on the door. El Duque, if not traded, will be the our swingman. He'll be the fourth-seventh inning guy incase one of our starters has a rough (and short) outing. If he's relied upon to throw about 80-100 innings, I think that role is perfect for him. He should pitch a whole lot better when he's told to throw two-three innings at a time, rather than a five-seven. It was great seeing him in Boston actually blowing hitters away -- he hit 93! Did he ever hit 93 as a starter? He might have here and there, but I doubt it. You act like our staff is made up of five Kerry Woods'. You can pretty much (knock on wood) pencil in Garland and Buehrle for 200 IP. Freddy Garcia gets knicked up once in a while, but his 162 game average for IP is 222. Contreras hasn't missed any significant time (that I know of) in his career, and McCarthy doesn't strike me as the guy who's going to have arm troubles -- he's not throwing a blazing fastball, and he doesn't rely on a hard slider. He's a fastball/changeup/overhand-curveball pitcher -- not exactly a guy who should throw out his arm. Trading Rowand for a guy who might not even help the team this year (unless that prospect is then shipped off for a bat) is silly, IMO. The sox have missed the injury bug, eps. to their SP's. But it's always a chance, esp after a long postseason with extra innings. But saying that getting an ace pitching prospect is a waste?! Come on. Like stud pitchers won't find a spot somewhere, or can't be used at the deadline for trades. Stockpiling quality young arms isn't a luxury IMO. It's a necessity, esp for a team built on pitching and defense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 QUOTE(beck72 @ Nov 11, 2005 -> 07:08 PM) The sox have missed the injury bug, eps. to their SP's. But it's always a chance, esp after a long postseason with extra innings. But saying that getting an ace pitching prospect is a waste?! Come on. Like stud pitchers won't find a spot somewhere, or can't be used at the deadline for trades. Stockpiling quality young arms isn't a luxury IMO. It's a necessity, esp for a team built on pitching and defense And trading for extra pitchers is fine.. if you aren't trading a key player in your organization, which Rowand is imo. Anyway, I'm going to go watch 'Secret Window', so enjoy the debate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSH2005 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 And trading for extra pitchers is fine.. if you aren't trading a key player in your organization, which Rowand is imo. Anyway, I'm going to go watch 'Secret Window', so enjoy the debate <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I hate to break it to you but Rowand isn't a "key player in our organization." Especially not when we have four good outfield prospects in Anderson, Young, Sweeney, and Owens and two of them are center fielders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 QUOTE(Felix @ Nov 12, 2005 -> 12:12 AM) And trading for extra pitchers is fine.. if you aren't trading a key player in your organization, which Rowand is imo. Anyway, I'm going to go watch 'Secret Window', so enjoy the debate If Rowand is traded, then he wasn't a key player. This debate is about whether Arow is a key part of this org. The early returns say he's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 QUOTE(qwerty @ Nov 11, 2005 -> 04:22 PM) You have to realize rowand is a s***ty hitter ( he is until he proves 2004 was not a fluke... and i have serious doubts). That is all i want from you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LOL... you made this way too easy... Aaron Rowand year by year offensively... 2001 Chicago White Sox 63 At bats .293 Avg 2002 Chicago White Sox 126 At bats .258 Avg. 2003 Chicago White Sox 93 At bats .287 Avg. 2004 Chicago White Sox 140 At bats .310 Avg. 2005 Chicago White Sox 157 At bats .270 Avg Career .283 hitter.. So at worst he's slightly above average and at his best among the best contact hitters in the league.... Of course all the real baseball fans define average as s***ty. But what more can you expect from the people who wanted to get rid of an ultra cheap Jon Garland when he was good for a guarunteed 12 wins a year and replace him with someone who would cost twice as much at least... Of course if we had done that we'd of still been looking at the revolving door 5th starter... Like I said before.... Anderson is hardly a guaruntee to be equal on defense to Rowand... To know the cell inside and out... To know the perfect route... and to put up at least a decent average... No Anderson might not be Borchard... But on a team that hopes to be a contender we can't take that chance... Their world series performance aside Uribe and Crede are still much bigger ? marks offensively... By the way we are talking about a guy who hit .267 in the playoffs... .294 in the world series... and got himself on base somehow almost every game.... His hits might not of been as sexy as Konerko's or Crede's but he's still a part of this team... Anderson has yet to prove he can do that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Nov 12, 2005 -> 12:03 PM) LOL... you made this way too easy... Aaron Rowand year by year offensively... 2001 Chicago White Sox 63 At bats .293 Avg 2002 Chicago White Sox 126 At bats .258 Avg. 2003 Chicago White Sox 93 At bats .287 Avg. 2004 Chicago White Sox 140 At bats .310 Avg. 2005 Chicago White Sox 157 At bats .270 Avg Career .283 hitter.. So at worst he's slightly above average and at his best among the best contact hitters in the league.... Of course all the real baseball fans define average as s***ty. But what more can you expect from the people who wanted to get rid of an ultra cheap Jon Garland when he was good for a guarunteed 12 wins a year and replace him with someone who would cost twice as much at least... Of course if we had done that we'd of still been looking at the revolving door 5th starter... Like I said before.... Anderson is hardly a guaruntee to be equal on defense to Rowand... To know the cell inside and out... To know the perfect route... and to put up at least a decent average... No Anderson might not be Borchard... But on a team that hopes to be a contender we can't take that chance... Their world series performance aside Uribe and Crede are still much bigger ? marks offensively... By the way we are talking about a guy who hit .267 in the playoffs... .294 in the world series... and got himself on base somehow almost every game.... His hits might not of been as sexy as Konerko's or Crede's but he's still a part of this team... Anderson has yet to prove he can do that... Take the rose colored glasses off for a second. You cannot tell me Rowand had a good year offensively in 2005. In his major league career, Rowand has a K/BB ratio of 310:96. In 2005, that number was 116/32. An OPS of .736. You cannot tell me, a .736 OPS for a major league OF, who doesn't do anything special offensively, is GOOD. Gets on base somehow every game? The guy had a freakin OBP of .329. Have you read the scouting reports on Anderson? Have you read what the minor league gurus have said about his defense? The ability to play any OF spot? If you can get a good return for Rowand, that helps you fill more IMPORTANT needs, when you've got a young guy in Anderson who's ready to jump in, you do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 12, 2005 -> 10:53 AM) I'm really interested in seeing what Chad Tracy does in 2006. As am I of course. But I think with the D-Backs lineup, where he'll be hitting etc. that the chances of him staying at his 2005 numbers and not regressing, are better than Rowand's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 QUOTE(beck72 @ Nov 12, 2005 -> 12:08 AM) The sox have missed the injury bug, eps. to their SP's. But it's always a chance, esp after a long postseason with extra innings. But saying that getting an ace pitching prospect is a waste?! Come on. Like stud pitchers won't find a spot somewhere, or can't be used at the deadline for trades. Stockpiling quality young arms isn't a luxury IMO. It's a necessity, esp for a team built on pitching and defense Rowand is our main trading chip this offseason, along with some of the bullpen arms like Marte. If we trade Rowand for a pitching prospect -- how the hell are we supposed to get a bat in here? Because, by the looks of it, Konerko is going to want more than 4 years/$52 million, and unless we land Brian Giles, there's no one else out there who can replace Konerko's offense. Rowand needs to be used as a chip for landing a big bat -- someone like Delgado -- not a pitching prospect. Unless it was one of those deals where you flip the prospect off to the other team, but by what you're saying, you'd want to keep that prospect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Wow... just wow... If you learned to read I said he managed to get on somehow either with a walk or a hit every game in the post season... POST SEASON his OBP wasn't .329... Either way my point was that he is hardly the worst at his position... Average maybe but average isn't "s***ty"... And there was a time that these same baseball Guru's said the same kind of s*** about Corey Patterson and Joe Borchard... where are they today... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Nov 11, 2005 -> 07:13 PM) Wow... just wow... If you learned to read I said he managed to get on somehow either with a walk or a hit every game in the post season... POST SEASON his OBP wasn't .329... Correct...it was .333 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 12, 2005 -> 01:13 AM) Rowand is our main trading chip this offseason, along with some of the bullpen arms like Marte. If we trade Rowand for a pitching prospect -- how the hell are we supposed to get a bat in here? Because, by the looks of it, Konerko is going to want more than 4 years/$52 million, and unless we land Brian Giles, there's no one else out there who can replace Konerko's offense. Rowand needs to be used as a chip for landing a big bat -- someone like Delgado -- not a pitching prospect. Unless it was one of those deals where you flip the prospect off to the other team, but by what you're saying, you'd want to keep that prospect. The offseason has just began. If PK leaves, then you're right. I'm going on the assupmtion PK will be back. But many big bats could be had by taking on salary. though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.