Lillian

The Sox payroll may be near the limit for this year. However, we really haven't seen the front office commit much to the long term. LaRoche is a 2 year deal, and Samardjiza is so far a one year. The only longer term obligations that they've incurred this off season are the two bullpen acquisitions. If J. R. really wants to win, maybe he should consider stepping up to the plate and giving Scherzer a contract that would bring him to the South Side. That pitching staff would be the best in baseball, and only in the middle of the pack, in terms of total cost, due to the terrific contracts to which Sale and Quintana are signed. I think that you could win the division without spending any money on what are perceived as the remaining "holes". Hell, they could win with anyone in LF, who could catch the ball. Shuck, Danks, who cares? And, when they got to the post season, they would have to be the favorites to take it all, with those 4 studs. With Rodon in the wings, even if Samardjiza doesn't sign a long term deal, they would be fine going forward with a starting 4 of Sale, Scherzer, Quintana and Rodon. With that rotation, the 5TH starter just needs to eat innings and help save the bullpen. They would be a perennial playoff team, and once you get to the Post Season, they only need 4 starters.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 12:29 PM) i will admit that i am sooo blinded in seeing DV gone, that sometimes i can't see straight. but Ackley is a last resort kind of player for the sox to get if it mean DV being gone. minor leaguers, the sox don't have any that can fill that bill better than DV. Perhaps I didn't articulate my thought clearly. What I meant was that this team needs to fill the hole in LF with someone better than Ackley. I agree that Viciedo is not acceptable either. If they move Viciedo, they don't have to move him for a left fielder, as someone else just pointed out. However, if the guy that they acquire is not a significant upgrade in left, then I'd just as soon that they trade him, and his $4 million salary for low cost, prospects for the future. They then have a roster spot open for that needed left fielder, and a little extra money to spend on him.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 12:20 PM) i will like to add, if Sea doesn't want to go that route, then the sox have nothing. There are only so many roster spots. If the player they acquire cannot be a productive addition to that roster, I'd rather have some minor league prospects. I just don't see Ackley as a guy who helps this team improve the roster.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 10:20 AM) I don't doubt that Ackley would be maximizing the return from Viciedo. I am stating that I don't think any return that the Sox might get for Viciedo should be viewed as a starting position player for 2015. I think the Sox need to find a better LF than one that can be gotten for Viciedo. I'd rather go for one or two minor league arms that are most likely to never pan out but have at least a small potential to turn into a good reliever or 4/5 starter. Good point, and I agree. Especially if 3B is not going to be a power position for the Sox, they really should have a run producer in LF, or at the very least, someone with good speed, defense and the ability to get on base.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 09:13 AM) On base percentage is not an advanced stat. OBP is a component of OPS, which is an Advanced Stat. Aren't we "splitting hairs" here?

How is Longoria anything but a complete fantasy? What could the Sox possibly afford to trade to acquire that caliber of player, signed to a very reasonable contract? This is akin to Red Sox fans speculating about acquiring Sale.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 08:17 AM) but i like him for other reasons, which makes this an ideal trade. second to Bruce. he bats #2 and if injury to Eaton, will lead off. Again, his OBP is .300. He is not a viable option to lead off. He is also not a good enough outfielder to replace Eaton in CF, in the event of an injury to Eaton.

If this team is seriously going to compete, they cannot have a left fielder with little power and a .300 OBP. Ackley is not an upgrade. Next?

QUOTE (TheTruth05 @ Dec 9, 2014 -> 12:00 PM) I like the idea of using Danks to get Ethier and money from LA and then signing Masterson to a 1yr buy low deal with maybe a 2nd year option. And if possible ship Viciedo with Danks to LA That would indeed be wonderful. However, I can't believe that the Dodgers would include cash in that deal. Do they even really want Danks? Why wouldn't a straight up, Ethier for Danks trade be reasonable for the Sox? I doubt that L. A. would do that deal, but if so, that would be very enticing, from our view point.

I concur with the skepticism of moving Alexei, now that the front office is clearly "all in" this season. We just traded Semien, L. Garcia is black hole, offensively, you all seem confident that Diaz is not an option and Sanchez is really not a SS. Until you can come up with a solid defender at SS, to replace Ramirez, it just wouldn't be feasible. If they really want to try M. Johnson at 2ND, they wouldn't dare stick a poor fielding SS on the other side of the bag. That would indeed be completely unacceptable as a double play combination, for a serious contender. Nevertheless, the Dodgers do want to move some of that outfield depth, which is really more of a logjam. If they could actually use Danks, then maybe something could materialize. Frankly, the only part of this potential match up with L. A. as a trading partner is that they have way too many outfielders and the Sox need one. Beyond that, I don't really see a fit

Many speculated that Semien would platoon with Gillaspie at 3RD. With him gone, who could provide really good defense, at the hot corner, vs. LHP? That would be one of the minor moves that should now be on Hahn's shopping list. Unless they still plan on spending substantially more money, maybe they could get by with Shuck in LF. He is a good OBP guy, who might be able to fill the #2 hole. He hits both RH and LH pitching about equally. He doesn't strike out, and has been reportedly working harder on bunting. Eaton has good on base skills, but isn't really a big stolen base threat. If Shuck could move Eaton into scoring position with bunts and the hit and run, and get on base himself, at the pace he did with the Astros in 2011, or the Angels in 2013, the Sox might not need to sign another free agent, to fill the void in LF. If the Sox still want to spend more money, I would opt for more pitching. You just can't have too much of it. They still don't have a lot of depth in that department. You have to love the top of the rotation, and when Rodon is added it will be as solid, 1 through 4, as anyone's, but it gets a little thin after that. Noesi and Danks are decent bottom of the rotation guys, but they really don't have anyone in the organization who appears ready to step in, if someone should get hurt.

If there is one impact player that could instantly transform this team from a near last place to a serious contender, it is a dominant RH starter. The Sox are in the uniquely enviable position of having potentially 3 top starters, all young and affordable for the next 3 or 4 years. They are one starter away from an elite starting staff. All of the old adages about the importance of pitching are still true, as witnessed by the Royals success, last season. Player assets and liabilities only exists until they are moved to another team. Why not think in terms of a 3 or 4 year window, and plan to move some of those pieces in 3 years? Give a Scherzer his $25 to 27 Million, per year, for 6 years, and trade him and his contract, half way through it. You get an Ace for his 3 remaining prime years, and then let someone else worry about how good he’ll be, in his late 30‘s. Sure, you’d have to kick in plenty of money, but if you can get some good prospects, it just might be worth it. As long as he were healthy, some team would probably want him, if he were the missing piece to their post season hopes. The Sox would need to add one dominant bullpen arm, preferably the closer, although there is the chance that Montas could fill that role, in house. Adding a solid outfielder, while desirable, wouldn’t be critical. They might be able to get by with a speedy, defensive outfielder, with average on base skills. Maybe they could trade Viciedo for someone who matches that description. RH power is still at a premium. . With that pitching staff, and all of the strike outs they could rack up, they would be alright with a Gillaspie/Semien platoon, defensively at 3RD, as long as they stay solid up the middle. Alexei and Sanchez provide a more than adequate double play combination. The payroll would be a little higher than what has been speculated, but maybe J. R. would view that team as his best chance to win it all again, at least one more time, and maybe a couple more times. He knows that pitching is still what wins championships.

The Yankees are going to go with a purely defensive shortstop, to replace Jeter. In trading for Gregorius, they have pretty much decided to accept the fact that SS will not provide any significant offense. That approach would be fine with me, as far as our Sox go. I really still don't know just how good Alexei is defensively, at this point in his career. We have gone round and round on this board, and I don't sense that there is any consensus. Let me ask the question this way; If the Sox could fill another major hole, by trading Ramirez, is there anyone who could fill his shoes, defensively? A few of you seemed to think that Saladino is the best defensive SS, who is reasonably close to Major League ready. That surprises me, as I didn't think that he was more than an average SS. L. Garcia is supposed to be pretty good with the leather, but his offense is pretty much a "black hole". Although scouting reports say that Diaz is a good defensive SS, with a very good arm, everyone here completely dismissed the notion that he might get regular playing time, if Alexei is traded. Semien is not a plus defender, and Sanchez is much better suited for 2ND. I'm interested in this issue, because it still seems quite feasible that the front office could view Ramirez as one of their only good trading "chips". With all of the middle infielders this organization has, it's pretty disappointing if none of them are good enough to fill the hole at SS, that would be created by the departure of Alexei, especially if we are only talking about a really good defensive SS, with little consideration to offensive production. If the Sox could acquire a middle of the order bat, for that last outfield spot, is it really that important if they get much production out of SS? The Yankees don't seem to mind going that route, and they have bigger shoes to fill than the Sox would, if Alexei left. Ramirez has been good, but he isn't the icon that Jeter has been in N.Y. We all know that Jeter was not really a very good defensive SS, in recent years. Nevertheless, it is N. Y. and they are replacing a "legend" with a "no hit", defensive wizard.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 09:19 PM) Here's the trick. We acquire ALL the lefties. We also acquire Ethier. We win. Now you're talkin', and the Sox seem to be well on their way to doing just that!!! If Rodon fulfills expectations, the Sox could easily have half of the top half dozen southpaw starters, in the League. Seriously, look at how few left handed starters, especially good ones, there are in the rest of our Division, or even in the entire League. Ethier, was relegated to the bench, even vs. RHP, for a considerable period of time, last year. He may not have the same objection to being "rested" a little vs. LHP. Even if he played a little vs. LHP, there aren't that many games vs LH starters that it would be a major factor. The guy has been as good a hitter vs. RHP, as you could hope to acquire, and he's done it for a long time. Last year was probably an outlier. His OBP of near .400, vs RHP, during his prime, is especially intriguing. Wouldn't that look great in the middle of our order? I would opt for Abreu, Ethier, Garcia, LaRoche, as 3 through 6 versus RHP. However, the next challenge would be to construct a suitable lineup, for those rare days that we face a lefty. Moreover, as I stated in a previous post; on those rare days, when a lefty starts for the opposition, he would be a great bat to have on the bench, to use as a pinch hitter to face a tough right handed set up man, or closer. Although he is 2 years older than Melky, his contract will be up at age 35. If Cabrera gets the 5 years, for which he is asking, he would be 35 as well. And of course, the Sox wouldn't lose a draft pick. The key for me would be to be able to acquire Ethier, without having to give up any significant talent. I think the Dodgers just might be willing to do a salary dump. How much would be reasonable to ask in salary relief, to take that contract, with no major talent going to L. A., in the trade?

For those of you who are really interested in this discussion, I encourage you to read this article, which I just found: http://jonahkeri.com/2010/09/13/pitching-i...es-and-rangers/ It's quite long, but very interesting, and addresses many of the points that can be made on both sides of this issue. Here are some highlights: The team now has a simple, and hopefully sustainable, blueprint for building a better pitching staff: Work harder. “If you set limits,” said Maddux, “you lower people’s ceilings.” "Still, there’s no denying the massive changes that have washed over the game in the past 36 years. When a pitcher closes in on 100 pitches today, an alarm goes off in the ballpark, one that alerts managers, pitching coaches, broadcasters and opposing hitters that the guy on the mound is getting tired and won’t last much longer. Pitchers who last into the 7th inning give their team a big edge, allowing their managers to keep their bullpen fresh and use higher-quality relievers to close out the game." "Intensive training methods like those Vazquez now recommends can cause greater lactic acid buildup, which can cause more soreness than a pitcher might be used to handling. But pitchers experience the same physical sensations when straining through a 30-pitch inning against a tough lineup in searing August heat. By acclimating themselves to those sensations, Vazquez said, pitchers become better able to handle heavier workloads, increasing their effectiveness and lowering their chance of injury." "Nolan came in and said the pitchers need to be pushed more, they need to work harder and turn up their intensity – and that there’s nothing wrong with that.” The Rangers’ biggest break from conventional wisdom may be their decision to use big league pitchers to throw batting practice between starts. While most other teams have spare coaches lob lollipop pitches in for hitters to launch into the bleachers, the Rangers use BP as a way for pitchers to test their complete repertoire between starts, facing live hitters. “It’s important to see how hitters react to your pitches in certain locations,” said Ryan, who credited throwing BP with keeping him sharp between starts throughout his career. By pitching off a mound to hitters, instead of throwing side sessions on a bullpen mound, you’re also put into a situation that’s a lot closer to being in a game. It’s another good way to help build your stamina.” The pitchers have bought into the idea of throwing extra BP. “It gives you a little bit more intensity level, more than what you would get out of a bullpen,” said Colby "“The day after a start I’ll go from the foul line to the fence, about 300ish,” said Hunter. “It’s something I’ve done since college, so it’s not new to me. I’d always throw two bullpens between starts too. It’s just one of those things that keeps me acclimated to baseball and pitching off the mound.” (this quote is from Tommy Hunter) "Last year was the first year I started doing long toss,” Feldman said. “My arm had been just kind of barking all spring. [Maddux and Hawkins] said, instead of not throwing today, why don’t you try to stretch it out and play long toss? A lot of people, the minute their arm starts hurting they’ll take a day off. But if you think about it, it’s just dead arm. If you throw through it, you can get past it, and you’re stronger after. That really helped a lot.” "Jaeger saw just the opposite. By restricting an athlete’s ability to train and strengthen his muscles and movements, Jaeger believed teams were making their pitchers less likely to increase their strength, less likely to add velocity to their pitches, less likely to handle bigger workloads and more likely to get injured." “We wouldn’t do this with anything else. We wouldn’t tell a healthy player, don’t run that far, or don’t swing that hard. So why were doing this to our pitchers?” "The Rangers’ more aggressive approach does have some backers in the medical community. Dr. Glenn Fleisig, Smith & Nephew Chair of Research at the American Sports Medicine Institute in Birmingham, Ala. (the same clinic that houses top sports surgeon Dr. James Andrews), sees the benefits of pushing pitchers to their physical limits – so long as they don’t push past those limits. When a pitcher pitches or trains to the point of fatigue, Fleisig said, that’s his body telling him he’s developed micro-tears in his ligaments, tendons and muscles. If the pitcher calls it a day at that point, then gets the proper blend of rest and activity between starts, those micro-tears recover and he gets stronger – fostering more endurance for the future. On the other hand, if he keeps working past the point of fatigue, the tears get bigger. Without the proper rest and monitoring, those tears can get too big to repair themselves, resulting in major injuries down the road." "The Rangers do have the right idea about pushing pitchers as far as their bodies will allow, Fleisig said. If a pitcher doesn’t work hard enough, he said, “You can’t develop. You won’t get hurt, but you won’t get stronger or better either.” “Teams are under the false belief that you have a finite number of throws in your shoulder before it blows out, that it has nothing to do with how you condition your shoulder over the years,” he said. “They feel like you’re destined to blow your arm out no matter what you do. I believe you can condition it and prevent injury, by making it stronger.” To summarize the argument espoused by these quotes; It requires a certain level of training frequency and intensity to attain an elevated physical condition. There is of course a limit, but too little work load can result in a less than optimum state of physical condition, which can contribute to injury. Maybe modern technology will devise a method of accurately measuring the constantly changing physical state of a pitcher, as he pitches so that he could be allowed to maximize his effort, and be removed before the risk of injury is reached.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 11:47 AM) http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_...start-every-day This may make it less costly to acquire Ethier. If the Sox could get him without having to give up any significant talent, or the draft pick that a free agent acquisition involves, maybe it would be worth paying almost all of that contract. He is probably still a terrific hitter vs. RH pitching, given a chance to play regularly, and where he would be more wanted, than his current position with the Dodgers.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 03:17 PM) 1. Throwing the side sessions in the games would create much more stress on the arm. Having been in there with rehabbing pitchers, there is a total different intensity. Also, physically there isn't enough of a break. The pitchers will get fatigued and drop the mechanics and injuries will occur. Remember most of pitching comes from the lower extremities and trunk. When these fatigue the arm will suffer. 2. it does require the pitcher to work harder more often. This will be the physical breakdown. Over a 6 month season. it's too much stress. 3. There isn't too little work, it's the intensity of it. I think a 4 man rotation would work better, if you could work to re-train the pitchers. 4. In high intensity weight training, there is considerable rest. Olympic weight lifters work one group of muscles once per week. If you are truly maxing out that is the limit. Pitchers work until total fatigue of the larger muscle groups. You just can't fatigue the muscles that way and expect perfect form, which would need in pitching. I've been weight training for 55 years, long before it was ever popular. I started when I was 15, and have never stopped, and still do virtually the same routine, now at age 70. Of course, I don't train with the same intensity that I once did, but my sessions still involve going to failure on almost every set. I competed back in the 80's, and had some notable success. It has never been necessary for me, or for any of the people, with whom I have trained, to rest a body part for an entire week. In fact, my experience has been that an entire week in between sessions tends to make it difficult to maintain maximum hypertrophy. I have always tended to have soreness, unless I train the body part more frequently, approximately once every 4 days, although I have been able to do it once every 3 days, when I was younger. I haven't really tried that in a few years, primarily due to a lack of sufficient motivation. After all, "What the hell am I trying to prove?" I'm an old lady, it just seems inappropriate at my age. But we're talking about young, testosterone producing, men. And let's not discount the nutritional supplements that are available today, and I'm not talking about PEDS. Look, I'm not a doctor or physiologist, but this notion doesn't compute with my own experience. Your body needs a certain amount of time to recover fully, but any stress that requires an entire week to recover sounds more like healing from an injury, than normal recovery from a safe stimulus load. More importantly, this whole notion contradicts the standard practice of utilizing a closer, several times per week. The issue is more about the number of pitches, than the frequency. You also cannot ignore that pitchers in the past threw much more frequently, and many more pitches, per outing. I don't recall that there were significantly more injuries back then, than we see today. This obviously requires some caution, but I just can't accept that 100 pitches one day, and 45 two days later, followed by another 100, 3 days later represents some terrible risk to a pitcher. Isn't it possible that he would actually be better conditioned than pitchers who work so infrequently?

Thanks for the responses, and hope there are many more to come. Do you guys honestly think that asking nothing more than that starters throw their current "side sessions" in the game, would jeopardize their health? I reject that notion. This system does not require pitchers to throw more pitches, or more often. It simply utilizes the pitches thrown in the bullpen side session, in the game. Again, there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to the issue of limiting a pitcher's work load. Too little work equals inadequate conditioning. Even high intensity weight training does not require 5, or even 4 days of rest, in between sessions. If today's relievers can throw as frequently as they do, and often with considerable intensity, then the frequency which this demands, is not unreasonable. The question becomes; how many pitches? That is debatable, but I don't see the problem with 2 appearances, within a 5 day span. 100 pitches in one appearance, and 45 in the other, does not seen like a terribly burdensome work load, providing that a pitcher is conditioned for it. I would be interested to know how much intensity is actually applied, during side session days. Does anyone know much about how they are conducted?

A few years ago, I wrote a paper, in which I advocated a different use of Professional baseball, pitching staffs. This year’s final game of the World Series reminded me of the hypothesis, which I put forth then. The Giants used their Ace starter, Madison Bumgarner, in long relief, on his normal bullpen, side session day. We all know the results, and they were quite impressive. The impetus for my hypothesis is that today’s starting pitchers are used so little, and yet make so much, that there should be a better way to utilize them. When a pitcher is only asked to pitch in one out of every 5 games, and then only expected to go 6 innings, or around 110 pitches, which ever comes first, it should be obvious that teams are not getting much for their money. This present day modus operendi requires 5 very expense starters, which is problematic, in itself. However, when you then consider all of the vitally important relievers, which are required to provide effective late inning pitching, the whole system is just about as cost inefficient as one could possibly imagine. Explaining that to an analyst, not steeped in baseball, would surely elicit a response of “head scratching” incredulity. It all begs the question; isn’t there a better way? Well, that takes us back to the 7TH game of this year’s World Series. The Giants had a plan to use Bumgarner, in relief to close out the final game. They executed that plan to perfection. He threw 68 pitches just two days after throwing 117, pitches in his previous start. This is precisely the way I assert that teams should manage their pitching staffs. Pitchers routinely throw around 45 or 50 pitches, during their side session day, which comes a couple of days after their regular starts. My contention is that instead of throwing those pitches in the bullpen, let them throw them in the game. Now, I know that someone is going to object on the basis that those pitches, thrown in a game situation, might put to much stress on the pitcher’s arm. To that, I can only reply, “oh poor pitcher”. Tell that to the old timers, who routinely threw close to double the amount of pitches, thrown by today's pitchers, every start, and did it every 3 days. Over protecting a pitcher’s arm, can be just as detrimental as over taxing it. There is a point where too little work results in insufficient conditioning. It’s the very reason that a reliever, has to work up to being able to start. He must develop the stamina, necessary to enable him to throw the additional pitches required. If a starter were only asked to throw 50 pitches in a game, that would probably be about all you could extract from him, without risking injury. This principle is best expressed by the strength and fitness creed; “Use it, or lose it”. So, how would this system of employing the current bullpen, “side session” pitches in game situations work? Teams would use two pitchers per game. That day’s “starter” would be expected to throw around his usual 100 - 110 pitches. He would exit the game, and another pitcher would take his place, and throw what would be the equivilent of a “side session” 45, or 50 pitches. The following day, you would repeat the same process, with two more starters. At that point, you would have used all 4 of the starters, required for this system, and you may or may not have needed to use any bullpen pitchers. The third game begins to utilize the pen. They would divide the workload, and pitch the entire game. The 4TH game, returns to the first two pitchers, who shared the first game’s work load, only this time the roles are reversed. Pitcher A, who threw 100 pitches the first game will now be asked to “relieve” pitcher B, who will start this game, and be expected to throw 100 pitches. Pitcher B is able to throw 100 pitches, as his previous appearance was the equivilant of a “side session,” of merely 45 pitches. The 5Th game repeats the same system, this time with pitchers C and D, who worked in tandem, in game 2. They would reverse their respective roles, just as pitchers A and B did. This system enables a team to use 4 starters, instead of 5, and requires fewer relievers. Moreover, the relievers do not have to be of the same quality, as they are not asked to pitch in virtually every close game, unlike today’s method of depending upon the bullpen to pitch the final 3 innings. Therefore, they would not be key to every game’s outcome. How many great starts from Sale and Quintana, did the Sox waste, because the bullpen couldn't preserve the lead? The amount of money that could be saved by this method of managing a pitching staff, is tremendous, and could afford teams the payroll flexibility to upgrade other roster spots. Applying this principle to the current situation, the front office could forget about looking for another starter, and more bullpen help. They could then use the money to acquire another outfielder, and be ready to compete in 2015. Although, ideally the Sox would have 4 top starters, and it appears that they only have 3, at best. A staff of Sale, Quintana, Rodon and one solid RH starter, might work. Of course, agents and the Players Union might object and attempt to thwart any such revolutionary idea, which might threaten the existing system, but that does not diminish the validity of the idea. What do you gentlemen think of the concept and its feasibility?

I forgot about Schebler and Jensen. Ok 9. The price should be less, by virtue of supply and demand alone.

We've all been exploring lots of options to fill the hole in one corner outfield. The Dodgers still match up best for a trade with Sox. Having just acquired another outfielder, Chris Heisey, who is a true centerfielder, L. A. now has 7 outfielders, on their roster. They still need a SS, and consider Alexei a suitable candidate to fill that void. Therefore, I think that remains the most logical move. The question is: Which outfielder, and what terms, are most realistic and desirable? Although most of us would prefer one of the younger guys, such as Van Slyke, or even Pederson, someone like Ethier or Kemp is probably more realistic. So, we're back to salary relief included in a deal involving Alexei for Ethier or Kemp. Old "news" of course, but I just thought it was worth revisiting.

Have any of you seen Anderson play? All we have are scouting reports.

Clarification: 1) I did not, and am not, advocating a trade of Anderson for Samardjiza. I was addressing the "untouchable" label some attach to him. 2) There is much more substance to Anderson's defensive short comings than his 31 errors, in just 302 chances. 3) Most scouting reports that I have read indicate that he is a "fringy" defensive SS, with an average arm. Here are some quotes from said scouting reports: From Scouting Book.com: "A good but not standout shortstop, he shows plus range but only a so-so arm, which suggests a move to second base might be coming in the future". From Adam Wells, Bleacher Report: Defense: 45/55 "Fringy range with below-average footwork and instincts; ability to use speed makes up for deficiencies right now; needs to position himself better to get better reads off the bat; average arm strength makes it difficult to throw from the hole; quicker release and repetitions could make him average or better in the big leagues." Arm: 50/50 "Average arm strength; transfer from glove and release are solid, but overall velocity leaves plenty to be desired; chance lack of arm necessitates move to second base or center field, with the latter maximizing his overall skill set; with better positioning, could stay at short in pro ball." Baseball America: "Winston-Salem’s Tim Anderson (White Sox) lacks efficiency in the field, with an .897 fielding percentage and Carolina League-leading total of 31 errors in just 66 games, but he also used electric athleticism and range to record +12 assists in that time. Plus, he continued to rack up assists in 10 games Double-A Birmingham (3.20 A/G)" MLB.com: "Leading up to the 2013 Draft, some scouts projected Anderson more as a center fielder than a shortstop, but the White Sox have no plans to move him off his current position. Anderson has the actions, range and arm to play short, and he has the work ethic to make the necessary refinements". This scouting report is more favorable, regarding his defense, but even then, it suggests that he will need to "make refinements". The emphasis is on the tools, not the skills.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 08:18 AM) Right. And this includes Luis Aparicio, who had some rough edges at SS his first year. If not traded, Anderson looks like he will be the SS here for many years once he takes over. Well, "Old Sox," I really am an "old" Sox fan, and I remember when Aparicio broke into the Big Leagues. He was always considered a very talented defensive shortstop. He certainly never produced a sub .900 fielding %. Anderson made 31 errors in 302 chances. That is just terrible. I'll concede that he may become a decent SS. However, he has an very long way to go to ever become elite, and his arm will likely preclude that from happening.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 08:05 AM) People, PLEASE stop using minor league errors as some sort of gauge that someone isn't able to play a position. As has been said before, plenty of MiLB SS's have had high error totals, and turned into good or great ML SS's. And since Omar was mentioned, look up his minor league fielding numbers. That was a good suggestion, and I did indeed just look at his Minor League fielding stats. He never performed anywhere near as poorly as Anderson did. Moreover, have you ever seen a scouting report that suggests Anderson even has the tools to become an elite SS?