Jump to content

caulfield12

Members
  • Posts

    89,671
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    27

Everything posted by caulfield12

  1. QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 08:35 AM) 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. He's not worth $10 million per season at this point, but we're getting him for a bargain price. And his statistics (even if you leave out 2000 and "average" 2001-2005) are pretty similar to what Iguchi does, albeit less power and more stolen bases. I'm sure we would love for BA to play 145 games and put up Iguchi-esque numbers, right? He's the ideal number two hitter because he's going to play the game the way it's supposed to be played and do the little things that don't show up in the box score. His leadership will rub off on the rest of the line-up, and his level of play will be elevated by being healthy, playing CF again and playing in the best division in baseball. It's a challenge to any athlete, and I think he will respond favorably. Still, it really doesn't matter what BA or DE do if Jenks, Buehrle and Contreras all fail to pitch like they are capable of pitching.
  2. QUOTE(beck72 @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 07:47 AM) Look at their major league stats, and how many AB's they've had in the bigs. They've had struggles. But they have proven they can have success in the bigs. 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. Pods in 2006 form doesn't help the ballclub enough to offset his tentativeness in stealing and defense and lack of power. But we're not ready to run Sweeney or Fields out there everyday either. And a Mack/Ozuna platoon doesn't excite me much either, that's just a stopgap measure. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 07:48 AM) I don't think Terrero is in the plans anymore, so if the Sox could get something for him, they probably would. Welcome to the board, by the way. Terrero was one of those low risk-high reward moves like Escobar (who got us Owens) that we had nothing to lose on, and his presence also might have helped to motivate BA, if he needed it. Well, one thing NOT to worry about is KW bringing back Olivo! It will be interesting to see what move he can brew up to replace Molina or Wiki, I'm not sure how comfortable he will be with AJ hitting against the division's lefties and wearing down in the 2nd half. AJ is one year older, and he's too valuable offensively to overplay.
  3. QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 07:44 AM) As Pods proved during the 2nd half last year, his basement is about as low as it gets in the majors. At least you always have a dependable defensive player if Anderson is in the game. Of course, the odds are pretty high that Pods or Erstad will get injured sometime this year. Supposedly, Ozuna had a great defensive play in CF in one of the minor league games, but Pablo still gives me nightmares of Hall at 1B, Dye at SS or Brian Daubach or Ross Gload in CF.
  4. QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 07:06 AM) I think of the three, BAs upside is higher, but his basement is lower, and he's proven that. This is a safe pick eary versus a gamble on ehich player will show up. The best place for him to play his way into the starting lineup may not be on the 25, but we will see. A lot will depend, as noted earlier, on how often he gets penned into the lineup and if he'll get to take an AB or two. Ninth inning Def sub may not help in that regards. As far as radar readings, who's been down, with the exception of Jenks, who has been topping out at 93/94 so far? Garland, despite his supposed "injury" problem, has been right around 88-91, which is just a little lower than normal. He's never been a power pitcher anyway. I know they've been impressed with Masset and Sisco most of the time...is Aardsma struggling too with velocity? Russell has definitely been a pleasant surprise on the "plus" side with his fastball and new arm angles elevating him perhaps to just below Danks/Gio/Floyd and ahead of the Broadway/Haeger/Phillips/McCullogh starting groups in terms of potential. EDIT: What are the odds we lose Terrero to another team? 50%? Obviously KW isn't too concerned with losing him, or he would have sent BA down instead.
×
×
  • Create New...