knightni Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 QUOTE(qwerty @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 01:12 AM) You know the signing is pointless when multiple pages in the thread is discussing trivia ( no offense to anyone who participated in the trivia). Will there be a day that anyone other than wite and kalapse make any sense in the foreseeable future? Erstad had not signed when we started to do trivia. It was only a rumor. It's freakin' January and Sox fans are crawling the walls to be entertained until March. The trivia was fun, I wasn't dissing Erstad at all. QUOTE(CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 01:47 PM) 2 guys u agree with make sense , the rest of us are senseless. Classy ! Debate the move. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for your vast knowledge of baseball. I don't think he meant it like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 12:58 PM) Obviously there are a few different factors that play into things, but I'm surprised and disappointed with didn't see Preston Wilson's name linked with the Sox. Makes a ton more sense than Erstad IMO. The major difference being handedness. I think of this move this way -- KW knew Ozzie was going to play matchup in cf against rhp. Given that you NEED a lh hitter for cf (not that I like that idea), are there many better choices? We've heard that Mack will NOT be playing cf in 2007, but when those statements came out, Ozzie and KW didn't know any more about Mack's defense than they did in 2006, when Ozzie kept trotting him out there regardless. I'm not sure that Mack would NOT be playing cf next year if we hadn't made a move like this, despite what's been said. And I'm sure it helps that Erstad was a favorite of KW, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 06:47 PM) Whats your point , that all Gold glovers suck ? I already said there are exceptions but its not like Jeter or Palmeiro deserved "lead" gloves is it ? 18 guys get gold gloves every year. You picked 2 guys and go back to 1999 so you're going back 7 seasons. 7 x 18 =126 gold glovers. You're about naming 61 more guys short who YOU didn't think deserve it of making me change my mind. You want me to go through every list and pick out bad choices? I certainly can. Those were the off-of-top-of-my-head GG winners. The point is that YOU think that a GG means a player is good on defense, when in fact it's not true at all. Worse, you think that a guy winning a GG in the past means that the player can still play at that level. I'm not saying Erstad never was a GG caliber player, I'm saying that age and injuries have most likely diminished his skills out there. BTW, the Palmiero point apparently went right over your head. He played less than 30 games that year in the field, and he won a GG. That should tell you all you need to know about what it means to win one. And if you think Jeter is a good defensive SS, then I really don't feel compelled one bit to say anything more on the issue. Edited January 24, 2007 by CWSGuy406 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 03:40 AM) I really like our bench. And yes Kenny improved the pen this offseason. We have many hard throwers in there now with Sisco, Aardsma, Thorton and Jenks. Macdougal can also bring the heat as well. If we're only carrying 2 lefties as well in the pen, I'd like for Sisco to start down at Charltote, and Boone to be given that 2nd lefties spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 12:47 PM) 2 guys u agree with make sense , the rest of us are senseless. Classy ! Debate the move. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for your vast knowledge of baseball. They are two people i consistently agree with because they are correct a much greater portion than the average person. It is not that they are even correct as much as they make alot of sense. I do not see them pull things out of their ass before they post... studying is involved which i respect. Edited January 25, 2007 by qwerty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 QUOTE(qwerty @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 09:36 PM) They are two people i consistently agree with because they are correct a much greater portion than the average person. It is not that they are even correct as much as they make alot of sense. I do not see them pull things out of their ass before they post... studying is involved which i respect. wite not pulling things out of his ass? Since when? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 10:38 PM) wite not pulling things out of his ass? Since when? He does know Richard Gere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 QUOTE(qwerty @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 09:36 PM) They are two people i consistently agree with because they are correct a much greater portion than the average person. It is not that they are even correct as much as they make alot of sense. I do not see them pull things out of their ass before they post... studying is involved which i respect. IIRC, Wite was the same guy that predicted Iowa to go to the Final Four last year. So he has no credibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 10:18 PM) IIRC, Wite was the same guy that predicted Iowa to go to the Final Four last year. So he has no credibility. I hate you for remembering that. And that's basketball, give me a break, please!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 08:39 PM) I hate you for remembering that. And that's basketball, give me a break, please!!! I had em in the elite the 8. How was I supposed to know we can't beat any team with Northwestern in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) This seems to be another low risk move by KW. He can play 1B as well, so this is a nice filler for Gload. Erstad's numbers in 2000 were pretty solid: 25 HR, 100 RBI, 28 SB, .355 BA, .409 OBP, .541 SLG, .951 OPS Since then he has never hit more than 10 HRs, batted over .295, and his OPS has never touched .750 again. That one year stands out pretty big. Edited January 25, 2007 by RME JICO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redandwhite Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 23, 2007 -> 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I cant believe we brought OOTP in to the discussion. We signed him because there was nothing left for this cheap. Josh Fields should have a serious crack at the job, and maybe a platoon with Erstad. That was completely irrelevant to the overall meaning of the post. Open your eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Bill Melton was just on the radio, and he made it seem like the Sox were bringing in Erstad to be their starting CF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 QUOTE(fathom @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 11:06 AM) Bill Melton was just on the radio, and he made it seem like the Sox were bringing in Erstad to be their starting CF. How depressing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 QUOTE(fathom @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 12:06 PM) Bill Melton was just on the radio, and he made it seem like the Sox were bringing in Erstad to be their starting CF. Doubtful. Who's playing left then? Anderson has to play while Pods is out. If he proves himself, Ozzie has to at least platoon him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klaus kinski Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 The point that is encouraging to me is we have a REAL LIVE OUTFIELDER now, not infielders like Mack, Osuna, and Gload. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 QUOTE(RME JICO @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 10:50 AM) This seems to be another low risk move by KW. He can play 1B as well, so this is a nice filler for Gload. Erstad's numbers in 2000 were pretty solid: 25 HR, 100 RBI, 28 SB, .355 BA, .409 OBP, .541 SLG, .951 OPS Since then he has never hit more than 10 HRs, batted over .295, and his OPS has never touched .750 again. That one year stands out pretty big. I believe that's what they in the business call a statistical anomaly. Seeing as how it happened 6 years ago and he's come nowhere near any of those numbers again in fact he was never really close to those numbers before '00. That hasn't stopped Erstad from living off that one great offensive season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 12:12 PM) I believe that's what they in the business call a statistical anomaly. Seeing as how it happened 6 years ago and he's come nowhere near any of those numbers again in fact he was never really close to those numbers before '00. That hasn't stopped Erstad from living off that one great offensive season. I don't think he's going to put up great numbers, but if Levine is correct and they are paying him $750,000 for 2007, if he's as bad as you think he is, it won't hurt KW to release him. On the other hand, at that price, he will most likely bring you at least as much as Timo Perez did in 2005. What the move does is more than likely keeps Sweeney from rotting on the bench in Chicago, while getting him some more baseball experience in Charlotte, and really doesn't do anything to hurt the White Sox budget-wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 12:23 PM) I don't think he's going to put up great numbers, but if Levine is correct and they are paying him $750,000 for 2007, if he's as bad as you think he is, it won't hurt KW to release him. On the other hand, at that price, he will most likely bring you at least as much as Timo Perez did in 2005. What the move does is more than likely keeps Sweeney from rotting on the bench in Chicago, while getting him some more baseball experience in Charlotte, and really doesn't do anything to hurt the White Sox budget-wise. Like I said earlier in the thread, if Erstad blows/gets seriously injured and is released/placed on the DL it will hurt the team big time. Erstad right now is being counted on to fill a role that was severely lacking last year and was one of the top 3 reasons why that team didn't make the playoffs, 4th OF. If Erstad is incompacitated for one reason or another this team becomes a whole lot weaker and a giant hole is created on the roster, a hole that this team for whatever reason doesn't really see as a priority to fill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Erstad will be guaranteed $1M. He'll make 750K in '07 with a $3.5M option for '08 that could increase to $6M if he gets 600 plate appearances in '07. The deal also includes a 250K buyout for '08. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6407652 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jphat007 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 01:31 PM) Like I said earlier in the thread, if Erstad blows/gets seriously injured and is released/placed on the DL it will hurt the team big time. Erstad right now is being counted on to fill a role that was severely lacking last year and was one of the top 3 reasons why that team didn't make the playoffs, 4th OF. If Erstad is incompacitated for one reason or another this team becomes a whole lot weaker and a giant hole is created on the roster, a hole that this team for whatever reason doesn't really see as a priority to fill. The 4th OF would have just been Sweeney or Owens or Terrero or somebody in that ilk without the Erstad signing, and that's who it will be if he gets hurt. It's not like getting Erstad was going to change that fact. It was going to be one of those people, and now it's Erstad. If Erstad gets hurt, it will be one of those guys anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 QUOTE(jphat007 @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 01:24 PM) The 4th OF would have just been Sweeney or Owens or Terrero or somebody in that ilk without the Erstad signing, and that's who it will be if he gets hurt. It's not like getting Erstad was going to change that fact. It was going to be one of those people, and now it's Erstad. If Erstad gets hurt, it will be one of those guys anyway. It didn't have to be one of the young/bad players you mentioned there were others available this offseason that they could have gone after but instead they decided on Erstad. I don't really see why it would be Erstad or bust with this team he wasn't the only OF available this offseason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 QUOTE(jphat007 @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 11:24 AM) The 4th OF would have just been Sweeney or Owens or Terrero or somebody in that ilk without the Erstad signing, and that's who it will be if he gets hurt. It's not like getting Erstad was going to change that fact. It was going to be one of those people, and now it's Erstad. If Erstad gets hurt, it will be one of those guys anyway. For 2007, or at least the first part of it, Erstad>>>Sweeney, Owens, and Terrero in terms of being a big league backup as well (mainly because I think Sweeney and Owens need to hang out at AAA for a while longer) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatScott82 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I think Bill Melton is wrong... or maybe he meant that Erstad will be Anderson's back up once Pods returns. There is no way KW and OG would invest 2006 to help develope BA for nothing. He will be our starting CF in 2007. Erstad will be our starting LF until May when Pods comes back. The big questions is... who will bat leadoff until Pods returns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jphat007 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 02:26 PM) It didn't have to be one of the young/bad players you mentioned there were others available this offseason that they could have gone after but instead they decided on Erstad. I don't really see why it would be Erstad or bust with this team he wasn't the only OF available this offseason. They had plenty of time to go for other players before and either they decided not to because of money or they didn't like the player. Obviously they liked Erstad enough to give him the chance. It's not like there was anybody else that we could go after right nwo that would significantly upgrade us. Now if you want ot say we should have gone after somebody else who is now signed, that is one thing, but that time has past so as of right now, it was going to either be Erstad or Sweeney, Owens, or Terrero, or somebody else in the system, and I think they made the right should. Signing Erstad right this second isn't going to hurt the team. Not going after a right handed 4th outfield that was available early might, but they obviously didn't believe so. It was the right move at that time. Not necessarily the right move for the whole offseason. 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.