Brian Anderson's strong words about Winter Ball...

[Dick Allen]

The whole point of your post was how much BA got jerked around and how bad a move it was to plug in Erstad. Chisoxfn does a good job of articulating the Erstad thing so no need for me to belabor it.

 

As for Brian. Perform like a big leaguer on and off the field and you get to play. Don't, and you won't. I suppose that statement can be argued all night long with but, but, but. It really sums it up though.

 

 

Maybe if they held him up to that before they made him the starting CF it would make sense. They trade Rowand and make Anderson the starting CF on a defending world championship team before he even proves he can play in the major leagues. Then they tell him they don't care what he hits, its his defense they are worried about. He hits like a typical White Sox prospect when they get called up, not very well, but fields his position, what they asked him to do, as well as anyone. Then, when other aspects of the team that they sort of blew off in the previous offseason implode, (the bullpen), Anderson suddenly doesn't hit well enough for their liking. Fine, but look at Anderson's 2006. He improved offensively as the season wore on. Admittedly, I'm not sure he was ready to be an everyday CF in 2007, but all of baseball determined, and determined correctly that his competition, a guy Anderson outperformed during said competition, wasn't up to the task either. My point is the White Sox have held Anderson up on a pedestal since drafting him. They coddled him, kiss his butt, made him the starting CF on a team looking to win a championship before he ever was successful in the major leagues, and when it didn't quite work out as expected they say he's the asshole. I don't know Anderson, I don't know anyone who does, but I do think if he's a primma donna with a real bad attitude (While his attitude isn't ideal, I don't think its nearly as bad as what its made out to be), the White Sox should take a pretty big chunk of the blame for creating it.

 

[29andPoplar]

And I answered that. Bringing in Erstad was as useless a move then as it is right now. Now we're stuck with our thumbs up our butt (to put it bluntly), still not knowing what kind of player Anderson is. What I mean by that is -- if he repeats the second half of 2006, you don't have to worry about finding a CFer this winter. If he sucks -- well, you know he's probably not going to make it.

 

Instead, we have a player who hasn't even had a full season's worth of at-bats at the major league level, and we're forced to cut bait with him when his value is at his lowest. So not only was he jerked around in 2006 -- which you haven't responded to so I'll take that as meaning you agree that I'm right -- but they've effectively killed his trade value.

 

Actually I have responded to it repeatedly. He wasn't jerked around in 2006, he didn't perform. The team was trying to repeat as a winner. If anything they went out of their way to make it easier for Brian by trying to take the pressure off him by telling him to just worry about defense with the hopes his talent (which they overrated big time) would surface at the plate.

 

To put it equally bluntly, he isn't that good. He thinks he is but he isn't. Part of being a good player is not throwing pity parties (and I apologize to the board for using that term repeatedly but it's the only way I can figure out to say it). He has done that repeatedly. Careers get short circuited that way.

 

I realize many here don't seem to care about intangibles or greatly minimize them. However, they are important and let's leave Erstad completely out of the intangibles discussion because I realize the sarcasm meter runs high on this board with Erstad jokes. Even if Erstad wasn't available or wasn't brought it wouldn't matter. Anderson isn't very good. Neither is Erstad. The mistake the Sox made was pointed out by other posters, they misjudged (actually overrated) Anderson's talent and Erstad's too for that matter and as one poster said, there was no good backup plan. They did not and do not have any CF's in the pipeline, except maybe this Kent Gerst kid that Bureau speaks highly of and I have mentioned from time to time as a guy to watch.

 

Again, part of talent is mental makeup and the ability to overcome failures. Anderson just kept digging himself a hole, deeper and deeper, by not listening or working on things and wanting to do things his own way. Not sure why that aspect of things isn't being acknowledged.

 

Further I believe many here and also in the White Sox organization felt, or still feel, this guy is good because he was a 1st round draft pick and he hit for average at AAA. The road is littered with guys who hit well at AAA. A poster here pointed it out, I believe it was Chisoxfn, who said Anderson had huge holes in his swing even then. Look at Bureau's comments in the Future Sox section on swing plane and changing guy's swings. Anderson struck out a lot and he's still striking out a lot. A player has to be smart enough and willing enough to recognize shortcomings and apply them. Not only that but he has never shown to be a smart hitter. When you pick the wrong guys in the draft you can have the greatest instructors in the world and they can't make a guy a great player. It does not work that way.

 

As Bureau said and I agree with him, Anderson was a high ceiling power prospect and good defensively. However the mental aspect and the intangibles are what makes guys successful because they know how to apply their tools and hone their craft.

 

To be even more clear - I do not blame all of this on Brian. Again it's my opinion he was never that good to start with. A huge red flag went up for me looking at his strikeout rate and seeing him play in spring training several years ago. A big huge long swing which he apparantly had in college too, from talking to Univ. of Arizona people. And then the intangibles issues. My question is, why draft a guy like that? I will admit to having a huge bias for hitting for contact, line drives, and gap power, and strong strike zone recognition. With that in mind, Anderson isn't, and wasn't, that type of player. Thus far, his results have shown it to be true, i.e. his results haven't been good. Maybe if his intangibles were better his results would be better. But they aren't and we now have what we have.

[29andPoplar]

Maybe if they held him up to that before they made him the starting CF it would make sense. They trade Rowand and make Anderson the starting CF on a defending world championship team before he even proves he can play in the major leagues. Then they tell him they don't care what he hits, its his defense they are worried about. He hits like a typical White Sox prospect when they get called up, not very well, but fields his position, what they asked him to do, as well as anyone. Then, when other aspects of the team that they sort of blew off in the previous offseason implode, (the bullpen), Anderson suddenly doesn't hit well enough for their liking. Fine, but look at Anderson's 2006. He improved offensively as the season wore on. Admittedly, I'm not sure he was ready to be an everyday CF in 2007, but all of baseball determined, and determined correctly that his competition, a guy Anderson outperformed during said competition, wasn't up to the task either. My point is the White Sox have held Anderson up on a pedestal since drafting him. They coddled him, kiss his butt, made him the starting CF on a team looking to win a championship before he ever was successful in the major leagues, and when it didn't quite work out as expected they say he's the asshole. I don't know Anderson, I don't know anyone who does, but I do think if he's a primma donna with a real bad attitude (While his attitude isn't ideal, I don't think its nearly as bad as what its made out to be), the White Sox should take a pretty big chunk of the blame for creating it.

 

Dick Allen,

 

You have to remember they told him to not worry about his offense to take the pressure off him. However as time went on and he was still making the same plate discipline errors he took the "woe is me" approach. Not good. That is where a player with good makeup and intangibles pulls himself up from the bootstraps.

 

I blame the White Sox for overestimating his talent so I suppose at one level we agree. The White Sox are not blameless in this, I agree although I think we view it (the blame) from different angles. Which is fine.

[Dick Allen]

Dick Allen,

 

You have to remember they told him to not worry about his offense to take the pressure off him. However as time went on and he was still making the same plate discipline errors he took the "woe is me" approach. Not good. That is where a player with good makeup and intangibles pulls himself up from the bootstraps.

 

I blame the White Sox for overestimating his talent so I suppose at one level we agree. The White Sox are not blameless in this, I agree although I think we view it (the blame) from different angles. Which is fine.

The "woe is me" approach worked for a .296 average in July and a .313 average in August.

Edited November 4, 2007 by Dick Allen

[Colorado Sox Fan]

As for Brian. Perform like a big leaguer on and off the field and you get to play. Don't, and you won't. I suppose that statement can be argued all night long with but, but, but. It really sums it up though.

 

Well said.

[Colorado Sox Fan]

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/artic...sp&c_id=cws

 

Looks like the Sox and Brian Anderson have both given up on each other. This makes it more then likely that Anderson will traded away in the offseason, like many expected.

 

I don't see from that article where it says the Sox have given up on him. I think he's wrong here:

"I'm not a 6-year-old. It would be nice to talk to someone and find out why I'm going there and as to how it will benefit me, instead of someone saying, 'You are going down there.'"

 

He IS acting like a 6-year-old, if he needs someone to tell him how it will benefit him. It's pretty obvious--to figure out how to hit a baseball. Now, go play, or are you to busy chasing the honeys?

 

[Texsox]

Looking at physical talent, the difference between a perennial gold glove winner and a AAA player is not that great. It's what you do with that talent that makes the difference. Perhaps I overrate intangibles like character, effort, enthusiasm, and baseball IQ, but from watching a lot of can't miss guys miss, it makes sense to me. How a player handles adversity goes a long way from stopping an 1 for 14 bad series from turning into a .167 month. It speaks to how they handle the little nagging pains, how they handle the inevitable decline in their physical skills.

 

Earlier someone pointed out that this may be the first time he failed and isn't handling it very well. It is probably the first time coaches are getting on his ass. And yes there is plenty of blame to be tossed around. But he has to realize that if he fails, the rest of the organization will still be around and he'll be selling timeshares in Orlando.

 

Now Brian Anderson is an asset that the team owns for a while. Like buildings, computers, or inventory the team has to figure out how to maximize their ROI. They have an investment in time, talent, and money in the guy. To maximize that investment, that would have to make a further investment in him. If the goal is to trade him, they have to analyze what further investment they are willing to make against what potential additional benefit they will get. If two more years moves his value from mid level prospect to just above mid level, it probably isn't worth the additional investment. If two years nets a MLB ready player, then it is.

 

And Brian Anderson has to realize he could be at his "jump the shark" moment. There is a way to run a baseball franchise and most teams are basically the same. If he thinks he will achieve baseball nirvana by switching teams, he will be sadly surprised. Perhaps then he'll get the kick in the ass it seems he needs.

 

Bottom line scoring, Anderson is 80% to blame for his current situation, and he's 100% responsible for the solution and no one except him will be crying if he washes out of baseball. Fans will forget about him in no time flat.

[29andPoplar]

The "woe is me" approach worked for a .296 average in July and a .313 average in August.

 

It doesn't work consistently though, you know that as well as I. He's hit poorly in a lot more months both in Chicago and Charlotte. Ability to work on and make adjustments maybe. There are reasons he hasn't done well consistently, I think TexSox's post sums it up nicely.

 

At this point I'm going to end my participation in this thread because not much more needs to be said, from me anyways. Some blame the White Sox more, some blame Brian Anderson more. Nothing wrong with that, it is the nature of baseball discussion.

 

I will say this, whether it's Brian Anderson or anyone else, the White Sox need to do a better job of bringing the right types of guys into the organization, and developing them better. Changes are afoot and I hope they are for the better. I do like how they're questioning and thoroughly evaluating everything they do. You have to get guys with the right intangibles and you have to develop them to assure a maximum return which is basically what TexSox said. And when I say "bring the right types of guys in" it absolutely applies to players and coaches/development personnel/front office. Everything and everyone.

[MurcieOne]

on a side note.... do you think Brian Anderson has luscious curly blonde pubes like the hair on his head?

 

 

just thought id break some of the tension...... Darin Erstad's pubes can smooth stone, cause ya know he's grindy.

[Texsox]

on a side note.... do you think Brian Anderson has luscious curly blonde pubes like the hair on his head?

 

 

just thought id break some of the tension...... Darin Erstad's pubes can smooth stone, cause ya know he's grindy.

Best.Anderson.Post.Ever

[CWSGuy406]

Actually I have responded to it repeatedly. He wasn't jerked around in 2006, he didn't perform. The team was trying to repeat as a winner. If anything they went out of their way to make it easier for Brian by trying to take the pressure off him by telling him to just worry about defense with the hopes his talent (which they overrated big time) would surface at the plate.

 

Bulls***.

 

He performed fine. When he wasn't hitting in the first half, the team was still winning and his crappy at-bats weren't hurting the team a whole lot and his defense more than made up for his woes at the plate. His first half of 2006 defensively was better than amazing.

 

In the second half, he continued to play strong defense as his bat picked up. That's funny you mention "the team was trying to repeat as a winner", yet you haven't pointed out why Brian Anderson was a detriment to this cause. As Anderson's bat picked up, Ozzie thought it necessary to play a utility infielder in CF. If Ozzie wanted the team to repeat as a winner, he would've left Anderson out there, as Mackowiak's defensive miscues cost the Sox multiple second half games.

 

So appparently 'making a point' took precedence over trying to "repeat as a winner".

Edited November 4, 2007 by CWSGuy406

[Rowand44]

Bulls***.

 

He performed fine. When he wasn't hitting in the first half, the team was still winning and his crappy at-bats weren't hurting the team a whole lot and his defense more than made up for his woes at the plate. His first half of 2006 defensively was better than amazing.

 

In the second half, he continued to play strong defense as his bat picked up. That's funny you mention "the team was trying to repeat as a winner", yet you haven't pointed out why Brian Anderson was a detriment to this cause. As Anderson's bat picked up, Ozzie thought it necessary to play a utility infielder in CF. If Ozzie wanted the team to repeat as a winner, he would've left Anderson out there, as Mackowiak's defensive miscues cost the Sox multiple second half games.

 

So appparently 'making a point' took precedence over trying to "repeat as a winner".

Yup. I can't believe I'm still arguing Brian Anderson crap but as poor as he was with the stick at the beginning of 06, he gave us the best chance to win in center and it wasn't even close.

[scenario]

I wouldn't be surprised if Brian is a Padre by the end of this week.

 

He lives less than a half hour from San Diego and young CF's are on their radar screen this offseason.

Edited November 4, 2007 by scenario

[29andPoplar]

Bulls***.

 

He performed fine. When he wasn't hitting in the first half, the team was still winning and his crappy at-bats weren't hurting the team a whole lot and his defense more than made up for his woes at the plate. His first half of 2006 defensively was better than amazing.

 

In the second half, he continued to play strong defense as his bat picked up. That's funny you mention "the team was trying to repeat as a winner", yet you haven't pointed out why Brian Anderson was a detriment to this cause. As Anderson's bat picked up, Ozzie thought it necessary to play a utility infielder in CF. If Ozzie wanted the team to repeat as a winner, he would've left Anderson out there, as Mackowiak's defensive miscues cost the Sox multiple second half games.

 

So appparently 'making a point' took precedence over trying to "repeat as a winner".

 

This is the second post of mine you've reponded to with profanity. Please don't do that or don't respond to my posts. Thanks. It's not necessary to make your point to me.

 

Here is why Anderson was a detriment to repeating as a winner. Bad hitting, at the very least very inconsistent, the entire year. Bad at bats. Failure to execute at the plate. Not working hard enough to learn and overcome his shortcomings. All of which probably do not resonate with you as you are clearly in Brian's corner and are insisting he was wronged. That's fine to believe that. I though will believe those close to the team who have always told me good information. I have no quarrel with what you believe. I believe something completely different and have stated my reasons for believing those things.

 

Mackowiak was a better bat and the plan all along was to get him in there to shield Anderson from certain tough pitchers. It was not as if he was suddenly inserted in the lineup as soon as Anderson started hitting better. It was the plan all along. Should they have had a better CF candidate, absolutely yes. One could argue Mackowiak helped with the bat as much as he hurt defensively, but why get into that debate? You will have your pro-Anderson stance and I will have my Anderson is not a good player stance.

 

As for Anderson's defense we will disagree on that too. Better than amazing is not how I would phrase it. Well above average with several things to get better at, like consistency on cutoff throws, technique on jumps, and learning the hitters. Certainly he is much better defensively than at the plate, there is no question of that. Also to suggest the manager would have left Anderson out there if he really wanted to repeat as a winner, implying he was making a point and that point was more important than winning, well, that's not Guillen. Not in the slightest.

 

Personally I think this has gone long enough. You have your take on it and I have mine. I indicated I was done participating and feel badly I have added this post. I felt it was necessary based on what I stated at the beginning of this post.

[CWSGuy406]

This is the second post of mine you've reponded to with profanity. Please don't do that or don't respond to my posts. Thanks. It's not necessary to make your point to me.

 

Oh boo hoo. Give me a break. I see bulls*** and I'm going to call it such.

 

Here is why Anderson was a detriment to repeating as a winner. Bad hitting, at the very least very inconsistent, the entire year. Bad at bats. Failure to execute at the plate. Not working hard enough to learn and overcome his shortcomings. All of which probably do not resonate with you as you are clearly in Brian's corner and are insisting he was wronged. That's fine to believe that. I though will believe those close to the team who have always told me good information. I have no quarrel with what you believe. I believe something completely different and have stated my reasons for believing those things.

 

Bad hitting... in the first half bad hitting. And again, it didn't matter. The team was mashing the ball -- everybody in the lineup was doing their thing, except really Podsednik who wasn't doing anything to help the cause. Anderson and Uribe were playing phenomenal defense (yes, phenomenal -- IIRC, The Hardball Times said that Anderson had a historic first half defensively) and everybody else (again -- except Podsednik) was mashing. It was a great mix of hitting and good defense at spots where you need good defense.

 

Mackowiak was a better bat and the plan all along was to get him in there to shield Anderson from certain tough pitchers. It was not as if he was suddenly inserted in the lineup as soon as Anderson started hitting better. It was the plan all along. Should they have had a better CF candidate, absolutely yes. One could argue Mackowiak helped with the bat as much as he hurt defensively, but why get into that debate?

 

The Sox didn't need another bat. They needed a guy in CF who wouldn't fall over when line drives were hit to him in CF. They needed a guy who could go get the ball behind his pitchers -- Mackowiak couldn't do that and cost the Sox many games because of his defense.

 

And no, Mackowiak's bat didn't outweigh his defensive miscomings. That's just plain wrong. In the second half, Mackowiak hit .258/.307/.398. Anderson hit .257/.301/.393. There was NO reason -- absolutely none -- for Anderson not to be in CF six days a week, but instead Anderson was basically being platooned. And for what exactly?

 

You will have your pro-Anderson stance and I will have my Anderson is not a good player stance.

 

For the 19th time, I'm not debating the merrits of Brian Anderson being a good player. I'm saying he got jerked around in 2006, which it was pretty clear he was to anyone not wearing Sox organizational shaded glasses.

 

And Anderson wasn't the only one jerked around in 2006. That was a complete failure of managing on Ozzie's part (I'm not one who wants Ozzie fired, BTW, as I generally think he handles the pitchers very well and the players generally like him. Just wanted to get that out there).

 

* There was no reason Ross Gload shouldn't have been the team's everyday starting LFer. Podsednik's second half was absolutely miserable and he was one of the main reasons the Sox didn't play in October, with his .241/.296/.297 second half line.

 

* The Sox said in spring training that B-Mac would be used as a spot starter in cases where it was clear there was fatigue. Buehrle, Garcia and Contreras ALL could have used a rest at one point or another during the season. Instead, Ozzie went against what the whole organization said in spring training.

[NorthSideSox72]

They could have just started Ross Gload in CF in 2006 and we wouldn't have had this problem.

 

 

 

 

 

[Texsox]

Oh boo hoo. Give me a break. I see bulls*** and I'm going to call it such.

 

And if y'all step over into personal attacks we will edit your posts. Next comes warnings, and suspensions.

[CWSGuy406]

And if y'all step over into personal attacks we will edit your posts.

 

Show me where I personally attacked him. I didn't call him any names, I called that part of his post was "bulls***". He doesn't like that I'm swearing. Swearing = personal attack? Interesting...

[Texsox]

BTW, the more I think about BA and the club wanting him to go to Mexico, I think this is like sending him to boot camp to humble him. This isn't about anything physical. Just knock that chip off his shoulder, knock his ego down a few sizes.

[StrangeSox]

Mackowiak was a better bat and the plan all along was to get him in there to shield Anderson from certain tough pitchers. It was not as if he was suddenly inserted in the lineup as soon as Anderson started hitting better. It was the plan all along. Should they have had a better CF candidate, absolutely yes. One could argue Mackowiak helped with the bat as much as he hurt defensively, but why get into that debate? You will have your pro-Anderson stance and I will have my Anderson is not a good player stance.

 

That would be nice if it were true, as the Sox may have been playing in the '06 post-season. But it wasn't even close to true. Mack wasn't accomplishing much at the plate and was horrible in the field. For someone to argue that Mack helped with his bat as much as he hurt defensively, he would have had to hit about .350 with 20HR's in the 2nd half.

Edited November 5, 2007 by StrangeSox

[29andPoplar]

That would be nice if it were true, as the Sox may have been playing in the '06 post-season. But it wasn't even close to true. Mack wasn't accomplishing much at the plate and was horrible in the field. For someone to argue that Mack helped with his bat as much as he hurt defensively, he would have had to hit about .350 with 20HR's in the 2nd half.

 

It's not all about stats. Productive at bats are important and Mackowiak was good at that.

 

 

Edited November 5, 2007 by 29andPoplar

[Texsox]

What kinds of at bats are productive and not tracked in some stat?

[NorthSideSox72]

What kinds of at bats are productive and not tracked in some stat?

I think he was getting at things like moving runners over, working the pitcher, etc.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Show me where I personally attacked him. I didn't call him any names, I called that part of his post was "bulls***". He doesn't like that I'm swearing. Swearing = personal attack? Interesting...

 

Nobody's accusing you of anything here. We just want this thread to stay friendly is all.

[Texsox]

And if y'all step over into personal attacks we will edit your posts. Next comes warnings, and suspensions.

 

 

Show me where I personally attacked him. I didn't call him any names, I called that part of his post was "bulls***". He doesn't like that I'm swearing. Swearing = personal attack? Interesting...

 

Please reread my post. That may clarify it for you.