White Sox opening day roster is far from set

by The Cheat on Mar 18, 2008 12:48 AM CDT in News

Alexei Ramirez made his center field debut on Monday, which seems to indicate that the Sox are considering keeping him on the big league roster in a super-utility role. According to Ken Rosenthal, Kenny Williams "has asked the White Sox's coaches to draw up plans detailing how many at-bats Ramirez would get in different scenarios."

I've been impressed with Ramirez this spring. I didn't expect too much after he dropped out of the DWL and failed to draw much interest from other major league clubs. He's surpassed some of my expectations, but he's still got some work to do before he's an everyday major leaguer. Right now, I'd call him a utility player with potential.

Ramirez' emergence may land the Sox in a bit of a roster crunch. They plan on carrying 12 pitchers, which leaves only 4 bench spots for position players. Pablo Ozuna and Toby Hall would seem to have two of them locked up. Brian Anderson has had a great spring, and looks like he'll take the 4th outfield spot, with Jerry Owens as the everyday "leadoff man." If Ramirez fills the remaining slot as a super-utility man, Danny Richar, Carlos Quentin, and possibly even Josh Fields could end up in Charlotte.

I mention that Josh Fields could end up in Charlotte because my own unofficial Joe Crede trade date has come and gone with the only serious suitor for Crede backing off their initial interest in part because of Crede's poor showing this spring. I'm actually starting to believe that Crede could end up being the Sox opening day 3B, with Fields in the minors.
Anderson may be writing his ticket out of town with his hot play. If Ramirez is viewed as a 4th outfielder, the Sox could ship Anderson out to a team interested in overrating spring performance. The Cubs are said to have at least some interest.
I eventually did make it to Miller's Pub on Saturday. I was out and about, running late, and didn't log-in to catch any of the warnings. Got there around 4. Fought the crowd to get in, fought the crowd to get out. Left by 4:10.
The day wasn't a total loss awash among the drunken green masses, however. I did have a nice blue line date with a cute, mousy, redhead Minnesotan. Nothing will come of it, but the Cheat's still got it.
I made a South Side Sox NCAA Tournament group over at ESPN.
Group: http://games.espn.go.com/tcmen/group?groupID=55286 (South Side Sox)
Password: SSSwagger
Scouting DLS' mechanics
Sports Illustrated will soon have its entire archive online for FREE.

0 recs | Comment 64 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Crede at 3B

I kind of suspected this. I just couldn't see Ozzie patiently sitting through Fields' growing pains at 3B when the front office expects this team to contend.

"We're actually doing some different things at the top of the lineup, but our key is Jerry Owens being our center fielder and our leadoff guy" - JD

by ChicagoPete on Mar 18, 2008 8:59 AM CDT 0 recs

Which brings up BA...

Can defense be overlooked at 3B and CF, especially with questionable pitching (given the "contender" expectations)? If the contender talk was just that, bs to keep the fanbase interested, I could live with Fields and Owens/Swisher/Ramirez in the field. But if the talk is serious, don't you need Crede and BA there for the 1st month at least? I keep reliving the 90 win '06 season and wondering 'what might have been' without Mack in CF for 60 or so games.

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 18, 2008 10:06 AM CDT up 0 recs

more may wonder

'what might have been' without BA in CF for 134.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 10:12 AM CDT up 0 recs

Instead of?

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 18, 2008 10:14 AM CDT up 0 recs

mackowiak

or an unnamed other choice.

it seems to have taken on quite a bit of currency that BA >> mack in CF in 2006. tough to measure such things, of course, but win shares suggests that, even with his fielding deficiencies, mack was more valuable in CF than BA. it's a debatable point, of course, but, outside of this board, i'd say more people would think that BA should have been benched in favor of mack.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 10:17 AM CDT up 0 recs

Not so tough to measure for me...

Perhaps by metrics, but my stomach informed me quite well.
I freely admit I'm speaking as a fan of BA's, and yes, I know what opinions are like.

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 18, 2008 10:38 AM CDT up 0 recs

i'm sure your stomach

also informed you of the offensive line BA put up. and i mean offensive in two ways.

it's a close question, of course, and, frankly, sitting one and starting the other probably would have made no difference in the sox record. certainly wouldn't have affected the playoff race.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 10:47 AM CDT up 0 recs

I usually don't engage in "what if's"

but how much different would this team look if KW had kept Chris Young and traded Anderson for Javy instead. There's been a gaping hole in CF since Rowand left, and it's still there. I definitely don't think KW would have made that Swisher trade this winter if Young was in CF so you'd still have that talented pitching sitting down in the minors for you.

"We're actually doing some different things at the top of the lineup, but our key is Jerry Owens being our center fielder and our leadoff guy" - JD

by ChicagoPete on Mar 18, 2008 10:51 AM CDT up 0 recs

i dunno about the swisher trade

heck, KW may have been more likely to make the deal. how would an outfield of swish, young, and dye look? and it's not like having young and not having javy (along with other likely moves) would really make this team much, if any, better - at least short-term.

and i still doubt the d-backs wanted anderson more than young. heck, i know the player i would have wanted between the two of those if i were arizona. the deal may have been changed to make such a move possible (a josh fields added perhaps? a vizcaino dropping out?) but then we're really getting into what-ifs.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 10:58 AM CDT up 0 recs

I don't know, larry -

BA would be an All-Star for at least 1/2 of the games for AZ.

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 18, 2008 2:28 PM CDT up 0 recs

WHO KNOWS

WHAT YOUNG WOULD HAVE DONE IN THE COLD CHICAGO AIR?

Toonderstrook's myspace page http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=67492521

by Soulja Boy on Mar 18, 2008 11:28 AM CDT up 0 recs

Post ASB 2006 stats.

Mackowiak .258/.307/.398

Anderson .257/.301/.393

CF fielding by Anderson vs. Mackowiak -----

PRICELESS

Was that a ground out to 2nd for Owens?

by ballyb on Mar 18, 2008 10:58 AM CDT up 0 recs

true

but what about pre-asb?

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 10:59 AM CDT up 0 recs

Mackowiak didn't replace

Anderson until after the ASB, just when Anderson started being somewhat competent at the plate.

Those are the facts.

Was that a ground out to 2nd for Owens?

by ballyb on Mar 18, 2008 11:02 AM CDT up 0 recs

that's not true at all

look at the gamelog.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 11:09 AM CDT up 0 recs

Which gamelog sites have position played?

Not ESPN

Was that a ground out to 2nd for Owens?

by ballyb on Mar 18, 2008 11:13 AM CDT up 0 recs

baseball reference

to clarify, mack got some largely uninterrupted starts in CF in june. that was obviously prior to the ASB and also prior to the more numerical halfway point to the season. i realize there's this perception that mack played in CF more later in the season but, when you look at the games, you'll see that he actually played more CF (and started more games there) in the first half than the second. the benching that BA got in june probably colors the perception of people. i fell into the same perception trap and was surprised when i saw the actual starts after the season. but BA made waaay more starts in both halves than mack.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 11:19 AM CDT up 0 recs

you're right.

He played more CF before the ASB than I remember.

It must have been July 1 that he figured out he couldn't play CF.

Was that a ground out to 2nd for Owens?

by ballyb on Mar 18, 2008 11:48 AM CDT up 0 recs

maybe

i think the fans also began to notice around that time, as well, considering that's about when the sox nosedive began. shortcomings get glossed over to a greater degree when the team is winning.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 11:52 AM CDT up 0 recs

A point well taken.

Was that a ground out to 2nd for Owens?

by ballyb on Mar 18, 2008 12:01 PM CDT up 0 recs

re

outside of this board, i'd say more people would think that BA should have been benched in favor of mack

any links?

heres' one:

[BP]:

Strictly in terms of wins and losses, however, without regard to the long term, replacing Anderson in center with Scott Podsednik (owner of a career RATE of 98 in center) or a platoon of the lefty Rob Mackowiak (90 career RATE in center) and righty Pablo Ozuna (6 career games in center), the two in-house options, would be a net loss.

and that was written somewhere around june 15 with BA hitting .163/.263/.296
for the next 3 months BA hit .275/.325/.425

by The Wizard on Mar 18, 2008 2:37 PM CDT up 0 recs

lol

i wasn't thinking about reputable people, wiz. i was thinking more of the likes of our friend Jermaine.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 2:41 PM CDT up 0 recs

LOL!

Jermaine = SoB, I bet.

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 18, 2008 2:44 PM CDT up 0 recs

what's interesting to note about that article

is that BA's defense significantly regressed after that point (and i mean that in the statistical sense). the article notes he was on pace for a 124 RATE - pretty much unsustainable. he ended up with a 107.

from what i read there, with the benefit of hindsight, the author was a little premature to declare that it "would be a net loss" to go to another option. it ended up being a "net tie."

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 2:58 PM CDT up 0 recs

re

yes, RATE decreased from 124 to 107

but hitting increased from .163/.263/.296 to .275/.325/.425

so the "net loss" still stands

by The Wizard on Mar 18, 2008 3:16 PM CDT up 0 recs

not really the right way to look at the numbers

but we've beaten this one into the ground already.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 3:21 PM CDT up 0 recs

Come on, Larry. Let's beat it some more.

I'd be interested in "the right way to look at the numbers."

Although, I've watched Anderson at the plate recently and (even with the VG spring #s), I'm not impressed with his approach at the plate.

Was that a ground out to 2nd for Owens?

by ballyb on Mar 18, 2008 5:01 PM CDT up 0 recs

well

first, i think wiz misstates/misunderstands what pfeiffer was presupposing in his article. though i'll admit that maybe i misunderstood it because it wasn't exactly a choice piece of writing. pfeiffer seemed to be predicating his prediction on the "nets" on BA getting closer to his PECOTA projection on on offense while also keeping his defense close to his torrid rate. so i'm not sure that dismissing BA's stagnation/decline in defense according to this measure is appropriate. also, we're looking at just one measure of defense and, frankly, i wouldn't do that. some other measures will help BA in that regard so one can weight the measures however they want and draw conclusions how they want from that.

i earlier alluded to winshares suggesting that the two of them were pretty much the same in terms of production. you can slice and dice their production however you want but, as we also discussed above, mack didn't play all that much in CF in the second half (when BA was playing better offensively) and, when he did, it probably was appropriate considering who the pitcher was.

on that point, though i'll leave this to others to replicate the work, ozzie's usage of BA changed after about june 1. obviously one thing was a tweaking in the platoon with mack, with mack facing more righties, especially ones with - you guessed it - difficult breaking balls. lots of things were going on with BA's increase in offense after about june 15 but one thing was that ozzie et al had presumably taken notice of BA's batting average of like .160 on breaking balls. limiting his exposure to that by playing mack helped bump his stats (and perhaps one could argue hurt mack's, though i don't know the facts surrounding mack's splits so i leave that as speculation), along with probably some normal "figuring shit out" on BA's part.

all in all, while we all like to throw out quick and dirty analysis like "his numbers in the last three months were stellar so he should have been playing all the time and handed the starting job in 2007, as well," there's usually a lot more analysis that can - and, from a team's perspective - should be done. while the mack v. BA debate is an interesting one, considering the differences they presented (righty v. lefty, defense v. offense, so on), it's tricky to make a solid argument either way because there first isn't a whole lot to go on and second we're comparing and weighting guys who present different strengths and, in the case of defense, there still isn't a particularly solid way to accomplish that.

anyway, that should well beat the horse into dust.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 5:22 PM CDT up 0 recs

I actually found that

to be interesting. I'm such a loser.

by palehose67 on Mar 18, 2008 6:27 PM CDT up 0 recs

Not sure how you glean

"pfeiffer seemed to be predicating his prediction on the "nets" on BA getting closer to his PECOTA projection on on offense while also keeping his defense close to his torrid rate."

Was that a ground out to 2nd for Owens?

by ballyb on Mar 18, 2008 6:43 PM CDT up 0 recs

i think it was this

"...given his strong offense in the minors--he put up a solid .265 EqA last year in Triple-A and garnered a PECOTA weighted mean projection of .269/.329/.468--you'd probably be better off betting on his RATE to continue than his offensive ineptitude..."

at any rate, i didn't read anything that really spelled out what the guy was basing it on, other than generally their discrepancy in defense - which i'd certainly agree with - and his assertion that BA was unlikely to continue ineptitude on offense. he doesn't discuss mack's offense or really spell out what level of defense he expected from BA going forward.

whenever i looked at these two players in that year and whatever measures i used, i never found a big gap between the two. sometimes one would be a bit ahead, sometimes the other, sometimes right in line with one another. that's pretty much why i've thought that there wasn't much difference. BA provides more on defense, while mack more on offense - but they pretty much offset one another in CF. in the measures i prefer, mack comes out slightly ahead. but i can see the argument the other way, too. what i cannot see, however, is how an objective person can assert that one or the other would have been so much better than the other. like i said above, it's unlikely it would have changed the win-loss record, let alone the playoff places.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 9:11 PM CDT up 0 recs

Based on nothing more

Then the way too many games I saw/see in person - my value was on his defense. There were too many games I saw Mack not read the ball and have it go over his head (the KC game still burned in my head with Contreras melting down after the 2nd miss). Why BA wasn't in CF with Mack in Lft and Pods on the bench - I still dont understand.
Pls enough re-living that year!!!

So instead of a big splash, there were ripples -- enough to change the tide, Williams believes

by Brush Back on Mar 18, 2008 9:47 PM CDT up 0 recs

Amen

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 18, 2008 9:49 PM CDT up 0 recs

i'm just catering to my audience

i've said "no more" many times. but they just keep wanting more. who am i to deny them?

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 9:52 PM CDT up 0 recs

(Smirk)

;)

Yeah, those encores can be brutal. What happened to "always leave 'em wanting more"?

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 18, 2008 9:53 PM CDT up 0 recs

you don't wait with bated breath

for my next post? i'm hurt.

by larry on Mar 19, 2008 11:17 AM CDT up 0 recs

It's why I turn my computer on

after the nightly visit to the head. The highest praise I can give.

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 19, 2008 2:58 PM CDT up 0 recs

Chris Young

"We're actually doing some different things at the top of the lineup, but our key is Jerry Owens being our center fielder and our leadoff guy" - JD

by ChicagoPete on Mar 18, 2008 10:17 AM CDT up 0 recs

We already knew this but...

"Late-arriving Richar could be odd man out"

''Uribe is playing unbelievable,'' Guillen said. ''He's swinging the bat well. I don't worry about his defense. My question is can Uribe carry this for a season? That's more important thing, but it's going to be fun to watch those guys compete for a position.''

by SSH2005 on Mar 18, 2008 9:26 AM CDT 0 recs

Carry What?

Carry his 350lb a$$ around all season?

Ozzie: "He got a [migraine] headache. I believe him because he's a real religious guy. Someone else tells me they have a migraine, I know they are hung over."

by BobbySouthSide on Mar 18, 2008 10:59 AM CDT up 0 recs

off-topic slightly-- on knuckleballers

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/080318&sportCat=mlb

The article doesn't mention Haeger-- but a franchise that had Wilhelm, Wood and Fisher ought to have more hope for a guy like Haeger.

This Dickey dude throwing an 80mph knuckler could be nasty.

by ruffster on Mar 18, 2008 11:48 AM CDT 0 recs

everyone go to baseballprospectus.com

and see the handsome young man pictured there. yes, today is brian nikola anderson's day in the sun. enjoy it, brian.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 12:00 PM CDT 0 recs

I laughed out loud

at the caption:

"White Sox outfielder Brian Anderson is having a great spring--but does that really mean anything?"

What is more impressive is the ad on the left of the screen featuring a young lady barely wearing a baseball jersey.

Share the passion, show the swagger

by tailgater on Mar 18, 2008 12:49 PM CDT up 0 recs

speaking of BA...

... rosenblog's article on Crede to the Giants for prospects, then those prospects to the O's for Roberts? Puts BA in the lineup as CF at bottom of the order, Roberts at lead-off-- and Cubs left holding their old Mark Prior and Sammy Sosa jerseys.

by ruffster on Mar 18, 2008 12:58 PM CDT up 0 recs

rosenbloom

really needs to come to grips with the fact that crede is sort of worthless.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 1:18 PM CDT up 0 recs

So does

Kenny Williams

Ozzie: "He got a [migraine] headache. I believe him because he's a real religious guy. Someone else tells me they have a migraine, I know they are hung over."

by BobbySouthSide on Mar 18, 2008 1:36 PM CDT up 0 recs

maybe

but while KW is taking a negotiating stance, rosenbloom is delusional. yup, let's get a starting pitcher for crede. or, better, prospects with which to acquire brian roberts. sign me up.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 1:38 PM CDT up 0 recs

Probably a good

reason why Rosenbloom basically gets a 2x2 inch square on the backpage of the Trib when they additional space that needs to be filled in and why he gets just a Blog on the website.

Ozzie: "He got a [migraine] headache. I believe him because he's a real religious guy. Someone else tells me they have a migraine, I know they are hung over."

by BobbySouthSide on Mar 18, 2008 1:41 PM CDT up 0 recs

Batgirl in town?

"cute, mousy, redhead Minnesotan"

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 18, 2008 1:00 PM CDT 0 recs

I hope not

Yikes

http://www.bat-girl.com/archives/marchofdimessmall.jpg

by southsideirish71 on Mar 18, 2008 1:16 PM CDT up 0 recs

Ursu's a linebacker

compared the the blue-line girl.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Mar 18, 2008 1:31 PM CDT up 0 recs

blue line girl

I went down to the railroad yard, Watch the train come by
Knew that train would roll that day But I did not know what time.

I did not know what time, boys, did not know what time,
Knew the train would roll that day but I did not know what time.
Good morning, Mister railroad man, what time does your train roll by?

Nine sixteen and two forty four, twenty five minutes `til five.
At nine sixteen, two forty four, twenty five minutes `til five.
Thank you, Mister railroad man, I wanna watch your train roll by.

Standing on the platform, smoking a big cigar,
Waitin' for some old freight train that carries an empty car.

I rode her down to chicago town, got stuck on a blue line girl,
Bet your life she was a pearl, she wore that blue line curl.

She wore her hat on the back of her head like high tone people all do,
Very next train come down that track, I bid that gal adieu.

I bid that gal adieu, poor boys, I bid that gal adieu,
The very next train come down that track, I bid that gal adieu.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 1:36 PM CDT up 0 recs

Sweet!

Guthrie.

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 18, 2008 1:47 PM CDT up 0 recs

Where the eff do you get all this,

Buckley? You are truly impressive.

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 18, 2008 2:31 PM CDT up 0 recs

more on the torpedo boat

[SG]:

Uribe is batting .333 (10-for-30) in 11 Cactus League games, but that's not quite enough to overcome his .234 average and equally dismal .284 on-base percentage from 2007.

"He's still swinging from his heels no matter what the situation is,'' a major-league scout said Sunday. "He can play second base, there's no doubt about it. He's not an all-star out there, but he's good enough to get the job done for the White Sox. But that swing is going to be a problem.''

by The Wizard on Mar 18, 2008 2:25 PM CDT 0 recs

nothing like stating the obvious

thanks scot gregor and major-league scout.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 2:29 PM CDT up 0 recs

Uribe

Might still be the best option, unfortunately. Richar is still banged up and Ramirez needs to learn the position. I'm not sure throwing Ramirez out there to the wolves from day one is the best option.

Maybe let Richar get healed up and send Ramirez down to Charlotte for a few weeks to get some additional seasoning.

Around April 20th, see what you got and make a decision.

Ozzie: "He got a [migraine] headache. I believe him because he's a real religious guy. Someone else tells me they have a migraine, I know they are hung over."

by BobbySouthSide on Mar 18, 2008 2:37 PM CDT up 0 recs

That is entirely

reasonable at this point. I don't want to see Ramirez just sitting on the bench and playing ever so often. He needs to play every day.

by palehose67 on Mar 18, 2008 3:02 PM CDT up 0 recs

I think this is why you might see Anderson gone

If the Sox like Ramirez as much as they seem to, they'll find a way to get him 400+ at-bats during the season, which is fine.

Starts a game a week at SS, 1-2 at 2B, and 1-2 in the OF. He'd be a member of the bench, but he'd accumulate 400+ at-bats, and be something of a stealth starter.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Mar 18, 2008 3:25 PM CDT up 0 recs

seems iffy, though

to go with him as your "backup" outfielder. we've already heard from ozzie that pablo isn't going to play there (usual caveats); alexei as your primary replacement is somewhat scary, especially with JD out there. and i can't see cabrera being sat once a week, let alone once a month.

by larry on Mar 18, 2008 3:31 PM CDT up 0 recs

All is scary

I guess Quentin would be your 4th OF'er if Anderson is gone and Ramirez and Pablo would be utility guys? Hall then is the last bench player.

This Pablo situation really sucks!

Ozzie: "He got a [migraine] headache. I believe him because he's a real religious guy. Someone else tells me they have a migraine, I know they are hung over."

by BobbySouthSide on Mar 18, 2008 3:36 PM CDT up 0 recs