PDA

View Full Version : Sweeping changes to Sox minor league system


Sockinchisox
11-03-2008, 02:28 PM
Here are all the coaching changes.

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2008/11/sweeping-change.html

EMachine10
11-03-2008, 02:37 PM
Don't know much about these guys, so all I can do is hope for brighter days from our farm system.

hellview
11-03-2008, 03:32 PM
How about Kenny and the front office spend some money in the draft instead of going cheap every year and watches those coaches look 10-fold better.

Craig Grebeck
11-03-2008, 03:40 PM
How about Kenny and the front office spend some money in the draft instead of going cheap every year and watches those coaches look 10-fold better.
Yes, it's not like we signed Danks or Upchurch this draft.

Daver
11-03-2008, 04:13 PM
The addition of Chambliss is a good move, Gary Ward probably not so much, if they had to bring back a former coach I think Von Joshua would have been a much better move. Oester is also a good addition, but I have been told a cardboard cutout would be an improvement on Trillo.

Now they just need to change the philosphy on how these players progress.

DumpJerry
11-03-2008, 04:15 PM
Did they miss this tag that much?
:fireward

hellview
11-03-2008, 04:55 PM
Yes, it's not like we signed Danks or Upchurch this draft.

Wow they spent a little on Danks and Upchurch...still doesn't change that year after year the Sox pinch pennies when it comes to the draft. They spent 4.6 million this year which sucks cause Beckham signed for around 3 million. They spent 2.7 million in 2007, which is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.

There's a direct coralation between teams that go over slot and top farm systems. Boston, Yankees, San Fran, Nationals, KC and TB all spend and all have very good or coming up farm systems.

Craig Grebeck
11-03-2008, 05:09 PM
Wow they spent a little on Danks and Upchurch...still doesn't change that year after year the Sox pinch pennies when it comes to the draft. They spent 4.6 million this year which sucks cause Beckham signed for around 3 million. They spent 2.7 million in 2007, which is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.

There's a direct coralation between teams that go over slot and top farm systems. Boston, Yankees, San Fran, Nationals, KC and TB all spend and all have very good or coming up farm systems.
The Nationals have an abysmal farm system. KC doesn't have that great of a system either. San Francisco is boosted by a good deal of foreign guys. We obviously don't have the resources of Boston and NY, so I'm not sure why they were included.

If you want to complain about aspects of our farm system, our drafting philosophy the last two seasons shouldn't rate very close to the top.

California Sox
11-03-2008, 05:14 PM
The Nationals have an abysmal farm system. KC doesn't have that great of a system either. San Francisco is boosted by a good deal of foreign guys. We obviously don't have the resources of Boston and NY, so I'm not sure why they were included.

If you want to complain about aspects of our farm system, our drafting philosophy the last two seasons shouldn't rate very close to the top.

How about the last three seasons? That 2006 draft has a chance of being one of the worst drafts in mlb history. There's a chance no one from that draft gets a sniff of the majors. Truly a terrible, terrible draft.

Daver
11-03-2008, 05:17 PM
Wow they spent a little on Danks and Upchurch...still doesn't change that year after year the Sox pinch pennies when it comes to the draft. They spent 4.6 million this year which sucks cause Beckham signed for around 3 million. They spent 2.7 million in 2007, which is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.

There's a direct coralation between teams that go over slot and top farm systems. Boston, Yankees, San Fran, Nationals, KC and TB all spend and all have very good or coming up farm systems.


Spending does not cure the inability to develop talent, but don't let that interfere with your perfectly good delusion.

Craig Grebeck
11-03-2008, 05:23 PM
How about the last three seasons? That 2006 draft has a chance of being one of the worst drafts in mlb history. There's a chance no one from that draft gets a sniff of the majors. Truly a terrible, terrible draft.
Not as bad as you say. Texeira, Shelby, and Gerst have shown flashes. Justin Cassel's been great, despite not striking anyone out.

hellview
11-03-2008, 05:50 PM
The Nationals have an abysmal farm system. KC doesn't have that great of a system either. San Francisco is boosted by a good deal of foreign guys. We obviously don't have the resources of Boston and NY, so I'm not sure why they were included.

If you want to complain about aspects of our farm system, our drafting philosophy the last two seasons shouldn't rate very close to the top.

The Nationals farm system isn't abysmal at all, after years of no ownership they are finally starting to focus on their farm systems and spend some cash on the draft.

Outside of the Rangers there isn't a farm system I'd rather have then San Fran. Villanola, Bumgarner, Sosa, Posey and Alderson are all great prospects.


Spending does not cure the inability to develop talent, but don't let that interfere with your perfectly good delusion


You sure, 5-6 years ago the Yankees and Sox had nothing in the farm system. They now spend some money and look at all the homegrown talent those two have turned out of the last 2-3 years.

Daver
11-03-2008, 05:56 PM
You sure, 5-6 years ago the Yankees and Sox had nothing in the farm system. They now spend some money and look at all the homegrown talent those two have turned out of the last 2-3 years.

Compared to what?

The Twins spend less than them by far and have a far superior farm system from the bottom up. A farm system is not rated by a handful of good players by anyone other than fantasy baseball players.

But please continue to cling to your delusion that overpaying for prospects is the way to a winning farm system.

Domeshot17
11-03-2008, 06:10 PM
LEts be honest, the system is a mess because its a cluster**** of problems. It starts on draft day. We have Borchardphobia. Unwilling to spend on prime ceiling players. We draft like a small market penny pinching team. Its 100% because of fear. You can throw out all the Danks (who is over rated as all hell, who showed no power, and fell off so much from high school to college plenty of teams boards did not have him near as high as Kenny took him, but you know Kenny, he got his guy. ) you want. We did not have a great draft last year. We had a top 10 pick, we did not walk out with a top 10 draft.

2 years ago, we passed on one of the top 5-10 arms in the entire minor league system right now, Rick Porcello, because of Boras and $$$$, instead drafting Aaron Poreda. Sorry if it is upsetting to watch a guy projected to be a top of the rotation starter go to our division rival, while we draft a left handed set up man.

We have to spend some money. We also need to figure out how the hell to bring guys along and develop them, because we really suck at that. Too many guys with some future have busted out. We are addressing this now, but we still need to get over this Scott Boras crap, or we will keep being LOSERS in the draft. And yes, when you draft in the top 10, and you DO NOT have a top 10 draft, you are a loser!

Craig Grebeck
11-03-2008, 06:31 PM
LEts be honest, the system is a mess because its a cluster**** of problems. It starts on draft day. We have Borchardphobia. Unwilling to spend on prime ceiling players. We draft like a small market penny pinching team. Its 100% because of fear. You can throw out all the Danks (who is over rated as all hell, who showed no power, and fell off so much from high school to college plenty of teams boards did not have him near as high as Kenny took him, but you know Kenny, he got his guy. ) you want. We did not have a great draft last year. We had a top 10 pick, we did not walk out with a top 10 draft.

2 years ago, we passed on one of the top 5-10 arms in the entire minor league system right now, Rick Porcello, because of Boras and $$$$, instead drafting Aaron Poreda. Sorry if it is upsetting to watch a guy projected to be a top of the rotation starter go to our division rival, while we draft a left handed set up man.

We have to spend some money. We also need to figure out how the hell to bring guys along and develop them, because we really suck at that. Too many guys with some future have busted out. We are addressing this now, but we still need to get over this Scott Boras crap, or we will keep being LOSERS in the draft. And yes, when you draft in the top 10, and you DO NOT have a top 10 draft, you are a loser!
You are truly hilarious. Danks is overrated, but is ripping the **** out of the Arizona Fall League. He also had a solid debut and did well in independent ball prior to signing.

Poreda is merely a left-handed set-up guy, despite dominating every level thus far as a starting pitcher. Meanwhile, you are already projecting Rick Porcello to be a top of the rotation guy.

Also, you can't say this was a bad draft. We won't be able to rank it for years, but if you aren't impressed with Carter, Beckham, Danks, and others at this point, you're kidding yourself. We made some good decisions the last two seasons; they won't show for a few years, but it doesn't make them any less worthy.

hellview
11-03-2008, 06:43 PM
Compared to what?

The Twins spend less than them by far and have a far superior farm system from the bottom up. A farm system is not rated by a handful of good players by anyone other than fantasy baseball players.

But please continue to cling to your delusion that overpaying for prospects is the way to a winning farm system.

Listen to what I'm saying. If you don't have good scouts like the Twins who can consistanly find good talent throughout the draft. Spending money covers that up. You get that top talent that falls or is repped by Boras. You can sign away those guys from strong college commiments or what to return to college.

It seems that every organization in baseball has realized the current gold in baseball is young cheap prospects except the White Sox.


You are truly hilarious. Danks is overrated, but is ripping the **** out of the Arizona Fall League. He also had a solid debut and did well in independent ball prior to signing.


AFL numbers are about as useless as Spring Training numbers. There's a reason Danks fell that far and it had nothing to do with his agent or asking price.

Daver
11-03-2008, 06:47 PM
Listen to what I'm saying. If you don't have good scouts like the Twins who can consistanly find good talent throughout the draft. Spending money covers that up. You get that top talent that falls or is repped by Boras. You can sign away those guys from strong college commiments or what to return to college.

It seems that every organization in baseball has realized the current gold in baseball is young cheap prospects except the White Sox.


Suffice it to say I am damn glad you don't work for the White Sox.

That may be the stupidest approach to fixing the problem that has ever been posted here.

Domeshot17
11-03-2008, 07:10 PM
Suffice it to say I am damn glad you don't work for the White Sox.

That may be the stupidest approach to fixing the problem that has ever been posted here.

So, I have to know. You have no problem with the fact the White Sox ignore any prospect with Boras as their agent, spend in the bottom 5 teams every year on the draft and constantly pass on high talent but pricey sign guys and end up with low ceiling easy sign prospects. You are saying you have no problem with Lance Broadway over Matt Garza, Porcello over Poreda, Kyle Mcculoch so on and so fourth?

I agree, we need better scouts, we need a new approach to development, but this idea you can draft cheap and be fine is horrible.

hellview
11-03-2008, 07:24 PM
Suffice it to say I am damn glad you don't work for the White Sox.

That may be the stupidest approach to fixing the problem that has ever been posted here.

I love how you don't propose a soluation to the weak farm system. I'm giving an idea how to turn this farm system around in a hurry. Is getting new scouts a step in the right direction...yes. But unless your getting proven guys from other organizations with strong track records it's going to take years to know if the new scouts picks actually pan out. In the mean time instead they can start spending some god damn money on the draft. Take Boras guys, take chances on tough signs and take some risks.

Adding a few new coaches isn't gonna change anything if your not signing or drafting the right guy from the get go.

Daver
11-03-2008, 07:24 PM
So, I have to know. You have no problem with the fact the White Sox ignore any prospect with Boras as their agent, spend in the bottom 5 teams every year on the draft and constantly pass on high talent but pricey sign guys and end up with low ceiling easy sign prospects. You are saying you have no problem with Lance Broadway over Matt Garza, Porcello over Poreda, Kyle Mcculoch so on and so fourth?

I agree, we need better scouts, we need a new approach to development, but this idea you can draft cheap and be fine is horrible.

You are putting words in my mouth, and you're wrong, both at the same time.

hellview
11-03-2008, 07:26 PM
You are putting words in my mouth, and you're wrong, both at the same time.

Then what would your solution be to the farm system?

Daver
11-03-2008, 07:28 PM
I love how you don't propose a soluation to the weak farm system. I'm giving an idea how to turn this farm system around in a hurry. Is getting new scouts a step in the right direction...yes. But unless your getting proven guys from other organizations with strong track records it's going to take years to know if the new scouts picks actually pan out. In the mean time instead they can start spending some god damn money on the draft. Take Boras guys, take chances on tough signs and take some risks.

Adding a few new coaches isn't gonna change anything if your not signing or drafting the right guy from the get go.


You're not turning around a damn thing, you are making a bad situation worse, and you can't even grasp that you're doing it. I repeat, it is a damn good thing your employer is not the Chicago White Sox.

hellview
11-03-2008, 07:32 PM
You're not turning around a damn thing, you are making a bad situation worse, and you can't even grasp that you're doing it. I repeat, it is a damn good thing your employer is not the Chicago White Sox.

Then man up and please tell me how I'm making ti worse and what's your solution to fxing the farm system.

I don't feel like I"m asking alot here...

Daver
11-03-2008, 07:41 PM
Then man up and please tell me how I'm making ti worse and what's your solution to fxing the farm system.

I don't feel like I"m asking alot here...

Use the search feature, I already answered it once.

Domeshot17
11-03-2008, 07:42 PM
You are truly hilarious. Danks is overrated, but is ripping the **** out of the Arizona Fall League. He also had a solid debut and did well in independent ball prior to signing.

Poreda is merely a left-handed set-up guy, despite dominating every level thus far as a starting pitcher. Meanwhile, you are already projecting Rick Porcello to be a top of the rotation guy.

Also, you can't say this was a bad draft. We won't be able to rank it for years, but if you aren't impressed with Carter, Beckham, Danks, and others at this point, you're kidding yourself. We made some good decisions the last two seasons; they won't show for a few years, but it doesn't make them any less worthy.

How do you not understand this. Jordan Danks, if the sox did not let him slip away in high school, and he was not Johns brother, maybe Sox fans would stop over rating him. He hit in the .320s in college. In the purest, simplest breakdown I can, if you don't hit in the mid .400s or better in high school you probably will not succeed at D1 ball level. When you get to College, to be a top prospect, you should hit in the high .300's to low .400s. Hitting in the low .300s is just not impressive from the collegiate level because most teams do not field strong defenses. Danks at best is going to be a pretty good lead off hitter. Less speed then a Pods but more doubles. He doesn't have the leg stride that allows him to max his power potential, and that was exploited in college. He is a plus defender with a good arm, good speed, pretty good eye and decent bat control. If you think he is anywhere near a top flight prospect you are only fooling yourself.

Poreda vs Porcello, I wouldn't even get into this arguement with me because you are going to be coming unarmed. Poreda was great in rookie ball, yes, throwing a 97 mph fastball by a bunch of guys who are now using their college degrees for employment. He pitched ok in Single A, but for a guy with his velocity he does not possess a strike out pitch beyond a fastball. He has a below average Curveball so bad hes trying to develop a slider but neither are a strike out pitch. He won't do well in high levels of the minors without a breaking ball. Without the breaking ball he also will never last as a closer. Look at Bobby Jenks, and how he dominated when he lost his velo, with a cutter and that nasty yacker.

Poreda was drafted for various reasons. He is tall, throws very hard, and he isn't a BAD prospect. however, he was an easy sign who was not using the services of Boras.

Rick Porcello on the other hand: He was the TOP prep prospect since probably Josh Beckett. He throws 90-94 steady and touches 96 97 when he wants too. He throws a SINKER at 94, and 2 different Curveballs. Both with the same drop, one sitting in the 80s the other low 70s. He has a slider/slurve that he uses to set up a lot of stuff that if he gets down to a 2 plain slider could be the best pitch he throws. His changeup is filthy. Add to the fact he can throw these for Strikes when he wants, and yes, I believe (as does every prospect rating system in baseball) that he is one of the top 6-10 pitching prospects in baseball and one of the top 20 prospects in the game. You don't have to believe me, look at baseball america, espn, rotoworld, any place, Porcello is top 20 prospect, usually sitting in the 8-12 range. Poreda usually in the 60-80 range.

There were 2 reasons only we did not draft Rick Porcello. He was asking for good draft money, and his agent was Scott Boras. Not only will passing on him haunt us, it will several times a year when we have to face him.

Domeshot17
11-03-2008, 07:46 PM
You are putting words in my mouth, and you're wrong, both at the same time.

I don't think I am wrong, I was asking where you stood. To me, I look at it like this. Because of signability and agents, we have Lance Broadway Kyle Mcculloch and Aaron Poreda and not Matt Garza (anyone but Kyle) and Porcello. I have a huge issue with that. HUGE!

Daver
11-03-2008, 08:02 PM
I don't think I am wrong, I was asking where you stood. To me, I look at it like this. Because of signability and agents, we have Lance Broadway Kyle Mcculloch and Aaron Poreda and not Matt Garza (anyone but Kyle) and Porcello. I have a huge issue with that. HUGE!

I'm sorry you have issues, perhaps seek help from someone experienced with working with emotional problems?

Overpaying for unproven talent is a pretty stupid approach to an overall lack of usable talent in your system.

Domeshot17
11-03-2008, 08:14 PM
I'm sorry you have issues, perhaps seek help from someone experienced with working with emotional problems?

Overpaying for unproven talent is a pretty stupid approach to an overall lack of usable talent in your system.

Well, you must be Kenny Williams, because as long as they do it the cheap, foolish way they still have that you strongly support, we will continue to have one of the 5 worst farm systems in baseball.

Sometimes I wonder if you actually believe half of what you spew.

Daver
11-03-2008, 08:25 PM
Sometimes I wonder if you actually believe half of what you spew.

Likewise I'm sure, even moreso in fact.


Exactly how does overpaying for a player that may never play at the MLB level improve the overall quality of players in your system and how they are developed? Your approach is putting a bandaid on severed limb and telling the patient to take some Robotussin.

Domeshot17
11-03-2008, 09:07 PM
Likewise I'm sure, even moreso in fact.


Exactly how does overpaying for a player that may never play at the MLB level improve the overall quality of players in your system and how they are developed? Your approach is putting a bandaid on severed limb and telling the patient to take some Robotussin.

See, this is again where we disagree. I am not saying our entire process is not bad. I am saying, if we are going to make the commitment to bring in better coaches, to bring in Buddy Bell to oversee the process. To change not only the structure, but the philosophy in how we bring players along(which may start with ideas such as not bouncing starting pitchers from league to league so they can get some real work done), then we are we not making the stance to fill it with the players who can be the best. No team is perfect, no draft is perfect. If every draft produces a handful of good prospects it ultimately is a success. However, we are not a poor team. We have the money to sign a guy for 7 mil. 7 mil, we pissed half that away on Darrin Erstad. The scouts job is to determine what players are worth that big money. But when a top 5 talent, a Porcello falls into your lap, and you let him go to your division rival because you are scared to spend money in the draft, its unacceptable. I am not saying we have to spend the most money in the league, but we should be in the top 15, we have the resources to do it.

hellview
11-03-2008, 09:08 PM
Overpaying for unproven talent is a pretty stupid approach to an overall lack of usable talent in your system.

Why do you think teams overpay for prospects. Cause if/when they make it to the majors your getting solid production for pennies. Look at this current market baseball is in right now, Kyle Loshe and Carlos Silva getting 40+ million dollars. If paying a kid in high school or college 1 million dollars can get you a solid starter for 6 years for nothing that's clearly worth it. The entire Twins rotation makes less then Vasquez, that's why teams are willing to to pay a bit more at the draft.

Daver
11-03-2008, 09:18 PM
Why do you think teams overpay for prospects. Cause if/when they make it to the majors your getting solid production for pennies. Look at this current market baseball is in right now, Kyle Loshe and Carlos Silva getting 40+ million dollars. If paying a kid in high school or college 1 million dollars can get you a solid starter for 6 years for nothing that's clearly worth it. The entire Twins rotation makes less then Vasquez, that's why teams are willing to to pay a bit more at the draft.

Yet the Twins compete for a division title every year, and The Devil Dogs went to the world series this year.

Your approach is flawed, you don't realize why it is flawed, and that is not my problem.

Daver
11-03-2008, 09:20 PM
See, this is again where we disagree. I am not saying our entire process is not bad. I am saying, if we are going to make the commitment to bring in better coaches, to bring in Buddy Bell to oversee the process. To change not only the structure, but the philosophy in how we bring players along(which may start with ideas such as not bouncing starting pitchers from league to league so they can get some real work done), then we are we not making the stance to fill it with the players who can be the best. No team is perfect, no draft is perfect. If every draft produces a handful of good prospects it ultimately is a success. However, we are not a poor team. We have the money to sign a guy for 7 mil. 7 mil, we pissed half that away on Darrin Erstad. The scouts job is to determine what players are worth that big money. But when a top 5 talent, a Porcello falls into your lap, and you let him go to your division rival because you are scared to spend money in the draft, its unacceptable. I am not saying we have to spend the most money in the league, but we should be in the top 15, we have the resources to do it.

Spending the money on talent before you fix the system gives you a repeat of Joe Borchard. Borchard did not fail for the White Sox, the White Sox failed on him.

champagne030
11-03-2008, 09:36 PM
Spending the money on talent before you fix the system gives you a repeat of Joe Borchard. Borchard did not fail for the White Sox, the White Sox failed on him.

I do agree with you about this method, but I do believe Kirk Champion has a good program and grip on our young pitchers. We may have advanced hitters without merit, but I'd like to see pitchers drafted with a higher ceiling than we've taken in the past because of Kirk's development skills. Broadway and McCulloch were low ceiling guys, especially Kyle.

Daver
11-03-2008, 09:42 PM
I do agree with you about this method, but I do believe Kirk Champion has a good program and grip on our young pitchers. We may have advanced hitters without merit, but I'd like to see pitchers drafted with a higher ceiling than we've taken in the past because of Kirk's development skills. Broadway and McCulloch were low ceiling guys, especially Kyle.

Kirk does not control the how pitchers are moved through the system, or at least in the past he hasn't, until some system is in place to stop rushing pitchers through the system it would be a waste of money. Broadway has good mechanics and can throw just about any pitch he is taught, yet has never been allowed to stay at one level to master anything.

Craig Grebeck
11-03-2008, 10:21 PM
How do you not understand this. Jordan Danks, if the sox did not let him slip away in high school, and he was not Johns brother, maybe Sox fans would stop over rating him. He hit in the .320s in college. In the purest, simplest breakdown I can, if you don't hit in the mid .400s or better in high school you probably will not succeed at D1 ball level. When you get to College, to be a top prospect, you should hit in the high .300's to low .400s. Hitting in the low .300s is just not impressive from the collegiate level because most teams do not field strong defenses. Danks at best is going to be a pretty good lead off hitter. Less speed then a Pods but more doubles. He doesn't have the leg stride that allows him to max his power potential, and that was exploited in college. He is a plus defender with a good arm, good speed, pretty good eye and decent bat control. If you think he is anywhere near a top flight prospect you are only fooling yourself.

Poreda vs Porcello, I wouldn't even get into this arguement with me because you are going to be coming unarmed. Poreda was great in rookie ball, yes, throwing a 97 mph fastball by a bunch of guys who are now using their college degrees for employment. He pitched ok in Single A, but for a guy with his velocity he does not possess a strike out pitch beyond a fastball. He has a below average Curveball so bad hes trying to develop a slider but neither are a strike out pitch. He won't do well in high levels of the minors without a breaking ball. Without the breaking ball he also will never last as a closer. Look at Bobby Jenks, and how he dominated when he lost his velo, with a cutter and that nasty yacker.

Poreda was drafted for various reasons. He is tall, throws very hard, and he isn't a BAD prospect. however, he was an easy sign who was not using the services of Boras.

Rick Porcello on the other hand: He was the TOP prep prospect since probably Josh Beckett. He throws 90-94 steady and touches 96 97 when he wants too. He throws a SINKER at 94, and 2 different Curveballs. Both with the same drop, one sitting in the 80s the other low 70s. He has a slider/slurve that he uses to set up a lot of stuff that if he gets down to a 2 plain slider could be the best pitch he throws. His changeup is filthy. Add to the fact he can throw these for Strikes when he wants, and yes, I believe (as does every prospect rating system in baseball) that he is one of the top 6-10 pitching prospects in baseball and one of the top 20 prospects in the game. You don't have to believe me, look at baseball america, espn, rotoworld, any place, Porcello is top 20 prospect, usually sitting in the 8-12 range. Poreda usually in the 60-80 range.

There were 2 reasons only we did not draft Rick Porcello. He was asking for good draft money, and his agent was Scott Boras. Not only will passing on him haunt us, it will several times a year when we have to face him.
I stopped reading after your completely abysmal examination of college hitting. Good ****ing grief. Danks hit .021 points lower than Evan Longoria did in his last season of college. In fact, lots of guys expected Danks to go way higher than he did, but he mainly slipped because of concerns he wouldn't sign.

hellview
11-03-2008, 10:29 PM
Yet the Twins compete for a division title every year, and The Devil Dogs went to the world series this year.

Your approach is flawed, you don't realize why it is flawed, and that is not my problem.

And the Rays have spent alot of money over the last couple years signing top talent and going overslot.

And just cause the Twins can compete year in and out doesn't mean it's the wrong way to go about things. 1-2 teams are always going be able to break the norm, but that doesnt mean it's flawed.

Domeshot17
11-03-2008, 10:35 PM
I stopped reading after your completely abysmal examination of college hitting. Good ****ing grief. Danks hit .021 points lower than Evan Longoria did in his last season of college. In fact, lots of guys expected Danks to go way higher than he did, but he mainly slipped because of concerns he wouldn't sign.

ask any college coach, high school coach, the numbers are not too far off.

Longoria showed wayyyyyyy more power than Danks.

This is why I hate talking about prospects. Everyone thinks everyone is going to be this all star player. Does not matter what sport. Derek Rose is going to be MJ, and Jordan Danks Griffey Jr. The guy was DISAPPOINTING at the collegiate level. He was not first day talent. He showed no power and hit for a much weaker average than expected. He is not a terrible prospect, but he is vastly over rated here. He is not a 5 tool prospect, he isn't a super stud, and odds are he won't be in anyones top 100 rankings come years start.

Daver
11-03-2008, 10:38 PM
And the Rays have spent alot of money over the last couple years signing top talent and going overslot.

And just cause the Twins can compete year in and out doesn't mean it's the wrong way to go about things. 1-2 teams are always going be able to break the norm, but that doesnt mean it's flawed.

Overpaying for prospects is not the flaw I was referring too. I don't think you are capable of looking above the throw money at draft pick options, some people lack the intelligence to see the big picture, most of them are armchair GM's in baseball keeper leagues.

hellview
11-03-2008, 10:58 PM
Overpaying for prospects is not the flaw I was referring too. I don't think you are capable of looking above the throw money at draft pick options, some people lack the intelligence to see the big picture, most of them are armchair GM's in baseball keeper leagues.

Thn about you try and carry a real conversation instead of throw out your smart ass remarks every post. How about we actually discuss this?

hellview
11-03-2008, 11:05 PM
I stopped reading after your completely abysmal examination of college hitting. Good ****ing grief. Danks hit .021 points lower than Evan Longoria did in his last season of college. In fact, lots of guys expected Danks to go way higher than he did, but he mainly slipped because of concerns he wouldn't sign.

Don't even bring Longoria into any conversation about Danks. Cape Cod, showcases, everything. Longoria showed WAY WAY more then Danks ever did coming outta college.

Even as a college product Danks is still all "tools and projection" All the tools that scouts thought he would come into at Texas never happened. Maybe the skills will come, maybe they won't. But there's a reason he slipped in the draft.

Daver
11-03-2008, 11:09 PM
Thn about you try and carry a real conversation instead of throw out your smart ass remarks every post. How about we actually discuss this?

Discuss what?

WhiteSox5187
11-03-2008, 11:33 PM
Well I'm not going to pretend to know a whole lot about how our minor league system works or anything but I think that to a certain extent that Daver is right: just throwing money at the problem is not going to help, having a lot of good scouts will. Buerhle was drafted when? 10th round? Later? He turned out to be ok. The MLB draft is such a crap shoot, the last guy you picked who you signed for the minimum might wind up being a perennial all star while your top pick who you signed for a record bonus might never even sniff the majors.

On the other hand, I think it is equally wrong to say "Well, we're not going to pick this guy because he's a Boras client and we don't like Boras," or "Well this guy is likely to ask for a lot of money and we don't really feel like paying him that so we'll choose a guy we might be able to get later in the draft but will certainly be able to sign now."

Lip Man 1
11-03-2008, 11:51 PM
More on the how and why from today's moves:

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2008/11/minor-league-ob.html

Lip

CashMan
11-04-2008, 01:01 AM
I really really like reading about what is happening in the minors. I wish more was posted about it.

schmitty9800
11-04-2008, 01:40 AM
The Tigers also gave a boatload of money to Andrew Miller but it didn't pan out for them. If things don't improve under Buddy Bell I'll start to blame KW for the hire, but I don't understand the impatience.

btrain929
11-04-2008, 02:01 AM
The Tigers also gave a boatload of money to Andrew Miller but it didn't pan out for them. If things don't improve under Buddy Bell I'll start to blame KW for the hire, but I don't understand the impatience.

Miller is still pretty young, and he was one of the key pieces to bringing Miguel Cabrera to town.