PDA

View Full Version : Sickels Top 20 White Sox Prospects


DirtySox
12-09-2009, 11:25 PM
Thin system is thin.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/12/9/1194068/chicago-whitesox-top-20-prospects#storyjump

Rdy2PlayBall
12-09-2009, 11:30 PM
Only half the top 10 has any meaning to me. What happened to our farm system starting to look real good?

I guess Beckham, Getz, Clayton, and everyone not being down there really crushed it.

DirtySox
12-09-2009, 11:33 PM
Graduating Beckham and losing Poreda/Carter hurt a bit. But the system wasn't all that great even at that point. There is little depth, especially in the pitching department. It would have been nice to sign Morgado as well.

A. Cavatica
12-09-2009, 11:45 PM
(about Morel) "now blocked behind Mark Teahen, a long-term signing I don't understand."

Why is this hard to understand? Teahen plays third now and moves elsewhere as soon as Morel (or Viciedo) is ready. Signing players long-term is great as long as the players are versatile enough to plug holes.

cards press box
12-09-2009, 11:46 PM
Graduating Beckham and losing Poreda/Carter hurt a bit. But the system wasn't all that great even at that point. There is little depth, especially in the pitching department. It would have been nice to sign Morgado as well.

And don't forget, the Sox are only years into the post-Duane Shaffer era. The Sox have drafted much better in the past two years than they have in a while. In 2008, the Sox drafted Gordon Beckham, Dan Hudson, Jordan Danks, Brent Morel and Dexter Carter. That's a great draft right there even if no one else drafted makes the majors. What's more, with Buddy Bell on board, I expect the Sox farm system to steadily improve.

DirtySox
12-09-2009, 11:57 PM
And don't forget, the Sox are only years into the post-Duane Shaffer era. The Sox have drafted much better in the past two years than they have in a while. In 2008, the Sox drafted Gordon Beckham, Dan Hudson, Jordan Danks, Brent Morel and Dexter Carter. That's a great draft right there even if no one else drafted makes the majors. What's more, with Buddy Bell on board, I expect the Sox farm system to steadily improve.

I'm on board with most of that, and I hope the '09 draft is just as fruitful. I'm a bit salty over not signing Morgado, and I still don't like the Phegley pick though.

JermaineDye05
12-10-2009, 12:27 AM
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2009/0920/fantasy_g_peavy_200.jpg

"Don't worry guys, I was well worth it."

SoxSpeed22
12-10-2009, 01:52 PM
We still have a long way to go with these guys. It's only year 2 of the supposed 'rebuilding.' The talent disparity between AAA and AA really showed this year. I figure it would take at least 2 more years before we could have a great system from top to bottom.

russ99
12-10-2009, 07:45 PM
We still have a long way to go with these guys. It's only year 2 of the supposed 'rebuilding.' The talent disparity between AAA and AA really showed this year. I figure it would take at least 2 more years before we could have a great system from top to bottom.

This year's draft should make a big difference. I can't think of the last time the Sox signed so many draft picks... Morgado would have really made it a great draft, but not everyone is ready to pass up college to go pro.

The system is thin at the top, especially in pitching, but things are certainly looking up.

I thought Hudson would be much better rated, the guy went through all 3 levels and looked like he belonged at the big league level. I'd go A- for that. Then again, I'd rather see him turn out to be a top-to-mid rotation guy than what happened to some of past season's A rated prospects...

Domeshot17
12-11-2009, 01:59 AM
Truth is we just jumped the gun. People were so excited to not have one of the 3 worst farms in baseball, they didn't stop to realize having a bottom 10 farm still isn't that good.

The drafts have slowely improved, but its still all about signability versus talent which is tough to swallow. You look at our first rounders, outside Gordon who was just slot pick, its always about who the easy sign is. I wasn't in love with this years drafts, and while with baseball you can't grade it until the future, most scouting sites/scouts weren't impressed by this draft much, a lot of words like AVERAGE, grades like B-/C etc.

Craig Grebeck
12-11-2009, 04:11 AM
Truth is we just jumped the gun. People were so excited to not have one of the 3 worst farms in baseball, they didn't stop to realize having a bottom 10 farm still isn't that good.

The drafts have slowely improved, but its still all about signability versus talent which is tough to swallow. You look at our first rounders, outside Gordon who was just slot pick, its always about who the easy sign is. I wasn't in love with this years drafts, and while with baseball you can't grade it until the future, most scouting sites/scouts weren't impressed by this draft much, a lot of words like AVERAGE, grades like B-/C etc.
It's not all about signability. Trayce Thompson was not a signability pick. Mitchell was picked because he's a toolshed. They are both high-risk picks, unlike Kyle, Lance, Josh, etc.

cws05champ
12-11-2009, 07:59 AM
Truth is we just jumped the gun. People were so excited to not have one of the 3 worst farms in baseball, they didn't stop to realize having a bottom 10 farm still isn't that good.

The drafts have slowely improved, but its still all about signability versus talent which is tough to swallow. You look at our first rounders, outside Gordon who was just slot pick, its always about who the easy sign is. I wasn't in love with this years drafts, and while with baseball you can't grade it until the future, most scouting sites/scouts weren't impressed by this draft much, a lot of words like AVERAGE, grades like B-/C etc.
And the truth is, if we didn't graduate Beckham, Getz, Richard and trade Poreda, Carter our system would have more depth and probably be higher rated. But what would you rather have, a really good minor league system or guys like Beckham, Peavy at the ML level helping the big club.

EMachine10
12-11-2009, 09:46 AM
It's not all about signability. Trayce Thompson was not a signability pick. Mitchell was picked because he's a toolshed. They are both high-risk picks, unlike Kyle, Lance, Josh, etc.
I like the usage.

Anyway, our drafts are getting better and our philosophy on early round picks has seemed to turn the corner. Taking an entire farm system and going from worst to first will not and can not happen overnight. Give it a few seasons and be patient.

Domeshot17
12-11-2009, 10:09 AM
It's not all about signability. Trayce Thompson was not a signability pick. Mitchell was picked because he's a toolshed. They are both high-risk picks, unlike Kyle, Lance, Josh, etc.

I think Mitchell was an okay pick, I think there were better players but it wasn't a bad pick. But the kid was also a quick and easy sign. We still tend to lean that way. Its getting better.

I also will agree, our system IS getting better, but some to think its jumped to the ranks of elite.

Craig Grebeck
12-11-2009, 10:34 AM
I think Mitchell was an okay pick, I think there were better players but it wasn't a bad pick. But the kid was also a quick and easy sign. We still tend to lean that way. Its getting better.

I also will agree, our system IS getting better, but some to think its jumped to the ranks of elite.
Our system is certainly bottom five in all of baseball, but I'm at least encouraged by the drafting of position players like Mitchell and Thompson. While Jared was an easy sign, I don't think that should be a point of criticism against KW.

asindc
12-11-2009, 10:47 AM
I think Mitchell was an okay pick, I think there were better players but it wasn't a bad pick. But the kid was also a quick and easy sign. We still tend to lean that way. Its getting better.

I also will agree, our system IS getting better, but some to think its jumped to the ranks of elite.

Mitchell was signed to address the most critical need in the entire organization, competitively speaking. I don't doubt that there were better players that could have been drafted, but I doubt that any of them would have addressed the most critical need as much as Mitchell has the potential to.

Domeshot17
12-11-2009, 10:48 AM
Our system is certainly bottom five in all of baseball, but I'm at least encouraged by the drafting of position players like Mitchell and Thompson. While Jared was an easy sign, I don't think that should be a point of criticism against KW.

I agree to an extent. A tough sign doesn't mean a great prospect, and an easy sign doesn't have to mean a bad one. That said, I am interested to see where we spent compared to our peers this year (can't find the 2009 info). We are normally in the bottom 10 in spending. I believe this approach HAS hindered our farm in the past.

I also agree, Mitchell was a guy we don't normally waste time on. But he is also a guy we normally don't develop well. That scares me. He has more tools then home depot, I agree. But we have had projects before that we couldn't put together. Mitchell will be a true test of the teams strength in developing guys, because to be a Carl Crawford type MLB force, we have to be able to break his swing down and then rebuild it.

DirtySox
12-11-2009, 10:52 AM
Mitchell will be a true test of the teams strength in developing guys, because to be a Carl Crawford type MLB force, we have to be able to break his swing down and then rebuild it.

Legitimately curious, what is the problem with his swing? I vaguely remember reading about some problems with it, but they escape me.

EMachine10
12-11-2009, 11:01 AM
I agree to an extent. A tough sign doesn't mean a great prospect, and an easy sign doesn't have to mean a bad one. That said, I am interested to see where we spent compared to our peers this year (can't find the 2009 info). We are normally in the bottom 10 in spending. I believe this approach HAS hindered our farm in the past.

I also agree, Mitchell was a guy we don't normally waste time on. But he is also a guy we normally don't develop well. That scares me. He has more tools then home depot, I agree. But we have had projects before that we couldn't put together. Mitchell will be a true test of the teams strength in developing guys, because to be a Carl Crawford type MLB force, we have to be able to break his swing down and then rebuild it.
And he has the tools to do that. :cool:

Domeshot17
12-11-2009, 12:00 PM
Legitimately curious, what is the problem with his swing? I vaguely remember reading about some problems with it, but they escape me.
Its just a complete project. He keeps his elbows high with causes him to be under balls when he swings. He had, for lack of a better term, a good Collegiate Swing. A swing that took advantage of things a metal bat did that a wood didn't. Balls that get through on a metal bat would be ground outs/flair outs. He also, for a guy as big as he is, has a good amount of RAW power but no idea how to square a pitch up. He is built like a cleanup hitter with the skillset of a leadoff man right now. His value is to take his game to the next level. Utilize a great eye and his natural strength to develop power WITHOUT losing the ability to hit for average. However, despite his ability to hit for average at the collegiate level, MANY people project him to be a Mike Cameron Player, .250 average with good power, good speed, great D, average arm and knows how to get himself on base. That is what makes him so hard to project without rebuilding him. Very seldom does a kid who hit .325 in the SEC project to be a low average mlb hitter. Every name from Cameron to Crawford has been used.

Domeshot17
12-11-2009, 12:01 PM
And he has the tools to do that. :cool:

It isn't a matter of tools with him. No one denies his raw ability. But, guys with incredible tools fail a ton in the majors because its not just their potential to do great, its their ability to adjust, and the ability of the minor league team to teach it.

EMachine10
12-11-2009, 12:09 PM
It isn't a matter of tools with him. No one denies his raw ability. But, guys with incredible tools fail a ton in the majors because its not just their potential to do great, its their ability to adjust, and the ability of the minor league team to teach it.
I was more making a play on the overuse of the world tools and tool set when describing him. He would use his tools to rebuild the swing, like a carpenter would use tools to rebuild a desk kind of thing. :halo:

Domeshot17
12-11-2009, 12:28 PM
I was more making a play on the overuse of the world tools and tool set when describing him. He would use his tools to rebuild the swing, like a carpenter would use tools to rebuild a desk kind of thing. :halo:

Ha, that was actually a good pun, I didn't get it, went right over myhead.

DirtySox
12-11-2009, 11:09 PM
Not a big deal, but Sickels is changing Hudson's grade of a B to a B+.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/12/11/1197091/some-grade-changes#storyjump

JermaineDye05
12-11-2009, 11:50 PM
Not a big deal, but Sickels is changing Hudson's grade of a B to a B+.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/12/11/1197091/some-grade-changes#storyjump

What's Hudson projected as, a starter (if so, what #?) or a reliever?

DirtySox
12-11-2009, 11:56 PM
It varies. The majority of scouts seem him as between a number 2 and 4 starter; a middle of the rotation guy. Much depends on his refining of a 3rd pitch, most likely his slider. Both his fastball and changeup are solid. Others think think he would be even more effective/valuable as a shutdown reliever.

JermaineDye05
12-12-2009, 12:00 AM
It varies. The majority of scouts seem him as between a number 2 and 4 starter; a middle of the rotation guy. Much depends on his refining of a 3rd pitch, most likely his slider. Both his fastball and changeup are solid. Others think think he would be even more effective/valuable as a shutdown reliever.

By "shutdown reliever", do you mean a closer or like Matt Thornton in 2009 with the Sox/Carlos Marmol in 2008, a guy who comes in when you NEED a strike out regardless of the inning.

DirtySox
12-12-2009, 12:10 AM
By "shutdown reliever", do you mean a closer or like Matt Thornton in 2009 with the Sox/Carlos Marmol in 2008, a guy who comes in when you NEED a strike out regardless of the inning.

Maybe shutdown reliever isn't that right wording. His fastball sits around 94, so he isn't blowing it by guys, but it has good movement and decent velocity and he can get K's with it. His changeup is a good pitch as well, and he usually keeps it down in the zone. There is also some deception in his delivery according to many scouts. It's often written that he "knows how to pitch" and has a great feel for what he's doing, which you can take as you will. I think he could be a great 7th or 8th inning guy if he become a reliever, but I would imagine he ends up a starter.

Craig Grebeck
12-12-2009, 02:48 AM
I think it's irrefutable that even if he's a 3/4 type guy (ERA hovering around 4.25), that's extremely valuable to this franchise. He'll be in the rotation eventually.