PDA

View Full Version : Fox on prospects


Bucktown
10-11-2003, 09:27 PM
Has this article on Fox.com been posted yet (I couldn't find it). It is there article on the White Sox prospects:

http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=1733086

poorme
10-11-2003, 09:32 PM
same conclusion that most other come to:

The Sox have one great position prospect, one very good pitching prospect and a lot of filler behind them. There are some legit high-ceiling talents, but what they lack is depth. That's particularly critical with regard to pitching, where quantity is arguably as important as quality. That lack of depth will come back to haunt the Sox, who are aging in the majors at several key positions.

TornLabrum
10-11-2003, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by poorme
same conclusion that most other come to:

The Sox have one great position prospect, one very good pitching prospect and a lot of filler behind them. There are some legit high-ceiling talents, but what they lack is depth. That's particularly critical with regard to pitching, where quantity is arguably as important as quality. That lack of depth will come back to haunt the Sox, who are aging in the majors at several key positions.

Time for a pre-season White Flag trade!

crector
10-11-2003, 11:38 PM
Interesting paragraph:


"10. Jon Rauch, RHP, Age: 25
Rauch was one of the best pitching prospects in all of baseball. However, the Morehead State product underwent major shoulder surgery in 2001 and was then rushed along to the majors before he'd fully recovered. He hasn't been the same pitcher since. In 2000, he was dominating at AA-Birmingham, but this past season he was mediocre at AAA-Charlotte despite repeating the level. He did make some strides with his command this past season, which is in his favor. However, nothing derails a pitching career like a major shoulder injury. He'll be given a shot at the Sox's rotation next season, and it'll be interesting to see if he can ever recoup his dominance. ETA: Now."

So, he was rushed into major league service before he was recovered from shoulder surgery? Whoever made such an idiotic and self-defeating decision should be fired for stuff like this.

Chisoxfn
10-11-2003, 11:47 PM
In regards to those that knock the Sox pitching.

All I can say is this:
Honel, Wing, Cotts

Those three have very bright futures and very high ceilings. Below that you have Pacheco (Actually throws 95 MPH, unlike some players that get hyped at that and he can throw it throughout the course of the game), Rauch (Heard he wasn't near what he was in 2000, but that he is getting better. This will be his make it or break it year) and then McCarthy and a little known guy named Castro (Fabio Castro).

You also have some really good relievers, although most aren't hyped. Sanders and his nasty slider are still around as well as Majewski (Dynamite arm, I loved what I saw of him the one time I saw him pitch), Bajerneau (Great arm), Stumm (Great arm...health, iffy), and of course Arnie Munoz. Their is also Ryan Meaux.

The one thing you can say is, the Sox don't have many major league ready prospects that could make an immediate impact. I'd say their only ones are potentially in the outfield with Borchard/Reed and then Rauch/Cotts/Munoz/Sanders. But then how many prospects do make an immediate impact.

As far as position players go the Sox are incredibly deep with outfield prospects. Borchard/Reed are close to ready while Anderson, Sweeney, and Nanita all seem to have very high ceilings albeit it they have a ways to go. In the infield, now you have some real holes. They don't have much of anything other then Yan, Miles, Harris, Andy Gonzalez, Valido and Pedro Lopez and out of all of those guys only two are ready for the majors and both have some serious questionmarks.

Behind the plate we got Olivo.

Chisoxfn
10-11-2003, 11:49 PM
Let me add what a joke Fox is for putting Meaux ahead of Rauch and Ryan Wing. Heck, Felix Diaz should be ahead of him.

I like Meaux, but he's got a ways to go and very rarely do you see relief prospects getting ranked that high, unless they have million buck arms or some other very plus pitch.

Meaux definately has a chance, but this is pretty laughable. I wonder if Fox has seen any of these guys play?

Daver
10-12-2003, 12:08 AM
Aaron Miles is not a prospect.

He is older than Paul Konerko.

MRKARNO
10-12-2003, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by Daver
Aaron Miles is not a prospect.

He is older than Paul Konerko.

Well who would you put at 2nd this year out of this list?:

Harris
Miles
Grafanino
Alomar

Daver
10-12-2003, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Well who would you put at 2nd this year out of this list?:

Harris
Miles
Grafanino
Alomar

Robbie Alomar,without question.

Willie Harris can't make a routine play,and can't turn a double play well,yet his defense is far better than what you get from Aaron Miles,Tony is a second baseman by position,but he is not going to make any great plays for you,he does not have the range to cover the lack of range that will be at first base,no matter who it is,and he struggles with left handed pitchers.

Alomar can bunt both for hits and in sacrifice situations,he keeps his head in the game,and his glove is still in the top of the league for a second baseman.

SoxxoS
10-12-2003, 03:34 AM
I beg to differ that Kris Honel doesn't have "ace" material. That is crap. He is one of the best pitching prospects in baseball. He has one outstanding pitch. He definitely has an "ace" ceiling, IMO.

poorme
10-12-2003, 08:53 AM
I wish I were as optimistic as you guys. Most of our talent is at A ball, and a lot can happen between A ball and the majors. I was looking over some of the "Top Prospects 5 Years Ago" in BA. If you looked at the top 10 prospects in A ball, maybe 3-4 ever even make it to the big leagues. Maybe one might become an all-star type player.

gosox41
10-12-2003, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Chisoxfn
In regards to those that knock the Sox pitching.

All I can say is this:
Honel, Wing, Cotts

Those three have very bright futures and very high ceilings. Below that you have Pacheco (Actually throws 95 MPH, unlike some players that get hyped at that and he can throw it throughout the course of the game), Rauch (Heard he wasn't near what he was in 2000, but that he is getting better. This will be his make it or break it year) and then McCarthy and a little known guy named Castro (Fabio Castro).

You also have some really good relievers, although most aren't hyped. Sanders and his nasty slider are still around as well as Majewski (Dynamite arm, I loved what I saw of him the one time I saw him pitch), Bajerneau (Great arm), Stumm (Great arm...health, iffy), and of course Arnie Munoz. Their is also Ryan Meaux.

The one thing you can say is, the Sox don't have many major league ready prospects that could make an immediate impact. I'd say their only ones are potentially in the outfield with Borchard/Reed and then Rauch/Cotts/Munoz/Sanders. But then how many prospects do make an immediate impact.

As far as position players go the Sox are incredibly deep with outfield prospects. Borchard/Reed are close to ready while Anderson, Sweeney, and Nanita all seem to have very high ceilings albeit it they have a ways to go. In the infield, now you have some real holes. They don't have much of anything other then Yan, Miles, Harris, Andy Gonzalez, Valido and Pedro Lopez and out of all of those guys only two are ready for the majors and both have some serious questionmarks.

Behind the plate we got Olivo.

It'll be interesting to see which of these prospects actually turn out to be decent major leaguers, especially in the pitching category. I have expressed conern earlier over KW and the farm system but was told he's doing a pretty good job. He's had 4 drafts. I'm waiting....

Bob

soxtalker
10-12-2003, 10:20 AM
Well, I'm very concerned. While surveys like the ones that Fox and BA do are not perfect, they seem to consistently be pointing out weaknesses in our organization. And they take a look at the organizations of all of the major league clubs. It is true that they may be missing something, but very few of us (if any) get a chance to look at what other teams's systems are like.

As I've said before, it looks like KW traded away a lot of prospects that his predecessor had acquired. That may be good or bad, but it does mean that we have a system which is pretty thin at the top. He may be doing better in his drafts, although I'm not sure we've had that many good picks compared to other teams. (As an example, the Cubs were able to take picks near the top for several years. Once the Sox were out of it, I was hoping we'd place third behind KC for this reason.)

On the positive side, Reed appears to have unexpectedly become a real star. Of course, Rauch was essentially in a similar position before he got hurt.

fquaye149
10-12-2003, 12:25 PM
i noticed they have rankings for the team in the right column.

i couldn't find where they ranked the sox. where were we?

RichH55
10-12-2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by soxtalker
Well, I'm very concerned. While surveys like the ones that Fox and BA do are not perfect, they seem to consistently be pointing out weaknesses in our organization. And they take a look at the organizations of all of the major league clubs. It is true that they may be missing something, but very few of us (if any) get a chance to look at what other teams's systems are like.

As I've said before, it looks like KW traded away a lot of prospects that his predecessor had acquired. That may be good or bad, but it does mean that we have a system which is pretty thin at the top. He may be doing better in his drafts, although I'm not sure we've had that many good picks compared to other teams. (As an example, the Cubs were able to take picks near the top for several years. Once the Sox were out of it, I was hoping we'd place third behind KC for this reason.)

On the positive side, Reed appears to have unexpectedly become a real star. Of course, Rauch was essentially in a similar position before he got hurt.

The difference in projecting postional prospects and pitching prospects is tremendous

Randar68
10-13-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by RichH55
The difference in projecting postional prospects and pitching prospects is tremendous

Amen.

Randar68
10-13-2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by crector
Interesting paragraph:


"10. Jon Rauch, RHP, Age: 25
Rauch was one of the best pitching prospects in all of baseball. However, the Morehead State product underwent major shoulder surgery in 2001 and was then rushed along to the majors before he'd fully recovered. He hasn't been the same pitcher since. In 2000, he was dominating at AA-Birmingham, but this past season he was mediocre at AAA-Charlotte despite repeating the level. He did make some strides with his command this past season, which is in his favor. However, nothing derails a pitching career like a major shoulder injury. He'll be given a shot at the Sox's rotation next season, and it'll be interesting to see if he can ever recoup his dominance. ETA: Now."

So, he was rushed into major league service before he was recovered from shoulder surgery? Whoever made such an idiotic and self-defeating decision should be fired for stuff like this.


Rauch pitched like a future-ace the last 1-2 months. It is all in the health and confidence. He's a fly-ball pitcher in a bandbox. Half the HR's he gave up at home wouldn't make it to a warning track at 90% of major league ballparks. He'll be resting it this offseason from what I've heard, and won't start throwing again until the start of next year.

soxtalker
10-13-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Rauch pitched like a future-ace the last 1-2 months. It is all in the health and confidence. He's a fly-ball pitcher in a bandbox. Half the HR's he gave up at home wouldn't make it to a warning track at 90% of major league ballparks. He'll be resting it this offseason from what I've heard, and won't start throwing again until the start of next year.

Why do you think that they brought up Cotts instead of Rauch? Was it to give him the extra rest?

Hangar18
10-13-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
It'll be interesting to see which of these prospects actually turn out to be decent major leaguers, especially in the pitching category. I have expressed conern earlier over KW and the farm system but was told he's doing a pretty good job. He's had 4 drafts. I'm waiting....

Bob

There are a few, but If I were a Betting Man, Kris Honel and
Reed are going to be Studs. just not yet .........

Randar68
10-13-2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by poorme
same conclusion that most other come to:

The Sox have one great position prospect, one very good pitching prospect and a lot of filler behind them. There are some legit high-ceiling talents, but what they lack is depth. That's particularly critical with regard to pitching, where quantity is arguably as important as quality. That lack of depth will come back to haunt the Sox, who are aging in the majors at several key positions.

Well, for what they have said there, it certainly begs the question: "Who you crappin?"

Long-term depth is an issue, but outside of 3 or 4 positions, they have major league-ready talent in place. From their top ten list, any or all of 7 of the ten could be on the roster contributing next year (Reed, Borchard, Olivo, Cotts, Munoz, Meaux, and Rauch). That's also not including Honel, who, if he comes out dominating in AA next year, we've seen the Sox promote MANY pitchers straight to the majors from AA...

The OF and IF depth is mostly going to be in low/high A ball next year, and generally, most of the better guys at that level are still 3 years away. Anderson is the closest of this year's draft, with Sweeney right behind him.


FWIW, they graded the Sox' draft as a "C" this year, so that ought to give you some indication of the overall intelligence of their draft and minor league reporting.

soxtalker
10-13-2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by RichH55
The difference in projecting postional prospects and pitching prospects is tremendous

I've heard this statement often on this board, but I guess that I should also ask for evidence. If it is based primarily on the experience we've had with the Sox, then I suggest that it is also possible that the trouble lies in the assessment of pitchers and, perhaps more important, their development.

But, if you can cite evidence, then my question is why is it so much more difficult to project pitchers than positional prospects?

poorme
10-13-2003, 11:34 AM
Honel's numbers weren't exactly dominating in A ball. Plus 3.00 ERA, fewer K's than innings. I'm not down on him by any means, but I'm not deluding myself into thinking he's going to be a #1 type starter.

Randar68
10-13-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by soxtalker
Why do you think that they brought up Cotts instead of Rauch? Was it to give him the extra rest?

Reward him for the outstanding season he's had. The Sox do this almost every year. Rauch was by far more ready to contribute and succeed than Cotts was. Also, they are being cautious with Rauch, and rest had something to do with it.

Being in a tight divisional race, I didn't agree with their decision to pull up Cotts instead of Rauch or Diaz, but what can any of us do about it? The options were pretty limited.

Hangar18
10-13-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Rauch pitched like a future-ace the last 1-2 months. It is all in the health and confidence. He's a fly-ball pitcher in a bandbox. Half the HR's he gave up at home wouldn't make it to a warning track at 90% of major league ballparks. He'll be resting it this offseason from what I've heard, and won't start throwing again until the start of next year.

Thats very Good News Randar

Hangar18
10-13-2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by poorme
Honel's numbers weren't exactly dominating in A ball. Plus 3.00 ERA, fewer K's than innings. I'm not down on him by any means, but I'm not deluding myself into thinking he's going to be a #1 type starter.

If he turns out to be a very good #4 or #5 pitcher on our staff,
it will still be worth it

Randar68
10-13-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by soxtalker
But, if you can cite evidence, then my question is why is it so much more difficult to project pitchers than positional prospects?

1) Injuries. Plain and simple, the complexities involved with pitching as well as the higher likelihood of injuries (and the long-term consequences of arm injuries to pitchers versus knee/back/arm injuries to positional players) are one of the biggest factors.

2) The fragile mental psyches of young pitchers.

3) Being an athlete and/or having good instincts is 75% of being a good positional player especially defensively)

It is a TON easier to watch a guy play and guage his long-term potential for a positional player. Swing analysis, strike-zone judgement, power, speed, are a lot easier to guage. Instincts and desire are 2 harder-to-measure attributes, but that is nothing compared to the subtle complexities of pitching.

Guys learn pitches they never threw before once in the minors (often in A or AA), and how well they learn to throw these pitches is something nobody can project.

For example, the addition of a good change-up to a pitcher's game changes their ability to succeed at a high level more than any comperable adjustment a hitter can ever make.

Sorry, I kind of just rambled on and on...

soxtalker
10-13-2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
1) Injuries. Plain and simple, the complexities involved with pitching as well as the higher likelihood of injuries (and the long-term consequences of arm injuries to pitchers versus knee/back/arm injuries to positional players) are one of the biggest factors.
...

One of the comments that I seem to recall on the board about the Sox organization is that they rely a lot on the radar gun, valuing a fast-ball pitcher more than a finesse pitcher. If true, I wonder if that contributes to the injuries.

Randar68
10-13-2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by soxtalker
One of the comments that I seem to recall on the board about the Sox organization is that they rely a lot on the radar gun, valuing a fast-ball pitcher more than a finesse pitcher. If true, I wonder if that contributes to the injuries.

Not really true. Most comments regard general scouting and evaluating procedures used by all organizations and scouting services... Generally, scouts use the gun as another indicator. People rely too heavily on it, that is all. Buehrle, Cotts, Wings, etc... Sox are not completely innocent, but they aren't worse than most.

cadman
10-13-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
i noticed they have rankings for the team in the right column.

i couldn't find where they ranked the sox. where were we?

I don't see a number 2, so maybe we're there. Doesn't seem to fit with the comments they made though, unless noone has an overwhelming number of prospects.