PDA

View Full Version : Sox Analysis Piece


Lip Man 1
10-03-2004, 01:05 PM
What does 2005 bring? The Sun-Times has a good future analysis piece quoting Williams.

Here's the link:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sports/cst-spt-sfuture03.html

Lip

Tragg
10-03-2004, 02:10 PM
I like the opening image of KW pushing the boulder uphill, only to see it roll back down; and then walking down and pushing it up again. The results of his efforts are debatable, but KW works hard and tries.

santo=dorf
10-03-2004, 02:20 PM
I like the opening image of KW pushing the boulder uphill, only to see it roll back down; and then walking down and pushing it up again. The results of his efforts are debatable, but KW works hard and tries.
And at the top of the hill, Jerry Reinsdorf is blowing and fanning the air at the rock as much as possible.

Pea-Pod
10-03-2004, 02:26 PM
yea, that image of williams is an accurate one. for two years straight he has tried to save our sinking ship by bailing out water with a bucket. we have not improved at all since 2000 while at the same time cripling our minor league system.

Tragg
10-03-2004, 02:33 PM
yea, that image of williams is an accurate one. for two years straight he has tried to save our sinking ship by bailing out water with a bucket. we have not improved at all since 2000 while at the same time cripling our minor league system.
Now really, what has he crippled?
Has he drafted poorly? Maybe he has, I have no idea- I will defer to the experts.

But if by crippling you mean trading it away, that's not true. I can't think of one minor leaguer he has traded away that has made a major league impact. Our minor league system was touted 3-4 years ago, primarily because of pitching, most of whom have done zero. What he has done is USED the minor league system to get major league ballplayers, which is a lot better than having it rot on the vine. One disappointment is that our Minor league system hasn't developed a solid middle infielder or outfielder in quite some time- that would have really helped- but it's hardly the fault of Williams' trades.

In terms of W/L we have done very little. But he has done a lot, some good, some not so good, not to the top of the mountain yet.

Pea-Pod
10-03-2004, 02:43 PM
ya, i geuss your right about the crippling thing. we will see in the next years how players like jeremy reed or rauch pan out. I geuss im just tired of seeing williams try and make a difference through the trade deadline. Id rather see it done during the offseason by signing players, but of course that is difficult with managements unwillingness to spend on big names.

who are the good free agents out there that the sox could look at?

jeremyb1
10-03-2004, 02:50 PM
I just don't really understand how anyone can think Williams might be on the right track at this point. Starting Gload because he had a good September? Trading Thomas? Valuing Grilli over Diaz and perhaps putting him in the rotation?! I think next season is going to redefine the term collapse for White Sox.

Daver
10-03-2004, 02:51 PM
I just don't really understand how anyone can think Williams might be on the right track at this point. Starting Gload because he had a good September? Trading Thomas? Valuing Grilli over Diaz and perhaps putting him in the rotation?! I think next season is going to redefine the term collapse for White Sox.
You beleive Diaz deserves more of a look than Grilli based on what?

Tragg
10-03-2004, 02:54 PM
It wouldn't surprise me to see both Rauch (the one guy who actually had a quality fifth start here and has done real well with Montreal) and Reed to turn out to be good players in the majors. And the Everett trade I think was Williams' worst move in a long time----stuck with his salary for more years and gave up 2 pitchers and everett's just not much good and believing he could replace frank and/or maggs is absurd. Even Marjewski has pitched for Montreal and not that badly.

santo=dorf
10-03-2004, 02:55 PM
You beleive Diaz deserves more of a look than Grilli based on what?
He has had 2 quality starts. :dunno:

Tragg
10-03-2004, 02:58 PM
I just don't really understand how anyone can think Williams might be on the right track at this point. Starting Gload because he had a good September? Trading Thomas? Valuing Grilli over Diaz and perhaps putting him in the rotation?! I think next season is going to redefine the term collapse for White Sox. True,if true-- scary was also valuing Nomar over Maggs last year. Of course, it's all speculation and no one knows if it's all true.

Gload as starter is particularly scary.

However, it should be viewed in a 2 or so year timeframe of remaking the team- can't do it all in one year and probably have to suffer through some stopgaps.

And one positive is a search for a SS and a CF- I think he's on the right track there.

SoxxoS
10-03-2004, 03:02 PM
If I hear another Joe Crede/Adrian Beltre comparison I am going to:

:chunks

Pea-Pod
10-03-2004, 03:03 PM
i think grilli is far ahead of the other young sox pitchers merely because he can throw a major league fastball.

jeremyb1
10-03-2004, 03:05 PM
You beleive Diaz deserves more of a look than Grilli based on what?

1. Minor league performance.

At Charlotte:

Grilli - 4.83 ERA, 101 Ks, 58 BBs, 22 HRs in 152.2 IP
Diaz - 2.97 ERA, 96 Ks, 24 BBs, 14 HRs in 115 IP

So to summarize Diaz allowed fewer runs, struck out more hitters, walked fewer batters, and allowed fewer home runs at the same level in the same ballpark this season.

2. Age

Felix Diaz is 24. Jason Grilli is 27. 24 year olds tend to improve a lot before they turn 27 or 28. Grilli is more or less already in his prime and therefore doesn't figure to take a big step forward next season where Diaz might.

3. Major League performance.

With the White Sox:

Diaz - 6.75 ERA, 33 Ks, 16 BBs, 13 HRs in 49.1 IP
Grilli - 7.40 ERA, 26 Ks, 20 BBs, 11 HRs in 45 IP

Despite the fact that it's a small sample size, Diaz again outperforms Grilli in every aspect except HRs allowed even if it's not by as large of a margin.

So overall, I favor Grilli over Diaz because I can't think of one logical reason to think Grilli is anywhere near as good.

Daver
10-03-2004, 03:09 PM
1. Minor league performance.

At Charlotte:

Grilli - 4.83 ERA, 101 Ks, 58 BBs, 22 HRs in 152.2 IP
Diaz - 2.97 ERA, 96 Ks, 24 BBs, 14 HRs in 115 IP

So to summarize Diaz allowed fewer runs, struck out more hitters, walked fewer batters, and allowed fewer home runs at the same level in the same ballpark this season.

2. Age

Felix Diaz is 24. Jason Grilli is 27. 24 year olds tend to improve a lot before they turn 27 or 28. Grilli is more or less already in his prime and therefore doesn't figure to take a big step forward next season where Diaz might.

3. Major League performance.

With the White Sox:

Diaz - 6.75 ERA, 33 Ks, 16 BBs, 13 HRs in 49.1 IP
Grilli - 7.40 ERA, 26 Ks, 20 BBs, 11 HRs in 45 IP

Despite the fact that it's a small sample size, Diaz again outperforms Grilli in every aspect except HRs allowed even if it's not by as large of a margin.

So overall, I favor Grilli over Diaz because I can't think of one logical reason to think Grilli is anywhere near as good.
So you will overlook the things like Diaz's erratic mechanics, and his injury history because of that, because he has slightly better numbers in less than fifty innings pitched at the MLB level?

Suffice it to say I am very glad you are not making pitching decisions for the White Sox.

jeremyb1
10-03-2004, 04:13 PM
So you will overlook the things like Diaz's erratic mechanics, and his injury history because of that, because he has slightly better numbers in less than fifty innings pitched at the MLB level?

Suffice it to say I am very glad you are not making pitching decisions for the White Sox.

I can't understand why you would single out the major league performance when it was the third factor on my list and I explicitly warned against small sample sizes. Erratic mechanics should cause a pitcher to pitch poorly yet Diaz is still better than Grilli. There's no reason poor mechanics wouldn't figure into Diaz's numbers. If anything that would seem to point towards factor number two, that Diaz is young, he's still improving, he's already better than Grilli and if he can repeat his mechanics better he'll only increase the gap in performance between he and Grilli.

Furthermore at what point did I say I was going to intentionally ignore Diaz's injury history? It was a single post Daver, not an all encompasing analysis of Diaz. You want to talk about his injury history? Some have questioned his durability since he has a small frame. He missed time earlier in his career with injuries that did not require surgery. He has NOT been under the knife as Grilli has (were you overlooking that?), his missed no time with injuries this season, IIRC he missed no time with injury last season, and at 24 he's more or less passed the age where pitchers are most likely to develop serious injuries.

Daver
10-03-2004, 04:22 PM
I can't understand why you would single out the major league performance when it was the third factor on my list and I explicitly warned against small sample sizes. Erratic mechanics should cause a pitcher to pitch poorly yet Diaz is still better than Grilli. There's no reason poor mechanics wouldn't figure into Diaz's numbers. If anything that would seem to point towards factor number two, that Diaz is young, he's still improving, he's already better than Grilli and if he can repeat his mechanics better he'll only increase the gap in performance between he and Grilli.

Furthermore at what point did I say I was going to intentionally ignore Diaz's injury history? It was a single post Daver, not an all encompasing analysis of Diaz. You want to talk about his injury history? Some have questioned his durability since he has a small frame. He missed time earlier in his career with injuries that did not require surgery. He has NOT been under the knife as Grilli has (were you overlooking that?), his missed no time with injuries this season, IIRC he missed no time with injury last season, and at 24 he's more or less passed the age where pitchers are most likely to develop serious injuries.
I didn't overlook anything, I merely asked why you would rate a pitcher with erratic mechanics over a pitcher that has much better mechanics as well as much better confidence and mound prescence. You chose to extropalate on the rest based on your numbers, which continue to give you about a third of the info needed to evaluate talent.

SoxxoS
10-03-2004, 04:25 PM
I didn't overlook anything, I merely asked why you would rate a pitcher with erratic mechanics over a pitcher that has much better mechanics as well as much better confidence and mound prescence. You chose to extropalate on the rest based on your numbers, which continue to give you about a third of the info needed to evaluate talent.
Don't you think since Grilli is better at those things he would have similar (at least) numbers to Diaz?

Daver
10-03-2004, 04:42 PM
Don't you think since Grilli is better at those things he would have similar (at least) numbers to Diaz?
At the MLB level their numbers are not that far apart.

Diaz has better stuff than Grilli, but struggles to use it because of his mechanics.

The Sox really need to quit rushing pitchers to the MLB level.

CarlosMay'sThumb
10-03-2004, 05:32 PM
At the MLB level their numbers are not that far apart.

Diaz has better stuff than Grilli, but struggles to use it because of his mechanics.

The Sox really need to quit rushing pitchers to the MLB level.This extended conversation about Grilli vs Diaz is a perfect example of Kenny Williams complete failure as a GM. For anybody to be arguing about the major league abilities of these 2 minor league pitchers shows that the major and minor league systems are completely empty of any quality young talent. The fact that Williams has yet to trade away anybody of any consequence is not proof that he's a good GM. What a ringing endorsement! He hasn't traded away anybody who has done anything. Maybe that's because his minor league system rarely produces anybody with an ability to produce.

The fact is that there is only 1 way to evaluate a GM. Is he making progress each year towards winning the World Series? Nobody, but nobody, in their right mind can think that this team is closer now than it was in 2001 to a World Series. They are further than ever. That's why he needs to go.

SOXSINCE'70
10-03-2004, 05:41 PM
And at the top of the hill, Jerry Reinsdorf is blowing and fanning the air at the rock as much as possible.
Hard to deny that one.

Daver
10-03-2004, 05:41 PM
This extended conversation about Grilli vs Diaz is a perfect example of Kenny Williams complete failure as a GM. For anybody to be arguing about the major league abilities of these 2 minor league pitchers shows that the major and minor league systems are completely empty of any quality young talent. The fact that Williams has yet to trade away anybody of any consequence is not proof that he's a good GM. What a ringing endorsement! He hasn't traded away anybody who has done anything. Maybe that's because his minor league system rarely produces anybody with an ability to produce.

The fact is that there is only 1 way to evaluate a GM. Is he making progress each year towards winning the World Series? Nobody, but nobody, in their right mind can think that this team is closer now than it was in 2001 to a World Series. They are further than ever. That's why he needs to go.
Most of the players in the upper levels of the Sox organization were drafted by Ron Schueler, or acquired by KW to help fill out rosters left bare by Jumbotron Ron. KW is expected to correct 9 years of mistakes in three years?

Get a clue.

jeremyb1
10-03-2004, 08:05 PM
I didn't overlook anything, I merely asked why you would rate a pitcher with erratic mechanics over a pitcher that has much better mechanics as well as much better confidence and mound prescence. You chose to extropalate on the rest based on your numbers, which continue to give you about a third of the info needed to evaluate talent.

Hey, I like the guy who performs better, that's what baseball is, performance. It's not like we're talking about two twenty two year olds here where there's tons of projection involved. Grilli is 27, he doesn't have tons of development left and he's not doing a great job of getting guys out in AAA or the majors.

Daver
10-03-2004, 08:20 PM
Hey, I like the guy who performs better, that's what baseball is, performance. It's not like we're talking about two twenty two year olds here where there's tons of projection involved. Grilli is 27, he doesn't have tons of development left and he's not doing a great job of getting guys out in AAA or the majors.
At what age did Randy Johnson go from being a big guy that couldn't find the strike zone to being a light's out staff ace?

You can't use age when dealing with pitchers the same way you use it for position players.

Go find the stats that prove this wrong.

Pea-Pod
10-03-2004, 09:09 PM
At what age did Randy Johnson go from being a big guy that couldn't find the strike zone to being a light's out staff ace?

You can't use age when dealing with pitchers the same way you use it for position players.

Go find the stats that prove this wrong.


Johnson broke out in 1993: 308 K , 99 BB, 3.24 era, 19-8
the previous years he had way more walks, less k's , and about .500 records
so in 93 he was 30 years old.
I think schilling has a similar career path

does that mean we give some one like Garland or grilli more time? i guess

minastirith67
10-03-2004, 09:18 PM
It wouldn't surprise me to see both Rauch (the one guy who actually had a quality fifth start here and has done real well with Montreal) and Reed to turn out to be good players in the majors. And the Everett trade I think was Williams' worst move in a long time----stuck with his salary for more years and gave up 2 pitchers and everett's just not much good and believing he could replace frank and/or maggs is absurd. Even Marjewski has pitched for Montreal and not that badly.

Get your head out of the past. Rauch, Reed, Olivo, and others are all gone, so let's stop worrying about them because they dont' even affect the Sox anymore. Their absence makes absolutely no difference to where the Sox are now or will be in 2005. If Rauch et al. does well, then good for them, unless they're playing against the Sox. Worry about the present potential of this team and not the past value.

SEALgep
10-03-2004, 09:29 PM
So you will overlook the things like Diaz's erratic mechanics, and his injury history because of that, because he has slightly better numbers in less than fifty innings pitched at the MLB level?

Suffice it to say I am very glad you are not making pitching decisions for the White Sox.Not to mention that Grilli was a high draft pick with a lot of upside. Injuries kept him down, but now that he's healthy, there's no reason to believe he can't live up to his potential just because he's 27. I think Diaz will be a good pitcher for us, and maybe a long reliever for 2005, but I agree that if it were between Grilli and Diaz for a rotation spot, I'd give it to Grilli. I actually thought he was going to win the fifth spot in ST for this season.

SEALgep
10-03-2004, 09:32 PM
At what age did Randy Johnson go from being a big guy that couldn't find the strike zone to being a light's out staff ace?

You can't use age when dealing with pitchers the same way you use it for position players.

Go find the stats that prove this wrong.Everyone is talking about how awesome it would be to get Pavano, and it would. But he just started becoming a real dominant pitcher, and he's what, 32 or 33? How can Grilli be ruled out of becoming a real good pitcher at the age of 27?

kitekrazy
10-03-2004, 10:17 PM
Even with Ordonez's expected departure, rumors are rampant that the Sox are willing to trade Carlos Lee or Paul Konerko to retool the lineup. The Sox also are rumored to be interested in dealing Frank Thomas, but he is not expected to agree to a deal.

So who is suppose to drive in runs on the team then? The Sox don't have lights out pitching to begin with to start trading all their hitters.

If Ordonez departs, they will be looking for a replacement in right field, though Williams has indicated the Sox might look for a center fielder and move Aaron Rowand to right.

Let's mess with Rowand-good idea.

Whitesox029
10-03-2004, 10:30 PM
What does 2005 bring? The Sun-Times has a good future analysis piece quoting Williams.

Here's the link:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sports/cst-spt-sfuture03.html

LipI like where he says he wants to explore the free agent pool for a starter (as opposed to trading Konerko). There are some good ones out there, believe it or not (hint hint Russ Ortiz hint hint).

SEALgep
10-03-2004, 10:37 PM
I like where he says he wants to explore the free agent pool for a starter (as opposed to trading Konerko). There are some good ones out there, believe it or not (hint hint Russ Ortiz hint hint).Ortiz is my third choice.

TornLabrum
10-03-2004, 11:04 PM
Even with Ordonez's expected departure, rumors are rampant that the Sox are willing to trade Carlos Lee or Paul Konerko to retool the lineup. The Sox also are rumored to be interested in dealing Frank Thomas, but he is not expected to agree to a deal.

So who is suppose to drive in runs on the team then? The Sox don't have lights out pitching to begin with to start trading all their hitters.

If Ordonez departs, they will be looking for a replacement in right field, though Williams has indicated the Sox might look for a center fielder and move Aaron Rowand to right.

Let's mess with Rowand-good idea.

Thomas is a 5/10 player and has already indicated that he will invoke his player option on next year's contract. He isn't going anywhere.

Ol' No. 2
10-03-2004, 11:34 PM
Even with Ordonez's expected departure, rumors are rampant that the Sox are willing to trade Carlos Lee or Paul Konerko to retool the lineup. The Sox also are rumored to be interested in dealing Frank Thomas, but he is not expected to agree to a deal.

So who is suppose to drive in runs on the team then? The Sox don't have lights out pitching to begin with to start trading all their hitters.

If Ordonez departs, they will be looking for a replacement in right field, though Williams has indicated the Sox might look for a center fielder and move Aaron Rowand to right.

Let's mess with Rowand-good idea.
Rowand came up as a RF and played there most of his minor league career, IIRC. No problem for him. Better to be flexible in looking for another OF. Besides, what they need more than anything is a high OBP guy. Even better if he's a leadoff hitter. That's more likely to be a CF.

CarlosMay'sThumb
10-04-2004, 12:16 AM
Most of the players in the upper levels of the Sox organization were drafted by Ron Schueler, or acquired by KW to help fill out rosters left bare by Jumbotron Ron. KW is expected to correct 9 years of mistakes in three years?

Get a clue.OK, here's a clue. It's been 4 years.

At least Schueler got the Sox a division winner.

But if Ron Schueler made such terrible mistakes in player development for 9 years, why don't we ask who was his vice president for player development from 97-2000?

Kenny Williams.

Get a clue yourself.:bandance:

gosox41
10-04-2004, 11:47 AM
So you will overlook the things like Diaz's erratic mechanics, and his injury history because of that, because he has slightly better numbers in less than fifty innings pitched at the MLB level?

Suffice it to say I am very glad you are not making pitching decisions for the White Sox.
Actually he did compare minor league numbers for this season.


Bob

gosox41
10-04-2004, 11:50 AM
Most of the players in the upper levels of the Sox organization were drafted by Ron Schueler, or acquired by KW to help fill out rosters left bare by Jumbotron Ron. KW is expected to correct 9 years of mistakes in three years?

Get a clue.
How about some improvement? At the pace the Sox are going it'll be take 15 years to undue what KW has done.

I can't wait for the day that a player that actually drafted and developes makes a positive impact on this club.

But's only been 4 drafts that KW has been GM for.

Schu had his moments, but KW hasn't done much better in terms of drafting and developing.


Bob

LincolnSquareOz
10-04-2004, 12:01 PM
You can't expect the farm system to provide any short-term spark for next season. It's band-aid time for Ozzieball. We need to score big this offseason in free agency to fill the holes. I think "Recruiter Ozzie" is going to help big in this department.

The farm system needs time to develop. It may not yield much next year or the year after but it's gonna have to start producing soon. We can't turn in to Oakland overnight.

Flight #24
10-04-2004, 12:08 PM
Some strong positives from that article that are being overlooked, IMO:

1) Everett is not being seen as the answer in RF, meaning he'll likely be a trade candidate or a bench player. That speaks well for the team and for the fact that they're not letting his salary dictate their moves.

2) Given our need for more OBP, and the relative ease at finding it cost effectively in the OF (versus at SS/wB, where hte pickings are a lot slimmer), I like the chance of adding a 1 or 2 hitter who gets on base. That'll add a ton to the O with the return of Frank.

3) I like the prospect of hitting the FA market for a starter. Obviously the remark about financial constraints is not great, but a focus on finding something freely available rather than dealing existing resources for it is nice.

In an ideal world, we'd sign a solid #3 or 4 guy, sign a reasonable OBP OF, and then either trade Paulie for bullpen help and/or SS or keep him and sign some relievers (who usually aren't that expensive, take a Remlinger, Mulholland type or convert an older veteran starter into a middle reliever ala Cal Eldred). I see a lot of signs that this is the type of approach rather than the focus being on trading.

longshot7
10-04-2004, 01:22 PM
If I hear another Joe Crede/Adrian Beltre comparison I am going to:

:chunks

I totally agree.......... BUT

Beltre was goddawful his first 3 years here, and a major reason I picked them to finish 4th this year. What do I know?

gosox41
10-04-2004, 02:33 PM
You can't expect the farm system to provide any short-term spark for next season. It's band-aid time for Ozzieball. We need to score big this offseason in free agency to fill the holes. I think "Recruiter Ozzie" is going to help big in this department.

The farm system needs time to develop. It may not yield much next year or the year after but it's gonna have to start producing soon. We can't turn in to Oakland overnight.
I knwo it takes time to turn things around completely. But I was hoping that there's be at least one player from the 2001-2002 drafts that would have had 3-4 years minor league experience that would have stood out as a legit, solid prospect in the upper minors. The only guy that did that was traded.

So I wait....


Bob

PatK
10-04-2004, 04:50 PM
Everyone is talking about how awesome it would be to get Pavano, and it would. But he just started becoming a real dominant pitcher, and he's what, 32 or 33? How can Grilli be ruled out of becoming a real good pitcher at the age of 27?

Pavano will turn 29 in January.

And he used to bang Alyssa Milano.

TheBull19
10-04-2004, 05:20 PM
And he used to bang Alyssa Milano...

"...to use the parlance of our times."

I think the best bit of wisdom in that article was from Walnuts when he said that guys turn in to good hitters a lot faster than guys turn in to good pitchers and defenders. If you've got to make a choice, and the Sox always do, I'd definitely rather stock up on pitching and take my chances with offensive production. They've been doing it the other way around for quite a while and it hasn't exactly paid huge dividends.

doublem23
10-04-2004, 06:29 PM
yea, that image of williams is an accurate one. for two years straight he has tried to save our sinking ship by bailing out water with a bucket. we have not improved at all since 2000 while at the same time cripling our minor league system.
Yeah, all those studs in our Minor League system in 2000 sure turned into a load of winners.

:rolleyes:

shagar69
10-04-2004, 06:40 PM
You can't expect the farm system to provide any short-term spark for next season. thats total bull****! why the hell not? are you saying that in 4 drafts, that you shouldnt expect any players to develop in 3 or 4 years, and help the major league club? then how do teams like the twins and A's keep bringing up prospects EVERY YEAR who not only contributors but turn into stars?

fuzzy_patters
10-04-2004, 07:18 PM
Williams now will look to add one more pitching piece, though he has confirmed that the Sox' coaching staff is intrigued by the potential of Jason Grilli. If anything, citing Grilli as a potential starter for next season gives Williams an out if he isn't able to find what he is looking for by April.


This is exactly what is wrong with the White Sox. You just know that KW will wind up taking that out. The White Sox brought Mark Buehrle along slowly by pitching him in the back of the bullpen in 2000. You would think they would learn from this and try the same with Diaz or Grilli, but that would require that they actually sign a proven pitcher to fill the hole in the staff. Instead, we get to see them run the prospect dujour out there every year, and this prospect is 27 years old. I wonder why they haven't won the pennant in 45 years?

Flight #24
10-04-2004, 09:55 PM
thats total bull****! why the hell not? are you saying that in 4 drafts, that you shouldnt expect any players to develop in 3 or 4 years, and help the major league club? then how do teams like the twins and A's keep bringing up prospects EVERY YEAR who not only contributors but turn into stars?
Let's take a look at that Minnesota development system, shall we?

Justin Morneau - 1999 draft
Lew Ford - 1999 draft
Johan Santana - signed 1995 (astros), Rule 5 in 1999 by Twins
Jason Kubel - 2000 draft
Mike Restovich - 1998 draft
Mike Cuddyer - 1998 draft
Jesse Crain - 2002 draft
JC Romero - 1997 draft
Terry Tiffee - 1999 draft
Joe Mauer - 2001 draft


So basically, you've got a reliever from 2002 draft, a reserve OF who had a nice, but very short stint this year (Kubel), and.....the #1 overall pick from 2001. That's from the best development organization in baseball. A big part of their success is that they don't rush guys, and let them season a ton and work on fundamentals in the minors before bringing them up.

What that means is that you should start seeing KW's draft picks coming in a year or 2......hey, guess what - that's about the timeline for Anderson, Sweeney, B-Mac, Diaz, etc.

PavanoBeltran'05
10-05-2004, 12:05 AM
Let's take a look at that Minnesota development system, shall we?

Justin Morneau - 1999 draft
Lew Ford - 1999 draft
Johan Santana - signed 1995 (astros), Rule 5 in 1999 by Twins
Jason Kubel - 2000 draft
Mike Restovich - 1998 draft
Mike Cuddyer - 1998 draft
Jesse Crain - 2002 draft
JC Romero - 1997 draft
Terry Tiffee - 1999 draft
Joe Mauer - 2001 draft


So basically, you've got a reliever from 2002 draft, a reserve OF who had a nice, but very short stint this year (Kubel), and.....the #1 overall pick from 2001. That's from the best development organization in baseball. A big part of their success is that they don't rush guys, and let them season a ton and work on fundamentals in the minors before bringing them up.

What that means is that you should start seeing KW's draft picks coming in a year or 2......hey, guess what - that's about the timeline for Anderson, Sweeney, B-Mac, Diaz, etc.Perfect. Absolutely perfect. Well said.

cburns
10-05-2004, 03:31 AM
Also the Sox have been finishing consistently mediocre, so they would have higher draft picks...when was the last time the Sox were in the basement?

MisterB
10-05-2004, 03:35 AM
Also the Sox have been finishing consistently mediocre, so they would have higher draft picks...when was the last time the Sox were in the basement?
1989.

CarlosMay'sThumb
10-05-2004, 09:49 AM
[QUOTE=Flight #24]Let's take a look at that Minnesota development system, shall we?

Justin Morneau - 1999 draft
Lew Ford - 1999 draft
Johan Santana - signed 1995 (astros), Rule 5 in 1999 by Twins
Jason Kubel - 2000 draft
Mike Restovich - 1998 draft
Mike Cuddyer - 1998 draft
Jesse Crain - 2002 draft
JC Romero - 1997 draft
Terry Tiffee - 1999 draft
Joe Mauer - 2001 draft


So basically, you've got a reliever from 2002 draft, a reserve OF who had a nice, but very short stint this year (Kubel), and.....the #1 overall pick from 2001. That's from the best development organization in baseball. A big part of their success is that they don't rush guys, and let them season a ton and work on fundamentals in the minors before bringing them up.

What that means is that you should start seeing KW's draft picks coming in a year or 2......hey, guess what - that's about the timeline for Anderson, Sweeney, B-Mac, Diaz, etc.[/QUOTE

Sounds hopeful. But when you look at Baseball America's ranking of Minor League systems, the Sox were 1st in 2001 when KW started as GM, then 9th in 2002, then 15th in 2003 and were 20th in 2004. :o:

Obviously, the experts think very little of KWs progress over the 4 years. That's my point. The direction the Sox are moving in over the last 4 years under KW at both the major and minor league level is backwards.

Nobody can say that the Sox are closer to winning the World Series in 2005 than they were in 2001.

Lip Man 1
10-05-2004, 01:07 PM
Personally the Sox were closer to winning a World series in 1993-94. 2000 was a complete fluke as many stated at the time.


Lip

Flight #24
10-05-2004, 01:21 PM
Sounds hopeful. But when you look at Baseball America's ranking of Minor League systems, the Sox were 1st in 2001 when KW started as GM, then 9th in 2002, then 15th in 2003 and were 20th in 2004. :o:

Obviously, the experts think very little of KWs progress over the 4 years. That's my point. The direction the Sox are moving in over the last 4 years under KW at both the major and minor league level is backwards.

Nobody can say that the Sox are closer to winning the World Series in 2005 than they were in 2001.
Is that the same Baseball America that ranked the Sox so highly on the strength of Borchard, Crede, Kip Wells, Josh Fogg, Matt Ginter, Jon Rauch, Corwin Malone, Brian West, etc? It's not KW's fault that the org was mis-ranked that badly. The declining rating is due almost exclusively to the inability of those guys to pan out.

Check out the current rankings of top prospects in Minor League forum to see the "quality" of our farm system.

maurice
10-05-2004, 01:58 PM
Since BA obviously was very wrong about the high rating they gave the Sox system in 2001, why would anybody give any credence to their current opinion about the relative strength of the Sox system?

Again, MLB is not the NFL. You can't conclusively determine the strength of a draft four years out. We're just going to have to wait and see.

Flight #24
10-05-2004, 02:11 PM
Since BA obviously was very wrong about the high rating they gave the Sox system in 2001, why would anybody give any credence to their current opinion about the relative strength of the Sox system?

Again, MLB is not the NFL. You can't conclusively determine the strength of a draft four years out. We're just going to have to wait and see.Surely you can't mean to simply rely on results rather than projections from self-appointed "gurus", can you?:o:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-05-2004, 02:16 PM
Surely you can't mean to simply rely on results rather than projections from self-appointed "gurus", can you?:o:
LOL! Good one!

If you think Mike Downey doesn't know his facts about the White Sox major league roster, just think how much the statgeek crowd ****s up the facts on 100+ minor league rosters. Most of them are eating macaroni & cheese off a hotplate in their parents' basement.

:)

Hangar18
10-05-2004, 02:25 PM
[QUOTE=Tragg]Now really, what has he crippled?
Has he drafted poorly? Maybe he has, I have no idea- I will defer to the experts.
QUOTE]

Crippled by Using the "talent" we had in the minors to TRY and Fill Self-Created Holes in the team, instead of getting Proven Free Agents here. That left no minor-league players left to
A: Fill Legitimate Holes on the roster
B: Still left the Original Holes Open

Hangar18
10-05-2004, 02:29 PM
Personally the Sox were closer to winning a World series in 1993-94. 2000 was a complete fluke as many stated at the time.


Lip
in 2000, we had enough CORE players, that we simply needed to FILL OUR HOLES with complementary players to get us over the top. WE DIDNT.
Now, their blaming the CORE players in a shallow excuse to GO YOUNG AGAIN,
thus Restarting the Cycle of Foolishness. We'll talk about this again in 6 years, when Ryan Sweeney is eligible for Arbitration and the SOX dump him
so that we can put a Elmer Patzynski in the OF ........

maurice
10-05-2004, 02:31 PM
Surely you can't mean to simply rely on results rather than projections from self-appointed "gurus", can you?:o:
Never! Actual results are irrelevant compared to the crystal ball readings of random members of the media and the denziens of the Internet.

CarlosMay'sThumb
10-05-2004, 03:33 PM
Since BA obviously was very wrong about the high rating they gave the Sox system in 2001, why would anybody give any credence to their current opinion about the relative strength of the Sox system?

Again, MLB is not the NFL. You can't conclusively determine the strength of a draft four years out. We're just going to have to wait and see.I hope you're not seriously suggesting that you and other posters on this site are better evaluaters of talent than people who do this for a living. Although I would agree that the #1 ranking in 2001 turned out to be wrong, the downward death spiral over the 4 years KW has been GM is clear evidence that experts think the Sox minor league system sucks. They certainly got it right in the last couple of years.

Flight #24
10-05-2004, 03:59 PM
I hope you're not seriously suggesting that you and other posters on this site are better evaluaters of talent than people who do this for a living. Although I would agree that the #1 ranking in 2001 turned out to be wrong, the downward death spiral over the 4 years KW has been GM is clear evidence that experts think the Sox minor league system sucks. They certainly got it right in the last couple of years.
Why is this so hard to understand?

- System is erroneously ranked very high due to supposed top prospects at mid and high levels
- While talent enters at lower levels, the formerly highly ranked talent at higher levels doesn't pan out
- Thus the system drops in the ranking because there are no highly ranked players at mid to high levels, only at lower levels.

Compound this with many of the talented prospects being high schoolers, which lengthens the development process and therefore delays the arrival of talent at the higher levels.

Thus the decline in ranking is due primarily to the incorrect evaluation of the system in 2001.

maurice
10-05-2004, 06:54 PM
Why is this so hard to understand?I'm just gonna add the little :dtroll: to my "ignore" list, next to the rest of the broken-record brigade.
There's no point in wasting time by arguing with somebody who lacks any concept of logic and even basic reading comprehension skills.

CarlosMay'sThumb
10-05-2004, 08:46 PM
Why is this so hard to understand?

- System is erroneously ranked very high due to supposed top prospects at mid and high levels
- While talent enters at lower levels, the formerly highly ranked talent at higher levels doesn't pan out
- Thus the system drops in the ranking because there are no highly ranked players at mid to high levels, only at lower levels.

Compound this with many of the talented prospects being high schoolers, which lengthens the development process and therefore delays the arrival of talent at the higher levels.

Thus the decline in ranking is due primarily to the incorrect evaluation of the system in 2001.Look, I don't mean to be insulting, but wouldn't you assume that one of the premier baseball journals in the nation would take into account this great influx of raw young talent at the lower levels in their evaluation of the entire system? The fact is that there is not enough "lower level" talent to justify a higher ranking.

I guess I'll just have to trust in professional baseball people over maurice. I know it's tough to pick who is more knowledgeable; professional baseball scouts or... maurice. I mean, come on, it's the great maurice for pete's sake!! But I'll just have to listen to Baseball America, that know-nothing rag - especially compared to maurice.:kukoo:

OEO Magglio
10-05-2004, 08:52 PM
Look, I don't mean to be insulting, but wouldn't you assume that one of the premier baseball journals in the nation would take into account this great influx of raw young talent at the lower levels in their evaluation of the entire system? The fact is that there is not enough "lower level" talent to justify a higher ranking.

I guess I'll just have to trust in professional baseball people over maurice. I know it's tough to pick who is more knowledgeable; professional baseball scouts or... maurice. I mean, come on, it's the great maurice for pete's sake!! But I'll just have to listen to Baseball America, that know-nothing rag - especially compared to maurice.:kukoo:
You don't have to listen to anyone, instead why don't you look how these "great" prospects the sox had back in 01 have panned out, how the heck is this kenny's fault?? :rolleyes:

CarlosMay'sThumb
10-05-2004, 11:38 PM
You don't have to listen to anyone, instead why don't you look how these "great" prospects the sox had back in 01 have panned out, how the heck is this kenny's fault?? :rolleyes:Kenny was vice president of player development from 1997-2000.

Flight #24
10-06-2004, 08:57 AM
Kenny was vice president of player development from 1997-2000.
Then using your own argument, his drafting ability resulted in the #1 overall farm system ranking in baseball by the time he left the position. His replacement as VP of player development has created the current problem, not KW. If you want to blame KW for your own perception that the farm system has failed in recent years, you have to blame Schueler for the fact that despite being highly touted in 2001, the prospects from then have amounted to mostly a handful of magic beans.

CarlosMay'sThumb
10-06-2004, 09:29 AM
Then using your own argument, his drafting ability resulted in the #1 overall farm system ranking in baseball by the time he left the position. His replacement as VP of player development has created the current problem, not KW. If you want to blame KW for your own perception that the farm system has failed in recent years, you have to blame Schueler for the fact that despite being highly touted in 2001, the prospects from then have amounted to mostly a handful of magic beans.I blame both Kenny Williams and Ron Schueler for the failure of the farm system over the last few years. But at least Schueler won a division at the major league level in 2000 as GM. Kenny has taken this team, on both the major and minor league levels, to it's worst point in the last 14 years. Under his leadership, this team has each year gotten further away from the goal of winning a World Series.

Now he plans to "remake" the team yet again. To me, he has not proven that he's capable of making a long term plan that each year brings the Sox closer to winning the World Series. Somehow a team in Minnesota, on the brink of contraction and spending less money, manages to have a better farm system and kick our ass at the major league level every year since he's been GM.

Flight #24
10-06-2004, 10:15 AM
I blame both Kenny Williams and Ron Schueler for the failure of the farm system over the last few years. But at least Schueler won a division at the major league level in 2000 as GM. Kenny has taken this team, on both the major and minor league levels, to it's worst point in the last 14 years. Under his leadership, this team has each year gotten further away from the goal of winning a World Series.

Now he plans to "remake" the team yet again. To me, he has not proven that he's capable of making a long term plan that each year brings the Sox closer to winning the World Series. Somehow a team in Minnesota, on the brink of contraction and spending less money, manages to have a better farm system and kick our ass at the major league level every year since he's been GM.
Once again - Minnesota is the best development organization in baseball, bar none. IF KW is'nt as good as them, it doesn't mean he sucks, it just means he's not #1. However, comparing them to the Sox under KW is kind of useless because as already demonstrated by looking at their roster, their success is due in a alarge part to the extremely long "seasoning" period that they give their prospects in the minors. Morneau being a prime example. Even Santana was held out of the rotation for a year or 2 and pitched fomr the pen to aid in his development. Combine that with the amount of HS talent the Sox have (i.e. longer development cycles, but potentially higher upside) and it's pointless to compare the teams. Check out this quote on Terry Ryan from the Sporting News: "If there's one word that best describes Ryan's style, it's patient. He presided over four straight 90-loss seasons while waiting for the Twins' prospects to mature". By your methodology, he'd have been out on his a$$ right before they started seeing results.

This being KW's 4th year, again - in a year or 2, you can make a relevant comparison on the quality of the farm system based on actual results. Until then it's pretty pointless to compare a guy who's been around for 6-8 years with a guy who's barely at half that time.

CarlosMay'sThumb
10-06-2004, 11:13 AM
Once again - Minnesota is the best development organization in baseball, bar none. IF KW is'nt as good as them, it doesn't mean he sucks, it just means he's not #1. However, comparing them to the Sox under KW is kind of useless because as already demonstrated by looking at their roster, their success is due in a alarge part to the extremely long "seasoning" period that they give their prospects in the minors. Morneau being a prime example. Even Santana was held out of the rotation for a year or 2 and pitched fomr the pen to aid in his development. Combine that with the amount of HS talent the Sox have (i.e. longer development cycles, but potentially higher upside) and it's pointless to compare the teams. Check out this quote on Terry Ryan from the Sporting News: "If there's one word that best describes Ryan's style, it's patient. He presided over four straight 90-loss seasons while waiting for the Twins' prospects to mature". By your methodology, he'd have been out on his a$$ right before they started seeing results.

This being KW's 4th year, again - in a year or 2, you can make a relevant comparison on the quality of the farm system based on actual results. Until then it's pretty pointless to compare a guy who's been around for 6-8 years with a guy who's barely at half that time.Are you saying that experts did not recognize the talent Ryan had maturing in his minor league system? My suspicion is that if experts had looked at the Twins minor league system several years before some of their stars were produced, they would have noted these excellent prospects and given the Twins credit. All expert evaluations of the Sox minor league system at all levels gives them uniformally poor grades. I don't think any expert reviewing the Sox minor league system expects a significant number of quality major leaguers to enter the majors in 1-2 years, if ever.

And I'm not saying the Sox minor league system has to be #1. But 20th? With the major league team getting further and further away from winning anything? That's just bad anyway you try to spin it.

Flight #24
10-06-2004, 11:17 AM
Are you saying that experts did not recognize the talent Ryan had maturing in his minor league system? My suspicion is that if experts had looked at the Twins minor league system several years before some of their stars were produced, they would have noted these excellent prospects and given the Twins credit. All expert evaluations of the Sox minor league system at all levels gives them uniformally poor grades. I don't think any expert reviewing the Sox minor league system expects a significant number of quality major leaguers to enter the majors in 1-2 years, if ever.

And I'm not saying the Sox minor league system has to be #1. But 20th? With the major league team getting further and further away from winning anything? That's just bad anyway you try to spin it.Your #1 problem is that you rely primarily on the evaluation skills of self-proclaimed experts despite their history of being wrong more than right (#1 example being their #1 ranking of the Sox system in 2001).

If you don't think Sweeney, Anderson, BMac, Honel, Fields are talented enough to provide a solid infusion in 2-3 years, then I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Baseball America's low ranking of the Sox system directly contradicts their individual league rankings, where the Sox seem to have a number of guys listed.

EDIT:
For the record, here's the relevant info:
Appalachian League: 3 of top 17
Pioneer: 1 of top 5
Sally: 2 of top 15
Carolina: 5 of top 17
Southern: 3 of top 18

Given that there are 30 teams in the majors, seems like the Sox rank pretty highly in terms of # of prospects in the top 20. My math tells me that 15/100 across all of the lists published is about 15%, or one in 6, which would imply a much higher ranking than 20th.

Of course, at the higher levels they likely rank worse, but then - that's the exact scenario that I've been describing to you, where the higher levels are devoid primarily because of what happened pre-2001 whereas the lower and mid levels are doing pretty well.

Ol' No. 2
10-06-2004, 11:31 AM
Your #1 problem is that you rely primarily on the evaluation skills of self-proclaimed experts despite their history of being wrong more than right (#1 example being their #1 ranking of the Sox system in 2001).

If you don't think Sweeney, Anderson, BMac, Honel, Fields are talented enough to provide a solid infusion in 2-3 years, then I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Baseball America's low ranking of the Sox system directly contradicts their individual league rankings, where the Sox seem to have a number of guys listed.I, frankly, don't know how BA gets its information, but I doubt very much that they have a large enough team of scouts to evaluate every player in every minor league system. They rely on secondary sources, and so their information is only as good as these secondary sources. Didn't they rate Jon Rauch very highly? And IIRC, they weren't particularly glowing about Mark Buehrle when he was in the minors. They miss at least as often as they're right, and why shouldn't they? Scouting is a pretty inexact science. These rankings should always be taken with a very large grain of salt.

CarlosMay'sThumb
10-06-2004, 11:44 AM
Your #1 problem is that you rely primarily on the evaluation skills of self-proclaimed experts despite their history of being wrong more than right (#1 example being their #1 ranking of the Sox system in 2001).

If you don't think Sweeney, Anderson, BMac, Honel, Fields are talented enough to provide a solid infusion in 2-3 years, then I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Baseball America's low ranking of the Sox system directly contradicts their individual league rankings, where the Sox seem to have a number of guys listed.

EDIT:
For the record, here's the relevant info:
Appalachian League: 3 of top 17
Pioneer: 1 of top 5
Sally: 2 of top 15
Carolina: 5 of top 17
Southern: 3 of top 18

Given that there are 30 teams in the majors, seems like the Sox rank pretty highly in terms of # of prospects in the top 20. My math tells me that 15/100 across all of the lists published is about 15%, or one in 6, which would imply a much higher ranking than 20th.

Of course, at the higher levels they likely rank worse, but then - that's the exact scenario that I've been describing to you, where the higher levels are devoid primarily because of what happened pre-2001 whereas the lower and mid levels are doing pretty well.I don't think you can have it both ways. Either the experts, like those at BA are the best qualified to assess both the lower AND upper minors or they're not. If they are not, then your low minors prospect list is just as useful as their inaccurate assessment of the upper levels in the past.

I'll have to rely on their OVERALL assessment of the Sox minor league system in comparison to that of other teams. Not that it's perfect, but certainly better than yours or mine. Also, the track record of the Sox over the Williams regime certainly suggests that the minor league system is unlikely to suddenly produce quality talent in the next 1-2 years.

Again, the BIG question is: Do you honestly believe that the Sox are moving closer to a World Series victory? I don't see how anybody can think they are. And since that's the only goal here, it's time to get somebody in charge who can move them in that direction.

Flight #24
10-06-2004, 12:39 PM
I don't think you can have it both ways. Either the experts, like those at BA are the best qualified to assess both the lower AND upper minors or they're not. If they are not, then your low minors prospect list is just as useful as their inaccurate assessment of the upper levels in the past.

I'll have to rely on their OVERALL assessment of the Sox minor league system in comparison to that of other teams. Not that it's perfect, but certainly better than yours or mine. Also, the track record of the Sox over the Williams regime certainly suggests that the minor league system is unlikely to suddenly produce quality talent in the next 1-2 years.

Again, the BIG question is: Do you honestly believe that the Sox are moving closer to a World Series victory? I don't see how anybody can think they are. And since that's the only goal here, it's time to get somebody in charge who can move them in that direction.
I'm not the one claiming BA is a great source for such "rankings", I'm just showing you that even your source basically is consistent with what I'm arguing - that the Sox system is actually improving, but as with all systems, that starts at the lower levels. To put it as simply as I can: The Sox higher levels don't have a ton of talent, which says that a few years ago they didn't have a ton of talent at the lower levels. They now have talent at the lower levels, which says a lot about what the quality of the system will be at the higher levels andin terms of guys making it to the bigs in 1-3 years.

And for the record, the Sox are closer now than they have been in a while. The 2000 team was a fluke, they were nowhere near as close as that year's record would imply. They have some holes, that's true (as do most teams not based in NY or Boston), but they are "fillable". Another SP, a couple of relief arms, and a higher OBP guy for RF. Assuming Frank comes back, you'll see a huge improvement with those moves, and outside the SP they won't break the bank.

CarlosMay'sThumb
10-06-2004, 01:19 PM
I'm not the one claiming BA is a great source for such "rankings", I'm just showing you that even your source basically is consistent with what I'm arguing - that the Sox system is actually improving, but as with all systems, that starts at the lower levels. To put it as simply as I can: The Sox higher levels don't have a ton of talent, which says that a few years ago they didn't have a ton of talent at the lower levels. They now have talent at the lower levels, which says a lot about what the quality of the system will be at the higher levels andin terms of guys making it to the bigs in 1-3 years.

And for the record, the Sox are closer now than they have been in a while. The 2000 team was a fluke, they were nowhere near as close as that year's record would imply. They have some holes, that's true (as do most teams not based in NY or Boston), but they are "fillable". Another SP, a couple of relief arms, and a higher OBP guy for RF. Assuming Frank comes back, you'll see a huge improvement with those moves, and outside the SP they won't break the bank.Wait a minute....BA says that their ranking of the Sox ENTIRE minor league systems (lower levels, mid levels and high levels) has gone from 1st in 2001 to 9th in 2002 to 15th in 2003 to 20th in 2004. You're saying that BA (my source) is calling that "improvement"? What? Where are you coming up with that? BA is saying that the entire system is getting worse, not better. That takes into account this supposed improvement in the low level minors.

And the Sox are closer to the World Series now compared to right after they won their division? I know you think it was a "fluke" in 2000, but come on, how can you think that this team, with only 3 legit everyday players, is closer to the World Series?

Please....can we get another "fluke" like 2000?

Flight #24
10-06-2004, 01:36 PM
Wait a minute....BA says that their ranking of the Sox ENTIRE minor league systems (lower levels, mid levels and high levels) has gone from 1st in 2001 to 9th in 2002 to 15th in 2003 to 20th in 2004. You're saying that BA (my source) is calling that "improvement"? What? Where are you coming up with that? BA is saying that the entire system is getting worse, not better. That takes into account this supposed improvement in the low level minors.


Once again: it should be obvious by now that their 2001 ranking was complete crap. Their current ranking of low-mid prospects by league implies a much higher ranking than 20th for the low-mid minors, which combined with their overall ranking of 20th would mean that their ranking of the high minors is ridiculously low. That should tell you that the problems are generally from before KW's time since that would be indicative of a lack of talent at the low-mid levels in 2001.

I'm not saying that BA is right, but their own rankings imply that whoever's responsible for stocking the low-mid minors in the past few years has done a good job....hey, that's KW!

CarlosMay'sThumb
10-06-2004, 02:33 PM
Once again: it should be obvious by now that their 2001 ranking was complete crap. Their current ranking of low-mid prospects by league implies a much higher ranking than 20th for the low-mid minors, which combined with their overall ranking of 20th would mean that their ranking of the high minors is ridiculously low. That should tell you that the problems are generally from before KW's time since that would be indicative of a lack of talent at the low-mid levels in 2001.

I'm not saying that BA is right, but their own rankings imply that whoever's responsible for stocking the low-mid minors in the past few years has done a good job....hey, that's KW!What we have here is a failure to communicate.:smile:

My point is that if YOU recognize the great strength of Kenny Williams' picks in the low level minors, wouldn't BA recognize those great strengths and give a higher grade to the overall minor league system? And also, if BA was wrong in its assessment in 2001, why do you think they are right in their assessment of these low level picks? Isn't it harder to predict the ultimate major league success of a low level pick compared to a high level pick?

I accept BA's picks then and now as being flawed, but the best assessment of the overall system in comparison to other teams. I just can't buy your assessment of how strong the low level picks on the Sox are - and I don't think BA gives them very much weight either - or the overall grade would be higher and the trend would be improving rather than worsening.

Flight #24
10-06-2004, 02:47 PM
What we have here is a failure to communicate.:smile:

My point is that if YOU recognize the great strength of Kenny Williams' picks in the low level minors, wouldn't BA recognize those great strengths and give a higher grade to the overall minor league system? And also, if BA was wrong in its assessment in 2001, why do you think they are right in their assessment of these low level picks? Isn't it harder to predict the ultimate major league success of a low level pick compared to a high level pick?
I'm not for a second putting any weight on BA's assessment of our overall system or the lower levels. You seem to be using that, so I'm using the data from your source to show that KW's actually done a good job of adding talent to the minors. My preference is to see what results are, which requires waiting 4-5 years for a GM to see the fruits of his initial drafts. Oly then can you make a comparison, especially to any team that's had their GM in place for an additional 3-4 years over ours.

I accept BA's picks then and now as being flawed, but the best assessment of the overall system in comparison to other teams. I just can't buy your assessment of how strong the low level picks on the Sox are - and I don't think BA gives them very much weight either - or the overall grade would be higher and the trend would be improving rather than worsening.
The Sox can be better than most in the lower levels and devoid at the higher levels and be ranked in the bottom 3d overall pretty easily. I'd also guess that BA gives more weight to the higher level rankings because those are theoretically closer to the bigs and more proven.

However, all of that works against a GM who comes in and has to rebuild a system. While the supposed "top prospects" left by his predecessor fail to pan out, the upper level rankings drop like a rock and the lack of "legacy" lower level talent means you don't replace them with anything. Meanwhile the new lower level talent is severely discounted, making the overall ranking bad. Only when you start to get the new GM's lower level guys to the upper levels will you see what KW's farm system rankings truly are. (Assuming that you believe in those rankings in the first place.) Remember that a lot of the high rankings were due to the plethora of young pitchign we supposedly had on the way. None of them have worked out (Buehrle wasn't even included in most of those evaluations). That proves the point that the lower level talent just wasn't there.

CarlosMay'sThumb
10-06-2004, 05:03 PM
I'm not for a second putting any weight on BA's assessment of our overall system or the lower levels. You seem to be using that, so I'm using the data from your source to show that KW's actually done a good job of adding talent to the minors. My preference is to see what results are, which requires waiting 4-5 years for a GM to see the fruits of his initial drafts. Oly then can you make a comparison, especially to any team that's had their GM in place for an additional 3-4 years over ours.


The Sox can be better than most in the lower levels and devoid at the higher levels and be ranked in the bottom 3d overall pretty easily. I'd also guess that BA gives more weight to the higher level rankings because those are theoretically closer to the bigs and more proven.

However, all of that works against a GM who comes in and has to rebuild a system. While the supposed "top prospects" left by his predecessor fail to pan out, the upper level rankings drop like a rock and the lack of "legacy" lower level talent means you don't replace them with anything. Meanwhile the new lower level talent is severely discounted, making the overall ranking bad. Only when you start to get the new GM's lower level guys to the upper levels will you see what KW's farm system rankings truly are. (Assuming that you believe in those rankings in the first place.) Remember that a lot of the high rankings were due to the plethora of young pitchign we supposedly had on the way. None of them have worked out (Buehrle wasn't even included in most of those evaluations). That proves the point that the lower level talent just wasn't there.I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

If the Sox truly were "better than most in the lower levels and devoid at the higher levels" they wouldn't be 20th and going down. They would have to be rising as Kenny Williams great picks from 4 years ago were reaching maturity now or in the next "1-2 years".

I think 4 years of failure to move closer to a World Series is enough to fire Williams. Even assuming you're right and there are a handful of low level prospects that have potential, it's not enough to retain this guy.

santo=dorf
10-06-2004, 05:14 PM
Kenny has taken this team, on both the major and minor league levels, to it's worst point in the last 14 years.
The 1995-1999 seasons were probably worst than this year. Chris Sabo, Doug Drabek, Mike Devereux, John Kruk, Danny Tartabull, Danny Darwin, Rob Dibble, Jaime Navarro, Charlie O'Brien, Ruben Sierra, Lyle Mouton, such fine memories. No wonder why it was so hard for me to watch Sox baseball post-strike.