PDA

View Full Version : BA's Top 10 Sox Prospects


KRS1
11-20-2006, 12:44 PM
Sweeney
Fields
Broadway
McCulloch
Haeger
Cunningham
Russell
Harrell
Long
Carter



Wow, IMO, this is a bad list. Harrell could make a run at it, but Long and Carter on here? I would add Whisler, Omogrosso, and the last spot to one of O. Perez, Owens, and Tracey.

PalehosePlanet
11-20-2006, 01:30 PM
So Corwin Malone is not even considered a prospect anymore? That's too bad. I'm still hoping that he, and not Boone Logan, will be Cotts's replacement.

And as long as Sean Tracey doesn't have an off speed pitch, he should not be considered a top prospect IMO.

KRS1
11-20-2006, 01:39 PM
So Corwin Malone is not even considered a prospect anymore? That's too bad. I'm still hoping that he, and not Boone Logan, will be Cotts's replacement.

And as long as Sean Tracey doesn't have an off speed pitch, he should not be considered a top prospect IMO.

Corwin walks way too many batters still, and with control and command being paramount in Ozzie's eyes out of the pen, he really stood no chance. Now he's set to be selected in the Rule-5.

As for Tracey. He does have an offspeed pitch, his slider. I like the pitch a lot, he can throw it as a downer or a sweeping pitch away from righties and in on lefties.

caulfield12
11-20-2006, 02:39 PM
Sweeney
Fields
Broadway
McCulloch
Haeger
Cunningham
Russell
Harrell
Long
Carter



Wow, IMO, this is a bad list. Harrell could make a run at it, but Long and Carter on here? I would add Whisler, Omogrosso, and the last spot to one of O. Perez, Owens, and Tracey.

This is a #25-30 organization. Owens should be in the 6-10 range. Long is a huge reach, even at #9. Cunningham and Carter are there more based on potential at this point. Tracey has moved out of the prospect list and into the Corwin Malone/Arnie Munoz/Felix Diaz/Jon Adkins category. At this point, if Tracey pitched as well as Jason Grilli in 2005 for the Tigers, it would be a miracle.

-

champagne030
11-20-2006, 03:27 PM
Corwin walks way too many batters still, and with control and command being paramount in Ozzie's eyes out of the pen, he really stood no chance. Now he's set to be selected in the Rule-5.

As for Tracey. He does have an offspeed pitch, his slider. I like the pitch a lot, he can throw it as a downer or a sweeping pitch away from righties and in on lefties.

Well, Tracey "walks way too many batters still, and with control and command being paramount in Ozzie's eyes out of the pen, he really stands no chance".

caulfield12
11-20-2006, 04:24 PM
I think you can make an argument about including Logan over some of those guys on the bottom as well, despite his short reliever status.

The fact that he's LH and jumped from A ball to the majors and didn't pitch 50 innings (not sure how many days he was on the roster, which could knock him from rookie status)...those are a couple of arguments.

I think most in the organization would go with Logan over Tracey at this point.

Domeshot17
11-20-2006, 06:40 PM
Jerry Owens belongs no where near the top 10. I actually like the list. I like it because its not as much based off who can put up numbers in the minors, but moreso on how they will probably fair in the major league careers

caulfield12
11-20-2006, 06:52 PM
Well, we have not one potential All-Star on that list IMO.

rdivaldi
11-20-2006, 09:07 PM
Well, we have not one potential All-Star on that list IMO.

Then you've never seen Ryan Sweeney knock the ball around the park and gun players out with his cannon of an arm...

California Sox
11-20-2006, 10:02 PM
Sweeney
Fields
Broadway
McCulloch
Haeger
Cunningham
Russell
Harrell
Long
Carter



Wow, IMO, this is a bad list. Harrell could make a run at it, but Long and Carter on here? I would add Whisler, Omogrosso, and the last spot to one of O. Perez, Owens, and Tracey.

Half agree. Bad list, but I can't believe you're complaining about Carter. He's raw, but he's one of the few guys in the organization with any upside. Personally, I'm depressed that Broadway and McCulloch rank so high. They're guys who profile as 5th starters/long relievers. Bleah.

caulfield12
11-20-2006, 10:30 PM
Then you've never seen Ryan Sweeney knock the ball around the park and gun players out with his cannon of an arm...


Charlotte's band box doesn't mean much to me.

If he's close to Olerud or Grace statistically (a combination), I would be overjoyed. If he's like Palmeiro and develops power late (without steroids or Viagra), it would be a minor miracle. Olerud made the All-Star team twice I think. Do you really think he's going to be that good or better?

I know all about his fielding and arm and "natural instincts," but he's definitely not an everyday CF in the majors either.

rdivaldi
11-21-2006, 12:54 AM
Personally, I'm depressed that Broadway and McCulloch rank so high. They're guys who profile as 5th starters/long relievers. Bleah.

Well we had it coming. You can't continuously trade for veterans and expect your farm system to be loaded. Eventually it had to catch up to us. Hopefully KW can continue to identify good trade opportunites and keep us in the upper echilon.

rdivaldi
11-21-2006, 01:00 AM
Charlotte's band box doesn't mean much to me.

If he's close to Olerud or Grace statistically (a combination), I would be overjoyed. If he's like Palmeiro and develops power late (without steroids or Viagra), it would be a minor miracle. Olerud made the All-Star team twice I think. Do you really think he's going to be that good or better?

I know all about his fielding and arm and "natural instincts," but he's definitely not an everyday CF in the majors either.

Over the last 10-15 years I think that Sweeney is the best looking hitting prospect that I've seen come through the Sox farm system. That includes Cameron, Lee, Maggs, Abbott, Reed, et al. His mechanics are outstanding and his plate presence is unbelievable for a player of his age. If he stays healthy I see him turning into a .320/30/120 hitter as he grows older and stronger. I'd like to see him as our starting LF next year...

sullythered
11-21-2006, 12:09 PM
Well, we have not one potential All-Star on that list IMO.

And some people around baseball see Josh Fields as a right handed Jim Thome.

caulfield12
11-21-2006, 12:24 PM
He looks more like a RH Joe Borchard right now.

KRS1
11-21-2006, 04:00 PM
He looks more like a RH Joe Borchard right now.


Borhcard IS right handed. He hits switch however.

Either way, yeesh. Yeah, youre absolutely right, everybody in our system sucks, none have done anything to show they have a bright future. Sweeney is only good because he had a good year in Charlotte, he's only performed at every level he's ever played at while being much younger than his competitors. Fields also has zero chance of being a quality player because he played football in college, much like Joe Borchard.

caulfield12
11-21-2006, 07:19 PM
Borhcard IS right handed. He hits switch however.

Either way, yeesh. Yeah, youre absolutely right, everybody in our system sucks, none have done anything to show they have a bright future. Sweeney is only good because he had a good year in Charlotte, he's only performed at every level he's ever played at while being much younger than his competitors. Fields also has zero chance of being a quality player because he played football in college, much like Joe Borchard.


Have you seen Borchard hit RH? It's like Valentin hitting against a LHP from the right side (or staying lefty)...not pretty.

Beautox
11-21-2006, 07:35 PM
I'll say two things in Fields defense, even though i think he has a long swing and he needs to compact it.

1.) hes vastly underrated defensively no one ever uttered the words GG in the same breath as Chavez or Crede when they came up. Josh also has a cannon for a 3B its down right impressive.

2.) i was impressed he was able to draw 5 walks compared to 8 strike outs at the ML level.

If he shortens his swing up he could very well become the right handed version of Jim Thome, along with that power Fields has speed and thats impressive, i don't think attaching the word 5-tool to his name is off base. I just hope he shortens that swing.

caulfield12
11-21-2006, 07:45 PM
Fields has an above average arm, but not a "plus" arm, despite the fact that he was a QB at OSU.

And, in terms of the scouts' rating system, he's above average running (especially for a 3B) but certainly not a "plus" tool there either.

Fielding...average to slightly above, with the opportunity to improve but a LONG way to get to Crede and Ventura territory. Of course, Robin came in as a hitter and became known as a great all-around player...perhaps even more well-known for his glove than his power hitting (well, clutch hitting...like Joe...Robin was all by himself in that one).

maurice
11-21-2006, 08:08 PM
Ventura was considered something of a butcher defensively in the minors.
Nobody expected him to become a Gold Glover. He did it through hard work.

caulfield12
11-21-2006, 09:05 PM
Ventura was considered something of a butcher defensively in the minors.
Nobody expected him to become a Gold Glover. He did it through hard work.

I think Robin's hitting streak at OSU and then his horrible start with the Sox forced him to become a much better fielder, because he had to contribute something to the team, and it certainly wasn't his bat. If he came in like Thomas or Carlos Lee, he might not have worked on his defense with such pride. Then again, Ventura seems like the kind of player who would have prided himself on good fundamentals regardless of how he started.

Randar68
11-22-2006, 11:21 AM
He looks more like a RH Joe Borchard right now.

That is just plain idiotic.

Troll somewhere else.

caulfield12
11-22-2006, 12:16 PM
Josh didn't do very well with the White Sox and he wasn't doing so hot down in Venezuela either.

It's not automatic that he becomes a superstar player as some around here seem to believe.

There's no doubt he's going to be better than Borchard, but to compare him to Jim Thome at this point is way too much as well.

It was like comparing Eric Davis to Willie Mays or Sosa to Roberto Clemente.

Thome is a Hall of Fame player. The same comparisons were made when Borchard was drafted to Mark McGwire. Well, I think we need to step back, realize he has a big swing right now and that it's going to take some time for him to adjust to the MLB level.

There's a good reason Sweeney is rated higher by most than Fields. How long has it been since we produced an All-Star position prospect? Almost 10 years.

There's almost no point in following the system any more, KW trades 75% of our players...it has become Yankees West. That's both a good and bad thing. As long as he makes the right moves, it's fine...but too many more Vazquez deals and we're looking at a sub-.500 club in 2008/09 and a major rebuilding period.

KW has acknowledged the risks of trading Young, Gonzalez and Lumsden. Let's hope it works out...so far, he's been pretty good in his decisions.

Randar68
11-22-2006, 12:46 PM
There's almost no point in following the system any more,

Then do us a favor and stop.

It's about potential and comparisons are made. Heck, nobody on here even made the McGwire or Thome comparisons, just that they'd seen them made by those in baseball, scouts, unnamed sources, etc. Why should "we" stop anything?

Get off your high horse and allow dialog to happen without attempting to squelch it with your pessimistic pissing match of "sky is falling, KW trades everyone" attitude.

Boorish to say the least.

maurice
11-22-2006, 12:50 PM
There's almost no point in following the system any more, KW trades 75% of our players...

That doesn't bother me. I continue to follow them on other teams and, at the time they're traded, I'm in the minority of people who know exactly what KW gave up. Besides, I enjoy young players and player development generally. The Sox connection is just an added bonus.

OTOH, if you've convinced yourself that pessimism is the only possible approach, you probably should stop following the system. Repeatedly comparing Sox prospects to Joe Borchard cannot be very fun or interesting. It certainly doesn't add anything to these threads.

caulfield12
11-22-2006, 06:11 PM
In 2001 Borchard, at age 22, hit .295 with 27 homers and 98 RBI's in barely more than 500 at-bats. He struck out 158 times.

At the same age, 22, Josh Fields, another former first round draft pick, hit .252 with 16 homers and 79 RBI's in about 50 fewer at-bats for Birmingham. He also struck out 142 times.

It's easy to rip on Borchard now, but it certainly wasn't imagined by anyone five years ago when Jon Rauch was ALMOST the best pitching prospect in baseball.

KyWhiSoxFan
11-22-2006, 06:37 PM
Why should we care about BA's top ten prospects? If it were KW's top ten or OG's, yes, that would be interesting, and provide some very useful insight. But who cares about Brian Anderson's top ten? Oh, what, it's Baseball America's top ten? ... Never mind.

maurice
11-27-2006, 04:59 PM
In 2001 Borchard, at age 22, hit .295 with 27 homers and 98 RBI's in barely more than 500 at-bats. He struck out 158 times. At the same age, 22, Josh Fields, another former first round draft pick, hit .252 with 16 homers and 79 RBI's in about 50 fewer at-bats for Birmingham. He also struck out 142 times.

And then, the following year, Borchard got worse and Fields got better. Quite a contrast.

five years ago when Jon Rauch was ALMOST the best pitching prospect in baseball.

And then seriously injured his shoulder, which often is fatal to a pitching career. All things considered, he actually has done failry well since then. What does this have to do with Josh Fields?

JohnTucker0814
11-27-2006, 05:29 PM
Josh didn't do very well with the White Sox and he wasn't doing so hot down in Venezuela either.

It's not automatic that he becomes a superstar player as some around here seem to believe.

There's no doubt he's going to be better than Borchard, but to compare him to Jim Thome at this point is way too much as well.

It was like comparing Eric Davis to Willie Mays or Sosa to Roberto Clemente.

Thome is a Hall of Fame player. The same comparisons were made when Borchard was drafted to Mark McGwire. Well, I think we need to step back, realize he has a big swing right now and that it's going to take some time for him to adjust to the MLB level.

There's a good reason Sweeney is rated higher by most than Fields. How long has it been since we produced an All-Star position prospect? Almost 10 years.

There's almost no point in following the system any more, KW trades 75% of our players...it has become Yankees West. That's both a good and bad thing. As long as he makes the right moves, it's fine...but too many more Vazquez deals and we're looking at a sub-.500 club in 2008/09 and a major rebuilding period.

KW has acknowledged the risks of trading Young, Gonzalez and Lumsden. Let's hope it works out...so far, he's been pretty good in his decisions.

Name me 1 prospect that KW has traded that has made an impact on another team? The Giants traded Santana, that is the prospects the haunt you!

caulfield12
11-27-2006, 05:45 PM
Name me 1 prospect that KW has traded that has made an impact on another team? The Giants traded Santana, that is the prospects the haunt you!


Frank Francisco before the injury and chair-throwing
Josh Rupe (possibly this season in Texas)
Fabio Castro (lost via Rule V)
Chad Bradford
Matt Guerrier (with Twins, although did nothing for Pirates)
Gio Gonzalez ???
Chris Young ???
Tyler Lumsden ???
Daniel Haigwood ???
Josh Fogg (with Pirates)

The irony is that Liriano (not Santana) was the last piece, and a player the Twins had heavily scouted but was either injured or coming off his first serious injury.

caulfield12
11-27-2006, 05:47 PM
And then, the following year, Borchard got worse and Fields got better. Quite a contrast.



And then seriously injured his shoulder, which often is fatal to a pitching career. All things considered, he actually has done failry well since then. What does this have to do with Josh Fields?


That usually our most hyped prospects have fallen on their faces while "underdogs" like Buehrle, Rowand and Jeremy Reed have excelled.

The only exception (after Maggs and C-Lee) has been Crede, and he took two seasons longer to develop than most imagined.

SoxxoS
11-27-2006, 07:12 PM
Jeremy Reed excelled at what? Baseball?

caulfield12
11-27-2006, 08:45 PM
As an "untainted/unflawed" prospect...because he was not exposed to major league failure, his value was heightened. It was the classic "sell high" case for KW of dumping a Minor League Player of the Year that he felt wasn't more than a fourth OF at the major league level in terms of tools.

To a lesser extent, this would have been the case with Jeff Abbott as well, had we traded him before bringing him to the majors.

JohnTucker0814
11-27-2006, 10:53 PM
Frank Francisco before the injury and chair-throwing
Josh Rupe (possibly this season in Texas)
Fabio Castro (lost via Rule V)
Chad Bradford
Matt Guerrier (with Twins, although did nothing for Pirates)
Gio Gonzalez ???
Chris Young ???
Tyler Lumsden ???
Daniel Haigwood ???
Josh Fogg (with Pirates)

The irony is that Liriano (not Santana) was the last piece, and a player the Twins had heavily scouted but was either injured or coming off his first serious injury.

None of those players have made an impact at all...

rdivaldi
11-28-2006, 09:06 AM
None of those players have made an impact at all...

I was about to say the same thing. Basically the only player that KW has traded that has had any sort of impact has been Kip Wells, and that was for a last place team going nowhere.

As long as KW continues to land us the right pieces to completing another World Series puzzle, he has my blessing to continue trading prospects...

caulfield12
11-28-2006, 09:47 AM
The downside to this is that eventually teams will be more hesitant to take any of our prospects if they invariably fail at the big league level...I don't think we're at that point yet, but a couple more Garcia deals (Reed, Morse and Olivo all ultimately failed, although Olivo is still considered a legit player now in FLA) and it will get harder.

Of course, the key is KW keeping the players he believes in and letting the others go...Gonzalez, and Young, in particular, were losses KW knew he might regret someday, but felt they were the right moves at the time.

Randar68
11-28-2006, 10:03 AM
The downside to this is that eventually teams will be more hesitant to take any of our prospects if they invariably fail at the big league level

No they won't, because prospects from every organization fail at a high rate when making the jump to the majors. Scouts and GM's see tools, production, and they are blind to history.

It hasn't mattered that KW traded Sirotka to the Blue Jays and he ended up injured...

It hasn't mattered that he traded a MLPOY in Reed to Seattle and he hasn't done anything...

It hasn't mattered that he traded "pitching prospects" to Pittsburg and they haven't done anything of note...

This is baseball. Everyone thinks they know better and everyone thinks they can beat the system/trends... It's the law of the land and the higher-ups have very short memories when trying to improve their organizations unless it is a huge personal issue with the other party. Even then it rarely holds up a deal.

caulfield12
11-28-2006, 10:28 AM
Guerrier has at least become a serviceable pitcher, along with Josh Fogg.

Wells could have been a 2-3 starter if not for his injuries...arguably, he was the ace of the Pirates in 2002 and 2003.

I do wonder if they will question our pitching prospects, because so few of them have actually panned out, especially when you examine what has happened to that "wave of pitching" we had in the minors in 2000-2001.

maurice
11-28-2006, 10:37 AM
This is baseball. Everyone thinks they know better and everyone thinks they can beat the system/trends...

Right. No GM thinks "I'll trade for prospects in the ___ system, because they're really good at producing MLB players." Each organization makes its own evaluations of players individually by using their own scouts, watching tape, analyzing numbers, etc. There is so much data available to everybody that there's no reason to rely on somebody else's evaluation.

More to the point, nobody in MLB (as opposed to the Internet) thinks that a prospect necessarily will suck because they come from the ___ system. Each prospect stands on his own merits.

caulfield12
11-28-2006, 11:21 AM
Outside of Carlos Zambrano, how many Cubs' prospects would you have traded for over the last 10 years? I'm sure they have done demonstrably worse than the White Sox prospects over that time period.

The Cubs' system is known for overhyping and producing nothing.

There are organizations that are known for producing fundamentally-sound players, like the Twins, for example. Even if they originate in other organizations, they come to the big leagues prepared to do the little things if they're not "star caliber" players like Morneau, Hunter, Cuddyer, Jason Kubel, etc.

The Marlins have always been known for producing quality young pitchers in their system the last ten years.

I'll put it another way, NFL scouts really liked Iowa's players from 2002-2006 because the scout knew that player was coming to the NFL with the proper skill sets, preparation, work ethic and mental approach from having been in Kirk Ferentz's system. There are "trends" that can influence a decision 10-20%...the same trends and generalities exist in MLB.

Minnesota must be doing something right to compete so consistently with below league average payrolls...and I don't think it's a complete coincidence that one of the players that put us over the top in 2005 was AJ Pierzynski. Some systems only are concerned with player development....others equally desire the players to develop a "winning" mentality and go out of their way to assemble .500+ teams (plugged with minor league lifers) that play together and advance through the system simultaneously. This is one of the approaches Dayton Moore is taking with all the Royals prospects at this time.

Randar68
11-28-2006, 12:25 PM
Wells could have been a 2-3 starter if not for his injuries...arguably, he was the ace of the Pirates in 2002 and 2003.


Oh horse doody.

Kip Wells is and never was going to become anything other than a mediocre starter on a bad team by the time we traded him. He never got over the pants-crapping in big-game situtations and never had to deal with it in Pittsburg because they were never IN a big game... By the time we traded him, his star had faded and it never regained any brightness despite his mediocrity for a terrible team in the NL.

Randar68
11-28-2006, 12:31 PM
I'll put it another way, NFL scouts really liked Iowa's players from 2002-2006 because the scout knew that player was coming to the NFL with the proper skill sets, preparation, work ethic and mental approach from having been in Kirk Ferentz's system. There are "trends" that can influence a decision 10-20%...the same trends and generalities exist in MLB.

How's Rob HGH Gallery doing? *****. That's an entirely asinine comparison. Football, more than ANY OTHER SPORT, is about combines and physical ability. Heck, they don't even care if you score a 5 on the Wonderlick test unless you're a QB... Totally invalid analogy.

Minnesota must be doing something right to compete so consistently with below league average payrolls...and I don't think it's a complete coincidence that one of the players that put us over the top in 2005 was AJ Pierzynski. Some systems only are concerned with player development....others equally desire the players to develop a "winning" mentality and go out of their way to assemble .500+ teams (plugged with minor league lifers) that play together and advance through the system simultaneously. This is one of the approaches Dayton Moore is taking with all the Royals prospects at this time.

Yep, they spend all their resources on scouting and player development, and they don't rush players because of major league team needs... It's just a different philosophy. It doesn't make it right or wrong, just like Beane's. It's just different. KW took a team he inherited with a mediocre payroll, and together with Sales/Marketing, they built a team identity, galvanized the fan base, and they use their system primarily as a way to acquire proven MLB talent as opposed to fill the holes they have at any given time. And now that team that always had fans complaining about middle-of-the-road payroll has a top 5 or 10 payroll, 2.5-3.0 million fans 2 years in a row, a World Series Title, and is an entirely different franchise...

caulfield12
11-28-2006, 02:28 PM
The reason KW has succeeded is he has won 80% of trades, and almost all of them since 2002...the only glaring exceptions are:

Durham/Adkins
Berry/Barry fiasco
Todd Ritchie trade

not signing Kenny Rogers in 2003, or any competent fifth starter w/ experience

Foulke (although we did get Cotts' 2005 season out of that)

Vazquez (so far, jury's still out on both Young and what JV will bring back or do for the Sox)

not signing a legitimate big leaguer like Riske in the first place to start the 2006 season

White Sox Randy
12-20-2006, 11:45 AM
Kenny has actually done very well in trading prospects. But, he's about to take his first hit because that Vazquez trade could go down as his worst ever.

Firstly, the gamble didn't pay off because the Sox not only didn't repeat as World Champs, they didn't even make the playoffs.

Secondly, Chris Young looks like he could be a real star for a long time.

But, we still have to wait and see what Vazquez contributes next year and what he brings in trade eventually.

I don't mind the way that Kenny has been using our prospects. Let's face it, the Sox have to compete with the Yankees and Red Sox - not to mention some other wealthy teams and we aren't fortunate to get fans and money from all over the world for putting a crappy product on the field every year like a certain team.

I am happy that he has held onto his prospects so far,this year, and basically a lot of Kenny's and the Sox future will hinge on how well Sweeny and Fields do.

rdivaldi
12-20-2006, 03:02 PM
Kenny has actually done very well in trading prospects. But, he's about to take his first hit because that Vazquez trade could go down as his worst ever.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. I think Chris Young is a fantastic talent, but we still got a serviceable starter out of the deal. Young would have to maximize his potential for this to be KWs worst deal ever, and Vaz could still be a 18- 20 game winner making it a moot point.

California Sox
12-20-2006, 03:43 PM
Perhaps, but I doubt it. I think Chris Young is a fantastic talent, but we still got a serviceable starter out of the deal. Young would have to maximize his potential for this to be KWs worst deal ever, and Vaz could still be a 18- 20 game winner making it a moot point.

I would add one other variable: Either BA has to improve or Sweeney has to play CF and live up to his potential. Non-Chicagoans always go on about the Brock/Broglio trade, but it wasn't that bad a trade for the Cubs because they had Billy Williams in left for most of Brock's career. If BA is 80% the player Young is the trade will look a lot different than if he hits .225 every year.

rdivaldi
12-20-2006, 03:52 PM
I would add one other variable: Either BA has to improve or Sweeney has to play CF and live up to his potential. Non-Chicagoans always go on about the Brock/Broglio trade, but it wasn't that bad a trade for the Cubs because they had Billy Williams in left for most of Brock's career. If BA is 80% the player Young is the trade will look a lot different than if he hits .225 every year.

Reminds me of a conversation we had a year and a half ago. I said this:

"Young has a higher ceiling IMO. However, I'll agree with Randar and say that Sweeney is a surer bet to reach his ceiling.

Young's raw abilities are amazing (and they're getting less raw all the time). There's almost nothing he can't do. Most question his arm strength, but I don't think it's much worse than average. But because of that, he's not our RF of the future. He's much better suited in center or left."

Of the three top OF prosepcts at the time I thought BA was closest to the majors, Young had the most talent, and Sweeney would have the best career. I still think that now...

CPditka
12-20-2006, 04:21 PM
After the recent trades I wonder if our top 10 list would change.. Gio/Floyd/Sisco?

lakeviewsoxfan
12-20-2006, 04:25 PM
After the recent trades I wonder if our top 10 list would change.. Gio/Floyd/Sisco?

Gio is currently # 3 behind Sweeney and Fields

rdivaldi
12-20-2006, 04:55 PM
After the recent trades I wonder if our top 10 list would change.. Gio/Floyd/Sisco?

Floyd and Sisco wouldn't qualify, as they have pitched too many ML innings to be considered prospects. Personally I'd have Gio #2 behind Sweeney.

Tragg
12-20-2006, 05:22 PM
The reason KW has succeeded is he has won 80% of trades
You shouldn't have to win "Win" good trades...good trades help both teams. You can "win" a trade, but not help your team. Williams looks for win/win situations - sometimes I think he's too generous - but his philosophy keeps GM's doors open
Williams' trades helps the team - he finds players we need.
Now, because he generally acquires the proven major leaguer, sure we should "win" most of the time. But he improves the team.

California Sox
12-20-2006, 11:59 PM
Of the three top OF prosepcts at the time I thought BA was closest to the majors, Young had the most talent, and Sweeney would have the best career. I still think that now...

I vaguely remember that conversation and so far your predictions are on the mark. I hope the one about Sweeney continues to be.

I'm going to spring training and I'll be interested in seeing what BA's swing looks like and how well Sweeney does in center. I'm really rooting for Brian because he seems like a good kid and with Dye approaching free agency it would be nice to have both guys pan out. On the other hand, if Sweeney hits anything like he has in the last couple of springs it will be hard to leave him off the team.

jabrch
12-23-2006, 04:03 PM
After the recent trades I wonder if our top 10 list would change.. Gio/Floyd/Sisco?

Danks, Masset...

rdivaldi
12-24-2006, 12:32 AM
New Top 5 would probably be.

Danks
Sweeney
Gonzalez
Fields
Broadway

jabrch
12-24-2006, 08:23 AM
New Top 5 would probably be.

Danks
Sweeney
Gonzalez
Fields
Broadway


Open question to the minor league experts....

Where do you think that would rank amongst other MLB farms top 5?

California Sox
12-24-2006, 11:43 AM
New Top 5 would probably be.

Danks
Sweeney
Gonzalez
Fields
Broadway

BA was scheduled to slot Gio 3rd before the Danks trade. I'm not a huge Danks believer personally so I'd slot Sweeney ahead of him, but that's personal taste. The two are interesting in that each has been rushed so that they haven't exactly dominated in the minors. I just think Sweeney has more upsode. I'd go Sweeney, Danks, Fields, Gio, Masset. (Not that high on Broadway and by the looks of all the young pitchers the Sox are acquiring, I'd say neither are they.)

rdivaldi
12-24-2006, 12:58 PM
BA was scheduled to slot Gio 3rd before the Danks trade. I'm not a huge Danks believer personally so I'd slot Sweeney ahead of him, but that's personal taste. The two are interesting in that each has been rushed so that they haven't exactly dominated in the minors. I just think Sweeney has more upsode. I'd go Sweeney, Danks, Fields, Gio, Masset. (Not that high on Broadway and by the looks of all the young pitchers the Sox are acquiring, I'd say neither are they.)

I'm not overly familiar with Danks, so the #1 ranking is based on what most of the scouting services are reporting. If you go to minorleaguebaseball.com they have Danks as the #34 prospect in baseball, which is actually below Fields who they have as #24.

I'm not overly high on Broadway either, he really only projects as a bottom of the rotation starter. However, I'm not really sure if the organization is making trades in reaction to his abililty, I think they were going to make these deals regardless.

jabrch
12-24-2006, 05:54 PM
BA was scheduled to slot Gio 3rd before the Danks trade. I'm not a huge Danks believer personally so I'd slot Sweeney ahead of him, but that's personal taste. The two are interesting in that each has been rushed so that they haven't exactly dominated in the minors. I just think Sweeney has more upsode. I'd go Sweeney, Danks, Fields, Gio, Masset. (Not that high on Broadway and by the looks of all the young pitchers the Sox are acquiring, I'd say neither are they.)

You'd have Masset 5th?

California Sox
12-24-2006, 08:03 PM
You'd have Masset 5th?

Based on big time power arm, closeness to the majors, and lack of enthusiasm for Broadway and McCulloch.

rdivaldi
12-24-2006, 11:27 PM
Based on big time power arm, closeness to the majors, and lack of enthusiasm for Broadway and McCulloch.

Masset is a year older though and he really hasn't had much success in the minors to date. He was only #8 in the Ranger system, so I really don't think he would be top 5 for us power arm or not.

jabrch
12-25-2006, 11:10 AM
Based on big time power arm, closeness to the majors, and lack of enthusiasm for Broadway and McCulloch.

I don't see how Masset would possibly be ranked ahead of Phillips, regardless of Broadway/McCullogh.

Either way - he's surely a nice piece to have.

rdivaldi
12-25-2006, 02:30 PM
I don't see how Masset would possibly be ranked ahead of Phillips, regardless of Broadway/McCullogh.

Either way - he's surely a nice piece to have.

Phillips ahead of Masset? Honestly it's nice that Heath has put up good numbers, but the kid is widely regarded as a AAAA pitcher. Based on talent alone Masset would be ahead of Phillips by a wide margin.

jabrch
12-25-2006, 03:59 PM
Phillips ahead of Masset? Honestly it's nice that Heath has put up good numbers, but the kid is widely regarded as a AAAA pitcher. Based on talent alone Masset would be ahead of Phillips by a wide margin.


Maybe I am underrating Masset? I hope so.

With the season Phillips had last year I'd figure he'd get more respect than that...

rdivaldi
12-25-2006, 05:19 PM
Maybe I am underrating Masset? I hope so.

With the season Phillips had last year I'd figure he'd get more respect than that...

I don't think you're underrating Masset as much as you're overrating Phillips. Heath might surprise us one day, but he really does look to be a AAAA player.

Daver
12-25-2006, 05:34 PM
I don't think you're underrating Masset as much as you're overrating Phillips. Heath might surprise us one day, but he really does look to be a AAAA player.

Mark Buerhle has had a pretty good career as a soft tosser, but his control is better than Heath's.

rdivaldi
12-25-2006, 07:54 PM
Mark Buerhle has had a pretty good career as a soft tosser, but his control is better than Heath's.

Well, so did Jamie Moyer and Zito is a soft tossing lefty as well. But in general I wouldn't go banking the organizations future on guys that barely throw in the uppper 80's left handed or not. While I agree that the radar gun is the most overused scouting tool, it still is no coincidence that most major leaguers throw in the 90's.

Daver
12-25-2006, 07:59 PM
Well, so did Jamie Moyer and Zito is a soft tossing lefty as well. But in general I wouldn't go banking the organizations future on guys that barely throw in the uppper 80's left handed or not. While I agree that the radar gun is the most overused scouting tool, it still is no coincidence that most major leaguers throw in the 90's.

Haeger throws in the seventies, and would be my first choice for the fifth spot in the rotation right now.

rdivaldi
12-25-2006, 08:06 PM
Haeger throws in the seventies, and would be my first choice for the fifth spot in the rotation right now.

I have not a clue who I would pick to start in the 5 spot as of today. I know that I would not put Gio, Danks or Broadway in there for sure. But after that it's kind of a coin toss.

progers13
12-26-2006, 11:01 AM
The BA prospects book with the top 30s had closed just before the McCarthy trade, so it will not include Danks and Masset. Had it, I believe the White Sox current top 10 would look like this:

1. Danks
2. Sweeney
3. Fields
4. Gonzalez (although some at BA will want Gonzalez ahead of Fields; I like Josh a lot)
5. Masset
6. Broadway
7. McCulloch
8. Haeger
9. Cunningham
10. Russell

That's a lot deeper than at the start of the winter, with the buildup of pitching obviously the big difference.

For what it's worth, if Floyd and Sisco were eligible, I'd lean toward ranking Sisco behind Broadway and Floyd below Heager. Both are high upside guys, and more of power pitchers than Broadway and McCulloch, but haven't done much with the big-league innings they've had, raising questions whether they will click. I give Sisco benefit of the doubt because the Rule 5 situation rushed him; I'm curious to see how he'll respond if he is smart enough to welcome a chance to go to Triple-A and smart.

Also, while Oneli Perez wouldn't be a top 10 guy, his strong winter in the Dominican will place him squarely in the top 20 when the book comes out. I'm as anxious to see him pitchin in spring training as I am the new guys.

rdivaldi
12-26-2006, 11:17 AM
3. Fields
4. Gonzalez (although some at BA will want Gonzalez ahead of Fields; I like Josh a lot)


Even though I don't often side with the "others" at BA, I'm going to take their side on this one Phil. I see Fields as another low BA, high K slugger out of the farm system. Gio on the other hand has been mighty impressive playing against guys 2, 3, 4 years older than him. Couple that with his live arm and killer curveball and I think it's a no-brainer.

I also would rank Sweeney ahead of Danks, even though maybe .01% of scouts would agree with me. I'd need to see Danks pitch more before reconsidering.

maurice
12-26-2006, 01:33 PM
Danks and Gonzalez are much more valuable than most folks outside of this forum realize. The proper rankings for the group that includes Broadway, McCulloch, Russell, Egbert, Harrell, Whisler, et al. should be much clearer at this time next year. The sheer number of pitchers in this general category who will be at Charlotte or Birmingham in 2006 is amazing.

rdivaldi
12-26-2006, 01:38 PM
Danks and Gonzalez are much more valuable than most folks outside of this forum realize. The proper rankings for the group that includes Broadway, McCulloch, Russell, Egbert, Harrell, Whisler, et al. should be much clearer at this time next year. The sheer number of pitchers in this general category who will be at Charlotte or Birmingham in 2006 is amazing.

The starting staffs at Charlotte & Birmingham should be very, very strong this year...

progers13
12-26-2006, 02:02 PM
Good point on Double-A and Triple-A starting rotations.

How does this look?

Triple-A

At least two, maybe three from the four guys in the picture for the last spot in the big-league rotation -- Haeger, Floyd, Broadway and Phillips.

The other two or three from a group that includes Danks, Gonzalez, Sisco and Tracey.

Double-A

McCulloch
Liotta
Russell
Egbert
Harrell
Whisler
Ryan Rodriguez

maurice
12-26-2006, 02:29 PM
I'm really looking forward to my annual Indy, Louisville, Toledo, Birmingham, etc. trips. Normally, it's a crapshoot as to whether you get to see a start by a genuine prospect or just a AAAA guy. In 2007, it'll be pretty much all-prospects-all-the-time.
:gulp:

As usual, I'll be providing reminders when the Knights come (relatively) close to Chicago.

progers13
12-26-2006, 02:50 PM
Rdivaldi, I don't really disagree on your Sweeney/Danks thoughts. You could go either way but I gave Danks the benefit of the doubt because of the difference in value between a left-handed pitcher and an outfielder. Also, I left off at least one candidate for the Double-A rotation -- Kris Honel, who finally looks healthy and was throwing in the low-90s in the Instructional League. Some think he can come right out and re-establish his value, as Tyler Lumsden did a year ago.

Daver
12-26-2006, 02:53 PM
Rdivaldi, I don't really disagree on your Sweeney/Danks thoughts. You could go either way but I gave Danks the benefit of the doubt because of the difference in value between a left-handed pitcher and an outfielder. Also, I left off at least one candidate for the Double-A rotation -- Kris Honel, who finally looks healthy and was throwing in the low-90s in the Instructional League. Some think he can come right out and re-establish his value, as Tyler Lumsden did a year ago.

I would like to see Kris show the stuff he showed when I was watching him play HS ball, he was truly the class of the league.

rdivaldi
12-26-2006, 03:28 PM
Rdivaldi, I don't really disagree on your Sweeney/Danks thoughts. You could go either way but I gave Danks the benefit of the doubt because of the difference in value between a left-handed pitcher and an outfielder. Also, I left off at least one candidate for the Double-A rotation -- Kris Honel, who finally looks healthy and was throwing in the low-90s in the Instructional League. Some think he can come right out and re-establish his value, as Tyler Lumsden did a year ago.

Hmmm, I was saying the same thing about Kris last year when I thought his elbow was recovered. I'm not writing him off, but I worry about his becoming another Jason Stumm, high school kid who just couldn't shake the injury bug.

I think that Corwin Malone has to be placed somewhere in the rotation mix as well. Unless they outright release him, he has to pitch somewhere. I haven't heard anything about the possibility of his becoming a reliever (yet), so I have a feeling he will be given some sort of shot starting in Charlotte.

But looking over the list Phil, we seem to have quite a few extra arms shooting for starting roles in B'ham and Charlotte. Not a bad problem to have.

maurice
12-26-2006, 03:50 PM
IMO, with this kind of depth crowded into 2 levels, Malone, Tracey, Liotta, and Ryan Rodriguez all could be bullpen candidates.

Malone pitched 20 games out of the pen as recently as 2005, and his star has faded substantially since his heyday as a top prospect.

Tracey pitched 9 games out of the pen for Charlotte and 7 games out of the pen for the Sox in 2006. I don't know that he's a serious candidate for a starting role in the big leagues.

Liotta and Rodriguez both were disappointing in 2006.

Lord knows what will become of Honel. Let's hope for a healthy 2007.

rdivaldi
12-26-2006, 04:04 PM
Tracey pitched 9 games out of the pen for Charlotte and 7 games out of the pen for the Sox in 2006. I don't know that he's a serious candidate for a starting role in the big leagues.

I don't know why anyone would consider Tracey a starting option. I've never believed in his ability to throw strikes with that funky motion, I can't see anything in his future but the bullpen.

California Sox
12-26-2006, 04:48 PM
I agree that Tracey has probably started his last game in the Sox system. That might be a good thing for him. If they're committed to Floyd and Sisco being starters, then there's opportunity as the 11th or 12th pitcher on the Sox staff at some point in the season. Tracey might be in line to be the next Jon Adkins. I wonder if all this depth is going to hasten Russell's move to the pen as well.

It'll be an interesting battle to see who gets left back to W-S. It's not out of the question that Honel, McCulloch, or Harrell starts the season there.

Daver
12-26-2006, 04:56 PM
I would expect Honel to start next season at W-S actually, after being hurt for two years it makes the most sense.

SoxxoS
12-26-2006, 04:57 PM
Tracey might be in line to be the next Jon Adkins. .

At least you are reaching for the top.

California Sox
12-26-2006, 05:00 PM
At least you are reaching for the top.

Hey, he's earning a pension, isn't he?

maurice
12-26-2006, 05:12 PM
I suppose anything is possible, but I don't see Harrell and McCulloch going back to W-S. Harrell was fairly dominant at that level, and the Sox usually bring top picks like McCulloch along fairly quickly.

We've been talking about starters (which is far more relevant), but the bullpens at Charlotte and B'ham should be well-stocked with talent, as well. In addition to the unlucky guys who miss out on the starting slots, there's Oneli "6 finger" Perez, Boone Logan, Paulino Reynoso, Carlos Vasquez, Dewon Day, Demetrius Banks, Nick Masset (if he doesn't make the 25-man), etc., plus the long-awaited return of "the other" Josh Fields. By the end of the year, we also could see Long and Omogrosso a'movin' on up.

maurice
12-26-2006, 05:16 PM
Hey, he's earning a pension, isn't he?

Remarkably, Adkins pitched 55 games for the SD Padres this year. Then, even more remarkably, the NY Mets asked for him in a trade involving another former Sox farm-hand, Royce Ring.
:o:

progers13
12-27-2006, 09:47 AM
There's nothing at all wrong with being compared to Jon Adkins. Guy had a sub-4 ERA for a playoff team last year, and was acquired by a team looking to add big-league bullpen depth.

Dave, my Honel story is Todd Van Poppel. I watched maybe 12 of his starts his senior year in high school and never saw him better as a pro. I'm sure it helps that high school hitters chase and umpires fall in love with top prospects, giving them the edges, but man, it's mind-boggling sometimes. At least Kris can point to a lack of health. Van Poppel was healthy and went backwards, largely I think because hitters laid off his sharp, 12-6 curveball and he got behind in the count so much he was always aiming the ball, not just letting go like he could do in high school. He's hardly a tragedy, of course, as he got at least two good contracts as a big-league reliever (one from the Cubs). It would be nice to see Kris have a wire-to-wire solid developmental year and put himself back in the picture.

rdivaldi
12-27-2006, 11:51 AM
There's nothing at all wrong with being compared to Jon Adkins. Guy had a sub-4 ERA for a playoff team last year, and was acquired by a team looking to add big-league bullpen depth.

I see a couple things here that are kind of iffy here Phil. "Sub-4 ERA" is true, but kinda misleading. I'll freely admit that 3.98 is "sub-4", but just barely. Secondly ERA is pretty one of the most overrated, if not the most overrated statistic for middle relievers. When a guy comes on with 3 guys on and 2 outs, all of those runners could score and the guy at the plate could get thrown out a third trying to stretch a double and the pitcher's ERA is 0.00. Not very telling if you ask me.

Looking at his peripherals, his WHIP was a middling 1.38, his K/9 was a poor 4.97 and his K:BB was equally poor at 1.50. I supported the kid when he here, but he's a fringe major league pitcher and I would be looking for different options if I was building a bullpen.

maurice
12-27-2006, 12:43 PM
A lot of the animosity towards Adkins stems from the lingering notion that KW should have gotten more for Ray Durham (plus the gloating of KW's trading partner).

Of course, the rest of the animosity stems from the fact that Adkins sucked for us (5.08 ERA) and even sucked for Charlotte during his last year there (5.37 ERA).

California Sox
12-29-2006, 12:38 PM
For what it's worth in today's Ask BA Jim Callis ranks the Sox top prospects as Sweeney, Fields, then Danks and says he is basically a third starter.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/askba/263050.html

He's not particularly high on McCarthy either. Seems to think deal is a wash with Texas getting more benefit in 2007.

Earlier in an ESPN chat he seemed to agree with John Manuel that a series of unfortunate trades started with the ill-fated Vazquez trade.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/majors/features/263049.html