PDA

View Full Version : Would you give up all of our top prospects


Rockabilly
11-20-2007, 11:02 AM
If it guarntee that the Sox would the world series and be top contenders for a championship the next 3 years but than be horrible for a few years starting in 2011...


IMO I wouldn't mind to give up our top prospects for some of the top players in the game today

russ99
11-20-2007, 11:09 AM
Boy, that's a loaded question... We have little minor-league trade value to send away and we might be there in 2011 anyway.

The farm system is a big problem, plus we won't see results in quality prospects due to the new scouting director for 3-4 years.

We have Sweeney, Anderson and Carter as position players, and quite a few decent pitching prospects, but none of them are "top prospect" quality (Gio and DeLosSantos are close) which limits what Kenny can do in making deals. Also, very few of them are expected to make a major contribution to the 2008 Sox.

Other than adding a few pitching prospects and maybe Sweeney as part of a big deal, I don't see the possibility of trading Sox prospects for any superstar players anyway. We'll have to win with primarily what is here, who Kenny can sign or what we can get for trading guys like Crede.

areilly
11-20-2007, 11:11 AM
If it guarntee that the Sox would the world series and be top contenders for a championship the next 3 years but than be horrible for a few years starting in 2011...


IMO I wouldn't mind to give up our top prospects for some of the top players in the game today

How few? If it's less than 88, I'm fine with it. They've been horrible in one way or another most of my lifetime, so another Series and 3 years of serious contention sounds like more than enough.

eriqjaffe
11-20-2007, 11:35 AM
C'mon, we can only trade Gio Gonzalez to one team at a time.

AZChiSoxFan
11-20-2007, 11:39 AM
If it guarntee that the Sox would the world series and be top contenders for a championship the next 3 years but than be horrible for a few years starting in 2011...


IMO I wouldn't mind to give up our top prospects for some of the top players in the game today

It's a moot point because the Sox don't have any "top prospects."

HomeFish
11-20-2007, 11:47 AM
You make the assumption that if we play our prospects instead of trading them, we will somehow not be terrible.

Our prospects have done nothing to merit such an assumption.

voodoochile
11-20-2007, 11:48 AM
You can have my left pinkie toe too...

oeo
11-20-2007, 11:49 AM
It's a moot point because the Sox don't have any "top prospects."

Oh, come on. We don't have the best farm system around, but to say we don't have any top prospects is being ignorant.

Sockinchisox
11-20-2007, 11:56 AM
Oh, come on. We don't have the best farm system around, but to say we don't have any top prospects is being ignorant.

Gio will be a top 20 prospect at least.

spiffie
11-20-2007, 11:59 AM
Gio will be a top 20 prospect at least.
Gio was rated #72 by Baseball America last year. Our highest rated was Josh Fields at #45.

Oh, come on. We don't have the best farm system around, but to say we don't have any top prospects is being ignorant.
In terms of prospects who are recognized as the best in the minors period, no we really don't. We have some good prospects. If DLS continues to progress he might become one. But we don't have anyone who would be considered a 5-star prospect like Hughes, Buchholz, Ellsbury, Lincecum, etc. were last year.

Sockinchisox
11-20-2007, 12:01 PM
Gio was rated #72 by Baseball America last year. Our highest rated was Josh Fields at #45.


In terms of prospects who are recognized as the best in the minors period, no we really don't. We have some good prospects. If DLS continues to progress he might become one. But we don't have anyone who would be considered a 5-star prospect like Hughes, Buchholz, Ellsbury, Lincecum, etc. were last year.

Gio was rated #21 at mid-season.

upperdeckusc
11-20-2007, 12:03 PM
when does that top 100 prospect list come out?

Sockinchisox
11-20-2007, 12:05 PM
MiLB does one in the middle of Dec. I think.

spiffie
11-20-2007, 12:05 PM
Gio was rated #21 at mid-season.
I didn't know that. That's promising to hear.

oeo
11-20-2007, 12:17 PM
In terms of prospects who are recognized as the best in the minors period, no we really don't. We have some good prospects. If DLS continues to progress he might become one. But we don't have anyone who would be considered a 5-star prospect like Hughes, Buchholz, Ellsbury, Lincecum, etc. were last year.

I would consider a 'five star prospect' as an elite prospect. Top, to me, is four or five, possibly even three in some cases.

And who knows why they take Gio so lightly? The biggest knock on him seems to be his size...

Poreda could very easily be a 'five star prospect' by next year. As you mentioned, DLS is. I'm not sure if Fields qualifies as a prospect anymore, but you're telling me teams wouldn't jump at the chance to take him?

Then you have tweeners, IMO, like Carter, Shelby, Egbert, and Sweeney.

I didn't know that. That's promising to hear.

He did lead the minor leagues in strikeouts this past year.

russ99
11-20-2007, 12:20 PM
I would consider a 'five star prospect' as an elite prospect. Top, to me, is four or five, possibly even three in some cases.

And who knows why they take Gio so lightly? Poreda could very easily be a 'five star prospect' by next year. As you mentioned, DLS is. I'm not sure if Fields qualifies as a prospect anymore, but you're telling me teams wouldn't jump at the chance to take him?

Then you have tweeners, IMO, like Carter, Shelby, Egbert, and Sweeney.

As for Gio and DLS, they are good prospects, but these aren't guys who can step in and be a solid rookie starter this year. They need further development, thus limiting their actual trade value.

They'd be good throw-ins (as Gio was on the Freddy and Thome deals), but they're not blue chip MLB ready Hughes-like prospects you can build a big trade around, and IMO we should be keeping these guys anyway.

oeo
11-20-2007, 12:22 PM
As for Gio and DLS, these aren't guys who can step in and be a solid rookie starter this year. They need further development, thus limiting their actual trade value.

They'd be good throw-ins (as Gio was on the Freddy and Thome deals), but they're not blue chip MLB ready Hughes-like prospects you can build a big trade around.

So now the definition of top prospect is MLB ready? :?:

I think you could easily build a good package with Gio and DLS as centerpieces. Sorry, but they're not 'throw ins.' Gio wasn't a 'throw in' in either of those deals, and DLS is very highly regarded.

russ99
11-20-2007, 12:25 PM
So now the definition of top prospect is MLB ready? :?:

I think you could easily build a good package with Gio and DLS as centerpieces.

Let's just say those guys are the Sox top prospects, but they won't be netting us Carl Crawford anytime soon. Throw-in was a bad term, I should have said "sweeteners".

They would be good centerpieces for a average MLB player (would be a waste IMO) but the thread implied the Sox using them to acquire superstars.

nccwsfan
11-20-2007, 12:26 PM
If it guarntee that the Sox would the world series and be top contenders for a championship the next 3 years but than be horrible for a few years starting in 2011...


IMO I wouldn't mind to give up our top prospects for some of the top players in the game today

Yes.

They can rebuild and being a big market team they could reload through free agency than other teams. It's a hypothetical situation, but yes I would jump on that right now...

oeo
11-20-2007, 12:27 PM
Let's just say those guys are the Sox top prospects, but they won't be netting us Carl Crawford anytime soon.

They wouldn't? I bet you they would...

They would be good centerpieces for a average MLB player (would be a waste IMO) but the thread implied the Sox using them to acquire superstars.It's funny how all of our MLB players are highly overrated, and our minor league players are highly underrated.

Throw-in was a bad term, I should have said "sweeteners".

How is that a better term? Gio was the centerpiece of that Garcia deal...

spiffie
11-20-2007, 12:29 PM
Let's just say those guys are the Sox top prospects, but they won't be netting us Carl Crawford anytime soon. Throw-in was a bad term, I should have said "sweeteners".

They would be good centerpieces for a average MLB player (would be a waste IMO) but the thread implied the Sox using them to acquire superstars.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if a package of something like Gio, DLS, and Sweeney wouldn't get us in there for Crawford. Of course, I think that would be a terrible idea, but it would get us in the conversation I suspect.

russ99
11-20-2007, 12:46 PM
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if a package of something like Gio, DLS, and Sweeney wouldn't get us in there for Crawford. Of course, I think that would be a terrible idea, but it would get us in the conversation I suspect.

Really? OK. Maybe Kenny should look into that.

I just don't think we can compete with the likes of the Yankees and Mets with their large stockpiles of MLB top 100 prospects.

If the Rays can get players like Pelfrey, Martinez, Humber, Gomez, etc. from the Mets or Hughes, Joba, Tabata, etc. from the Yankees for Carl why would they take Gio, DLS and Sweeney??

doublem23
11-20-2007, 12:46 PM
It's funny how all of our MLB players are highly overrated, and our minor league players are highly underrated.

Probably because we've heard all sorts of hype, and very few of them have lived up to it.

Jon Rauch? Joe Borchard? Scott Ruffcorn? Jeremy Reed?

spiffie
11-20-2007, 12:48 PM
Really? OK. Maybe Kenny should look into that.

I just don't think we can compete with the likes of the Yankees and Mets with their large stockpiles of MLB top 100 prospects.

If the Rays can get Pelfrey, Martinez, Humber, Gomez, etc. or Hughes, Joba, Tabata, etc. from the Yankees why would they take Gio, DLS and Sweeney??
Most likely because the Yanks don't seem interested in making those moves. Same reason why they aren't getting Buchholz, Ellsbury, Pedroia, and Hansen from the Red Sox. I suppose the Yanks might try to go with a Humber, Pelfrey, Martinez package, but there's no way they're moving Hughes, Joba, or Tabata unless they are bringing back Santana or possibly M. Cabrera. And even that second one seems highly unlikely to me. So at that point the Sox prospect mix would be in the game if they went balls out for it. I just would hate to see us gut our farm system for Carl Crawford.

spiffie
11-20-2007, 12:49 PM
Probably because we've heard all sorts of hype, and very few of them have lived up to it.

Jon Rauch? Joe Borchard? Scott Ruffcorn? Jeremy Reed?
They all would have been stars if Ozzie hadn't ruined them.

doublem23
11-20-2007, 12:49 PM
They all would have been stars if Ozzie hadn't ruined them.

Oh, right. I forgot it's not because they all actually sucked.

Silly me.

russ99
11-20-2007, 12:50 PM
Most likely because the Yanks don't seem interested in making those moves. Same reason why they aren't getting Buchholz, Ellsbury, Pedroia, and Hansen from the Red Sox. I suppose the Yanks (oops -Mets) might try to go with a Humber, Pelfrey, Martinez package, but there's no way they're moving Hughes, Joba, or Tabata unless they are bringing back Santana or possibly M. Cabrera. And even that second one seems highly unlikely to me. So at that point the Sox prospect mix would be in the game if they went balls out for it. I just would hate to see us gut our farm system for Carl Crawford.

Good point. Plus if we sign Hunter or Rowand, we don't need to gut the system for a solid CF, only deal a few chips for relief help and a new LF.

spiffie
11-20-2007, 12:52 PM
Good point. Plus if we sign Hunter or Rowand, we don't need to gut the system for a solid CF, only deal a few chips for relief help and a new LF.
Exactly. Now if you're going to gut the system for M. Cabrera, stick him in LF, sign Hunter, so that you have Cabrera, Cabrera, and Hunter all in the lineup next year, I could be interested in that.

fusillirob1983
11-20-2007, 12:54 PM
I think a lot of people would have agreed with giving up all our prospects to make a World Series run a couple years ago and then suffer a few bad seasons. I don't think too many kept their end of the deal by ignoring 2007 because of having good teams in 2005 and 2006.

Knowing all this now, I'd still really like to say let's give up all the kids and win right now, but I know 2011, 2012, etc. would be way too painful to watch.

oeo
11-20-2007, 12:58 PM
Exactly. Now if you're going to gut the system for M. Cabrera, stick him in LF, sign Hunter, so that you have Cabrera, Cabrera, and Hunter all in the lineup next year, I could be interested in that.

Honestly, if we were going to acquire M. Cabrera, why sign Hunter? Use that money to sign the better player. I know it's to win a championship, but I can't help but think about how the years afterwards would work out. Cabrera in a long term contract could lead the team to multiple championships, while we're rebuilding our now depleted farm system.

spiffie
11-20-2007, 01:02 PM
Honestly, if we were going to acquire M. Cabrera, why sign Hunter? Use that money to sign the better player. I know it's to win a championship, but I can't help but think about how the years afterwards would work out. Cabrera in a long term contract could lead the team to multiple championships, while we're rebuilding our now depleted farm system.
We're pipedreaming (I should have use pink for the whole thing), so hey, if we're going to pipedream, let's sign both of them long term.

johnr1note
11-20-2007, 01:28 PM
Boy, that's a loaded question... We have little minor-league trade value to send away and we might be there in 2011 anyway.

The farm system is a big problem, plus we won't see results in quality prospects due to the new scouting director for 3-4 years.

We have Sweeney, Anderson and Carter as position players, and quite a few decent pitching prospects, but none of them are "top prospect" quality (Gio and DeLosSantos are close) which limits what Kenny can do in making deals. Also, very few of them are expected to make a major contribution to the 2008 Sox.

Other than adding a few pitching prospects and maybe Sweeney as part of a big deal, I don't see the possibility of trading Sox prospects for any superstar players anyway. We'll have to win with primarily what is here, who Kenny can sign or what we can get for trading guys like Crede.

If you frame the question in terms of overall philosophy, rather than a one-shot "gut the system now" in some monster deal, I think its a great question.

I look at this two ways. First, how often does a team completely build from within primarily with its own prospects, and winds up winning a championship? I look at a team like the Rays, (I almost typed "Devil Rays"), where they tend to hold on to their talented young players rather than trade them for more established stars, and what have they won? Some might point to this year's Arizona and Colorado clubs, but I think Arizona is playing with a team full of young prospects they primarily harvested from other clubs via trades (including the White Sox), and how long did Colorado fans suffer with really poor clubs until they built a winner this year? Strictly building from within doesn't work anymore -- it'll get you a winner maybe once a generation if your lucky. Particularly when you have a farm system as poor as ours (teams like the Dodgers and Cardinals seem to pull great young players out of their system all the time, but they have a decades old track record of doing just that).

The other factor I look at are all the times in recent history when we've traded away our "blue chip" prospects for established players, and how very little we've seen in those situations coming back to haunt us. I did a quick review of every trade Kenny Williams has made since late 2000, and there aren't a lot of names on the list of players we sent away who were minor league prospects that are star players for other teams. And even in the instances where we think -- hey, that guy might fit in well with our team today, we have to consider who came back to us when we traded him.

I mean, there are a lot of second guessers and folks with 20-20 hindsight who wished we wouldn't have traded Chris Young (but is he really a difference maker?) or Frank Francisco, who started out like gang busters with Texas, but faded. And that's the pattern, be it Jeremy Reed or Kip Wells, or anyone else you can name we traded away that was a product of our minor league system -- which of them have had ANY staying power at the ML level? The jury may still be out on a few of them (e.g. McKay Christensen), and a few, like Chad Bradford, had a modicum of success, but the return we've gotten for these prospects has been much more.

So I say, if we can trade for a more established player with a few prospects, do it. We hang on to the can't miss guys -- the Frank Thomases, the Jack McDowells, etc. But if we can garner a Freddie Garcia, a Carl Everett, a Scott Podsednik, etc. great.

TDog
11-20-2007, 01:35 PM
Before 2005 the question around here used to be something to be "would you trade (some number) of losing seasons for a World Series championship?" A majority replied that they would, although I maintained that contending was the key because it provided eternal hope.

Since the World Series championship, the Sox have had one failed contending season and one losing season. To my surprise, I find that losing doesn't hurt me as much as it used to, while it seems to anger many fans more than it used to.

My answer to the current question is that the question really is irrelevant. There is no guarantee that any players will provide three consecutive contending seasons. The fact that Garland only brought Cabrera in trade shows that people around here don't understand what players can bring in trade.

My short answer to the question is no.

cws05champ
11-20-2007, 02:02 PM
Before 2005 the question around here used to be something to be "would you trade (some number) of losing seasons for a World Series championship?" A majority replied that they would, although I maintained that contending was the key because it provided eternal hope.

Since the World Series championship, the Sox have had one failed contending season and one losing season. To my surprise, I find that losing doesn't hurt me as much as it used to, while it seems to anger many fans more than it used to.

My answer to the current question is that the question really is irrelevant. There is no guarantee that any players will provide three consecutive contending seasons. The fact that Garland only brought Cabrera in trade shows that people around here don't understand what players can bring in trade.

My short answer to the question is no.

If the question is irrelevant then why bother replying? It's a hypothetical and playful scenario. My answer would be yes. If the Sox had 3 consecutive years of playoff runs and or World Series appearances, it would do soooo much for the franchise to not only firmly capture the Chicago market, but get infused into the National baseball conversation again. It would be a great 3 year ride, and even though they may pay the price down the road it still would build a fan base for the next generation.

ShoelessJoeS
11-20-2007, 02:37 PM
If giving away all of our top prospects brought another WS back to the South Side, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

TDog
11-20-2007, 06:19 PM
If the question is irrelevant then why bother replying? It's a hypothetical and playful scenario. My answer would be yes. If the Sox had 3 consecutive years of playoff runs and or World Series appearances, it would do soooo much for the franchise to not only firmly capture the Chicago market, but get infused into the National baseball conversation again. It would be a great 3 year ride, and even though they may pay the price down the road it still would build a fan base for the next generation.

What makes you think you could go on a three-year ride by making these moves this off-season? I replied to the irrelevant question because the hypothetical presents a false promise in itself. Before 2005, Kenny Williams built the best team in baseball. It won the World Series in four straight games after winning seven out of eight to represent the American League after finishing the regular season with four more wins than any other team in the league. Yet it was clear improvements would be needed to repeat in 2006.

The question has about as much connection with reality as whether Spiderman could beat up Batman.

Jurr
11-20-2007, 08:41 PM
You just have to have balance nowadays between your homegrowns and your free agents. Even the Yankees are starting to get back to believing in that mantra.

We all know that the Sox have been caught in a spell where they keep trying to mortgage away home grown talent for "ready to play" free agents, and it's showing in the lack of players that have stepped out of the minors ready to go. Fields looks like a good one. Let's hope some of our minor league pitchers (Gonzalez, Broadway, etc.) can step into bigger roles and produce. It's vital to the Sox future that they do.

cws05champ
11-20-2007, 09:29 PM
What makes you think you could go on a three-year ride by making these moves this off-season? I replied to the irrelevant question because the hypothetical presents a false promise in itself. Before 2005, Kenny Williams built the best team in baseball. It won the World Series in four straight games after winning seven out of eight to represent the American League after finishing the regular season with four more wins than any other team in the league. Yet it was clear improvements would be needed to repeat in 2006.

The question has about as much connection with reality as whether Spiderman could beat up Batman.

Who ever said this board lives in reality? :smile: There are plenty of people that are making Playstation trades and transactions on these boards.

And for the record, Spiderman would kick Batman's ass! Even though Bruce Wayne as an alter ego is way better than Peter Parker!

Lip Man 1
11-20-2007, 09:31 PM
Jurr:

I agree with you to some extent. The Sox badly need some of these kids to come up and play like good major leaguers because it gives Kenny so much more flexibility to make moves.

However I disagree with the contention in so many words, that the Sox have traded all these "quality" (italics are mine) prospects and kids.

Last I looked there were very, very, VERY few making any kind of impact over the years in MLB. Young is about the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

That tells me that these kids who were traded weren't worth much in the first place no?

Lip

TDog
11-20-2007, 09:56 PM
Who ever said this board lives in reality? :smile: There are plenty of people that are making Playstation trades and transactions on these boards.

And for the record, Spiderman would kick Batman's ass! Even though Bruce Wayne as an alter ego is way better than Peter Parker!

Your point is well taken. It should be noted, though, that on paper Harold Godwinson shouldn't have been able to beat Harald Hardrada at the Battle of Stamford Bridge.

getonbckthr
11-20-2007, 10:05 PM
Well who are we getting for these prospects? If our top 10-12 prospects get us M. Cabrera and Carl Crawford and we have those guys long term then absolutely. Prospects are just wild crapshoots and no guarentees. Not to mention we would plenty of holes filled long term (assuming Hunter is signed).