PDA

View Full Version : White Sox Farm System Rated?


Lip Man 1
12-04-2007, 05:41 PM
From Phil Rogers blog:

"The White Sox farm system is a candidate to be ranked 29th among the 30 in baseball when Baseball America gets around to issuing its off-season ratings. Only Houston is considered worse, and one editor for BA joked that Williams might be making a run for 30 by dealing Chris Carter to Arizona for Quentin."

Lot of work to do obviously with the system and how it's degenerated in the past few years. And I'm not referring to the guys Kenny has traded most of whom hasn't done squat in the bigs, but the fact that most of the guys Kenny keeps and brings up don't do squat.

Lip

doublem23
12-04-2007, 05:46 PM
Considering the Sox developed several recent All-Stars like Magglio, Carlos Lee, Aaron Rowand, Jon Garland, and Mark Buehrle, it's disheartening to see the farm system produce so little recently. What the hell happened?

Daver
12-04-2007, 05:48 PM
Considering the Sox developed several recent All-Stars like Magglio, Carlos Lee, Aaron Rowand, Jon Garland, and Mark Buehrle, it's disheartening to see the farm system produce so little recently. What the hell happened?

They have the same budget for scouting they had when those guys were drafted.

rdivaldi
12-04-2007, 06:15 PM
Rating farm systems is a crapshoot. Even all knowing BA has no idea what some youngster in low-A is going to become in four years. Let's not forget our top rated system in 2000, which produced Buehrle, Crede, Garland and a boatload of disappointments.

Let's not forget that two White Sox draftees made quite an impression throughout MLB this year, although one was playing for the D'Backs. The farm system is no where near in shambles as some would like you to believe.

California Sox
12-04-2007, 06:20 PM
Also, the Sox have not had any extra picks in the last few drafts, they've spent very little internationally before this year, and they refuse to pay above slot. You put all that together you have to have an amazing scouting staff just to keep up.

Also, 2005 and 2006 were pretty poor drafts by the Sox. (While 2005 was one of the better drafts in recent years for the industry as a whole.) When you subtract the two best players out of the 2005 class (Carter and Cunningham) it really starts to look poor. Here's my question: With Carter gone, who is the top position prospect in the system? I say Gomes. I don't think Shelby profiles that well as a center fielder. The other option is "whoever they pick 8th in the draft." But knowing them it'll be "a polished college pitcher."

rdivaldi
12-04-2007, 06:22 PM
With Carter gone, who is the top position prospect in the system?

:?:

There's this Ryan Sweeney kid...

Daver
12-04-2007, 06:42 PM
:?:

There's this Ryan Sweeney kid...

A right fielder that will probably never hit for power.

Domeshot17
12-04-2007, 07:07 PM
:?:

There's this Ryan Sweeney kid...

I hope so, but lets be honest. Ryan Sweeney has seemed to walk around with 1 song playing on his ipod over and over again..free fallin

He has the potential but he is not showing any of it. Especially power.

munchman33
12-04-2007, 07:13 PM
Rating farm systems is a crapshoot.


It doesn't take a genius to realize that ours is absolutely terrible.

santo=dorf
12-04-2007, 07:30 PM
It doesn't take a genius to realize that ours is absolutely terrible.
Oh I'm sure the few "management can do no wrong because of 2005" types that can spin and stretch the argument.

champagne030
12-04-2007, 08:17 PM
The other option is "whoever they pick 8th in the draft." But knowing them it'll be "a polished college pitcher."

And, as you mentioned, someone who will sign for slot.

veeter
12-04-2007, 08:25 PM
Gio, De Los Santos and Poreda sound pretty damn good to me.

SoxxoS
12-04-2007, 08:32 PM
Maybe I am wrong, but doesnt Jim Callis have a HUGE man Crush on the entire Cubs organization, and is really Anti-Sox. All I know is when I read his awful chat wraps on ESPN, he NEVER NEVER answers a White Sox question. Even if the system is bad there are still some very solid pieces (Gio and De Los Santos come to mind as the crown jewels) among some other pretty good talent...yet NO answers? Hmmm..

Am I right on that?

Domeshot17
12-04-2007, 08:32 PM
Gio, De Los Santos and Poreda sound pretty damn good to me.

The problem is everyone has guys like this. DLS is the only 5* spec we have and hes very raw still. Gio is good but projects more as a 2 or 3, and Poreda did what he was suppose to do in in sub A ball. This year will tell us more as he actually faces real talent. He has a good arm, and could be good, but he could also be Sisco, time will tell.

btrain929
12-04-2007, 08:32 PM
Gio, De Los Santos and Poreda sound pretty damn good to me.

Absolutely, that sounds good. But 2 things:
1) They aren't Clay Bucholz/Clayton Kershaw/Joba Chamberlain good.
2) That's 3 names that are our top prospects. 2 of those we got into our system in the last year. You would think that with 6 minor league teams, we'd have more than 3 names to rattle off as far as our top prospects. The majority of teams in the MLB can do that. We clearly cannot by any stretch of the imagination.

itsnotrequired
12-04-2007, 08:40 PM
Gio, De Los Santos and Poreda sound pretty damn good to me.

Poreda is a disaster waiting to happen.

California Sox
12-04-2007, 10:22 PM
Poreda is a disaster waiting to happen.

Because...

rdivaldi
12-04-2007, 11:08 PM
Because...

Because we lost on on Cabrera and Willis and the doom and gloomers are running rampant tonight making wild, unfounded statements.

rdivaldi
12-04-2007, 11:11 PM
It doesn't take a genius to realize that ours is absolutely terrible.

Case in point. Superlatives reign supreme on Black Tuesday...

champagne030
12-04-2007, 11:32 PM
Because...

I'd pretty sure that the teal was implied. That said, Poreda is a one pitch pitcher at this point.....A lot of work on his part before he's part of our rotation.

DrCrawdad
12-05-2007, 01:12 AM
Maybe I am wrong, but doesnt Jim Callis have a HUGE man Crush on the entire Cubs organization, and is really Anti-Sox. All I know is when I read his awful chat wraps on ESPN, he NEVER NEVER answers a White Sox question. Even if the system is bad there are still some very solid pieces (Gio and De Los Santos come to mind as the crown jewels) among some other pretty good talent...yet NO answers? Hmmm..

Am I right on that?

Yes. And Callis' Cubbie love comes out when he opines about the Cubbies and the Sox. I remember a few years ago Callis was on with Mike Murphy. Callis was raving and gushing about Cubbie prospect Angel Guzman. Then when it came time for Murph's (begrudging) discussion about about the Sox Callis did not mention Brandon McCarthy until I emailed Murph. At that point, McCarthy had put numbers that were at the very least were equal to Guzman (Callis was focusing on SO/IP, and IIRC McCarthy's stats were better than Guzman's.)

Say what you will about McCarthy, but he's a couple years younger than Guzman and McCarthy already has tossed as many MLB innings as Guzman.

santo=dorf
12-05-2007, 06:45 AM
Because we lost on on Cabrera and Willis and the doom and gloomers are running rampant tonight making wild, unfounded statements.
Well I did hear the two scouts that viewed and recommended Poreda have since been fired from the White Sox organization. What does that say?

rdivaldi
12-05-2007, 10:42 AM
Well I did hear the two scouts that viewed and recommended Poreda have since been fired from the White Sox organization. What does that say?

That's a message board rumor, and even if it was true it's still debatable what that means. I've seen Poreda pitch and came away impressed with his performance.

russ99
12-05-2007, 11:39 AM
I actually like the depth of pitching in the Sox organization. Sure there's no Hughes or Miller in there, but it's pretty decent. The reason we get a bad rap is because few of them are major-league ready, and they guys we called up last year all pretty much stunk (except for Wasserman)

Where the Sox really falter is hitting prospects. We have no one really solid in AA and AAA and other than Fields, the guys we have brought up have looked awful at the major league level. Owens and Richar don't really count as we've acquired them recently from other systems.

If I were Jerry & Kenny I'd do 3 things to rectify this.

#1: Break your rules/restrictions for only the 1st round pick in 2008. We really need the best available player at any cost.
#2: Focus on hitters for the next 2 drafts to replenish the system. I don't mean to say no pitchers, but limit it to a few high-ceiling guys. The priority should be hitting, especially in traditional Sox minor league weak spots like SS, 2B, C and CF.
#3: Raid other systems. $20,000 is cheap, so grab a few decent players in the Rule 5 and minor league drafts tomorrow.

Luke
12-05-2007, 12:17 PM
I'm curious, for those of you that are more knowledgeable about the the minor league system than I am:

Do the Sox have a stated approach or theory on drafting? I can't tell. It seems like sometimes they're very apt to chose raw athletes (Owens, Fields, Borchard) in hopes of developing them, but "raw" could describe any prospect in anyone's system.

Do they have a unified approach to development? I'm not advocating a moneyball "you have to have this many BBs to move to the next level" type approach. It seems though that players are moved along more quickly and haphazardly than with other clubs.

Are they really changing amateur scouting that much, or did they just blame Duane Schafer, and replace him?

Finally, is the Sox system judged as being poor because of the talent level, or recent inability to develop talent? Or both?

Thanks

balke
12-05-2007, 12:41 PM
Poreda is a disaster waiting to happen.

Why's that?

btrain929
12-05-2007, 01:12 PM
I actually like the depth of pitching in the Sox organization. Sure there's no Hughes or Miller in there, but it's pretty decent. The reason we get a bad rap is because few of them are major-league ready, and they guys we called up last year all pretty much stunk (except for Wasserman)

Where the Sox really falter is hitting prospects. We have no one really solid in AA and AAA and other than Fields, the guys we have brought up have looked awful at the major league level. Owens and Richar don't really count as we've acquired them recently from other systems.

If I were Jerry & Kenny I'd do 3 things to rectify this.

#1: Break your rules/restrictions for only the 1st round pick in 2008. We really need the best available player at any cost.
#2: Focus on hitters for the next 2 drafts to replenish the system. I don't mean to say no pitchers, but limit it to a few high-ceiling guys. The priority should be hitting, especially in traditional Sox minor league weak spots like SS, 2B, C and CF.
#3: Raid other systems. $20,000 is cheap, so grab a few decent players in the Rule 5 and minor league drafts tomorrow.

I do believe this is a great way to replenish your farm system, a little here, a little there. But I believe you must have room on your 40 man roster to participate in the Rule 5 draft, and we currently don't have any room.

ilsox7
12-05-2007, 02:33 PM
#3: Raid other systems. $20,000 is cheap, so grab a few decent players in the Rule 5 and minor league drafts tomorrow.

Rule 5 picks have to stay on the MLB roster.

rdivaldi
12-05-2007, 02:51 PM
I'm curious, for those of you that are more knowledgeable about the the minor league system than I am:

Do the Sox have a stated approach or theory on drafting? I can't tell. It seems like sometimes they're very apt to chose raw athletes (Owens, Fields, Borchard) in hopes of developing them, but "raw" could describe any prospect in anyone's system.

Do they have a unified approach to development? I'm not advocating a moneyball "you have to have this many BBs to move to the next level" type approach. It seems though that players are moved along more quickly and haphazardly than with other clubs.

Are they really changing amateur scouting that much, or did they just blame Duane Schafer, and replace him?

Finally, is the Sox system judged as being poor because of the talent level, or recent inability to develop talent? Or both?

Thanks

Quite honestly I don't think that there is any sort of set approach. Over the past 10 years we've drafted a diverse group of players and they've moved through the system at different intervals. Evaluations are most likely done on a case-by-case basis.

2007: 1st) Poreda, 2nd) Griffith
2006: 1st) McCullough, 2nd) Long
2005: 1st) Broadway
2004: 1st) Fields, Lumsden, Gonzalez, 2nd) Whisler, Lucy, Liotta
2003: 1st) Anderson, 2nd) Sweeney
2002: 1st) Ring, 2nd) Reed
2001: 1st) Honel, Allen, 2nd) Wing
2000: 1st) Borchard, 2nd) Hummel
1999: 1st) Stumm, Ginter, West, Purvis, 2nd) Wright, Hill
1998: 1st) Wells, Rowand, 2nd) Majewski

That's 14 college pitchers, 6 high school pitchers, 4 college OF, 1 high school OF, 3 college IF and 1 college C. We seem to value pitching over position players, but so does everyone else for the most part.

As for "ratings" that's just for the lack of high quality talent at the higher levels. It's all subjective though, the ratings of prospects tends to skew towards the teams that are enjoying the most success at the time. Thus the players in the Red Sox, Rockies, Indians and Diamondbacks farm systems will be completely overrated for the next year.

rdivaldi
12-05-2007, 02:54 PM
Why's that?

There are scouts out there that think that his motion is going to lead to severe arm difficulties and soon. Personally when I saw him pitch I didn't see anything that would lead me to believe that. He was pretty smooth on the mound.

russ99
12-05-2007, 03:35 PM
Rule 5 picks have to stay on the MLB roster.

I was more specifically talking about the minor league portion of the Rule 5 drafting day process.

It works a lot like the MLB portion, where players have to stay on the level above where they currently are at for a season, or the drafting team must offer the player back to the team drafted from.

Surely there's some Class AA and A players out there that can add to our barren AAA and AA lineups...

colles9
12-05-2007, 03:44 PM
Poreda is a disaster waiting to happen.

I am actually still waiting for evidence to support this claim. He's in low-A, 21 yr old 6'6" 240lb lefty. 48 strike outs in 46.1 innings and a 4-0 record in 8 outtings (all from Baseball-Reference). But what would be the cause of him being a "disaster waiting to happen?" All these players in our minor league system are prospects thats it.

rdivaldi
12-05-2007, 04:14 PM
I am actually still waiting for evidence to support this claim. He's in low-A, 21 yr old 6'6" 240lb lefty. 48 strike outs in 46.1 innings and a 4-0 record in 8 outtings (all from Baseball-Reference). But what would be the cause of him being a "disaster waiting to happen?" All these players in our minor league system are prospects thats it.

In defense of the doom and gloomers, Poreda did have some arm problems last year which caused him to be shut down for an extended period of time.

munchman33
12-05-2007, 04:51 PM
Case in point. Superlatives reign supreme on Black Tuesday...

Oh yeah. Pick on the guy who's opinions are backed by every major baseball talent evaluation publication in the country.

rdivaldi
12-05-2007, 04:58 PM
Oh yeah. Pick on the guy who's opinions are backed by every major baseball talent evaluation publication in the country.

??? So a couple of BA hacks are "every major baseball talent evaluation publication"?

munchman33
12-05-2007, 05:15 PM
??? So a couple of BA hacks are "every major baseball talent evaluation publication"?

Everyone picks on our system. Espn, SI, BA, Foxsports, Sportingnews.

You can knock BA if you want. But they're not saying anything different than what EVERYONE ELSE is saying. I'm not going to submit to homerism about a farm system that has three decent prospects, one that at best becomes a number 2 starter, one that's at least three years away, and one that only throws one pitch. Sorry, but that's being ridiculous.

Yesterday, Detroit traded six prospects to the Marlins. And you'd be hard pressed to say that any of those guys wouldn't immediately be the best prospect in our system if they came here. And Detroit can afford to send six prospects, because they still have more. We have three guys that might be something above average in the majors. That's it. Everyone else is an extreme longshot for stardom. There isn't another system as barren as ours. That's simply fact. Learn to face it.

rdivaldi
12-05-2007, 05:32 PM
Eh? You're neglecting the fact that the Tigers acquired those two guys because they were soooooo awful over the past couple of years. We had a GM that dealt away our prospects for proven players, I'll live with that.

What you need to deal with is that farm system ratings are absolutely meaningless. I see this year after year after year after year. As soon as a team produces some players and starts winning, the saps at BA, BP, etc. go slobbering over to their GMs, hail their system as golden and undeserving kids go rocketing up the prospect charts. We saw it in 2000, the Flubs right thereafter. I'm not saying that our farm system is in the top 5, 10, 15 or maybe even 20. But to say that you know our system has three players with any sort of bright future is arrogant and naive.

You sound like a beaten man just because a couple of "experts" are spouting off. Who gives a flying **** what they say? It's all guesswork. They could be 100% right or they could be 100% wrong. My guess is that it's somewhere in between.

jabrch
12-05-2007, 07:03 PM
Poreda is a disaster waiting to happen.

That's a wonderful scouting report. Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

jabrch
12-05-2007, 07:14 PM
Eh? You're neglecting the fact that the Tigers acquired those two guys because they were soooooo awful over the past couple of years.

That's one of my favorite parts of people's evaluations of prospects.

"The Tigers have a great farm system...the drafted Verlander, Miller and Maybin."

Well - the Tigers drafted 3, 8, 11, 8, 3, 2, 10, 6 between 1999 and 2006. And what do they have to show for it? Munson, Wheatland, Baugh, Moore, Sleeth, Verlander, Miller and Maybin.

If you want the Tigers farm system, lets see how patient you are to watch the Sox go out there and win an average of 65 games for 8 years. I want to see how many pants-pissers and dark-clouds there are who'd sing the praises of our farm system if the best we produced over an 8 year stretch averaging 65 wins was Verlander, and there really wasn't much else. (Miller and Maybin still have a long way to go. Porcello hasn't hit puberty yet. and other than Curtis Granderson who is more a fluke than anything, not much that really had huge [Inge maybe? but not much else] impact on their team last year came from inside the system.)

munchman33
12-05-2007, 07:27 PM
Eh? You're neglecting the fact that the Tigers acquired those two guys because they were soooooo awful over the past couple of years. We had a GM that dealt away our prospects for proven players, I'll live with that.

What you need to deal with is that farm system ratings are absolutely meaningless. I see this year after year after year after year. As soon as a team produces some players and starts winning, the saps at BA, BP, etc. go slobbering over to their GMs, hail their system as golden and undeserving kids go rocketing up the prospect charts. We saw it in 2000, the Flubs right thereafter. I'm not saying that our farm system is in the top 5, 10, 15 or maybe even 20. But to say that you know our system has three players with any sort of bright future is arrogant and naive.

You sound like a beaten man just because a couple of "experts" are spouting off. Who gives a flying **** what they say? It's all guesswork. They could be 100% right or they could be 100% wrong. My guess is that it's somewhere in between.

Fine. Farm system ratings are truly meaningless.

Our "top" guys still keep floundering for us, and the only guys putting up real numbers are pitchers who don't have "stuff" and don't translate to the majors. Whether it's development or scouting, our farm system has consistently failed us multiple times in the last few years, mostly on the guys the organization touted the highest. That reaks of failure. How you or anybody else can call our minor league system anything but a complete and utter failure of epic proportions is beyond rational thought.

Daver
12-05-2007, 07:33 PM
What exactly do the Sox have to do to improve their farm system ?

Is it a matter of budgeting more money for scouts?

Spending more money on picks?

Willing to deal with ALL agents?

Draft strategy?

What is holding the Sox back in having one of the better farm systems in baseball?

Tell me what you think.

All of the above, though less so on the agent nonsense, which is of little relevance, people like to make it a lot more relevant than it really is.

russ99
12-05-2007, 08:20 PM
All of the above, though less so on the agent nonsense, which is of little relevance, people like to make it a lot more relevant than it really is.

Absolutely agree. Boras' shenanigans usually only take out 5 of the top 30 players. There's lots of other options. You can avoid Boras and be successful at the draft, though it's harder when you draft high like the Sox in 2008.

The big thing this year, is Boras has had pretty bad FA results this year, with A-Rod going over his head, Kenny Rogers dropping him and no serious offers (in his mind) for Andruw. I wonder if that will reduce the number of top draftees that will sign with him...

One thing MLB could do is be more flexible with the slot numbers, so that teams can still stay in their slots but also compete for top talent. There's no excuse for what happened in Houston this year, where they lost their top 3 picks because of the prices Bud and his crew pre-set, and the owner refused to go above them.

rdivaldi
12-05-2007, 08:41 PM
All of the above, though less so on the agent nonsense, which is of little relevance, people like to make it a lot more relevant than it really is.

I also agree; however, I think there might be something to be said about our "player development". You can draft the best young arms and young hitters, but if you can't teach them the proper work habits and technique it will all be wasted. I wonder about the quality of our instructors in the minors.

rdivaldi
12-05-2007, 08:43 PM
How you or anybody else can call our minor league system anything but a complete and utter failure of epic proportions is beyond rational thought.

Exaggerate much?

I think you need to step back and take a break.

Daver
12-05-2007, 08:57 PM
I also agree; however, I think there might be something to be said about our "player development". You can draft the best young arms and young hitters, but if you can't teach them the proper work habits and technique it will all be wasted. I wonder about the quality of our instructors in the minors.

I have said the same thing for a long time now, but I also disagree with the teams philosophy on promoting prospects based on how they hit, as opposed to how they play the game on both sides of the ball.

munchman33
12-05-2007, 08:59 PM
Exaggerate much?

I think you need to step back and take a break.

Our system is the dregs. I've had that opinion for a long time.

SoxxoS
12-05-2007, 09:09 PM
I have said the same thing for a long time now, but I also disagree with the teams philosophy on promoting prospects based on how they hit, as opposed to how they play the game on both sides of the ball.

Was the firing of Wilder a step in the right direction (The VP of player development)? It was Wilder, right? My mind is going...

MisterB
12-05-2007, 09:16 PM
Was the firing of Wilder a step in the right direction (The VP of player development)? It was Wilder, right? My mind is going...

It was Duane Shaffer, head of Amateur Scouting & he who ran the draft since '91. Although Wilder should be the next one on the hot seat.

Daver
12-05-2007, 09:27 PM
It was Duane Shaffer, head of Amateur Scouting & he who ran the draft since '91. Although Wilder should be the next one on the hot seat.

Correct.

Firing Duane might have been the first step, but I have yet to see the second step, the scouting staff has not been increased, and they are still working under the budget they had in 2001. The problems are multifold, and I'm not sure Wilder is in a position to make anything change.

SoxxoS
12-05-2007, 09:40 PM
Correct.

Firing Duane might have been the first step, but I have yet to see the second step, the scouting staff has not been increased, and they are still working under the budget they had in 2001. The problems are multifold, and I'm not sure Wilder is in a position to make anything change.

And with KW's blatant nervousness of signing big $ free agents...you would think they would really increase the scouting budget in order to keep talented players under wraps at minimum cost for a long period of time -

It seems VERY penny wise and pound foolish to me.

itsnotrequired
12-05-2007, 10:43 PM
Because we lost on on Cabrera and Willis and the doom and gloomers are running rampant tonight making wild, unfounded statements.

That's a wonderful scouting report. Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

Under the bus I go...

jabrch
12-09-2007, 12:43 PM
And with KW's blatant nervousness of signing big $ free agents...

Huh?

SoxxoS
12-09-2007, 12:49 PM
Huh?

I thought my statement was pretty self explanatory.

Do you think KW enjoys overpaying on the FA market for players? Who is the last big $ free agent we signed that wasn't on the Sox currently? JD from Oakland? Uribe from Colorado? AJ from San Fran?

GMs that want a player overpay to make sure they get their guy - KW doesn't want to overpay (and I dont blame him), or else Torii Hunter wouldn't of signed elsewhere b/c there would have been no "listening to other offers."

My point was, why dont the Sox increase their scouting budget substantially (Daver says it hasn't changed since 2000) - So they can have players under their control at a minimum cost for a long period of time - The only risk is a big signing bonus to a player that doesn pan out...i.e. Joe Borchard - And what did that cost in the scheme of things? 5 million? That would be 1/3 of Torii Hunters salary for one year. If Borchard did pan out, you have him for, what, 4 years at pennies on the dollar.

gogosox16
12-09-2007, 01:17 PM
I thought my statement was pretty self explanatory.

Do you think KW enjoys overpaying on the FA market for players? Who is the last big $ free agent we signed that wasn't on the Sox currently? JD from Oakland? Uribe from Colorado? AJ from San Fran?

GMs that want a player overpay to make sure they get their guy - KW doesn't want to overpay (and I dont blame him), or else Torii Hunter wouldn't of signed elsewhere b/c there would have been no "listening to other offers."

My point was, why dont the Sox increase their scouting budget substantially (Daver says it hasn't changed since 2000) - So they can have players under their control at a minimum cost for a long period of time - The only risk is a big signing bonus to a player that doesn pan out...i.e. Joe Borchard - And what did that cost in the scheme of things? 5 million? That would be 1/3 of Torii Hunters salary for one year. If Borchard did pan out, you have him for, what, 4 years at pennies on the dollar.
Wasn't Uribe from a trade from Colorado?

jabrch
12-09-2007, 02:56 PM
I thought my statement was pretty self explanatory.

Do you think KW enjoys overpaying on the FA market for players? Who is the last big $ free agent we signed that wasn't on the Sox currently? JD from Oakland? Uribe from Colorado? AJ from San Fran?

GMs that want a player overpay to make sure they get their guy - KW doesn't want to overpay (and I dont blame him), or else Torii Hunter wouldn't of signed elsewhere b/c there would have been no "listening to other offers."

My point was, why dont the Sox increase their scouting budget substantially (Daver says it hasn't changed since 2000) - So they can have players under their control at a minimum cost for a long period of time - The only risk is a big signing bonus to a player that doesn pan out...i.e. Joe Borchard - And what did that cost in the scheme of things? 5 million? That would be 1/3 of Torii Hunters salary for one year. If Borchard did pan out, you have him for, what, 4 years at pennies on the dollar.

There is a significant difference between being "willing to overpay" and "Nervous to sign big $ FA". I don't blame him for being unwilling to overpay. But I disagree that he is "nervous" about anything.

jabrch
12-09-2007, 02:57 PM
Wasn't Uribe from a trade from Colorado?

Yes - for Aaron Miles

SoxxoS
12-09-2007, 06:06 PM
There is a significant difference between being "willing to overpay" and "Nervous to sign big $ FA". I don't blame him for being unwilling to overpay. But I disagree that he is "nervous" about anything.

I meant he would be nervous that he is overpaying. That was my point using that verbiage.

jabrch
12-09-2007, 11:11 PM
I meant he would be nervous that he is overpaying. That was my point using that verbiage.

I'm not sure that is a bad thing - in fact, I don't think it is at all. Overpaying implies paying more than value. That just can't be good.

gosox41
12-10-2007, 12:10 AM
Considering the Sox developed several recent All-Stars like Magglio, Carlos Lee, Aaron Rowand, Jon Garland, and Mark Buehrle, it's disheartening to see the farm system produce so little recently. What the hell happened?

KW became the GM. All the guys you just mentioned came under the Schueler era. So while he was using the 48th round pick to draft his daughter, he also drafted more minor league talent then KW can dream of (and I am aware Garland was drafted by the Cub).

I remember hearing that some of so-called minor league experts were so happy when KW came in to power because he was in charge of the minors in 2000 and they were ranked #1.

I remember a couple of years later hearing some of the same people talk about how it takes years to rebuild the minor league system after Schueler left it a mess.

So here we are 8 years into the KW era and the system is as bad as when Hawk Harrelson was GM. All these poor drafts have killed this team in that their forced to spend extra money to fill holes, but they also don't have the bullets to bring to trade discussions. While KW was trying to piece a 3 or 4 for 1 deal to get Miguel Cabrera, the Tigers were to offer 6 guys and get both Cabrera and Willis.


Bob

gosox41
12-10-2007, 12:14 AM
Fine. Farm system ratings are truly meaningless.

Our "top" guys still keep floundering for us, and the only guys putting up real numbers are pitchers who don't have "stuff" and don't translate to the majors. Whether it's development or scouting, our farm system has consistently failed us multiple times in the last few years, mostly on the guys the organization touted the highest. That reaks of failure. How you or anybody else can call our minor league system anything but a complete and utter failure of epic proportions is beyond rational thought.

What he said. Doesn't matter if were ranked 25th or 29th or whatever, the farm system is really bad. 7 years of drafts and it seems that the only player people really want back right now is Chris Young. So much for the great Royce Ring or Jeremy Reed.


Bob

rdivaldi
12-10-2007, 10:43 AM
So here we are 8 years into the KW era and the system is as bad as when Hawk Harrelson was GM. All these poor drafts have killed this team in that their forced to spend extra money to fill holes, but they also don't have the bullets to bring to trade discussions. While KW was trying to piece a 3 or 4 for 1 deal to get Miguel Cabrera, the Tigers were to offer 6 guys and get both Cabrera and Willis.


Bob

Eh? It's not anywhere near that bad, plus you're neglecting to mention two vital points. #1) KW traded a lot of our talent to acquire the cogs that got us a World Series championship. #2) The Tigers were able to offer two of the better prospects in baseball because the absolutely sucked for so long.

It is unbelievable how the cornerstone of so may of the dark cloud arguments is the Tigers talent in their farm system. The cornerstones of the deal were Maybin and Miller, two players that we would have never had a shot at. Get it? The other guys were not high quality.

There's no argument that our farm system is down, but some of you are absolutely out of your minds right now with your over-the-top claims of "no talent" down there. It's time to move on past the Cabrera-Willis trade, it's making rational discussion almost impossible.

Tragg
12-10-2007, 11:39 AM
In the last 4 months, didn't Williams also trade what were considered to be our two best AA hitters for Richar and Quinten?
Right now we don't know if the two AA hitter are major leaguers (or if the 2 AAA hitters we got are either). But that is or was part of our system.

Sargeant79
12-10-2007, 12:16 PM
In the last 4 months, didn't Williams also trade what were considered to be our two best AA hitters for Richar and Quinten?
Right now we don't know if the two AA hitter are major leaguers (or if the 2 AAA hitters we got are either). But that is or was part of our system.

Not to nitpick (although that's what I'm doing), but Chris Carter was in high A ball.

I think the issue is that we have had a lot of guys who were rather highly touted in the last couple years who didn't pan out, which is an indictment of the organization's ability to develop players more than anything. 2-3 years ago, scouts thought very highly of a lot of our position prospects. They have been either unable to make the jump to the majors thus far or have fizzled out before getting close. This is why trading guys like Cunningham and Carter, who were both still a ways away from the majors and who could go in a lot of different paths, was a good move.

KRS1
12-10-2007, 03:58 PM
Not to nitpick (although that's what I'm doing), but Chris Carter was in high A ball.

ACTUALLY, Chris was only in Kanny(low A), and for the second time I will be correcting this in a week, Aaron only got as high as W-S(High-A) for us.

Sargeant79
12-10-2007, 04:12 PM
ACTUALLY, Chris was only in Kanny(low A), and for the second time I will be correcting this in a week, Aaron only got as high as W-S(High-A) for us.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

munchman33
12-10-2007, 04:55 PM
Eh? It's not anywhere near that bad, plus you're neglecting to mention two vital points. #1) KW traded a lot of our talent to acquire the cogs that got us a World Series championship. #2) The Tigers were able to offer two of the better prospects in baseball because the absolutely sucked for so long.

It is unbelievable how the cornerstone of so may of the dark cloud arguments is the Tigers talent in their farm system. The cornerstones of the deal were Maybin and Miller, two players that we would have never had a shot at. Get it? The other guys were not high quality.

There's no argument that our farm system is down, but some of you are absolutely out of your minds right now with your over-the-top claims of "no talent" down there. It's time to move on past the Cabrera-Willis trade, it's making rational discussion almost impossible.

I'm not upset over the disparity of the Tiger's minor league talent versus our own. I'm upset because our system is bereft of talent altogether, sans four players, none of whom are can't miss. There isn't another system I can say things like that about.

jabrch
12-10-2007, 05:52 PM
The cornerstones of the deal were Maybin and Miller, two players that we would have never had a shot at. Get it? The other guys were not high quality.

And their best remaining player from their own system is Verlander, who was drafted in the top 3.

One of the few cases you can really make where we didn't draft someone due to money and they did, was Porchello. And you can argue until you are blue in the face, but paying that kind of money and giving a HS pitcher a major league contract is just loading up your risk factor. Could it work out? Sure - they might have just got a high first round talent in 3-4 years. But there is a very high degree of likelihood (as with any draft pick) that Porchello NEVER pitches a day in the majors or is a Borchardly bust. (interesting the similarity between Porch and Borch...)

I know the Sox player development and scouting hasn't been the strongest in the league. But few teams have consistently drafted as high as we have under KW and done significantly better - and most of those teams are teams that really don't care much about money because they have tons of it to spend on minor league players.

Yes, we'd all love to see the organization have a bonanza draft or two where we stock the system with great players. This year's draft will provide us the opportunity with a very high pick to get someone very talented. But not having the bullets to get Cabrera happened not because we don't spend money like Detroit, but because we haven't historically sucked nearly as bad as they have.

BadBobbyJenks
12-10-2007, 09:51 PM
Yes, we'd all love to see the organization have a bonanza draft or two where we stock the system with great players. This year's draft will provide us the opportunity with a very high pick to get someone very talented. But not having the bullets to get Cabrera happened not because we don't spend money like Detroit, but because we haven't historically sucked nearly as bad as they have.


we continue to draft safe picks that will sign, its not a sucking factor at all. Boston and New York have developed quite a farm without sucking year in and year out.

Bad scouting and the refusal to spend money not a very good combination

jabrch
12-10-2007, 10:24 PM
Boston and New York

Surely you jest...

You aren't comparing our financial spending power with that of the Yanks and the Red Sox, are you?

This team spends a ton of money, both on major leaguers and on minor leaguers. We just won't spend it on HS kids who have a high chance of failure. And I don't blame management one bit...

California Sox
12-11-2007, 01:00 AM
Surely you jest...

You aren't comparing our financial spending power with that of the Yanks and the Red Sox, are you?

This team spends a ton of money, both on major leaguers and on minor leaguers. We just won't spend it on HS kids who have a high chance of failure. And I don't blame management one bit...

It's not just the Yankees and Red Sox doing it. According to Baseball America, Detroit ranked 4th in overall bonuses in the 2007 draft with an outlay of $7,305,000. That includes Porcello's money ($3.58 mil) but also money for a supplemental first rounder and over slot deals for their 5th, 6th, 13th, and 26th rounders. They signed their first 10 picks, and 29 of their first 32.

Meanwhile, the Sox ranked 26th. They spent $2,444,550. I'd like to note that the Tigers spent more on their draft minus Porcello than the Sox spent on their whole draft. To be fair, the Sox did sign 19 of their first 20 picks, but that included a whopping 2 HS picks. And it's not like we didn't draft kids who were looking for over slot money. We took Guinn in the 10th, and Patterson in the 24th but didn't do anything with them. For literally what we pay a middle reliever, we could have gotten two more assets.

If the Tigers keep using the system to their advantage while we play the suckers, they're going to produce consistently better players which will give them assets on the field and in trades. I don't understand why you wouldn't want the Sox to compete.

jabrch
12-11-2007, 05:25 AM
I don't understand why you wouldn't want the Sox to compete.

I never said that...

But I would rather have Linebrink than another 5mm to spend on Joe Borchard again. That move soured me on paying big $ for anyone - even moreso to a less projectable HS kid.

My opinion is that we don't do a great job developing players - so throwing money at drafting them is a less productive plan than using that money to get proven major league talent. I still feel like the MLB draft is a major crapshoot and spending more money to draft HS kids only increases the risk associated with that. It doesn't significantly increase the reward just by spending money alone. (money that would have to come out of the major legue budget)

California Sox
12-11-2007, 08:36 AM
I never said that...

But I would rather have Linebrink than another 5mm to spend on Joe Borchard again. That move soured me on paying big $ for anyone - even moreso to a less projectable HS kid.

My opinion is that we don't do a great job developing players - so throwing money at drafting them is a less productive plan than using that money to get proven major league talent. I still feel like the MLB draft is a major crapshoot and spending more money to draft HS kids only increases the risk associated with that. It doesn't significantly increase the reward just by spending money alone. (money that would have to come out of the major legue budget)

But would you rather have Linebrink or 5 Joba Chamberlains? True, the draft is a crapshoot. That precisely why a team needs to increase its odds by putting chips on different parts of the table. If you draft 8 or 9 players with real upside you have a better chance than if you pin your hopes on one slotted first round guy and take flyers on everyone else. At least that's my opinion.

rdivaldi
12-11-2007, 08:58 AM
we continue to draft safe picks that will sign, its not a sucking factor at all. Boston and New York have developed quite a farm without sucking year in and year out.

Their farm systems are vastly overrated. The Yankees have especially built up a undeserved reputation for their minor league talent. The Red Sox are quickly catching up.

oeo
12-11-2007, 06:26 PM
#1) KW traded a lot of our talent to acquire the cogs that got us a World Series championship.

And how many of those guys actually panned out?

I know there's some talent down there, but will it pan out is the question. Lately we haven't had any luck.

rdivaldi
12-11-2007, 06:57 PM
And how many of those guys actually panned out?

I know there's some talent down there, but will it pan out is the question. Lately we haven't had any luck.

Obviously Seattle got nothing out of that trade, which is kind of surprising, as all three of those players were viewed as having upside. That's not just from the White Sox perspective, it was league-wide.

Prospects are a crapshoot, plain and simple. Anointing players before they accomplish anything is crazy. I was planning my trip to Jon Rauch's HOF induction back in 2000 and the same for BMac in 2005. I wouldn't say that we haven't had any luck. Fields, Logan, Owens, Wasserman and Broadway all had positive results for us last year.

oeo
12-11-2007, 08:45 PM
Obviously Seattle got nothing out of that trade, which is kind of surprising, as all three of those players were viewed as having upside. That's not just from the White Sox perspective, it was league-wide.

Prospects are a crapshoot, plain and simple. Anointing players before they accomplish anything is crazy. I was planning my trip to Jon Rauch's HOF induction back in 2000 and the same for BMac in 2005. I wouldn't say that we haven't had any luck. Fields, Logan, Owens, Wasserman and Broadway all had positive results for us last year.

I really like what Fields and Wasserman bring to the table, but the jury is still out on those guys. And of course, I'm referring to the last few years. All of our studs have just been busts. The jury is still out on McCarthy and C. Young, but Borchard, Reed, Anderson? :puking:

A question I have, is why are these guys being ranked so high in the minor leagues (and not just by the Sox, but by the 'experts' as well), but it's not translating to the big leagues? Is our development process ****ing them up? I mean, wasn't our farm system highly regarded a few years ago? Nothing really big ever came out of it.

Daver
12-11-2007, 09:13 PM
I really like what Fields and Wasserman bring to the table, but the jury is still out on those guys. And of course, I'm referring to the last few years. All of our studs have just been busts. The jury is still out on McCarthy and C. Young, but Borchard, Reed, Anderson? :puking:

A question I have, is why are these guys being ranked so high in the minor leagues (and not just by the Sox, but by the 'experts' as well), but it's not translating to the big leagues? Is our development process ****ing them up? I mean, wasn't our farm system highly regarded a few years ago? Nothing really big ever came out of it.

Carlos Lee? Magglio Ordonez? Joe Crede? Aaron Rowand?

The Sox philosophy on how position players advance through the system sucks in a major way as far as I am concerned.

eastchicagosoxfan
12-11-2007, 09:27 PM
Carlos Lee? Magglio Ordonez? Joe Crede? Aaron Rowand?

The Sox philosophy on how position players advance through the system sucks in a major way as far as I am concerned.
Could you eleborate please?

SoxxoS
12-11-2007, 10:26 PM
Carlos Lee? Magglio Ordonez? Joe Crede? Aaron Rowand?

The Sox philosophy on how position players advance through the system sucks in a major way as far as I am concerned.

I am not sure what you mean by this, but I don't know if it holds as much water as it would if players thrived on other teams...unless you are saying the Sox development screws them up SO bad...

Daver
12-11-2007, 10:30 PM
Could you eleborate please?

In order to move up in the Sox minor league system, all you need to do is hit, if you can hit the pitching at that level with a small amount of consistency, you get moved up. It doesn't matter if you can't catch a cold, or field your position, it's move him up and see what he does against better pitching. The Sox need to address this, and start teaching these players to be sound fundamental ballplayers. Emphasize situational hitting on every level, emphasize how to bunt, and work a count. The Twins win with a small payroll because they restock their roster from within, and train complete ballplayers.

Don't get me started on how they mishandle young pitching in the minors.

rdivaldi
12-11-2007, 10:38 PM
I really like what Fields and Wasserman bring to the table, but the jury is still out on those guys. And of course, I'm referring to the last few years. All of our studs have just been busts. The jury is still out on McCarthy and C. Young, but Borchard, Reed, Anderson? :puking:

A question I have, is why are these guys being ranked so high in the minor leagues (and not just by the Sox, but by the 'experts' as well), but it's not translating to the big leagues? Is our development process ****ing them up? I mean, wasn't our farm system highly regarded a few years ago? Nothing really big ever came out of it.

The three outfielders were highly rated for different reasons. No one in their right mind could deny Borchard's power potential, just as no one could overlook Reed hitting .400 in AA. Anderson is still seen as an athletic freak of nature with the amount of ground he can cover in center.

The problem is, Borchard has that long, loopy swing, Reed still slaps at the ball a la Mike Caruso and Anderson lunges at the ball and looks like a deer in the headlights at the dish. These problems were evident when these guys were coming up, but I'm assuming that people thought that they had the talent and desire (plus the proper instructors) to correct these flaws. Of the three, I thought Reed's swing would translate into the majors as a gap hitter and his sheer hustle from the left side would get him an extra 10- 15 hits per season. So far I'm flat wrong.

A lot of the scouting services/experts (BA) rely on stats and journalists to rate players. Do you think Phil Rogers is qualified to rank prospects? He's a nice guy and all, but I get a chuckle reading his top 10 every winter. I'll never get over his gushing over Sean Tracey because of his fastball. I wonder if Phil ever looked up from the radar gun to see Sean's G-d awful motion.

I know Daver believes that our development program is completely screwed up, at least in terms of pitching, I'm starting to worry that there might be something to that.

oeo
12-11-2007, 10:38 PM
Carlos Lee? Magglio Ordonez? Joe Crede? Aaron Rowand?

I was speaking of more recently, like around 2003. Those guys came into the league before that time.

rdivaldi
12-11-2007, 10:39 PM
Don't get me started on how they mishandle young pitching in the minors.

Please start, I'm very curious to read your observations...

eastchicagosoxfan
12-11-2007, 11:34 PM
In order to move up in the Sox minor league system, all you need to do is hit, if you can hit the pitching at that level with a small amount of consistency, you get moved up. It doesn't matter if you can't catch a cold, or field your position, it's move him up and see what he does against better pitching. The Sox need to address this, and start teaching these players to be sound fundamental ballplayers. Emphasize situational hitting on every level, emphasize how to bunt, and work a count. The Twins win with a small payroll because they restock their roster from within, and train complete ballplayers.

Don't get me started on how they mishandle young pitching in the minors.

Consider this post to be one that is antangonizing you. I enjoy reading your opinions. They are very well argued.

gosox41
12-12-2007, 12:44 PM
I know Daver believes that our development program is completely screwed up, at least in terms of pitching, I'm starting to worry that there might be something to that.

There's a lot to it. I've been questioning this for years but have been told many a time that drafts are crapshoots and there's only so much you can do for player devleopment. And some of the same people who told me that claim to know a lot about the Sox farm system and follow the drafts closely.

All you need to look at is the last 10 years. How many starting pitchers have the Sox both drafted and developed that have turned into average (or better) starting pitchers? Buehrle. Who else? Fogg? Wells?? I don't know if either would be considered average for his career

There's a reason for this as some how other teams are able to develop pitching at a better rate then the Sox. That means the luck and draft position argument are starting to go out the window.

The reality is the Sox farm system has gone down in rankings the last few years. Take the rankings for what they are, but when I saw a slew of injuries last season, I didn't like what I saw in most of the young players that they brought up.

And something else to think about is how many young players that KW has traded away would you want back? Chris Young is one. ANyone else? KW has had 7 drafts. If other teams produced talent like the Sox had the last 7 years, then the Sox would have not lost 90 games last season.


Bob

Daver
12-12-2007, 06:37 PM
Please start, I'm very curious to read your observations...

You've seen as much of it as I have. How often do they let a starting pitcher work an entire season at one level with the same pitching coach? This has improved somewhat, but it is still done way to much. These pitchers get moved from coach to coach, whether they have perfected what was being worked on or not. Would it be that diffucult to institute a policy where if you start at A ball that season, you finish in A ball that season. The Twins do it, the Angels do it, the Dodgers do it, why can't the Sox learn from their mistakes? How many guys are gonna get rushed to the big leagues and get their heads beat in so bad it crushes their confidence and they are done is it going to take for them to learn some patience in developing starting pitching?

Jon Rauch had serious talent, rushed to the big leagues, got beat like a rented mule, and is now a relief pitcher for some other team. Danny Wright could throw five pitches for strikes, rushed for lack of a fifth starter at the MLB level, got hit like a pinata, and is now out of baseball. These were not iffy guys, these were guys that should be in your rotation now, had they given them enough time in the minors to develop both confidence as well as a short memory, pitching is 90% mental, if your head ain't right you can't perform period.

Kirk Champion really needs to take a long hard look at his instructors and coaches at every level, as well as coming up with a plan and sticking to that plan, or the Sox will continue to struggle to produce home grown pitchers.

Told you not to get me started.

voodoochile
12-12-2007, 07:14 PM
You've seen as much of it as I have. How often do they let a starting pitcher work an entire season at one level with the same pitching coach? This has improved somewhat, but it is still done way to much. These pitchers get moved from coach to coach, whether they have perfected what was being worked on or not. Would it be that diffucult to institute a policy where if you start at A ball that season, you finish in A ball that season. The Twins do it, the Angels do it, the Dodgers do it, why can't the Sox learn from their mistakes? How many guys are gonna get rushed to the big leagues and get their heads beat in so bad it crushes their confidence and they are done is it going to take for them to learn some patience in developing starting pitching?

Jon Rauch had serious talent, rushed to the big leagues, got beat like a rented mule, and is now a relief pitcher for some other team. Danny Wright could throw five pitches for strikes, rushed for lack of a fifth starter at the MLB level, got hit like a pinata, and is now out of baseball. These were not iffy guys, these were guys that should be in your rotation now, had they given them enough time in the minors to develop both confidence as well as a short memory, pitching is 90% mental, if your head ain't right you can't perform period.

Kirk Champion really needs to take a long hard look at his instructors and coaches at every level, as well as coming up with a plan and sticking to that plan, or the Sox will continue to struggle to produce home grown pitchers.

Told you not to get me started.

Thanks for the explanation and for the one on rushing position players just for their bat. As someone who doesn't follow the minors or understand why our system seems to struggle so much it's good to see a different perspective. The Sox being the only team I really follow, I don't know about other systems and why they succeed while ours fails so dramatically so regularly.

Good insight. Just hope someone who matters reads it and does something about it.

You mentioned that some of this appears to be changing at least in terms of pitching and I notice things like Gio pitching in AA ball this past season and wonder if indeed things seem to be improving. Is this a case of the Sox simply having too many arms at AAA or is this a definite change for the better?

SoxxoS
12-12-2007, 07:22 PM
Does the rushing of the pitcher have to do with the injuries? You mention Rauch and Wright - Both guys that had bad elbow (Rauch had a shoulder problem as well)...are you saying that would NOT have happened had the Sox taken better "care" of them?

Daver
12-12-2007, 07:31 PM
Does the rushing of the pitcher have to do with the injuries? You mention Rauch and Wright - Both guys that had bad elbow (Rauch had a shoulder problem as well)...are you saying that would NOT have happened had the Sox taken better "care" of them?

What is the first thing a younger pitcher without a ton of confidence does when he starts to get hit around? He stops pitching and starts trying to throw every thing past the batter. Pretty easy to see why it would tend to lead to injuries. Ever notice the pitchers with confidence and short memories tend to stay off the injured list?

BadBobbyJenks
12-12-2007, 07:43 PM
Daver:
So lets just say the sox moved into complete rebuilding mode. With the amount of talent we could get back for Pk, thome, javy, and dye would it even be worth it the way our system is presently constructed in your opinion?

Daver
12-12-2007, 07:50 PM
Daver:
So lets just say the sox moved into complete rebuilding mode. With the amount of talent we could get back for Pk, thome, javy, and dye would it even be worth it the way our system is presently constructed in your opinion?

A baseball franchise is always in rebuilding mode, and you are being unrealistic, Thome has a no trade clause, Javy has a limited one, Dye can't be traded since he just signed an extension, and Konerko is a fairly low trade value right now based on his last season, and will also soon become untradeable.

BadBobbyJenks
12-12-2007, 08:07 PM
well the point of the question wasnt to debate whether or not that was realistic

santo=dorf
12-12-2007, 08:48 PM
A baseball franchise is always in rebuilding mode, and you are being unrealistic, Thome has a no trade clause, Javy has a limited one, Dye can't be traded since he just signed an extension, and Konerko is a fairly low trade value right now based on his last season, and will also soon become untradeable.
Not true

PalehosePlanet
12-12-2007, 09:41 PM
A baseball franchise is always in rebuilding mode, and you are being unrealistic, Thome has a no trade clause, Javy has a limited one, Dye can't be traded since he just signed an extension, and Konerko is a fairly low trade value right now based on his last season, and will also soon become untradeable.

Also not true.

SoxxoS
12-12-2007, 10:32 PM
Also not true.

I agree that Konerko's trade value isn't great - He is good, but not great, and its not like you are getting him for free- He is making big $.

I am not saying he is UN tradeable - But he doesnt have great trade value...he is too one dimensional at that size of contract.

Ron Popeil
12-13-2007, 12:10 AM
I agree that Konerko's trade value isn't great - He is good, but not great, and its not like you are getting him for free- He is making big $.

I am not saying he is UN tradeable - But he doesnt have great trade value...he is too one dimensional at that size of contract.

It depends on who wants him. Look at what Miguel Tejada just brought in, and he's a declining SS/3B. Paulie is worth a great haul to someone if we shopped him; not a Miguel Cabrera-like great haul obviously, but he's worth more than Miguel Tejada is.

santo=dorf
12-13-2007, 06:33 AM
I agree that Konerko's trade value isn't great - He is good, but not great, and its not like you are getting him for free- He is making big $.

I am not saying he is UN tradeable - But he doesnt have great trade value...he is too one dimensional at that size of contract.
Paul Konerko has 3 years $36 million left on his deal. That is fine.

Jose Guillen just signed a three year $36 million deal with the Royals. How would you compare the two?

SoxxoS
12-13-2007, 09:18 AM
Paul Konerko has 3 years $36 million left on his deal. That is fine.

Jose Guillen just signed a three year $36 million deal with the Royals. How would you compare the two?

No doubt Konerko's contract is better than that, but you are also talking about the Royals, who HAVE to greatly overpay for FA b/c nobody wants to play there.

munchman33
12-13-2007, 11:09 AM
No doubt Konerko's contract is better than that, but you are also talking about the Royals, who HAVE to greatly overpay for FA b/c nobody wants to play there.

That's kind of the point. Konerko's contract is extremely reasonable. If he were a free agent now, he'd be looking at 5/100 or something ridiculous like that.

santo=dorf
12-13-2007, 05:46 PM
No doubt Konerko's contract is better than that, but you are also talking about the Royals, who HAVE to greatly overpay for FA b/c nobody wants to play there.
The Sox tried to "great overpay" for Fukudome and he still said no. What does that say? :anon:

oeo
12-13-2007, 05:57 PM
I agree that Konerko's trade value isn't great - He is good, but not great, and its not like you are getting him for free- He is making big $.

I am not saying he is UN tradeable - But he doesnt have great trade value...he is too one dimensional at that size of contract.

With that size of contract? It's a bargain.

Let's see, Konerko is still fairly young, his contract is pretty cheap in this market, and he's still under contract for 3 years. He will give you 35-40 homeruns a year, solid defense at first base over that time. He had a down season last year, and that, IMO, won't hurt his trade value. He has too many other good things to look at.

BadBobbyJenks
12-13-2007, 07:07 PM
With that size of contract? It's a bargain.

Let's see, Konerko is still fairly young, his contract is pretty cheap in this market, and he's still under contract for 3 years. He will give you 35-40 homeruns a year, solid defense at first base over that time. He had a down season last year, and that, IMO, won't hurt his trade value. He has too many other good things to look at.


Nope he has zero trade value.

Mohoney
12-14-2007, 07:38 AM
What is holding the Sox back in having one of the better farm systems in baseball?

Tell me what you think.

I think that the fact that we're almost always drafting somewhere in the mid-teens or worse has a part to play in this. All those low to mid 80s win teams in the early part of this decade guaranteed 2 things:

1) We were nowhere near good enough to make the playoffs, and
2) We were nowhere near bad enough to have a realistic chance at the top prospects of the time.

Getting caught somewhere in the middle year in and year out severely hampers your ability to acquire young talent in any sport. It's almost as if your draft is a waste of time.

FedEx227
12-17-2007, 03:49 AM
We still can't let down this "We don't draft high" thing.

Hmmm... let's look at our division and position players, or even better CFers, something we apparently have none of.

Let me know where Grady Sizemore (3rd round), Curtis Granderson (3rd round) and David DeJesus (4th round) were drafted.

How about our own Mark Buehrle (38th round).

Matt Holliday (7th round)

Ryan Howard (5th round)

Albert Pujols (13th round)

Jake Peavy (15th round)

Roy Oswalt (23rd round)

There is value in almost every single round of the draft, quit with this "we don't have high draft picks" crap. It's an easy cop-out for our utter lack of successful drafting or developing over the past 6-7 years.

California Sox
12-17-2007, 11:47 AM
We still can't let down this "We don't draft high" thing.

Hmmm... let's look at our division and position players, or even better CFers, something we apparently have none of.

Let me know where Grady Sizemore (3rd round), Curtis Granderson (3rd round) and David DeJesus (4th round) were drafted.

How about our own Mark Buehrle (38th round).

Matt Holliday (7th round)

Ryan Howard (5th round)

Albert Pujols (13th round)

Jake Peavy (15th round)

Roy Oswalt (23rd round)

There is value in almost every single round of the draft, quit with this "we don't have high draft picks" crap. It's an easy cop-out for our utter lack of successful drafting or developing over the past 6-7 years.

Your examples scream for the need to pay above slot money as off the top of my head I can tell you that Sizemore signed for a record for 3rd rounders as he was a highly sought after wide receiver. Similarly Holliday signed for way above round, he was a highly regarded quarterback. Buerhle and Oswalt were draft and follows who signed for significantly more than their draft rounds would indicate. We've got to compete on bonuses. Junk the slotting that half the teams are not paying attention to anyway.

fquaye149
12-17-2007, 12:08 PM
It depends on who wants him. Look at what Miguel Tejada just brought in, and he's a declining SS/3B. Paulie is worth a great haul to someone if we shopped him; not a Miguel Cabrera-like great haul obviously, but he's worth more than Miguel Tejada is.

Paul Konerko plays First Base

Paul Konerko has 3 years $36 million left on his deal. That is fine.

Jose Guillen just signed a three year $36 million deal with the Royals. How would you compare the two?

Paul Konerko plays First Base

That's kind of the point. Konerko's contract is extremely reasonable. If he were a free agent now, he'd be looking at 5/100 or something ridiculous like that.

Paul Konerko plays First Base

rdivaldi
12-17-2007, 12:56 PM
You've seen as much of it as I have. How often do they let a starting pitcher work an entire season at one level with the same pitching coach? This has improved somewhat, but it is still done way to much. These pitchers get moved from coach to coach, whether they have perfected what was being worked on or not. Would it be that diffucult to institute a policy where if you start at A ball that season, you finish in A ball that season. The Twins do it, the Angels do it, the Dodgers do it, why can't the Sox learn from their mistakes? How many guys are gonna get rushed to the big leagues and get their heads beat in so bad it crushes their confidence and they are done is it going to take for them to learn some patience in developing starting pitching?

Hmmmmm. I've been thinking about this for a couple of days and I'm not so sure that "rushing" from level to level is the problem. Just for comparisons sake, let's look at the top pitchers in the AL Central and some of the top youngsters this year and look how they moved up through the ranks.

Verlander: 2005 (A+, AA, Majors)
Miller: 2006 (A+, Majors)
Santana: 1997 (Rookie, low A) 1998 (low A, A+) 1999 (A+) 2000 (Majors)
Baker: 2003 (low A) 2004 (A+, AA, AAA) 2005 (AAA, Majors)
Garza: 2005 (Rookie, low A) 2006 (A+, AA, AAA, Majors)
Sabathia: 1998 (Rookie) 1999 (low A, A+) 2000 (A+, AA) 2001 (Majors)
Carmona: 2002 (Rookie, low A) 2003 (A+, AA) 2004 (A+, AA, AAA) 2005 (AA, AAA) 2006 (AAA, Majors)

I think for most teams, talent trumps everything. If you look back at the big 3 in Oakland, they sped through the minors at warp speed, same could be said for Chamberlain and Bucholtz.

I think the way that the pitching coaches handle these guys at each level needs to be evaluated as well as the obvious way we draft pitchers. Our first pick in 2008 needs to be a home run...

Optipessimism
12-17-2007, 12:58 PM
Paul Konerko plays First Base



Paul Konerko plays First Base



Paul Konerko plays First Base

Thank you Captain Obvious.

In 2004 among all MLB 1B Paulie ranked:
OPS: 8th (.894)
SLG: 5th (.535)
OBP: 14th (.359)
HR: 2nd (41)

In 2005 among all MLB 1B Paulie ranked:
OPS: 9th (.909)
SLG: 7th (.534)
OBP: 9th (.375)
HR: 4th (40)

In 2006 among all MLB 1B Paulie ranked:
OPS: 7th (.932)
SLG: 7th (.551)
OBP: T-8th (.381)
HR: 6th (35)

In 2007 among all MLB 1B Paulie ranked:
OPS: 13th (.841)
SLG: 12th (.490)
OBP: 14th (.351)
HR: T-6th (31)

Last year was Paulie's worst year since 2003 and he still ranked in the top half of MLB 1B offensively. From 2004-2006 he was consistently in the top 7-9 1B in baseball, a group that includes names such as Howard, Pujols, Berkman, Lee, etc. Paulie plays his position well. He's not a liability and he's 32, so he has years left in him for sure.

Miguel Tejada OTOH is a butcher at SS and shouldn't even be playing there. Unlike Paulie who would represent an improvement both on offense and on defense on 15-20 out of 30 MLB teams, most teams wouldn't even want Tejada's bat at SS. Not to mention the 'roids thing. Tejada should be at 3B, and among 3B, this is how he would have ranken in the MLB in OPS had he played there:

2004: .894 (6th)
2005: .864 (8th)
2006: .877 (7th)
2007: .799 (10th)

He'd probably suck at 3B too, but whatever.

Paulie has a ton more value than Tejada because:

1. He's a better hitter period.
2. Plays good defense at his position.
3. Actually fits at a position.
4. No steroids.

Daver
12-17-2007, 01:00 PM
Hmmmmm. I've been thinking about this for a couple of days and I'm not so sure that "rushing" from level to level is the problem. Just for comparisons sake, let's look at the top pitchers in the AL Central and some of the top youngsters this year and look how they moved up through the ranks.

Verlander: 2005 (A+, AA, Majors)
Miller: 2006 (A+, Majors)
Santana: 1997 (Rookie, low A) 1998 (low A, A+) 1999 (A+) 2000 (Majors)
Baker: 2003 (low A) 2004 (A+, AA, AAA) 2005 (AAA, Majors)
Garza: 2005 (Rookie, low A) 2006 (A+, AA, AAA, Majors)
Sabathia: 1998 (Rookie) 1999 (low A, A+) 2000 (A+, AA) 2001 (Majors)
Carmona: 2002 (Rookie, low A) 2003 (A+, AA) 2004 (A+, AA, AAA) 2005 (AA, AAA) 2006 (AAA, Majors)

I think for most teams, talent trumps everything. If you look back at the big 3 in Oakland, they sped through the minors at warp speed, same could be said for Chamberlain and Bucholtz.

I think the way that the pitching coaches handle these guys at each level needs to be evaluated as well as the obvious way we draft pitchers. Our first pick in 2008 needs to be a home run...

Only in terms of absolute top talent, my point is aimed more at guys that have the tools, but need help putting them to use, and developing the correct mindset to pitch. Randy Johnson back in the day would have benefited from another year in the minors.

fquaye149
12-17-2007, 01:08 PM
Paulie has a ton more value than Tejada because:

1. He's a better hitter period.
2. Plays good defense at his position.
3. Actually fits at a position.
4. No steroids.

Of those reasons you gave, only 4 is relevant, and even that is largely irrelevant since Tejada doesn't figure on missing playing time.

Tejada plays a position where defense is actually relevant. He also puts up pretty good offensive #'s relative to the rest of the league at his position.

In terms of 1B, Paulie plays good defense, but that's not that big a deal a 1B where great defensive is only slightly more valuable than awful d.

His numbers are also more in line with other 1B's than Tejada's are in with SS's.

That is, Tejada is a great hitting SS, Paulie is a good to very good hitting 1B.

Sorry dude, Konerko, though a relatively good deal at 13 mil, is not all that desirable to other teams. He's a ****ing 1Bman

rdivaldi
12-17-2007, 01:11 PM
Only in terms of absolute top talent, my point is aimed more at guys that have the tools, but need help putting them to use, and developing the correct mindset to pitch. Randy Johnson back in the day would have benefited from another year in the minors.

Yeah, Unit was absolutely scary in Montreal. He had people fearing for their lives. I just can't imagine having a college pitcher in the minors for much more than 3 years and a high school pitcher for 4. Eventually the Rule V draft comes into play. I honestly do not think that Rauch was rushed, the injury screwed everything up. Wright was probably up 1/2 a season too fast. I would have liked to have seen him start 2002 in AAA and been our first option out of the minors.

Optipessimism
12-17-2007, 01:23 PM
Of those reasons you gave, only 4 is relevant, and even that is largely irrelevant since Tejada doesn't figure on missing playing time.

Tejada plays a position where defense is actually relevant. He also puts up pretty good offensive #'s relative to the rest of the league at his position.

In terms of 1B, Paulie plays good defense, but that's not that big a deal a 1B where great defensive is only slightly more valuable than awful d.

His numbers are also more in line with other 1B's than Tejada's are in with SS's.

That is, Tejada is a great hitting SS, Paulie is a good to very good hitting 1B.

Sorry dude, Konerko, though a relatively good deal at 13 mil, is not all that desirable to other teams. He's a ****ing 1Bman

SS is primarily a defensive position.

Paulie will help you with both his bat and glove.

Tejada will help you with his bat and hurt you with his glove.

Defense at SS is exponentially more important than defense at 1B, which is why teams have historically started plus defensive players at SS while moving poor defensive power hitting SS's to other positions.

Konerko >> Tejada.

fquaye149
12-17-2007, 01:48 PM
SS is primarily a defensive position.

Paulie will help you with both his bat and glove.

Tejada will help you with his bat and hurt you with his glove.

Defense at SS is exponentially more important than defense at 1B, which is why teams have historically started plus defensive players at SS while moving poor defensive power hitting SS's to other positions.

Konerko >> Tejada.

I don't get where you're projecting Tejada as a below average defensive SS. That is simply not the case, and the reason why your distorted perception of Paulie's value is so skewed

Daver
12-17-2007, 05:58 PM
Yeah, Unit was absolutely scary in Montreal. He had people fearing for their lives. I just can't imagine having a college pitcher in the minors for much more than 3 years and a high school pitcher for 4. Eventually the Rule V draft comes into play. I honestly do not think that Rauch was rushed, the injury screwed everything up. Wright was probably up 1/2 a season too fast. I would have liked to have seen him start 2002 in AAA and been our first option out of the minors.

You can develop pitchers and work around the rule 5 draft, if you are assessing what you have properly, something I am not convinced the instructors and coaches in the lower levels are doing. If you draft a college pitcher, send him to W/S his first season, and have a coach there that is capable of working with him in the right direction. This is why I question what Kirk Champion has in his staff, and how he is using it, some coaches can teach, but are incapable of instilling confidence, some are the other way around, rarely you get one like Champion or Cooper that can do both, is he placing his coaches where their talent is best used?

Brian26
12-17-2007, 10:48 PM
Tejada should be at 3B, and among 3B, this is how he would have ranken in the MLB in OPS had he played there:

That's a bit unfair, don't you think? Tejada has played shortstop since he came up with the A's in the late 90s. In fact, without checking, I don't believe he's ever played a major league game at third base. If you're going to rank Konerko compared to other first basemen, you have to rank Tejada with other SS's. I'd be curious to see those numbers.

fquaye149
12-17-2007, 11:26 PM
That's a bit unfair, don't you think? Tejada has played shortstop since he came up with the A's in the late 90s. In fact, without checking, I don't believe he's ever played a major league game at third base. If you're going to rank Konerko compared to other first basemen, you have to rank Tejada with other SS's. I'd be curious to see those numbers.

He won't do that because all legitimate fielding metrics (ZR, RF, FRAA and so on) show Tejada to be an above-average fielder.

At the very least, it's irrelevant--Tejada is a great hitting SS. Konerko's a good-hitting 1B.

Inevitably that's all that matters in terms of value. It doesn't matter what you or I or optipessimism think. GM's are going to give up a hell of a lot more to get Tejada than Konerko for myriad reasons.

Optipessimism
12-18-2007, 12:52 AM
That's a bit unfair, don't you think? Tejada has played shortstop since he came up with the A's in the late 90s. In fact, without checking, I don't believe he's ever played a major league game at third base. If you're going to rank Konerko compared to other first basemen, you have to rank Tejada with other SS's. I'd be curious to see those numbers.

He does obviously compare very well to other offensive SS's but that wasn't my point. The point was he's not a good defensive player at a premium defensive position. My opponent here is arguing that GM's care more about offense at SS than defense, but I see it the other way. I see no reason why any GM would want to weaken his D up the middle in order to add a bat, especially when other positions could most likely be upgraded offensively with cheaper, more viable solutions. Like, the Astros for instance. Why go with Wigginton at 3B and Tejada at SS? Their starting pitching sucks and they need all the help they can get, so why not move Tejada to 3B and not deal Everett, keeping him at SS? Of course, they used Mark Loretta as a SS last year so I guess that doesn't matter much.

He won't do that because all legitimate fielding metrics (ZR, RF, FRAA and so on) show Tejada to be an above-average fielder.

At the very least, it's irrelevant--Tejada is a great hitting SS. Konerko's a good-hitting 1B.

Inevitably that's all that matters in terms of value. It doesn't matter what you or I or optipessimism think. GM's are going to give up a hell of a lot more to get Tejada than Konerko for myriad reasons.

His rep is that he's a bad defensive player. After a quick search, the nicest thing I could find said about his defense was that he was "capable."

Among MLB starting SS he ranked T-6th in Zone Rating and 18th in Range Factor. When Zone Rating and Range Factor become good indicators of measuring defense, let me know. Anything that says David Eckstein has better range than Orlando Cabrera and is better in his "zone" than Jack Wilson, Edgar Renteria, Yuniesky Betancourt, etc. doesn't get my vote of confidence. BTW, did you notice that last year Coco Crisp was a better defensive CF than Curtis Granderson, Carlos Beltran, Torii Hunter, Ichiro, Patterson, Cameron, Chris Young, Andruw Jones, etc.? Actually, Coco Crisp was the rangiest CF in baseball last year, and the only person better in his zone was Grady Sizemore. Damn, Coco is monster... Also, ARod and David Wright can't carry Aramis Ramirez's jock at 3B. Didn't know that...

I think GM's value defense at SS for a myriad of reasons, and I doubt all GM's would sacrifice defense for a bat, because that is weakening a pitching staff. There must be a reason teams usually prefer to go with offense at offensive positions and defense at defensive positions.

Tragg
12-18-2007, 10:21 AM
I don't get where you're projecting Tejada as a below average defensive SS. That is simply not the case, and the reason why your distorted perception of Paulie's value is so skewed Just as an aside, that's the same reasoning as why Kendall was paid $10 mill a year. Bad move unless you have a big budget, because, in the end, you are paying 10 mill for someone who walks a lot but can't hit it out of the infield.

But that brings us to Uribe. How many SS hit 20 homers? How many SS have 70 RBIs for 4 straight years hitting out of the 8 hole? His OBP is about like most SS, but his power and RBI ability is in the top tier. What's the reason that the Sox won't get anything for him?

Dye has been one of the highest rated RF in the league since he joined the Sox. What's he worth?

Konerko is still a top 10 hitter in the league signed at a below market contract for 3 years. He has a lot of value.

rdivaldi
12-18-2007, 10:37 AM
He won't do that because all legitimate fielding metrics (ZR, RF, FRAA and so on) show Tejada to be an above-average fielder.

There is no such thing as a "legitimate fielding metric". That said, Tejada is a decent enough SS. Can we get back to talking about our barren farm system now?

Tragg
12-18-2007, 11:04 AM
There is no such thing as a "legitimate fielding metric". That said, Tejada is a decent enough SS. Can we get back to talking about our barren farm system now?
Who's your top 5 or 10? (if you haven't posted it already).

fquaye149
12-18-2007, 11:08 AM
There is no such thing as a "legitimate fielding metric". That said, Tejada is a decent enough SS. Can we get back to talking about our barren farm system now?

I meant semi-legitimate. ZR, RF, and FRAA seem to me to be at least legitimate enough to be entered into serious discussion.

Obviously they still have to be taken with a grain of salt.

rdivaldi
12-18-2007, 11:47 AM
Who's your top 5 or 10? (if you haven't posted it already).

Gonna be a tough list to compile because there will be quite a few guys that played in low A or rookie ball last year. The top three are easy (for me at least) Gio, DLS and Sweeney. But after that it's going to be a lot of second hand info, video and stats to go over.

Tragg
12-18-2007, 03:24 PM
Gonna be a tough list to compile because there will be quite a few guys that played in low A or rookie ball last year. The top three are easy (for me at least) Gio, DLS and Sweeney. But after that it's going to be a lot of second hand info, video and stats to go over.
I can understand that difficulty. What about Sweeney - where does he stand now?

rdivaldi
12-18-2007, 03:49 PM
I can understand that difficulty. What about Sweeney - where does he stand now?

He's still thought of highly within the organization, but he has lost quite a bit of luster as a prospect. I'm still a huge fan and I figure that he has a chance to be our starting LF'er, maybe even on opening day.

Billy Ashley
12-18-2007, 04:13 PM
He's still thought of highly within the organization, but he has lost quite a bit of luster as a prospect. I'm still a huge fan and I figure that he has a chance to be our starting LF'er, maybe even on opening day.

Ryan Sweeney has never been a "good" hitter at any level. He's been above average at times, but never that great. That said, he was young for AA and still isn't that old for AAA. He's got a lot of raw talent, he's just never done much in proball yet.

rdivaldi
12-18-2007, 05:35 PM
Ryan Sweeney has never been a "good" hitter at any level.

:?:

He was stellar in Rookie Ball and hit well in A, AA, and AAA. If power is your only prerequisite to being a good hitter, then I'll concede that. 2007 was by and large his worst year at any level.

Tragg
12-18-2007, 07:59 PM
:?:

He was stellar in Rookie Ball and hit well in A, AA, and AAA. If power is your only prerequisite to being a good hitter, then I'll concede that. 2007 was by and large his worst year at any level.
I think you, Daver and the other minor league guru (who doesn't post much anymore) didn't think he was ready this time last year and needed a couple of more years in the minors.
It's tough to be an outfielder without much power - I guess hitting a lot of doubles with OBP will work fine, though.
Have you seen Quenten?

rdivaldi
12-19-2007, 01:03 AM
Have you seen Quenten?

A bit during ST and random minor league and major league games. I don't have a solid opinion formed on him but I like his approach at the plate, very patient. His swing seems technically sound, but I'll need to watch it more before I can say that definitively. He is known for getting plunked (almost 40 times in 2006) as he stands his ground close to the dish. I've seen some interviews with him, so I can see why KW likes him. He seems like a hard worker and comes off as very no-nonsense.

When you read scouting reports on him, the name most commonly associated with him is Maggs. Here's hoping he can live up to that camparison.

Billy Ashley
12-27-2007, 12:24 AM
:?:

He was stellar in Rookie Ball and hit well in A, AA, and AAA. If power is your only prerequisite to being a good hitter, then I'll concede that. 2007 was by and large his worst year at any level.

Meh, he's only been significantly better than average once in terms of OPS (when he was 21 in AAA, which of course is pretty damn impressive). I'm not saying he's not any good, just that he doesn't have the value he had two years ago. Could he fill into his body and show off some power with that sweet sweet swing of his, you bet ya. However, at the moment he's never really had the stats that match what people projected him as.

rdivaldi
12-27-2007, 10:26 AM
he's never really had the stats that match what people projected him as.

I can't disagree with that. Every once-in-awhile you run across a prospect that you believe is destined for greatness, I see that in Ryan. I hope he can put his natural abilities to work...

SoxxoS
12-27-2007, 09:25 PM
A bit during ST and random minor league and major league games. I don't have a solid opinion formed on him but I like his approach at the plate, very patient. His swing seems technically sound, but I'll need to watch it more before I can say that definitively. He is known for getting plunked (almost 40 times in 2006) as he stands his ground close to the dish. I've seen some interviews with him, so I can see why KW likes him. He seems like a hard worker and comes off as very no-nonsense.

When you read scouting reports on him, the name most commonly associated with him is Maggs. Here's hoping he can live up to that camparison.

rdiv-
Do you have any comment on playing minor league ball where he has played (high altitude) and what it did to his stats...

Daver
12-27-2007, 09:37 PM
I think you, Daver and the other minor league guru (who doesn't post much anymore) didn't think he was ready this time last year and needed a couple of more years in the minors.
It's tough to be an outfielder without much power - I guess hitting a lot of doubles with OBP will work fine, though.
Have you seen Quenten?

I said a year ago that I doubted he would ever hit for much power, and I will stand by that.

rdivaldi
12-28-2007, 01:03 PM
rdiv-
Do you have any comment on playing minor league ball where he has played (high altitude) and what it did to his stats...

Well it is true that the Texas and Pacific League tend to be more hitter friendly. Looking at his multiple stops, here are the ballpark factors via the Baseball Think Factory of the stadiums that he's played in. (Please note that these are 2007 numbers, thus not representative of the year that he played in them) The order is Runs, Hits, Doubles, Home runs. 1.00 is minor league average.

2004:
A+ Lancaster - 1.19, 1.08, 1.08, 1.20

2005:
AAA Tucson - 1.05, 1.04, 1.03, 0.95

2006:
AAA Tuscon - Same as above

Lancaster is actually rated as the easiest ballpark to hit in of all minor league stadiums. Tuscon is pretty average, and difficult to hit home runs in. He played AA in El Paso, which no longer fields a team. That stadium was rated as the easiest ballpark to hit in the Texas League.

So obviously Quentin has had some favorable conditions in which to put up his numbers, thus a concern.

Save McCuddy's
12-28-2007, 03:16 PM
I can't disagree with that. Every once-in-awhile you run across a prospect that you believe is destined for greatness, I see that in Ryan. I hope he can put his natural abilities to work...

I couldn't figure out what happened with him last year. Was there an injury I wasn't aware of. I didn't see anything in the 15 games and 45 AB's he had that definitively closed the book on his major league readiness or potential. He looked more capable at the plate than BA did after 200 AB's. The results didn't reflect that, but again we're talking about 45 AB's.

rdivaldi
01-04-2008, 02:15 AM
From Phil Rogers blog:

"The White Sox farm system is a candidate to be ranked 29th among the 30 in baseball when Baseball America gets around to issuing its off-season ratings.

We are now unequivocally 30th...

btrain929
01-04-2008, 10:40 AM
We are now unequivocally 30th...

Yep. Us and Houston have nothing down in the minors. But I think we have more younger talent on our MLB squad than Houston (guys 27 and under).

PalehosePlanet
01-04-2008, 03:30 PM
Well the good news is that at least we were able to find and sign Juan Silveiro and DLS last year. Hopefully this is a start to improved Latin country scouting on our part. We have to continue to find players like this that are outside the draft. Also it was a good sign to see us give $600 K to a 16 year old (Silveiro.) Maybe there has been a change to our drafting and minor league spending philosophy. I hope so.

Optipessimism
01-04-2008, 05:28 PM
Well the good news is that at least we were able to find and sign Juan Silveiro and DLS last year. Hopefully this is a start to improved Latin country scouting on our part. We have to continue to find players like this that are outside the draft. Also it was a good sign to see us give $600 K to a 16 year old (Silveiro.) Maybe there has been a change to our drafting and minor league spending philosophy. I hope so.
They've always been in Latin America but I think recently some of their signings internationally have been getting a tad more attention. Or, maybe they were always getting some attention but I just wasn't paying attention. I don't know what they gave DLS as a bonus but considering his arm I'm sure he got paid. They gave I think like a $300K bonus to Po Yu Lin last year and gave pretty big six figure bonuses to Paulo Orlando and Anderson Gomes the year before. I agree though that it is VERY comforting to see them dish out $600K on a 16 year old.

The Sox have made some huge changes to the way the scouting and player development programs are run. There have been a bunch of new guys brought in plus Schaffer was fired and of course Buddy Bell was put in charge. One of the newly hired player development people posts in the FutureSox forum at SoxTalk and has made some really interesting posts about all the changes that have been made. It certainly sounds promising, but it is pretty upsetting to read about just how bad things were up until after this last draft.

I still don't know if we're going to see more money spent on the draft, but I doubt it. I think the signs were there last year when we had something like a tenth rounder we let get away because we wouldn't go over slot for him, and also I think it was pretty telling that the Sox never made a play at Andruw Jones who signed for $36mil over two years yet they threw 5/$75mil at Hunter. Andruw could hit 50HR's in the Cell and if any CF on the FA market was worth "overpaying" for it was him. Kenny said something publicly about how they weren't going after him because they wanted more OBP in CF. Okay, well Jones has a career OBP of .342, Rowand's career OBP is .343, and Hunter's career OBP is .324. Jones wanted two years, which would be in line with the contracts of other current veteran players, while both Rowand and Hunter wouldn't take less than 5 year-long bad contracts. It's pretty obvious that the Sox were targeting the wrong CF.

To me, the whole "we won't sign top-tier Borass free agents" and the "we won't go over slot in the draft" garbage is linked. I think both stances come from JR as he is still unwilling to let go of meaningless grudges or do anything that the commissioners office might frown upon, despite the fact that the Tigers in his own division have gotten to where they are because they took advantage of opportunities the Sox won't "lower themselves" to. I don't think Kenny is stupid enough to handcuff himself when he doesn't have to.

While it would be SOOOOOOOOO refreshing to see the Sox move away from their line of thinking, especially in this day in age where top draft picks are worth the moon yet cost about the same or less than a bench player worth nothing, I doubt it happens anytime soon.

santo=dorf
01-05-2008, 07:06 AM
Gonna be a tough list to compile because there will be quite a few guys that played in low A or rookie ball last year. The top three are easy (for me at least) Gio, DLS and Sweeney. But after that it's going to be a lot of second hand info, video and stats to go over.
Can you provide an update to your list now?

rdivaldi
01-07-2008, 02:34 AM
Can you provide an update to your list now?

Do we have an emoticon of a guy shooting himself in the brain. That's about how I feel trying to rank these guys. I should have paid closer attention to Great Falls in 2007...
:cuss: