PDA

View Full Version : Sickels Sox top prospect list


SoxxoS
01-03-2008, 09:43 PM
I really like John and his scouting -

http://minorleagueball.com/


Gio Gonzalez, LHP, Grade B+ (ranks second on Oakland list)
Fautino De Los Santos, RHP, Grade B+ (ranks third on Oakland list)
Aaron Poreda, LHP, Grade B+
Jack Egbert, RHP, Grade B- (A major sleeper)
Ryan Sweeney, OF, Grade C+ (I don't think his power is going to develop. Ranks 12th on Oakland list)
Lance Broadway, RHP, Grade C+
Nevin Griffith, RHP, Grade C+ (great ceiling, needs polish)
John Ely, RHP, Grade C+
Kyle McCulloch, RHP, Grade C+
Charlie Haeger, RHP, Grade C+
John Shelby, 2B, Grade C+
Jimmy Gallagher, OF, Grade C+
Jose Martinez, OF, Grade C+
Fernando Hernandez, RHP, Grade C+
Oneli Perez, RHP, Grade C+
Brian Omogrosso, RHP, Grade C+
Ehren Wasserman, RHP, Grade C (solid role pitcher)
Christian Marrero, 1B, Grade C
Clayton Richard, LHP, Grade C
Leroy Hunt, RHP, Grade CAt least we have Poreda and Egbert.

He is really down on Russell, Lucy and Phillips...giving them "C" grades.

PalehosePlanet
01-03-2008, 10:21 PM
Hopefully our 16 year old SS, Juan Silveiro, will climb that list after next year. I'm really looking forward to seeing his progress over the next couple of years. Hopefully he'll be a Vlad Guererro like phenom.

Dub25
01-05-2008, 10:54 PM
With the trade for Swisher, HF's Jon Ely moves to 5th. Being a HF alum, hopefully he can make it to the bigs.

gogosox16
01-05-2008, 10:58 PM
Hopefully our 16 year old SS, Juan Silveiro, will climb that list after next year. I'm really looking forward to seeing his progress over the next couple of years. Hopefully he'll be a Vlad Guererro like phenom.
Knowing the Sox when he is getting closer to being ready for the majors they will end up trading him.

btrain929
01-05-2008, 11:06 PM
Knowing the Sox when he is getting closer to being ready for the majors they will end up trading him.

If we have the SS position locked up by then, and the trade helps the major league team that year, I could care less.

DSpivack
01-05-2008, 11:08 PM
If we have the SS position locked up by then, and the trade helps the major league team that year, I could care less.

So if you could care less, then you do care to some degree.

btrain929
01-05-2008, 11:13 PM
So if you could care less, then you do care to some degree.

Jesus, you're one of those? :dtroll:

If the trade makes the team better that year and we don't have a gaping whole at SS, then I would support the trade.

DSpivack
01-05-2008, 11:19 PM
Jesus, you're one of those? :dtroll:

If the trade makes the team better that year and we don't have a gaping whole at SS, then I would support the trade.

:dtroll:?

I prefer:

:troll

Daver
01-05-2008, 11:20 PM
:dtroll:?

I prefer:

:troll

The classic troll tag will always be the best one.

SBSoxFan
01-07-2008, 01:59 PM
So, Broadway and Wasserman were, I think, the only one's on the list to show ML potential by actually having some success in the majors, and they are rated #6 and #17, respectively.

How are these rankings done anyway?

SoxxoS
01-07-2008, 06:45 PM
So, Broadway and Wasserman were, I think, the only one's on the list to show ML potential by actually having some success in the majors, and they are rated #6 and #17, respectively.

How are these rankings done anyway?
Its more potential - Broadway has not really had any success in the majors...that is just an aberration until proven otherwise...

A #17 prospect is like Wasserman - A guy with decent/good numbers. That is what you should expect from a "C" prospect that succeeds. A lot of them don't...and a small few turn into stars.

rdivaldi
01-08-2008, 02:39 PM
schmitty, you're gonna have to take those scouting reports down, copyright infringement is a bad thing...

KRS1
01-08-2008, 03:14 PM
It's funny that they use that 85-89 mph range for Lance's fastball that basically everyone else uses. When every time I have seen him, including his one start in Chicago, his FB was mostly 87-92, and sat around 90 the bulk of the time. And it wasn't just touching 91 or 92, he actually ran it up there quite a bit.

KyWhiSoxFan
01-08-2008, 07:06 PM
There is no copyright infringement here and it's not even close. I always find it curious why everyone here is so worried about excerpting things from other sites, particularly when it is properly cited and attributed.

rdivaldi
01-09-2008, 01:25 AM
There is no copyright infringement here and it's not even close. I always find it curious why everyone here is so worried about excerpting things from other sites, particularly when it is properly cited and attributed.

You cannot reprint articles and reports from the premium sections of other sites, that's common sense.

KyWhiSoxFan
01-09-2008, 08:01 AM
You cannot reprint articles and reports from the premium sections of other sites, that's common sense.

It has nothing to do with common sense. It is about law. One of the first tests an entity would have to prove in a case of copyright infringement is damages. And it must be quantified. Unless that company or person could prove they are losing money as a result of the use of their material, they have no case. They always could sue, of course, but they would really have no chance to recover any damages so what is the point. It would be an expensive process with no chance to win. If you credit the source, that is the proper and ethical thing to do and that will satisfy the original source.

If you were taking all the copyrighted material verbatim (in this case the Siskel report or book) and selling it, then, yes, you would have a problem doing that and could be sued.

Second, and most importantly, once something is published, it is news, so someone else reporting that information is simply reporting news. And that is permissible by law. Now, you could not pick up a report that is libelous and be exempt from libel law. If you report a libel you are liable. But reporting news is covered by the first amendment.