White Sox Interactive Forums
Minor Observations

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Minor Observations
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 12-11-2009, 09:47 AM
asindc's Avatar
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 7,535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
I think Mitchell was an okay pick, I think there were better players but it wasn't a bad pick. But the kid was also a quick and easy sign. We still tend to lean that way. Its getting better.

I also will agree, our system IS getting better, but some to think its jumped to the ranks of elite.
Mitchell was signed to address the most critical need in the entire organization, competitively speaking. I don't doubt that there were better players that could have been drafted, but I doubt that any of them would have addressed the most critical need as much as Mitchell has the potential to.
__________________
"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)


"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-11-2009, 09:48 AM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minooka
Posts: 9,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Grebeck View Post
Our system is certainly bottom five in all of baseball, but I'm at least encouraged by the drafting of position players like Mitchell and Thompson. While Jared was an easy sign, I don't think that should be a point of criticism against KW.
I agree to an extent. A tough sign doesn't mean a great prospect, and an easy sign doesn't have to mean a bad one. That said, I am interested to see where we spent compared to our peers this year (can't find the 2009 info). We are normally in the bottom 10 in spending. I believe this approach HAS hindered our farm in the past.

I also agree, Mitchell was a guy we don't normally waste time on. But he is also a guy we normally don't develop well. That scares me. He has more tools then home depot, I agree. But we have had projects before that we couldn't put together. Mitchell will be a true test of the teams strength in developing guys, because to be a Carl Crawford type MLB force, we have to be able to break his swing down and then rebuild it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-11-2009, 09:52 AM
DirtySox DirtySox is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Albany Park
Posts: 11,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
Mitchell will be a true test of the teams strength in developing guys, because to be a Carl Crawford type MLB force, we have to be able to break his swing down and then rebuild it.
Legitimately curious, what is the problem with his swing? I vaguely remember reading about some problems with it, but they escape me.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-11-2009, 10:01 AM
EMachine10 EMachine10 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
I agree to an extent. A tough sign doesn't mean a great prospect, and an easy sign doesn't have to mean a bad one. That said, I am interested to see where we spent compared to our peers this year (can't find the 2009 info). We are normally in the bottom 10 in spending. I believe this approach HAS hindered our farm in the past.

I also agree, Mitchell was a guy we don't normally waste time on. But he is also a guy we normally don't develop well. That scares me. He has more tools then home depot, I agree. But we have had projects before that we couldn't put together. Mitchell will be a true test of the teams strength in developing guys, because to be a Carl Crawford type MLB force, we have to be able to break his swing down and then rebuild it.
And he has the tools to do that.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-11-2009, 11:00 AM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minooka
Posts: 9,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtySox View Post
Legitimately curious, what is the problem with his swing? I vaguely remember reading about some problems with it, but they escape me.
Its just a complete project. He keeps his elbows high with causes him to be under balls when he swings. He had, for lack of a better term, a good Collegiate Swing. A swing that took advantage of things a metal bat did that a wood didn't. Balls that get through on a metal bat would be ground outs/flair outs. He also, for a guy as big as he is, has a good amount of RAW power but no idea how to square a pitch up. He is built like a cleanup hitter with the skillset of a leadoff man right now. His value is to take his game to the next level. Utilize a great eye and his natural strength to develop power WITHOUT losing the ability to hit for average. However, despite his ability to hit for average at the collegiate level, MANY people project him to be a Mike Cameron Player, .250 average with good power, good speed, great D, average arm and knows how to get himself on base. That is what makes him so hard to project without rebuilding him. Very seldom does a kid who hit .325 in the SEC project to be a low average mlb hitter. Every name from Cameron to Crawford has been used.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-11-2009, 11:01 AM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minooka
Posts: 9,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMachine10 View Post
And he has the tools to do that.
It isn't a matter of tools with him. No one denies his raw ability. But, guys with incredible tools fail a ton in the majors because its not just their potential to do great, its their ability to adjust, and the ability of the minor league team to teach it.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-11-2009, 11:09 AM
EMachine10 EMachine10 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
It isn't a matter of tools with him. No one denies his raw ability. But, guys with incredible tools fail a ton in the majors because its not just their potential to do great, its their ability to adjust, and the ability of the minor league team to teach it.
I was more making a play on the overuse of the world tools and tool set when describing him. He would use his tools to rebuild the swing, like a carpenter would use tools to rebuild a desk kind of thing.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-11-2009, 11:28 AM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minooka
Posts: 9,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMachine10 View Post
I was more making a play on the overuse of the world tools and tool set when describing him. He would use his tools to rebuild the swing, like a carpenter would use tools to rebuild a desk kind of thing.
Ha, that was actually a good pun, I didn't get it, went right over myhead.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-11-2009, 10:09 PM
DirtySox DirtySox is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Albany Park
Posts: 11,154
Default

Not a big deal, but Sickels is changing Hudson's grade of a B to a B+.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/...nges#storyjump
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-11-2009, 10:50 PM
JermaineDye05 JermaineDye05 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Geneva, IL
Posts: 15,198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtySox View Post
Not a big deal, but Sickels is changing Hudson's grade of a B to a B+.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/...nges#storyjump
What's Hudson projected as, a starter (if so, what #?) or a reliever?
__________________


"See you on a dark night."
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-11-2009, 10:56 PM
DirtySox DirtySox is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Albany Park
Posts: 11,154
Default

It varies. The majority of scouts seem him as between a number 2 and 4 starter; a middle of the rotation guy. Much depends on his refining of a 3rd pitch, most likely his slider. Both his fastball and changeup are solid. Others think think he would be even more effective/valuable as a shutdown reliever.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-11-2009, 11:00 PM
JermaineDye05 JermaineDye05 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Geneva, IL
Posts: 15,198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtySox View Post
It varies. The majority of scouts seem him as between a number 2 and 4 starter; a middle of the rotation guy. Much depends on his refining of a 3rd pitch, most likely his slider. Both his fastball and changeup are solid. Others think think he would be even more effective/valuable as a shutdown reliever.
By "shutdown reliever", do you mean a closer or like Matt Thornton in 2009 with the Sox/Carlos Marmol in 2008, a guy who comes in when you NEED a strike out regardless of the inning.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-11-2009, 11:10 PM
DirtySox DirtySox is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Albany Park
Posts: 11,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JermaineDye05 View Post
By "shutdown reliever", do you mean a closer or like Matt Thornton in 2009 with the Sox/Carlos Marmol in 2008, a guy who comes in when you NEED a strike out regardless of the inning.
Maybe shutdown reliever isn't that right wording. His fastball sits around 94, so he isn't blowing it by guys, but it has good movement and decent velocity and he can get K's with it. His changeup is a good pitch as well, and he usually keeps it down in the zone. There is also some deception in his delivery according to many scouts. It's often written that he "knows how to pitch" and has a great feel for what he's doing, which you can take as you will. I think he could be a great 7th or 8th inning guy if he become a reliever, but I would imagine he ends up a starter.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-12-2009, 01:48 AM
Craig Grebeck Craig Grebeck is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Rockford
Posts: 6,378
Default

I think it's irrefutable that even if he's a 3/4 type guy (ERA hovering around 4.25), that's extremely valuable to this franchise. He'll be in the rotation eventually.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:51 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.