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
  #166  
Old 06-08-2011, 12:50 AM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 15,768
Default

Considering that the three lowest-paid starting pitchers in the White Sox rotation were first-round picks by teams other than the White Sox, I have to question the serious tone of this thread.

On the bright side, this year's top White Sox draft pick won't be getting a $5 million signing bonus.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 06-08-2011, 12:51 AM
DirtySox DirtySox is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Albany Park
Posts: 11,154
Default

Quote:
scotgregor Scot Gregor
Why is Ozney Guillen still on the draft board after 30 rounds? 144 ABs at Miami-Dade JC this year with aluminum bat and 0 HR
4 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply
Ozney profiles at a corner OF spot or 1B. Not being able to hit for power with aluminum at such positions doesn't bode well for him. I approve of the Sox staying away through 30 rounds.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 06-08-2011, 01:54 AM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 14,080
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtySox View Post
Maybe I'm reaching here, but judging from Ozzie's Twitter he isn't pleased about Ozney not being drafted yet.
I think something happened in Venezuela given his Sean Penn quote.
__________________

Go Sox!!!
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 06-08-2011, 11:18 AM
DirtySox DirtySox is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Albany Park
Posts: 11,154
Default

Laumann's kid was just drafted by the Braves.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 06-08-2011, 12:09 PM
PolishPrince34 PolishPrince34 is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 27
Default Pathetic

I think its pathetic that it takes 33 rounds before we drafted a high school player. Can anyone think of a high school player we drafted that has produced on our ballpark-Never oh I forgot Chris Young, but we traded him. We need some new philosophy in our approach to the draft. I don't think it will change until Kenny moves up which I believe will be pretty soon and Rich Hahn will take over.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 06-08-2011, 12:13 PM
DirtySox DirtySox is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Albany Park
Posts: 11,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolishPrince34 View Post
I think its pathetic that it takes 33 rounds before we drafted a high school player. Can anyone think of a high school player we drafted that has produced on our ballpark-Never oh I forgot Chris Young, but we traded him. We need some new philosophy in our approach to the draft. I don't think it will change until Kenny moves up which I believe will be pretty soon and Rich Hahn will take over.
They drafted a high schooler in the 21st round. But yes, it's odd to draft 90% college kids. And from what I can tell it really isn't all on Kenny. Jerry supposedly has his hands in the draft more then he should. He prefers college players and pitchers primarily because they are "safer" picks.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 06-08-2011, 12:14 PM
Randar68 Randar68 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolishPrince34 View Post
I think its pathetic that it takes 33 rounds before we drafted a high school player. Can anyone think of a high school player we drafted that has produced on our ballpark-Never oh I forgot Chris Young, but we traded him. We need some new philosophy in our approach to the draft. I don't think it will change until Kenny moves up which I believe will be pretty soon and Rich Hahn will take over.
Why on Earth do you care where they come from? All that should matter is the success rate (which is plenty-suspect in the past 10 years). HS vs college is a pointless distinction, especially since you are lumping JuCO/CC players in with college players and they are defined differently by all involved in the actual process.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 06-08-2011, 12:27 PM
PolishPrince34 PolishPrince34 is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 27
Default

How many high picks are we going to use on relievers? You look up and down are organization we lack right/left handed starting pitchers. You look at Laumann drafts and he's constantly drafting relievers with high picks. I don't see the White Sox using our system to call up arms. Most of our pitchers have come from trades and free agency-minus Buehrle/Santos. Now again we are using our 3rd/4th/5th rounders on relievers-make you scratch your head. How does this help Kenny make trades down the road when we don't use our system. Yes I know we have Beckham and Morel on the team, but I'm talking about pitching
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 06-08-2011, 12:34 PM
khan khan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Jefferson Park
Posts: 2,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cards press box View Post
I don't understand the criticism of Walker. If your first pick is #47, why not take a toolsy guy with potentially high upside? I agree with Kevin Goldstein on this one.
I suppose that we've seen KW try to draft himself before. You know, the "athletic, toolsy former football player?"

But that hasn't worked out too well for this organization lately. Mitchell, while by no means done developing, still barely has a .700 OPS in A+ Winston-Salem, for example. The "toolsy, athletic" Trace Thompson is hitting less than .250 in A-ball Kannapolis. The "toolsy, athletic" Kenneth Williams, Jr. is above the Mendoza Line with a BA of .205 in AA Birmingham. And all three are striking out and getting clowned by pitchers that will be managing a Burger King in a year or two.


I'll reserve judgement on Walker, but the early reports of a guy who strikes out in JUCO ball aren't promising. That said, the draft of Walker seems to fit an established MO for this front office.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 06-08-2011, 12:36 PM
Randar68 Randar68 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolishPrince34 View Post
How many high picks are we going to use on relievers? You look up and down are organization we lack right/left handed starting pitchers. You look at Laumann drafts and he's constantly drafting relievers with high picks. I don't see the White Sox using our system to call up arms. Most of our pitchers have come from trades and free agency-minus Buehrle/Santos. Now again we are using our 3rd/4th/5th rounders on relievers-make you scratch your head. How does this help Kenny make trades down the road when we don't use our system. Yes I know we have Beckham and Morel on the team, but I'm talking about pitching
Your point is valid (except leaving Sale off the list), but whose philosophy is it? Hard to say. Cheaper to work with college prospects because they generally require less time to get to the "bust or not" stage and you will have less time and money invested in them in the long run. Spending 127M on the payroll will have other ramifications that people may not like... as in investing less $$$ in the farm/development system.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 06-08-2011, 12:42 PM
PolishPrince34 PolishPrince34 is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 27
Default

But what college pitching prospects have we developed? Sale was in our system for 4 weeks before being called up. How much did we develop him in 1 month? Santos was converted into a pitcher after being a bust at shortstop. You look at the best organizations and developing players and there is always a nice combination of high school/college players. Take a look at Tampa Bay, Red Sox, Texas, Toronto, and Kansas City past drafts and this years drafts and you will see how often they draft high risk reward players. I don't mind the Walker pick, but I have concerns whether we can develop him because our track record isn't good with toolsy prospects. Again the only one we ever developed was Chris Young and we traded him.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 06-08-2011, 01:05 PM
khan khan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Jefferson Park
Posts: 2,327
Default

I notice a trend in your post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolishPrince34 View Post
But what college pitching prospects have we developed? Sale was in our system for 4 weeks before being called up. How much did we develop him in 1 month? Santos was converted into a pitcher after being a bust at shortstop. You look at the best organizations and developing players and there is always a nice combination of high school/college players. Take a look at Tampa Bay, Red Sox, Texas, Toronto, and Kansas City past drafts and this years drafts and you will see how often they draft high risk reward players. I don't mind the Walker pick, but I have concerns whether we can develop him because our track record isn't good with toolsy prospects. Again the only one we ever developed was Chris Young and we traded him.
I don't give a rip if the draftee comes from High School, JUCO, a 4 year college, or internationally if the guy can play.

That said, I think your quarrel shouldn't be with the drafting of collegiate pitchers so much as it should be with the player development people.

Last edited by khan; 06-08-2011 at 01:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 06-08-2011, 01:15 PM
russ99 russ99 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,353
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtySox View Post
They drafted a high schooler in the 21st round. But yes, it's odd to draft 90% college kids. And from what I can tell it really isn't all on Kenny. Jerry supposedly has his hands in the draft more then he should. He prefers college players and pitchers primarily because they are "safer" picks.
It's all about signability and even more so signability at slot.

The Sox have gone over slot for early picks the last few years, but don't expect Jerry to hand over big bonuses, especially to Boras clients.

The issue with many high-schoolers is that other than the top few rounds of draftees, there's little incentive for them to sign a lowball slot deal and slog around the lower minors for 2-3 years when they can go to college and improve their play (and their stock) shooting for a bigger payday.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 06-08-2011, 01:31 PM
Randar68 Randar68 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolishPrince34 View Post
But what college pitching prospects have we developed? Sale was in our system for 4 weeks before being called up. How much did we develop him in 1 month? Santos was converted into a pitcher after being a bust at shortstop. You look at the best organizations and developing players and there is always a nice combination of high school/college players. Take a look at Tampa Bay, Red Sox, Texas, Toronto, and Kansas City past drafts and this years drafts and you will see how often they draft high risk reward players. I don't mind the Walker pick, but I have concerns whether we can develop him because our track record isn't good with toolsy prospects. Again the only one we ever developed was Chris Young and we traded him.
Seems every post of yours is just complaining. Saying we didn't develop Santos after he was a bust at SS??? Isn't that the epitome of player development? Turning a SS into a top closer?

Developing players is about picking the right ones to begin with. Again, the Sox do not have the biggest/best scouting department in MLB and it shows on some picks and in draft history, IMO. You bust on the high risk guys enough and you become risk-averse so part of the strategy seems to be dictated by that.

And you might as well leave every one of those teams except Boston off the list. Those teams have historically drafted in the top 10 picks in most of the past 15-20 years. Different ballgame when you're talking about drafting top 10 year after year.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 06-08-2011, 01:44 PM
PolishPrince34 PolishPrince34 is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 27
Default

I mentioned Texas, Tampa Bay, Red Sox, Toronto, Texas, and KC as being the cream of crop for organizations: The only team that has consistently drafted in the Top 10 is Kansas City. If our organization was smart with their budget you would take $5-8 million off the ballclub and put it towards your farm system and international signings. Therefore you wouldn't have to be spending big money on free agents, trades, and waiver pickups such as Dunn, Rios, E. Jackson, Pierre, Ohman, etc. You would be saving a lot of money in the long run developing your own players. Plus I've posted 3 comments on the draft-I'm always complaining. I don't see too many positives on our draft picks and farm system. Look up for the past 5 years where our farm system has ranked and its been in the bottom 5 every year.
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 08:45 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.