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
  #106  
Old 02-07-2018, 11:04 AM
Harry Chappas Harry Chappas is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Evanston
Posts: 1,261
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shes View Post
All the more impressive considering three stud prospects graduated the list last season. We've got the guys mentioned, plus whoever we draft at #4, and then room for talented guys to take a leap forward and become fringe 100 prospects as the season goes on the way Dunning did last year (Adolfo? Sheets? A lot of possibilities).

This is certainly the deepest Sox farm system in my lifetime. Some have been more top loaded (late 80s/early 90s) but top to bottom there are a lot of guys in the system who will likely have some sort of meaningful ML career.
Adolfo might be one that surprises this year. It's easy to forget how young he is (21) because he signed when he was just 17. He's made steady improvement and acquitted himself reasonably well at Kannapolis last year. He still Ks way too much but he showed decent power.

Beyond the usual suspects - Rutherford, Kopech, Robert, etc., the Sox have some prospects that are young enough to still have quite a bit of upside.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 02-09-2018, 11:37 AM
blurry blurry is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 823
Default

Jim Margalus of Sox Machine (formerly of SouthSideSox) posted a few great write-ups about prospects this week:

Grouping White Sox prospects for 2018: The top five, and one more

Grouping White Sox prospects for 2018: The big questions

Grouping White Sox prospects for 2018: The new guys

Luis Robert continues to be the most intriguing to me as of right now. I'm excited to see what he can do this year.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 02-11-2018, 10:06 AM
Tragg Tragg is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales LA
Posts: 15,734
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blurry View Post
It certainly sucks. But as someone here once said (I can't remember who), that horrible trade might have been what ultimately got the rebuild started. We still might be "going for it" and prepping for yet another 78 win season this year with no hot prospects at the upper levels.
I don't see how that trade made a difference in going for it or not as it made very little difference in their record.
That trade was so indescribably bad on all levels - and everyone knew it at the time - that it keeps me leery of this FO.

The dispersal trades have been fine; they had a lot to trade and got a lot in return. I hope they end up with a couple of gems from the secondary trades (which helped teams like the Cubs and Brewers).
The drafting is improved I suppose (they still reach and draft for position at times, it seems to me). Development seems a lot better though. We're seeing players progress, and not just the heralded ones. I still think they should load up on pitching as much as possible.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 02-11-2018, 11:44 AM
Frater Perdurabo Frater Perdurabo is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 20,707
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tragg View Post
I don't see how that trade made a difference in going for it or not as it made very little difference in their record.
That trade was so indescribably bad on all levels - and everyone knew it at the time - that it keeps me leery of this FO.

The dispersal trades have been fine; they had a lot to trade and got a lot in return. I hope they end up with a couple of gems from the secondary trades (which helped teams like the Cubs and Brewers).
The drafting is improved I suppose (they still reach and draft for position at times, it seems to me). Development seems a lot better though. We're seeing players progress, and not just the heralded ones. I still think they should load up on pitching as much as possible.
For whatever reason, the Sox major league scouting operation was abysmal. I don’t necessarily blame KW or Hahn, although certainly “the buck stops here” with them. But if they were trying to run a “trade for veterans and sign free agents in order to compete every year” model, they certainly didn’t have the major league scouting (or sabermetrics/analytics) department to do so successfully.

I think they have addressed their other major organizational flaws. They are drafting a bit better. Their Latin American operations have improved (Tatis proves this). Development has improved.

The next two big tests are these:

1. Will the next two waves of talent result in a strong, stable core of productive pitchers and position players?

2. Will they be able to sign the right free agents or make the right trades, to augment the home-grown core.

I’m reasonably confident on #1.

I’m much less confident on #2.
__________________
The universe is the practical joke of the General at the expense of the Particular, quoth Frater Perdurabo, and laughed. The disciples nearest him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow. Others laughed, seeing the Universal Joke. Others wept. Others laughed. Others wept because they couldn't see the Joke, and others laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke. But though FRATER laughed openly, he wept secretly; and really he neither laughed nor wept. Nor did he mean what he said.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 02-11-2018, 02:47 PM
GoSox2K3 GoSox2K3 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,554
Default

Here's an interesting look at the last time the Sox had a top-rated farm system and had 5 players in Baseball America's Top 100, which was 2001:
https://www.soxmachine.com/2018/02/0...m-system-fare/

One of the top 100 guys was Joe Crede. The other four top 100 guys were Jon Rauch, Joe Borchard, Matt Ginter, and Danny Wright. Other than Crede, ouch. Only two of our top 10 back in 2001 went on to be significant contributors in the majors (Crede and Rowand). I hope our top prospects have a better success rate this time around.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 02-11-2018, 08:19 PM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Plainfield
Posts: 12,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tragg View Post
I don't see how that trade made a difference in going for it or not as it made very little difference in their record.
That trade was so indescribably bad on all levels - and everyone knew it at the time - that it keeps me leery of this FO.

The dispersal trades have been fine; they had a lot to trade and got a lot in return. I hope they end up with a couple of gems from the secondary trades (which helped teams like the Cubs and Brewers).
The drafting is improved I suppose (they still reach and draft for position at times, it seems to me). Development seems a lot better though. We're seeing players progress, and not just the heralded ones. I still think they should load up on pitching as much as possible.
No offense, but this is a load of revisionist garbage. At the time, most commented that the Sox were able to get Shields for 60 cents on the dollar because they took the salary back without dumping a top 100 prospect. Tatis had never even played a game in any minor league level.

Tatis went into last year as the 17th ranked prospect in the Padres system.

Tatis at the time of the draft was said to have the body that might allow for tremendous power potential, but likely would be forced to move to 3rd or the OF.

The scouting report - based on his body and what he might grow into, wasn't much different than Basabe or Adolfo.

Then last year he blew up. Totally. He also showed he may stick at SS. He also showed zero power in a short stint in AA. He literally went from a non 150 prospect to a top 10 after a very good 117 games. Outside those 117, he has never put up an .800 OPS at any other level, higher or lower.

I would love to have him, but to pretend we were on the other end of an Adam Eaton like trade where all anyone could talk about was how bad we got ripped off just never happened.

Plus, there is still a good likelyhood that the most valuable part of the trade for either team will be James Shields fixing Giolito's velocity.

This is baseball, **** happens, 16 year old international prospects are extremely volatile.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 02-12-2018, 07:58 AM
blurry blurry is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 823
Default

Great points. I'm among the crowd that feels stung by the Tatis Jr. trade but in hindsight, the guy didn't show anything indicating he'd be this good, this fast. Sure it would be awesome to have him sitting in our farm system right now, but he isn't.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 02-12-2018, 09:12 AM
Andrew C White Andrew C White is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
No offense, but this is a load of revisionist garbage. At the time, most commented that the Sox were able to get Shields for 60 cents on the dollar because they took the salary back without dumping a top 100 prospect. Tatis had never even played a game in any minor league level.

Tatis went into last year as the 17th ranked prospect in the Padres system.

Tatis at the time of the draft was said to have the body that might allow for tremendous power potential, but likely would be forced to move to 3rd or the OF.

The scouting report - based on his body and what he might grow into, wasn't much different than Basabe or Adolfo.

Then last year he blew up. Totally. He also showed he may stick at SS. He also showed zero power in a short stint in AA. He literally went from a non 150 prospect to a top 10 after a very good 117 games. Outside those 117, he has never put up an .800 OPS at any other level, higher or lower.

I would love to have him, but to pretend we were on the other end of an Adam Eaton like trade where all anyone could talk about was how bad we got ripped off just never happened.

Plus, there is still a good likelyhood that the most valuable part of the trade for either team will be James Shields fixing Giolito's velocity.

This is baseball, **** happens, 16 year old international prospects are extremely volatile.
That's not completely the case.

I was, and others were, upset about trading for Shields when it was quite obvious he was out of gas. The fact we gave up a promising kid to get a clearly over the hill veteran was just insult to injury. You are quite correct that, given that Tatis hadn't played an inning yet, there was no clue he would be as good as he is turning into, yet he was still a highly regarded international signing son of a successful former major leaguer and therefore a promising kid traded for an obvious mistake. It was a bad trade the moment it was made and lots of us recognized that. It has only turned out to be even worse in retrospect.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 02-12-2018, 09:29 AM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Plainfield
Posts: 12,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew C White View Post
That's not completely the case.

I was, and others were, upset about trading for Shields when it was quite obvious he was out of gas. The fact we gave up a promising kid to get a clearly over the hill veteran was just insult to injury. You are quite correct that, given that Tatis hadn't played an inning yet, there was no clue he would be as good as he is turning into, yet he was still a highly regarded international signing son of a successful former major leaguer and therefore a promising kid traded for an obvious mistake. It was a bad trade the moment it was made and lots of us recognized that. It has only turned out to be even worse in retrospect.
But that is a different point. Trading for Shields in and of itself may not have been the right move.

But my point is, no, I am sorry, NONE of you saw Tatis being this. He was ranked like 30th in the 2015 International Prospect Rankings at best. At the time we traded him he was a 40 grade power with the potential to add weight. He was literally the definition of a lottery ticket who looks like he might be a winner. The best grades he got when we signed him were his makeup and baseball IQ.

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2015?list=int (you can click his scouting report then)
https://www.baseballamerica.com/inte...p02CoTv3aK8.97 (unranked)

So honestly, if you can TRULY say you felt we dealt a top 20 (or even top 100) prospect for Shields, not that Shields himself was a bad move, but that we traded an elite prospect for him, then I will help you find Rick Hahn's contact info so we can get you a job.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 02-12-2018, 10:25 AM
rdivaldi rdivaldi is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chicago - Mayfair
Posts: 4,876
Default

Sickels releases his top 20 for the Sox:

https://www.minorleagueball.com/2018...pects-for-2018

Top 5: Jimenez, Kopech, Robert, Cease, Hansen
__________________
<a href=http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=3256 target=_blank>http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/v...achmentid=3256</a>

March 16, 2005 - Another happy Sox fan joins the party!
July 6, 2012 - 7 years later he's still part of it...
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 02-12-2018, 12:05 PM
Andrew C White Andrew C White is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
But that is a different point. Trading for Shields in and of itself may not have been the right move.

But my point is, no, I am sorry, NONE of you saw Tatis being this. He was ranked like 30th in the 2015 International Prospect Rankings at best. At the time we traded him he was a 40 grade power with the potential to add weight. He was literally the definition of a lottery ticket who looks like he might be a winner. The best grades he got when we signed him were his makeup and baseball IQ.

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2015?list=int (you can click his scouting report then)
https://www.baseballamerica.com/inte...p02CoTv3aK8.97 (unranked)

So honestly, if you can TRULY say you felt we dealt a top 20 (or even top 100) prospect for Shields, not that Shields himself was a bad move, but that we traded an elite prospect for him, then I will help you find Rick Hahn's contact info so we can get you a job.
And my point is that is a minor nitpick of the overall point that it was a bad trade and we saw it for what it was from the start. I never said we traded a top 20 prospect. I said we traded a highly regarded prospect (he was) for an obviously over the hill pitcher (he was).

Perhaps we are talking past each other here but from where I sit you just changed the goal posts of the conversation. I'm not biting.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 02-12-2018, 12:06 PM
Andrew C White Andrew C White is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,957
Default

Tatis was, by the way, a top 30 international prospect when we signed him. And that is what we traded away for an obviously washed up veteran that wasn't going to put the team over the top.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 02-12-2018, 12:07 PM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Plainfield
Posts: 12,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew C White View Post
And my point is that is a minor nitpick of the overall point that it was a bad trade and we saw it for what it was from the start. I never said we traded a top 20 prospect. I said we traded a highly regarded prospect (he was) for an obviously over the hill pitcher (he was).

Perhaps we are talking past each other here but from where I sit you just changed the goal posts of the conversation. I'm not biting.
But at that time, he wasn't even really highly regarded. If his dad was not Fernando Tatis, you wouldn't have known who he was. He didn't even make a lot of top international prospect lists back then. That is my point.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 02-12-2018, 12:22 PM
ChiSoxNationPres ChiSoxNationPres is online now
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew C White View Post
Tatis was, by the way, a top 30 international prospect when we signed him. And that is what we traded away for an obviously washed up veteran that wasn't going to put the team over the top.
I don't buy that Shields was obviously washed up when they got him. His final start with San Diego was horrible, giving up 10 earned runs. Before that start he had an ERA of 3.06 through his first 10 starts of the season. The Sox were hoping that they got a solid number 3 veteran starter for half his salary at the time. Clearly didn't work out that way. You win some and lose some trades. Tatis has yet to even play in AAA, so who knows what he'll be. The trade is lopsided currently though.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 02-12-2018, 12:27 PM
Andrew C White Andrew C White is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
But at that time, he wasn't even really highly regarded. If his dad was not Fernando Tatis, you wouldn't have known who he was. He didn't even make a lot of top international prospect lists back then. That is my point.
I don't pay a lot of attention to international lists so perhaps he wasn't on others but but he was on MLB's own list and the comments are quite favorable.

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2015/?list=int

And in my mind that is what we traded for Shields and it was an obviously bad trade at the time.

The fact that he turned in such a good year last year is remarkable. As I said earlier, you are quite right that was surprising, but the trade was bad on its face both for Shields and for giving up a quality international prospect that hadn't even been given a chance to show us his stuff at the time.
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 11:39 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.