Sickels Top 20 White Sox Prospects

[asindc]

Originally Posted by Domeshot17

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.

[Domeshot17]

Originally Posted by Craig Grebeck

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.

[DirtySox]

Originally Posted by Domeshot17

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.

[EMachine10]

Originally Posted by Domeshot17

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.

[Domeshot17]

Originally Posted by DirtySox

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.

[Domeshot17]

Originally Posted by EMachine10

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.

[EMachine10]

Originally Posted by Domeshot17

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.

[Domeshot17]

Originally Posted by EMachine10

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.

[DirtySox]

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

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/...nges#storyjump

[JermaineDye05]

Originally Posted by DirtySox

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?

[DirtySox]

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.

[JermaineDye05]

Originally Posted by DirtySox

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.

[DirtySox]

Originally Posted by JermaineDye05

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.

[Craig Grebeck]

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.