NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 12:35 PM) We will see. Adrian Nieto looked like a decent back up catcher a couple of years ago. He really didn't. I mean, apparently the Sox thought he'd be competent enough to hide him for a year to send back to the minors. But just about everyone I spoke with about him said he wasn't nearly ready yet and his development would be stunted, which is what happened. Narvaez could turn out to be a disaster - it happens. But my personal view is that he can be a good backup C in the majors, starting in 2017.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 12:27 PM) I saw Navarez in his MLB debut and was impressed with that showing. He seemed to hit well from the left side and was able to square up a couple hits that game. On a rebuilding team, he's a fine backup and a whatever starter. FYI, he now ONLY hits from the left side. Dropped switch-hitting a couple years ago. If that's what you were referring to.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 11:43 AM) I don't believe he will. He's not a good framer. He hit OK, but has zero power, and will regress IMO offensively. Obviously the bar for a back up catcher isn't very high, I just think he is a guy that will probably have a tough time moving forward. Not sure why you'd think a 24-year old would regress offensively. But I am also not sure what you mean he'd be regressing from. He's got a good batter's eye and a quiet swing. He will be light-hitting, but remember too, this is a guy who posted some of the lowest K-rates in the minors in the entire Sox system, and had the best K:BB rates in the system multiple years. And you can't tell much about someone's framing in 30-ish games. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 11:57 AM) Not but he hit homers. Framed well. Those are 2 things Navaraez doesn't do yet. He was released a time or two IIRC. Framing obviously wasn't a thing for most of his career, but I think a good one leads to better results, and that helped him. If you are a good guy and a decent defensive catcher, I agree, you can last a long time as a back up, but those guys usually bounce around quite a bit. Narvaez won't hit homers. But given his other defensive skills he's likely to improve in the framing department. Flowers wasn't good at it when he reached the majors either. He wasn't released - the Sox got him in the MiLB Rule 5. It was just a reserve roster protection numbers game. I don't think Narvaez is a starter, but I do think he's a competent MLB backup C.

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 11:57 AM) Sox signed Jorge Rondon to a minor league deal. I would assume he'll be an NRI. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rondojo01.shtml Yeah we reported that a couple weeks ago and tweeted it from FS when it happened. Not sure why I've seen it passed around social media a bunch in the last couple days again.

We've been asked for months about resurrecting the Podcast, and we've finally done it. Rob and Brian are your new hosts, and in the first episode, their guest is Chris Cotillo of MLB Daily Dish. Go here for the details and download/listen options. Comment here if you have requests on future topics of discussion, or special guests!

It was a fairly quiet past week+ on the farm, but the club did sign a few players and there was some good minors content out there you should read. All in here. Just waiting for a Q trade.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 28, 2016 -> 09:42 PM) Very true. How are the receiving skills for these two top 500 prospect catchers? I don't remember Narvaez pissing me off much Narvaez is going to be fine defensively. He's got an average arm paired with a quick release and he likes back picks, so he should be average to slightly above against the running game. Fairly quiet receiver, I've heard positive notes from pitchers working with him. Fairly athletic. Overall average defensively, and I think he's got enough ability to get on base to be a major league backup. Smith has a stronger arm and is more athletic, but mechanically he's still pretty rough and not a great receiver. Pitchers like working with him though, he's very good on that front. How good his receiving skills can get will dictate his future. There is some offensive potential, but the bat isn't quick and I am not sure he can make enough contact. He does draw some walks and has some raw power. But he's going to be 29 in 2017, so there really isn't a lot of projection left, like there is with Narvaez. My view is, bring in a veteran to platoon with Narvaez, who I think is more likely to be a major league-caliber catcher than Smith.

QUOTE (MnSoxFan @ Dec 29, 2016 -> 07:21 AM) A catcher in Rookie ball I think. He might have meant Matt Cooper. Jacob Cooper-Steadman (usually just goes by Cooper) is a catcher, was in rookie ball last year. I am not sure where he'd even play in 2017, but probably Great Falls.

This one, where the Sox went into the 9th inning down 8-4, and won 10-8 on a walkoff grand slam by Gary Redus of all people. And this one, the infamous "seat cushion game", which the White Sox almost forfeited. There was a controversial play at second base, Jim Fregosi argued with the umpire to no avail, and then some bloke hurled his white seat cushion (the giveaway of the game) onto the field. This promoted a blizzard of white squares to come snowing down onto the field, stopping play, and warnings went out on the PA that the umpires would consider the game a forfeit if it didn't stop. The game also including an incredible Daryl Boston catch, and even an Ozzie Guillen home run. Hard to imagine more bizarre happenings in one game.

The White Sox created a new position, which they are calling Latin/Cultural Development Coordinator. Other teams are doing similar things, but it's a relatively new phenomenon. The Sox elected to put Anthony Santiago in that role, and he's already doing the job. Rob interviewed Anthony, and got some good information about what the role will entail. Read all about it here.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 07:13 PM) Caleb Gindl is on there (was earlier anyway). He's on there, slated in Great Falls outfield. You might have to scroll right. QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 09:30 PM) Where's Kahnle? Sox dump him? He's on my list of misfit toys, right under the main grid. He's one of many arms I am not sure where to put - there just isn't room.

QUOTE (shipps @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 03:43 PM) I get the feeling you dont care for this guy's work very much. Its like you have a very negative opinion of his work because its absolute s***. What gave you that impression?

I just read the full article on this list and hoooooooooly crap, it's worse than last year's. I honestly am starting to think the guy just makes stuff up. I don't mean subjective stuff like where he ranks players - everyone has their own likes/dislikes and biases. I mean factual information about players is just dead wrong, repeatedly. Velos are way off, what pitches they throw is wrong on multiple pitchers too, and some other info that is objective in nature or close to it. I rarely get on the cases of professional writers, because they know far more than I do. But Crawford is consistently the one exception for me, among prospect writers anyway. He doesn't see players in person. He fills in gaps by guessing and making s*** up. He uses stale info that is clearly from someone else without crediting it. I can honestly say that, for prospects in the Sox system, our FS writers are substantially more knowledgeable than this guy. That's not good for a writer being paid to be a voice of knowledge.

Thanks for posting. His lists in the past with BP were... uninformed. I emailed him a series of factual errors from his last list, he made I think 4 of them in the span of 10-15 names. And his scouting info was in some cases quite stale. I think he's just not very good. That said, most of the above list makes sense to me. I have only small disagreements.

So just for fun, I put together a system-wide org chart for the White Sox. I slotted in all the players at all levels as best as I could, guessing on Opening Day assignments. Underneath are two lists - the ones I couldn't fit, and then the free agents as-yet unsigned. Here is a link to it on Google Docs. Please ignore that I misnamed Dylan Covey as James Covey, lol, I'll fix that later.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 11:52 AM) I try not to take too much from trailers. I don't know, I thought it looked fun. Giant alien monster chases people around on a space ship. What's not to like about that? I liked all the other Alien movies. Ridley Scott also tried to branch out from that formula in Prometheus and everyone threw a fit. Maybe that's the disconnect. I like all the first three Alien movies. Everything after has been some version or another of bad, for me.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 11:35 AM) I mean it wasn't as boring as the boring trailer for the sequel to the boring Blade Runner movie or anything. Assuming it was just a teaser. Blade Runner was a teaser. I honestly can't tell anything good or bad from it.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 10:48 AM) I can't tell if the movie will be good or not. I liked some of the footage. Looked creepy. QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 11:29 AM) That new Alien trailer looked awesome. Really??? It looked like an entire preview of pulling out every stereotypical scene from a horror movie that anyone could think of.

Watched the trailer for the new Alien movie. That looks... terrible. Seriously, if you are going to make a sequel to any movie, unless the immediate predecessor is really good (in which case you can maybe follow suit), you need to bring something new to the table. This movie looks like: A. Re-use script from first Alien movie B. Amplify horror aspects C. Dial up production values D. Profit!!! Laziness.

QUOTE (shipps @ Dec 27, 2016 -> 08:41 AM) That is great stuff. LOL.... "not to be confused with Dr. Dre the talented musical artist". I've interviewed I don't know how many dozens of players in the last few years, and he's definitely one of the funniest guys I've talked with. Definitely gets style points for humor and a plus mustache game.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 23, 2016 -> 12:52 PM) Yup. Basically that really happened. So yeah, probably good reason not to push these things. Yup. And then there was Able Archer (also in 1983), where a NATO exercise caused the Soviets to go on highest alert level with the finger on the button because they thought a first strike might be coming. And a few whoops-we-crashed-a-plane-with-a-nuke-on-it moments.

One of the more interesting stories on the farm in 2016 was a marginal outfield prospect, Louie Lechich, making the transition to pitching. It seems on average about one player a year in the system does this, but Lechich stood out further in that he only started pitching midseason, but by the end he was in the AFL and he didn't allow an earned run in his first 27 (!!!) professional innings. Louie has a big personality and he's one of the funnier players in the system, if you ever get the chance to talk with him. He volunteered to write a post for us on what the process is like to make this kind of move, and it's some pretty cool insight into an unusual occurrence in baseball. Definitely worth the read. Here's his post.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 22, 2016 -> 01:14 PM) I honestly think he just named every black, toolsy prospect he could think of. Micah wasn't even all that "toolsy". He had 70-grade speed and a potentially-playable hit tool (call it 45 maybe), with the rest of the tools below average. If you want the toolsy outfielder set, go Mitchell, Walker, Hawkins, Engel. That's a cadre that fits what I think, maybe, the narrative being discussed. Johnson is unrelated (other than race), and Thompson actually succeeded materially (and Engel still might).

Let's look at some Bush 43 leadership moments. Not policy stuff like NCLB or economic or environmental or infrastructure initiatives, or privacy related policy, but truly executive performance in response to crises and desperate needs... Positives: --After a few hours of unsteadiness, once he got his feet under him, he handled the first few weeks and months after 9/11 quite well. Negatives: --Started an illegal and clearly unfounded war that killed 6,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and others and cost a TRILLION dollars, while spending much of the nation's political capital for a LESS stable environment in the end and no discernable gain. --Allowed Afghanistan to wallow in failure when he took so many troops and so much money out of it for the above. --Stumbled through a failed response to Katrina, and the days and weeks and months after. --Failed to recognize the signs of the debt bubble and OTC markets that ballooned during this tenure, resulting in the Great Recession Again, not talking policy points that tend to be partisan here. Looking at stuff that is leadership and non-partisan. He was, overall, a pretty epic failure on most of his responses to major threats to the country, internal and external. I sort of like Bush on a personal level. Would love to have a beer with him. But he was a poor executive who allowed members of his inner circle to steer him into disasters, and he was never strong enough to push back.

I can't fathom why people have Bush 43 over Bush 41. Nonsensical in my eyes, no matter your political slant. Can someone explain it to me?