michelangelosmonkey

QUOTE(iamshack @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 03:16 PM) Than what happened to those ARod-led Texas Ranger squads? What James says though probably has never been more accurate than it is now. And when you hear KW talk about a "market correction," he isn't talking about the money being paid to the top-tier players. He's talking about the money being paid for absolute mediocrity. Carlos Silva wanting 4/$40. Kyle Lohse wanting 3/$21. I wonder what the difference is in average salary between pre-arbitration eligible players and players who have fulfilled their major league service time. It has to be absolutely astronomical. Now that being the case, is there actually any doubt that it would be better to play kids making the minimum with a few top-tier players mixed-in as opposed to spending $5-10 million per player? The difference in skill level between pre-arbitration eligible players and average major league players is nowhere near the difference in salary. And this is why pre-arb "prospects" are so amazingly valuable on the trade market currently. But then again....once that inefficiency becomes saturated....it's time to jump on the other side of the pendulum...which is what KW can do right now to get someone like an MCab or Crawford. Have our prospects ever been more valuable than now? I agree with the idea of getting MCab....however, we have to probably realize that if by some chance the Marlins were to accept our offer, it would probably be sooner rather than later. They're going to wait out the Angels and Dodgers as long as possible before accepting our offer. As far as the contract, I was hoping something more along the lines of Manny's contract (10/$200m), but I understand your point. In fairness to A-rod...these were the five starters in his last season: John Thomsom Colby Lewis Ismael Valdez Joaquin Benoit Tony Mounce Sheesh. remember the year the White Sox were trying Danny Glover and Dan Wright as 5th starters and they were horrible? They could have been the ACE on that Texas staff. One does have to make a credible effort on putting a team behind the star. And your point about the middle talent guys is perfect. And actually why we should take solace in what Kenny is doing. Having a team that consists of a bunch of stars and a bunch of rookies seems the right financial model. Sprinkling Owens, Richar, Fields, Floyd, Danks with room to grow while counting on stars like Buehrle, Vazquez, Thome, Konerko and hopefully Cabrera is a sensible path for a mid to high financial team like the Sox. I think you can win with guys like Garland and Rowand and Crede...but you don't win because of them. They don't carry the team...they make the team a little better. IF you gamble on young guys...every once in a while they burst onto the scene as stars...like Cabrera, like Pujols, like Liriano...and they can carry you. I laugh at people that say Gio can't be an ace...or Fields Each year there are the top 50 prospects and maybe one or two actually burst onto the scene. I think it's partly luck...and it's been a lot of years since the Sox got that lucky. Add Cabrera to the mix, get lucky with Danks...this thing is not hopeless...but it is if we chase after Willie Taveras.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 01:58 PM) I see these types of posts often, but I guess I can't totally disagree, but that tells where we're going to be the next many years if we aren't going to dish anything out for good players. Bill James used to preach that it was better to spend a ton on a superstar and surround him with C players than spend an equal amount on a bunch of B players. I always thought it was crazy to spend $15 million on 33 year old Torii Hunter when he was never more than about a B player (.800 OPS guy) and was likely on the down side of his career. Same with Rowand. Same with Andruw Jones. I would bow to KW if he had the guts to trade for Miguel Cabrera...you get a 24 year old who looks like a 1.000 OPS guy and then give him a 10 year $250 million contract. You build around him as the Sox did with Frank in the '90's. And if it costs Sweeney, Gio, Broadway and Carter? So be it. All this talk about Melky and Rowand and Coco Crisp seems like roster filling rather than shooting to win. And frankly...KW has shown more of that gambling nature than the names above suggest. Trading for David Wells, Thome, Garcia, Vazquez...trading top prospects like Chris Young, Jeremy Reed, Gio, McCarthy...that's the swing for the fences Kenny that makes the Sox so much fun to follow.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 12:20 PM) If Brian Anderson was going to be our CF next year, we might as well have let Dye and Buehrle walk for draft picks. I've been one of his biggest backers the last few years, and even I'll say that this team can not even consider penciling him in to CF next April. If he (or Sweeney) came out and set the world on fire in ST and in AAA for a month, and there's an opening in the OF, then maybe you'd consider bringing them up, but that's a desperation move, and it only really works if there's an injury or if our opening day OF is Fields, Owens, Dye (because Fields can be moved to 3rd base if we decide to create an opening) I don't see why Anderson is such a bad option. I'm sick thinking of KW trading ANYTHING for Willy Taveras or Coco Crisp. These guys are mostly useless offensive players that play some defense. Willy Taveras got 1100 at bats at roughly a .666 OPS. In 2006, at 24, Brian Anderson got 360 at bats with a .650 OPS and played near gold glove center field...and now we have to throw him in the garbage because he'll never hit? It does SEEM as if Ozzie and KW have written him off...but to set our sights on Taveras with his career .338 OBP as our leadoff man? Or Coco Crisp with his career .329 OBP? What is Timo Perez not available? Juan Pierre? If our options are home-grown horrible or trade for horrible...might as well give our guys a shot.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 02:02 PM) Brian Doyle was the s***, though. Maybe if we bundled Dimaggio and Musial together we could work out a trade for Doyle...it would totally help our playoff chances.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Oct 20, 2007 -> 11:41 AM) That money is negligible in comparison to their contracts so, again, I don't see what your point is. The Yankees weren't paying A-Rod to GET to the post-season. When they traded for him, they had more than enough offensive talent to win their division, or at least the Wild Card, without him. He was supposed to be the guy who put them over the top once they got there. Uh, no I don't. You're heavily weighing numbers from several years ago from a completely different team where his role and the expectations around him were not the same. He's been average-to-bad over the past few years. Speaking of "playing on the biggest stage", look at what Manny has done since going to Boston (easily the second biggest stage and not far behind NY) in the post-season. Talk about pressure... those guys hadn't won crap since 1918 when he got there. That was probably a HIGHER-stress environment than NY. Compare what Manny has done for the Red Sox in the playoffs to what A-Rod has done for the Yankees and it's not even close. Do you think that anybody in Boston would trade Manny's post-season numbers for A-Rod's regular-season MVPs? Neither do I. I never said that he was. I simply said that he has a history of having difficulty playing under pressure. That's not the same as somebody who NEVER plays well under pressure. That's true. I'm sure that everyone here remembers how freaking bad Vlad was in the '05 ALCS. He was clearly pressing, swinging at all kinds of crap outside of the strike zone. Sox pitching wasn't giving him anything to hit. But it's not like Vlad had a ton of protection in that lineup. Meanwhile, A-Rod's '04-'06 Yankees offenses were some of the best collections of offensive talent EVER, and it's not like he wasn't getting pitches to hit. What's A-Rod's excuse? Geez, Andy Pettite could've hit better than him in '05 and '06. Look, I'm not saying that A-Rod is a choke or that he's going to be a mediocre-to-bad player in the post-season from here on out. But he hasn't done crap in the playoffs since the '04 ALDS and hasn't been consistently good there since 2000 in Seattle. And this is supposedly the best player of his generation and perhaps the best player EVER? Uh, I don't think so. A-Rod's awesome for sure, but you can't reasonably ask for $300 million and the "Best Player Ever" title with some of the recent post-season performances he's had. From a hitting perspective, I'll take Manny over him in a second. Stupid old Joe Dimaggio was a .271 career hitter in the post season with an OPS of .750. Stan Musial about the same. I sure wouldn't want THOSE guys on the Sox (being dead and all).

QUOTE(WCSox @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 03:04 PM) Reinsdorf is intelligent enough to know that signing a marquee player won't "win over" Chicago baseball fans. It didn't happen with Albert Belle, who appeared to be headed to the HOF back when the Sox signed him. The only way to "win over" fans from the Cubs, and the only way for the Cubs to increase their fan base, is to WIN. And since the Cubs can't win, and the Sox have very recently, it's not like the Sox have their back against the wall in terms of fan support. The only way that JR and his board would ever sign A-Rod would be if A-Rod/Boras agreed to several "out" clauses in the contract (salary ranking, diminished skills, etc.) so that he could dump the remaining $200+ million on some other owner if the A-Rod experiment went awry. And since dedicating 1/3 of one's payroll to one player doesn't work in baseball, I seriously doubt that A-Rod would be in Chicago for more than a few years. And, most importantly, paying A-Rod an obscene amount of money wouldn't help the Sox win. And I really think that the number of A-Rod jerseys being sold is somewhat exaggerated. While A-Rod may be a "star", he's not exactly embraced by fans in the same way that Jordan was. A-Rod is basically seen as a great regular-season player who doesn't get it done in the playoffs and who has a somewhat contrived personality. He's not perceived as a winner and he's not going to be the Derek Jeter of Chicago. It didn't happen with Albert Belle because he came across as SUCH a jerk. Then he got hurt and they soon cut bait on him. I wouldn't so quickly denigrate the idea of winning the city. A-Rod keeps the Sox competitive during the years when the Trib is selling the Cubs...this is a unique time when WGN no longer will have a vested interest in picking Cubs over Sox. You look back at attendence history and Chicago has not historically been a Cubs town. It became a Cubs town when the #1 TV station and #1 Newspaper owned them. If the Sox can leverage WS + signing AROD plus a couple more play off runs? Don't discount the little kids in the suburbs growing up as Sox fans. That's a LOT of customers 20 years down the road.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 01:17 PM) The problem with that from a business standpoint, is that you aren't getting the meat of the return on investment within 3 years. The most money that Arod will produce for your team will come in years 5+ when he's approaching multiple records. From a pure baseball production standpoint, a 3 year deal makes the most sense, but to JR that's probably not the case. It has probably crossed JR's mind that he brought the greatest basketball player to ever live to Chicago, and now he has the chance to bring in and keep probably the greatest baseball player to ever live to Chicago. Reinsdorf would be a god in this city. Whether it all makes sense to us is a different story, but there are issues past the bottom line on a signing like this one. I'm definitely not saying it will happen, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. I think people forget that just a little over 10 years ago Reinsdorf...after complaining loudly for years about baseball salaries...made Albert Belle the highest paid player in baseball. People's jaws dropped at the time. But we need to remember that Reinsdorf is a smart businessman. The quest for Arod would be in an attempt to win the city of Chicago. This is a battle fought over decades...last off season the Cubs spent $300 million to get themselves a 3 and out in the playoffs...and who would bet on them for next year. If Reinsdorf spends $300 million on Arod and Rowand...trades Garland for prospects?? The city would be ABUZZ. When the Cubs get sold...WGN comes with hat and wallet in hand to pay for Sox TV. Young suburban baseball fans start wearing AROD jersies. It's really a great plan. To win Chicago it could be argued that Arod is more valuable to the Sox than any team in baseball.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 11:05 PM) Here's my brand of "logic and reason": With the top pick you can take whoever you want, no limitations at all. With the #9 pick you can take anyone you want except the 8 players who were drafted before your turn to choose. So with the top pick you have unlimited flexibility but with any pick after that you're limited in your choices more and more. IMO having greater flexibility in the selection of talent is an outstanding card to hold. Being handcuffed is not fun. And my friend you fight a good fight...outside of the exasperation. The flaw in your reasoning though is...assuming your #1 choice is the best choice. So they bring out the dessert tray after dinner and show you the piece of cake, the piece of pie and the ice cream. One of them is great the other two are crap. Not even the waiter knows which one is going to be great...even if you bribe him. Even if the agent for the Cake is Scott Boras. Chosing first, second or third doesn't affect your odds of getting the good dessert. It makes you FEEL like you are in control. But it doesn't really improve your odds. Hell the great dessert might just be the fruitcake being picked in the 17th round. So just stop worrying about how good the dessert is going to be and have enjoy the dinner rolls. (By the way...it was the pie).

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 10:50 PM) I figured it out. You're an instant gratification sort of guy, if you're not getting the payoff RIGHT NOW you don't want it at all. I bet if I offered you a choice: 1.) you get 20 bucks right now or 2.) I'll give you $120 in June of next year you'd take the 20 now. Since the draft is 8 months away and any draft pick would take at least 2 years to develop in the minors you just don't want to think about it, you'd rather have the payoff of a win during a few meaningless games over the stretch run of a terrible baseball season even though a few losses RIGHT NOW could pay off 3 years from now. And when I talk about the boring aspect of these debates I'm mainly bothered by the constant listing of past draft picks, it gets old. We've all seen the names and we don't f***ing care. Just because you throw the names Bullington, Bush, Smoltz and Buehrle out there ever 30 minutes doesn't mean anyone's opinion is going to change. Just so I understand...it's evidence that bothers you? Facts are boring?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 10:40 PM) It never fails. A new day, a new game thread, exact same arguments, exact same points being made on both sides and exact same people standing on each side of the issue. Dear god this is getting old and oh so boring. Logic and reason always standing by ready to do battle against voodoo and witchcraft.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 10:31 PM) Yep, since talk show hosts are always the smartest people. Once again, who would you rather have the chance to draft, Cole Hamels or Royce Ring? I'll agree on the idiocy of sports talk guys...but come on...you just can't play that Cole Hamels vs Royce Ring game. In 2002 draft Bryan Bullington, Christopher Gruler, Adam Lowen, and Clint Everts went before Prince Fielder. Every single draft you can do great retrospectively. But with those 1500 names sitting on your board? NO ONE KNOWS.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 09:55 PM) Couldn't the first several options happen whether or not the White Sox win? And I don't believe psychological positives matter much. At this point in the season, they're probably dead and looking forward to the offseason. Next season is completely different. If Williams undergoes major roster changes, they'll be new life injected into the club regardless of how 2007 concludes. Here's a concept you fail to understand -- considering our draft history, the Whtie Sox need EVERY benefit possible within the draft. You suggest there's no evidence you're likely to hit gold with a #1 pick, yet, when I browse through our recent draft history it doesn't seem we hit gold with anything. Why not cheer for the possibility of selecting high, and perhaps, receiving our Ken Griffey Junior, BJ Uption, Joe Mauer, Alex Rodriguez? There's going to be quite the lull between our first and second round pick. We don't exactly have the compensation round to fall back upon. I'm not opposed to the White Sox leading every game 6-0 going into the eight inning and then have Mike Meyers give up 7 runs and they lose. But sadly...if Gavin and Garland and Contreas pitch well...Fields and Richar and Owens look good...Sox will probably win enough games to keep from having #1 overall pick. As for me and my lack of understanding...as I have said...there IS evidence that top ten picks are more likely to be great players than later first round picks. The White Sox haven't picked in the top ten in 17 years. But even in the top 10 the odds are small. It's not a failure of any particular organization...it's just random. The Sox need to improve in all areas of player development. 1 pick is not that important...or so says Albert Pujols 13th round, Jim Thome 13th Round, Jake Peavey 15th round, John Smoltz--undrafted. So why not just cheer to win? Go Sox Go.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 09:00 PM) No, those certain posters still wont budge from their stance winning meaningless September games (the previos season) was better than losing for the purpose of gaining draft position. We'll have to wait until those drafted ahead are producing in the majors for anyone to acknowledge their mistakes. And even then, I'm sure they'll just shrug their shoulders and say something such as "it is what it is." Here's one prevailing question the 'winning' crowd has yet to answer -- what's the most beneficial part of winning out the remainder of the season? Name me ONE legitimate benefit. I could give you one benefit to losing out the remainder of the year -- having the opportunity to draft a HOF calibur player at #1. Yes, that player may still be available wherever we select; but they'd also be there at #1. As I see it, there's much more substance to our argument than the constrasting view held by Greg and the Gang. Atleast we're facing Santana on Friday. Although would it shock anyone if the White Sox mounted their highest offensive output, post-changeup era, against him? * Increasing Contreas Trade value. * Increasing Garland trade value * Gavin floyd getting confidence * Positive results from Richar, Fields, Owens and young relief pitchers. * Psychological positives. * Not having to read headlines all off season like "From first to worst in two seasons", "From World Series to worst overall in two seasons." From Penthouse to outhouse". All seem WAY better than the SLIM advantage #1 overall pick brings. Since 1965 there are THREE #1 overalls with OPS above .900. Why is this complicated? There are 1500 amateur players taken...with #1 you have a choice of the top 1500. With #4 you have a choice of the top 1496. Virtually zero evidence you are more likely to hit gold with #1 over #2 or #3 or #4. There is some evidence of top 10...but within top ten?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) Just how is that any different from the 3rd or 9th overall selection? If a guy is drafted in the first round, they are going to want to see how he performs and they will give him a shot. In theory, if a guy is drafted in the 1st round, he's one of the best 2% of players taken within that calendar year; you are going to do everything in your power to get that player in the majors because of his talent level. So in that regard, I don't believe the #1 overall pick is any different than the 2nd, 5th, 10th, 17th, 23rd, or 30th. You apparently do not appreciate the value of serviceable, nor do you appreciate longevity. I think #1 is different because you have no defense. If you have the #9 pick you can always tell fans and management...well we WANTED Jeter...but he was already taken. I think there's more pressure on organizations with #1 overall. So they groom a path for him. If Brian Anderson was #1 overall pick...the Sox would have had him in CF this year...Ozzie's doghouse or not. Still you are right for slamming me for my view on "serviceable". Having someone like Johnny Peralta or AJ Pierzinski (ie: .750 OPS guys) for 10 years is part of building a team.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 02:06 AM) This is interesting stuff. I'd be interested to know if there were more than 3 .900 OPS guys taken at other spots in the draft. I posted this in another thread last week, but may as well mention again as it's germane here. I looked at position players taken in the top 10 picks from 1977 to 2003. At the various slots, it ranged from 10 to 18 position players taken over that span. I looked solely at whether or not a player reached 3000 at bats in his career, and with younger players like Delmon Young, Nick Markakis, etc, I used my judgement and gave those players the benefit of the doubt that they'd reach 3000 (true, they might get injured, but whatever). Of those 10 draft slots, in 7 of them, the percentage of players that DID NOT reach 3000 at bats in their career was 50% - 70%. The #2 and #3 picks were both at 41% NOT reaching 3000 at bats. The number 1 pick however had just 11% not reaching at least 3000 at bats. Just 2 out of 18, and none since Shawn Abner was taken in 1984. Perhaps the guys who become superstars are randomly distributed among the top half of the first round of the draft. I don't know. There have certainly been a lot fewer complete busts at #1. There clearly has been a much higher percentage of guys who, even if they don't become superstars, manage to have a career of at very least 5 years, which is really quite rare among all of the players drafted. While not a superstar, a guy like Phil Nevin who manages to get 4000 plus at bats with an .815 OPS is actually very rare. My only quibble is...if you get the #1 pick in the draft you don't want a guy that gets 3000 at bats. I think an organization that picks #1 overall will do everything to ensure that guy gets at bats. Phil Nevin was a good player. But you are taking near the top of all the #1's. And they bipassed Derek Jeter. Erstad, Jeff King, Bj Surhoff, Shawn Dunston, Bill Almon....all reached your 3,000 at bats and none of them was anything but 'servicable'. I think the goal in drafting is to acquire a star. A top 50 player in baseball...I just googled "top 50 players in baseball" and the first thing was a Sporting News article from 2003. Now granted this is open to bias in who those players are...but the list isn't bad, and its not MY bias. Anyway I figured any year should be roughly the same...so here is how those 50 top players in baseball entered the game: Undrafted: 13...this is the great unfairness in baseball vs football. Smart organizations can get players like Ichiro, Vlad Guerrero, Pedro Martinez, Carlo Delgado...without effecting draft...and for the most part without paying a ton. This is one area the White Sox need to get better...and it appears they are trying hard. Draft round 10-50: 6 players. That's 12% wild luck. draft round 3-9: 7 players. draft round 2: 4 players draft round 1: 20. Actually this is more like football than I thought. 40% of the best players come from the first round. If you want a star you need to get him in the first round. And to break that down: pick 1: 2 pick 2: 2 pick 4: 2 Pick 5: 1 pick 6: 3 Top ten: 13 And fully 26% of all stars come from the top ten picks. But 1 over 2? 2 over 4? Brief conclusion...and again, one year, one list...but it seems sound. Drafting in the first round: important. Top ten pick: important. But inside the top ten...not much difference. So Go Sox Go. Loved Garland pitching well last night.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 05:29 PM) And the White Sox had the 5th pick. I can understand why some here want the Sox to lose, but I still want victories. This draft pick probably won't be able to really help for a least a couple of years, maybe more. Another month of constant losing is another month where the core of the team is going to forget how to win. Losing breeds more losing. Yeah but when you can get a high school catcher of Kurt Brown's potential...

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:48 PM) Wait, Joe Mauer isn't a star? Apparently great defensive catchers with career .394 OBPs are growing on trees these days... First of all we have to set the "Star" level someplace. .900 OPS seems like a nice dividing line. And Mauer's now had three full seasons in the majors...with OPS of .783, .936 and .807. And injured a lot. Last year he was a Star. The other two years...good. Using your definition...why is Aaron Rowand not a star. And by the way...Mike Piazza...career .924 OPS. 62nd round.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:32 PM) I cant remember what thread it was in, but someone posted that the #1 pick is something like 30 percent more effective for selecting an impact MLB player that the 2nd pick. I wish I could find that post. Well I'm not sure what the meaning of 30% is. Its not like there's a million data points. 3 hitters over .900 OPS in the first pick in the 40 years of the draft. 0 in the second pick. But in the second pick you have JR richards, Mark Mulder, Bill Gullikson and Josh Beckett with more than 20 wins than loses...versus 0 in the first pick. So we can save conclusively #2 picks are better pitchers and #1 better hitters??? The draft is a crap shoot...#1 pick, #2 pick, #500 pick. Is Sheffield, Bonds, Jeter worse than Jones, A-rod, Junior? The #6 guys.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:36 PM) It's pretty simple really, the #1>#2-#500 and there's no getting around it. The #1 pick is the best pick because you can take who ever you want, anyone, with the #2 pick you're limited. There's one less player you can take, with the 8th pick you're even more limited. It's not even about how often the #1 pick is effective, it's really as simple as taking the player believed to be the most talented player in the draft. He's yours with the #1 pick but may not be there when you pick at #2. But this says losing is completely benign. There's 23 games left. 4+ starts per starter. Suppose Jose Contreas goes 4-0. Is that meaningless? Supposed Floyd goes 4-0...meaningless? Richar gets hot, or Josh Fields hits 6 more homers. If the team goes 19-4 with a handful of good things happening...that's better than going 4-19...irrespective of draft pick. I wouldn't be playing Erstad over Owens if he gives us a better chance to win...because what's the point of that. And I wouldn't root for Richar and Fields and Owens and Floyd and Contreas to suck...because given the choices I'd rather have hope. Now if you can create a scenario where we lose every game with Meyers giving up 5 runs in the 8th and Uribe committing 5 errors. Fine. But to damn the team for a slightly better chance at hitting on a star is just wrong.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:21 PM) Hell, just in a 4 year span the #1 overall pick produced possibly the greatest offensive 3B the game has ever seen (Jones does have the highest OPS for a 3B , though I'm sure Schmidt would get the majority of the votes) and quite possibly the best player to every play the game. My point is you can't cherry pick. Chipper Jones...superstar. Arod...superstar. Junior...Superstar. Three .900 OPS guys in 40 years. Then some guys. Sure 3 is good...but its no sure thing.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:07 PM) I barely watched either game so I didn't really have any feelings either way but I suppose the loss made me feel better than the win since the loss can only help this team in the long run and the win will do absolutely nothing. Having the #1 pick would allow for the Sox to take their guy, they can draft the player who they feel is the absolute best player in the draft. If there's someone that a scout or KW has fallen in love with and they think he's the balls then they can take him, no one can stop them. Picking up an extra meanings 7 wins at the end of a miserable season and pushing the draft pick back to #8 would only limit the White Sox's draft flexibility. Flexibility can only be a good thing IMO. I couldn't care less about past top 3-5 picks, the Sox having the ability to take their guy, someone who people feel is the most talented player in the draft sounds pretty damn good to me. I've already surrendured on this...as I pointed out earlier...I wasn't watching very closely either...and the Sox are real close to the #1 overall pick because they need not be abysmal this year. 95 losses versus 105 losses...THIS year. But to get a whiff at #1 overall and it means losing 105? I don't ever want that because I think its still not a sure thing. Though yes, MORE of a sure thing.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:06 PM) Josh Hamilton is one of the front runners for NL ROY. I would say he was a good, but very sidetracked pick. Delmon Young is looking to be a pretty good player, and I would gladly take a player like him. Most importantly, which you missed in your post, is that the #1 pick is much more frequently an impact player over the rest of the top 5 and top 10 picks. Josh Hamilton has had a very good 282 at bats. At 22, playing shortstop, Juan Uribe in 273 at bats had an .850 OPS. It's way too early to make a judgement on Hamilton...at 26. It would be fun to have Delmon Young in the system. But Chris Young is every bit as intriguing a CF prospect and he was drafted in the 15th round. And It's not MUCH more frequently...it's more frequently. And you'd probably be better off trading #1 overall pick for a teams 10-30th rounds.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 03:44 PM) What's the downside to losing? On Saturday the Sox lost 7-0. On Sunday they won 8-0. Tell me you didn't feel better? And the number of superstars at, say #5 since 1965...Mark Teixeira, JD Drew, Vernon Wells, Jack McDowell, Dwight Gooden, Dale Murphy. Or #6...Rocco Baldelli, Derek Jeter, Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, Andy Van Slyke...is not wildly worse than the group at #1 over all. Winning makes me feel good and I think losing doesn't particularly ensure anything. In the NFL being worst ensures you the best Quarterback in the draft (Carson Palmer, Peyton Manning, Michael Vick in the last ten years) and an easier schedule.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 03:03 PM) Well. How many of those afformentioned picks were the #1 pick? Joe mauer was. So if we keep losing we get OUR Joe mauer. How about this list instead: #1 draft picks 1990 Chipper jones 1991 brien taylor 1992 Phil Nevin 1993 A-Rod 1994 Paul Wilson 1995 Darin Erstad 1996 Kris Benson 1997 Matt Anderson 1998 Pat Burrell 1999 Josh Hamilton 2000 Adrian Gonzalez 2001 Joe Mauer 2002 Bryan Bullington 2003 Delmon Young 2004 Matt Bush 2005 Justin Upton 2006 Luke hochevar 2007 David price I would say getting the number 1 pick greatly increases your chances of drafting an impact player moreso than any other position in the draft. As you point it out to me...it HAS been kind of a freakish year. Looks like 95 losses might get you the number one pick...when most years you need more like 105 loses. So yeah dumping may make sense in this year. Still...from your list of number ones overall you have 3 stars out of 12. PLus a couple of good players. I'd put post 2002 in the "unproven" box. Then you have: Joe Mauer career OPS .854 Adrian Gonzalez career OPS .830 Josh Hamilton--nothing yet Pat Bureel: career .848 Matt Anderson 15-7 5.2 ERA Kris Benson 68-73 4.4 ERA Darin Erstad--grinderstad...753 career ops Paul Wilson 40-58 4.86ERA Arod...superstar Phil Nevin career .815 OPS Brien Tayler--no appearance. Chipper Jones Star Go back to every #1 overall pick since 1965 and there are only THREE with career OPS over .900...Ken Griffey Jr, Arod and Chipper. And not a single pitcher with +20 wins over losses in his career...only a couple with 150 victories...maybe the best Andy Benes? Floyd Bannister? Seems like about once a decade you get a dream player. Seems just as likely to get him at #7 like Frank Thomas or, say Jake Peavey in the 15th round.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 02:52 PM) Use just the 90s so you don't have to bring up Joe Mauer. I like it. A franchise catcher is something I'd absolutely love to have. Ironically enough, he was the #1 pick. Come on. I used a ten year period. If you want to use an eleven year period...fine. They got Joe Mauer. So they were so bad that they drafted top ten for 8 of 11 years and added Joe Mauer with those high picks. I don't WANT to be horrible for 8 years so I can add one very good player. My point was, and remains if you add Joe Mauer, top 10 picks in the ML draft assure nothing. And winning meaningless games still feels good.