Dominikk85

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 28, 2017 -> 08:31 AM) Ok...I don't have any idea why that makes the Sox top farm system riskier then other teams top farm systems? I could go down the list with any organizations top prospects (including top 1/2) and do very similar assessments. Easy to do. No one knows. If anything, I would point out that the Sox are likely somewhat unique in how much of their farm system has been due to trades (vs. a true ability to draft and develop). So if you think of the Dodgers or Yankees, they built their farm systems from the ground up (largely). The sox system is definitely on the riskier side. Any prospect is a risk but pitchers with command issues and hitters with contact issues are more risky. I think eloy is pretty low risk but many of the other top10 prospects are pretty risky, tools over performance. The tools are off the chart though, if they are properly developed they could become really good.

The outlook for teams with a good farm is very good but the cubs were pretty much a best case outcome.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jul 28, 2017 -> 07:24 AM) I was just looking at his numbers (specifically K% and BB%) and this season's numbers really aren't too far from his career numbers. They're fairly consistent from year to year. Maybe he has hit into some bad luck? Power is also down, 200 iso last year, very bad 130 ISO this year.

Regarding the cubs, epstein did great job but they also had some luck. Almost all of theit top prospects panned out except for soler and even he netted them an elite closer in return. They had a non prospect hendricks who became very good, a mid level top100 prospect rizzo who became a superstar and a failed starter in arrieta who had a good arm and then also turned it around in his late 20s and became a superstar. Cubs rebuild was done well but it also was like a 90th percentile outcome with almost anyone reaching close to their ceiling.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/08/...e53wcI/amp.html According to this article they did pretty well

Definitely a good depth piece for the top15 of the system. I don't think they sox will have a problem at 1b or DH in the next years:).

Nice get. I think he was overranked a little because he doesn't have great batspeed or power to play as a regular at first but he has solid bat to ball skills and can take a walk. Probably could become a platoon dh/1b at the mlb level.

I think the giants are too talented to stay there especially with bumgarner gone. The main competition are the phillies and I still think the padres. Preller will probably trade all of his bullpen. The reds are also right in it.

QUOTE (SonofaRoache @ Jul 26, 2017 -> 02:34 PM) Die hard fans wont switch, they just wont go to games. I would say 25 percent of a teams fan base is casual and could switch up and follow a winner. See my post about the southside. But what about children who are still undecided? When you are 8 the cubs winning a ws could tip the scale even if you are from a sox district. Also there are more and more transplants who moved to the city due to their job and then pick a team to visit. Of course there are still classic sox or cubs families that would never switch but societies get more open and less locally rooted and there is fluctuation.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jul 26, 2017 -> 09:54 AM) Billionaire owner of the team with the same mindset as a meathead fan. I don't think it is that simple,the cubs and sox share a market and if the cubs gain even more popularity by becoming a dynasty that can cut into the sox revenue. It is a business too and not just about wins and losses. Still the trade just made too much sense and it is good that it happened even if it means a few more chicago kids become cubs fans.

QUOTE (whitesoxwinner @ Jul 26, 2017 -> 02:10 AM) obviously not a wowing return, but this is what we were always gonna get for Anthony swarzak. This kid we acquired can play a lot of positions and he will be very helpful throughout this rebuild. Might even develop into a good player, who knows? I don't understand why getting such an old prospect. Those guys never really become good players. Yeah he is mlb ready but that is not really what the sox need. He will get the sox some innings in the field and probably is not below replacement level but I would have preferred a real prospect. You can't expect a big return for swarzak but I would have preferred a young guy with upside. But hahn is of course not an idiot, he probably wasn't offered anything better. I'm just surprised the nats or astros who both need bullpen did not offer more than a possible 5th outfield prospect in his mid 20s.

QUOTE (whitesoxwinner @ Jul 26, 2017 -> 02:08 AM) Not a ridiculous thread by any means. I think he can be and most likely will be a great pitcher. But as of right now the dude can't even control his fastball. He needs to find his command in order to fulfill his potential, which is a lot easier said than done. Yes. He is still young and had injury problems but the command needs to get better to start. Btw if he becomes andrew miller that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if you see what kind of return miller got in that trade but starting would of course be preferable.

Not really a fan. I don't care about the position but the guy is old. I don't care about his numbers, 25 year old prospects never become anything. He might be about big league ready but at his age he is a quad A type. Now swarzak was never going to get a great return but I would have preferred a 19 year old lotto ticket even if that guy likely never makes the majors.

He certainly has the arm strength but there are several issues: -walks too many guys -too many HR - ok K rate but really not that great for that era and his command, basically average -lack of a quality third pitch leading him to not getting out righties. That is a lot of issues to correct. On the plus side he is young, throws mid 90s and has a slider that flashes plus albeit the location is not consistent enough yet. I think he definitely has a future in mlb but I'm not sure it will be as a starter. Still the sox should give him all the time to develop as a starter but a fallback would always be a dominant lefty reliever if he tightens up his slider command.

I think the coaches probably should be ex players because players won't listen to a scientist who has only played D3 college but there should be a coordinator who creates a clear concept for all levels using the newest scientific principles.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jul 24, 2017 -> 11:31 PM) To make the top 100 you must be a 55 overall grade or better prospect. They clearly see Hansen and Collins outside the top 100, but I'd say either could very well be back in the top 100 next season. Typically the last 25 or so top100 prospects are 50 future value prospects. Here is a former list of longenhagen with grades http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2017-top-100-prospects/

Btw fox has almost 50 WAR, I would take that from any of the sox prospects. I'm not saying it is impossible to be productive without power, ichiro is a hall of famer with not much power but it is a lot harder to do today and the easiest way to be productive is hitting 25 plus homers with some walks and not to high Ks. Every extreme profile whether it is low power with high average or high power with lots of Ks is risky because it means that your strengths have to be extremely good. The safest way is to be balanced with ok power and ok contact because then one thing can become a little worse and you are still not totally useless.

QUOTE (Quin @ Jul 23, 2017 -> 05:37 PM) At this point I'm just hoping they end up with Beer as either an underslot or he develops his defense to stick in the OF. Considering the best player in franchise history was a DH, if his bat plays, his bat plays. If the sox are really top3 at the end of the year I would prefer a guy who can do it on both sides of the ball like kris bryant. I don't want glove first guys but there are only so many spots for corner types. if beer has another monster season I would take a chance but if he is just good I would prefer a guy who can play the infield. I know you should go best player and not by team need but we don't live in 2010m when the best player was determined by OPS. modern metrics show that position and defense matters and there is a reason why the trade market for bat first sluggers is so bad. if you are frank thomas defense doesn't matter but if your bat first type "only" has a good 800 OPS he basically is an average player. those players seem to be safe bets but to be really productive the bats need to be really good.

good and promising start by jake. some people might have thought that his not so pretty swing could lead to some contact issues but the low K rate is very encouraging. of course it is low level pitching and as an advanced college hitter he should do well at the level but I think so far he has exceeded expectations.

I think that is a thing that the sox could really improve at. of coursre having ex players as coaches is fine but I think there should be a hitting coordinator who is a sports scientist and not a former pro (ideally both). hitting coaching has changed a lot due to super slow motion and biomechanics analysis and much of the stuff taught is out dated. for example the best players in the world actually do use a slight uppercut but most minor league instructors still teach chopping down to the ball. the astros for example have a hitting coordinator named jeff albert. the guy is a biomechanics expert and knows all the new trends. the white sox have an older former pro in mike gellinger who has worked decades for the sox. I'm sure he knows the game and is a great teacher and person but he probably got the job based on seniority and getting along well in the organisation. IMO that is not how a top organisation should work. I think the sox should get a young biomechanics expert that earned his merits outside of the organisation and is knowing all the modern trends and not promote guys based on merit and seniority within the organisation.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 22, 2017 -> 11:11 PM) Yeah I'll agree with that. I wouldn't call it 'fun' though to see those hacks serve up three gopher balls in a row to the Royals tonight after seeing Pelfrey slow the game down to a crawl seemingly afraid to deliver a pitch in his final inning of work. Albeit he did put up zeros so kudos for that, but ... Yes sir. I can buy that post. I do understand the concept of a rebuild The topic is: "How do you rate the rebuild so far?" I agree with what you said, everything you said. I'm just saying to rate the rebuild so far, you can't give it more than a 2 3 or 4. Why? It's a process and right now we are in the s*** part of the process. The only thing we have next to the prospects' names are expert rankings, which mean NOTHING. I told everybody to no avail that I applaud the prospects we got and the rankings next to their names. Fantastic. Probably couldn't do better in that regard. But to rate the rebuild so far??? Well, you have to take this as a process. At this stage of the process the rebuild is nothing but horses*** baseball at this time and prospects either doing their thing in the minors or getting ready to rake. Relax, folks. My grade of 2 is the CURRENT GRADE, how I rate the rebuild so far. I told everybody that as we start winning, if we start winning, the grade goes up and up. Could it someday be an 8 9 or 10, I said sure it could be. Am I 'happy' with the prospects we got? Sure, on paper of course. But again, all seasons matter. Why is that so hard to understand? And at this stage of the rebuild this season is horrific. Until the Sox start winning, my rebuild grade is very low. I DO understand the rebuild. Ignorant about the draft? Hmmm. Pedro Alvarez second; where was Trout drafted? Rodon? Fulmer? Look I have the right to not give a s*** if we pick third or 13th. I happen to think you get a good player at either slot. I understand why you guys think losses are part of the rebuild. I happen to think that is a horrific way of rebuilding. You are talking a few draft slots here or there in a draft where there are no guarantees. None. Why can't you humor me on this and say you understand my position. You DISAGREE with it, but my position is completely logical. And I will gladly increase my rating of the rebuild if and when we start winning. If we win a division and WS or two or three because of this rebuild, fantastic. I will be first to watch the parade on TV and buy the WS T-shirts and hats again. But as of now ... I want proof. My grade for the rebuild is tied to upcoming success and right now it's abysmal failure (in terms of this year's team). You guys can say getting the No. 1 or 2 draft pick means everything to a rebuild and that losing is the way to go. To me? No. 3 pick vs 10 MEANS NOTHING. That doesn't make me the dumbest fan alive. You all think I am a dunce. well you also have to consider what hahn could do. he wasn't allowed to rebuild before 2016 so he can't really be farther along. all he could do was selling pieces for talent and he just did that. you are of course right that this is just a first step. they needed minor league talent but other areas like coaching (especially hitters), acquiration of international talent (started doing that recently), major league roster construction and other things need improvement too. just collecting minor league talent is no guarantee but coming of several straight losing seasons despite some top guys there was really no alternative. hahn did what he could so far, so he shouldnt get a bad grade there. however of course you are correct that the next steps need to follow. if you don't want to give him a high grade I would prefer giving him an undecided.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jul 23, 2017 -> 07:01 PM) So, I understand now that there are no longer any bloop hits, or seeing eye singles through the infield. Got it. Nellie Fox could not play today. Got it. Lillian: You are spot on with your comments. Of course there are still bloop singles, flares and infield hits and fox would get his hits now. But there would be less of those and instead of 300 he might only hit 285 and with 5 hr a year that is not exactly great.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jul 23, 2017 -> 12:46 PM) Strike outs really aren't a problem. Look at how many times Trout strikes out and has for his career, and he is one of the best players ever through his first few seasons. Modern baseball has shown that the two most important things in the game are on-base percentage and power. Nellie Fox's career OPS was .710. I really hope we strive for better in our prospects... It is not so simple. Ks are a problem when they come without power. It is always about the relationship between power and contact (and walks). More power means you can afford more Ks. But ideally Ks are not too high. Trout strikes out a lot in a historical perspective but in these days his K rate is merely average. And average contact rate with elite power means you are a very good hitter. However of your walks and power is really elite you can afford high Ks. Adam dunn (in his 20s, not the washed up one in Chicago), is a good example of this. He struck out like almost 30% but he had elite power and even more elite walks. Still of course with lower Ks he would have been better, his ISO and walk rate were basically like trout but his production wasn't. Powerless slap hitting doesn't work anymore though. Lower Ks are always better but only if you can slug the ball. Modern defenders are so good that just putting it in play just isn't enough, you need to hit it hard.

Madrigal struck out 6% last year, his contact doesn't need to get any better. Also with the juiced ball smaller hitters can hit for some power, maybe he can become like altuve and hit 20 per year in his prime with good average.

I would actually prefer a TOR pitching prospect over another 1b/corner OF, ideally a middle IF though. You have to see what's available though and if someone is the best talent you get him even if he is an of or pitcher.