Dominikk85

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.

Makes zero sense. Instead of paying stanton the 250m or whatever is left on his contract you can also keep the prospects and pay machado 350 might or Harper 400 m. Makes no sense to give up prospects to pay a guy 200 plus millions.

The sox already have a lot of OF and DH prospects. Lewis would have been nice but he already had a severe knee injury and also had some swing and miss issues in college. I can see why you would pick collins over him.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jul 22, 2017 -> 12:13 AM) Going to be real interesting to see what the sox do in the draft next season. If they really like that kid Turang, then it might put Tim on notice. (or if he looks like next year's Tim, then that prospect could be trade bait down the line when the sox are ready to compete and need to add a big piece. Alot of ways it can go) I personally think Tim will be fine though. Turang will take at least until 2021 to arrive in the majors, he is still in high school. That gives anderson enough time to prove himself.

I think 2018 there will be more losses than this year. Having moncada and giolito won't out weigh having no bullpen and no real front line starter.

At some point it should go up again but when is the bottom reached? Will 2018 be an even worse tank year? I could see it making sense to really load up on rule 5 picks next december and hope one becomes odubel herrera or quintana and sticks. I think realistically moncada contributes next year but none of the other prospects will be up yet so there isnt much to expect from that plus you play a whole year without quintana, frazier and a bullpen. Also another top3 pick in 2019 could make the sox system maybe the best ever. In 2019 then the guys slowly should arrive so that the sox slowly get better again with high 70 wins and then maybe make a cubs 2015 like splash in 2020. Do you agree with that timeline? What should the plan be for next offseason? I think they should maybe sign a couple cheap buy low veteran pitchers (starters and bp) that could bounce back and then be flipped for farm depth pieces next deadline. Also as I mentioned I think 2 or 3 rule 5 guys wouldn't be a bad idea.

I wouldn't rule out one of the guys stepping up but a 50+FV shortstop prospect would really help the system. Maybe turang next draft.

QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 01:11 PM) Useless? So if he's a 310 career hitter who has a 380-390 OBP career, he's useless? He is not useless without power but 310 means he is almost an 80 hitter. Maybe he has a year or two with 310 but the scouts see him more as a 60 hitter which is still very good (around 280) and if he is a 280 hitter with average speed and arm in a corner and the power doesn't come the value is limited. Still a mlb player but probably a 4th of. But if he does develop 55 power or so that is a much more valuable piece and a clearly above average player.

About time that a team pays analytics people. Most other teams take data analysts that would make 100K in a big company and pay them 40K to work 80 hours a week. They still do it because it is working in baseball and they are not doing a bad job but why not pay ten super qualified guys 500K each? 5M is a lot of money but teams are paying that to 38 year old washed up pitchers with a 4.5 ERA. Every team can afford that and such a team is probably easily getting that money back (by not signing the washed up pitcher:)). Every team could afford that not just the Dodgers.

The framing data have completely changed catcher scouting. Arm and blocking are still important but the effect of framing is believed to be so large that teams are not willing to put up with bad framing even if it means you get less offense there. If collins learns to frame decently he is a catcher if not he isn't.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 04:20 PM) I think their philosophy is it's easier to coach up defense than it is to teach someone how to make more consistent and/or harder contact. You can coach defense but not athleticism. There are only so many spots for dh and 1b. I still like they got collins and burger but eventually they will need guys who can fill the up the middle positions. You can play powerfull corner types out of position to gain offense but that hasn't really worked for oakland who tried that. Power and pitching can work (mets) but ideally a team that leans on pitching should have good defense to support the pitchers. Cubs and dodgers are very good at making their pitchers better with great D. The sox don't need glove wizards, just solid defenders who can hit.

I don't think that rutherford has no power. Remember he is a HS draftee and those usually take a little longer to grow into the power even though he is old for a hs guy. Longenhagen said his game power plays below his raw right now plus he is currently a grounder machine (has slightly improved this year). If he elevates more there probably is more power right now and there is strength to add too. Fg has a 55 future power on him which is around 20 bombs and I think he can get there. His arm plays better in left than in center or right though. So 280/350/450 with some walks and 20 bombs plus above average D in left should be realistic. That would be like a 3.5 WAR player.

Yeah maybe C is not that bad. One legit guy and a few lotto Tickets is not that bad, C is just a tough position to fill. SS is extremely bad though. They have some dudes but non is currently a 45 FV or better.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 03:28 PM) I think the piece would have been a bit better if he identified the "safer" prospect alternatives that Hahn could have targeted instead, and I'm not sure who those guys are supposed to be (and as pointed out a few posts above, many of the supposed "safer" guys have struggled this year, and even a guy like Benintendi has just been OK). But of the seven in that article, if one is a star, three are good to pretty good, and the rest bust we'd be in good shape. I don't think the article was necessarily criticising hahn, he got the talent he could get even if it meant the he bought a little low on some risky guy. The only alternative would have been going for lower ceiling guys, since the high ceiling high floor guys just weren't available. You could say the cubs had a lot of high ceiling guys with high floors because their hitters mostly were good defenders with power and plate discipline and they worked mostly. But that is pretty rare and the cubs also went all hitters and never developed a pitcher.

QUOTE (Quin @ Jul 20, 2017 -> 02:34 PM) I'd say he's gotten a decent mix of high floor, low ceiling and high ceiling, low floor guys. The good prospects are all high risk. You could argue rutherford is not that risky due to his advanced hit tool but he is a corner of only guy who is in A ball and yet to grow into his power so there is risk too. Cease, giolito, kopech and lopez are all risky even by pitchers standards an moncada obviously is risky too. Sure guys like collins and burger are high floor but none of the top 100 guys is. A high floor good prospect a a guy like benintendi who can hit, has good plate discipline/contact, some pop and can play some D too. I don't fault hahn for not getting such a guy though because teams just don't trade those guys.

Article on fangraphs. Says hahn got a ton of talent but is leaning toeards the risky high ceiling lowish floor side (technically every prospect is risky but a benintendi less so than a moncada).teams are just very clingy to their high floor advanced prospects. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-white-s...g-bets-on-risk/

I think not eating more of robertsons salary (than taking clippard) is the only thing that you could the sox blame for. If they ate more they could have gotten a top100 for him alone and maybe another one for kahnle later but is that better than one top30? I would have like a better second piece than clarkin but the ownership probably wasn't willing to pay more.

System is fantastic now but those two key positions which probably are the two most popular important non pitcher positions are still pretty barren. Especially at the critical shortstop position there is absolutely nothing, none of the sox top20 is a shortstop which is very unusual for a farm system as shortstops are usually the most desired prospects since they can stay at shortvor cover every other if position. But catcher is actually not that much better despite collins. Collins is their only c prospect of note and scouts don't love him at c plus his bat has not progressed as advertised. How can the sox combat those holes? I think you can trade for a c but shortstop should be filled internally because a good shortstop is so expensive and hard to find. Also they probably need another if spot to be filled too. They have anderson and he could improve but his low power, low walks, high k profile is not so favourable. In the draft you should go bpa but if it is close the sox should definitely look for a shortstop and maybe a catcher.