Dominikk85

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.

That is a lofty comparison but how about bobby abreu? I read great things about his hitting ability and also his batting eye. Body and arm project for a corner rather than cf and if his hit tool and plate discipline really developes and he also developes like 20 hr power that could be a great hitter. He probably won't walk as much as abreu (few did) but if he can hit 300 with 10% walks and slightly above average power that would be great.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 10:12 PM) A lot of rankings have Beer as a reach for a 2nd, 3rd pick It all depends on the next season. Beer was ranked so high because he had that outstanding freshman year. Most are not that good their first year. Last year was good but a step back. To be in conversation for first overall again he needs a monster year and basically be clearly the nest college hitter by some margin because he is a corner of at best. Usually those guys don't get drafted first overall, but if he is projected as a generational hitter that doesn't matter. But if he just has a very good season (20hr, 1000 ops) he could probably fall to late top10. I would actually like if they got turang. Usually you should not go by need but the sox system has absolutely nothing at shortstop and shortstops are the most valuable prospects as they can also move to every other position except catcher. So if turang is one of the 5 best players why not go for him?

Probably the number one thing allowing that rebuild was the cheap extensions. Hahn did a solid job but the contracts was what made those assets so desirable. I also like the anderson extension even though I am not a fan of his hitting profile. If he doesn't work out some millions are lost but if it works you have a cheap asset to keep or trade.

I think it was a very smart trade by the yankees. Rutherford is a big price to pay but he basically is the only real prospect they give up. I like it much more than the chapman deal for the cubs. The basically gave up the same or even less and got two relievers who are not rentals. Not quite a chapman but both together are probably more valuable. From the sox side it is good too, they are taking the bigger risk with taking an A ball guy but if your farm is that good you should take that gamble.

QUOTE (GenericUserName @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 07:07 AM) Here is what I don't get right now: people were throwing around trade ideas of packaging Robertson & Kahnle and a third piece for Robles straight up and everyone said that was crazy and we would never do that. Instead we get a lesser prospect and two lotto tickets and suddenly everyone loves it? This whole deal basically revolves around Rutherford now. I feel like the only way we can win this trade is if Rutherford hits his cieling AND Kahnle regresses to an average ML pitcher or one of the lotto tickets becomes a good player or we are able to flip Clippard for something of value. It mostly was 3 for 1 but consider how good of a prospect rutherford is. The system was already so good that the sox could afford to shoot for the one last blue chip guy instead of depth. The secondary pieces could have been better and maybe they even could have gotten 2 top 100 prospects but a top30 guy is very different from a top80 guy. The latter projects to be an average regular and a top30 projects to be a borderline all star. The sox need upside and they got it. I mwan most of the sale was already completed and we were hoping for guys like kienboom and lesser prospects like omickey. Now they got a little less depth but would anyone have thought we get a guy like rutherford? You usually don't get such a guy unless you trade a top player and to get him the sox had to bundle their resources and take a hit on the secondary pieces. Yeah maybe you get more if you sell kahnle separately but then you don't get a top 30 prospect unless you wait 3 years and then kahnle is the best closer in baseball.

Why start moncadas service time clock now?

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 06:08 AM) Although I will admit on first blush this deal seems light, Clarkin is a guy who has produced whenever healthy. Seems in the mold of Spencer Adams, high floor, low ceiling, but has the looks of a 4/5 starter. Well he is a soft tosser who strikes nobody out and is always injured. Maybe he has a chance to be a 5th starter but I doubt it. Also the injuries don't really make his floor that high. The deal was mostly about rutherford but that is what hahn wanted, he packed three mlb players he could not use to get that one top prpspect that could become an all star. Maybe that is the deal the pushes the sox system past the braves as the number 1 system.

QUOTE (Alexeihyeess @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 11:06 PM) Sox killed the Yankees on this trade. They only took Frazier to spite the Red Sox, and seeing what JD Martinez fetched there's not a lot of interest in average-ish second half rentals so even if he was only used to grease this deal its worth it. Robertson is nowhere near the big relievers traded last year, you really think his stock improved that much from the Trade That Wasn't which would've netted the Sox Luzardo and Ward? Clarkin or Polo alone are worth Robertson. Kahnle for Rutherford is robbery. It basically was all three for rutherford. Polo is a non prospect and clarkin is polished but basically has a spot starter ceiling. I like the deal but the yankees got three mlb players for rutherford and 2 guys that had no future with the yankees anyway plus the had the clippard salary taken. Deal made sense for both teams. Yankees gave up one guy that really hurt but not much else and got three mlb players and white sox get that one really high upside guy.

I like what Hahn did in the last two deals. He went all out for the top guy and tanked the back end. The 3 and 4 guys of the cubs deal aren't prospects and clarkin is probably a quad A type but that allowed them getting the top guys. Getting the top 100 guys cease, eloy and rutherford is more important than getting solid back end guys.

With the nats trade you have to consider 2 things. -madsen is 37 and Doolittle is very good but also has an extensive injury background. -the As get rid of the salary of the two guys and they get a controllable guy with treinen back who has a bad year but is not old and could bounce back. So the As loose salary, get two prospects and get a reliever back who could be a decent flip candidate next year. In that light the trade doesn't look as bad, beane gets something back for two guys who have solid stats but could easily worth nothing next year. Robertson is a better chip than that especially if the sox eat some money. He is not chapman or miller but he could net a back end top 100 prospect that his team doesn't love (that probably removes high upside low level prospects like rutherford or groome but guys with maybe a slightly falling stock like mateo could work). Don't expect much on top of that prospect though, every top 100 guy would be great.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jul 17, 2017 -> 10:00 AM) I'm not really talking about signing FA....they can do that when they have a hole or 2 to plug when they are ready to go. That's the mistake this (same) FO made in 2014-2015: tried to plug 8 holes with free agents. They will have to sign a few cheapies here and there just to field a team next year. But as the prospects get called up, they are going to have to be fluid and flexible - move some to find players who may better fit what they are trying to do....especially as they don't draft very well (I'll believe the improvement when I see it) and this set of prospects may very well be it. And they have some young players right now that they will have to figure out what to do with to minimize the amount of "rotting on the vine." Definitely some need to be moved but prospect for prospect trades are pretty rare for better prospects and generally most teams want to let their prospects play it out and see who makes it. Of course ideally you sell high on guys that bust but in these days the other organisations have almost as much information about your guys than you have. The usual procedure is call the prospects you have up and start to trade them when you already have a good team.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jul 16, 2017 -> 03:52 PM) If the plan is to wait until they fill out a championship team with this specific set of prospects plus whoever they draft in the next year or 2, then it likely will take 10 years. That's the Royals method. No trades or FA signings obviously won't work and at some point additions need to be made but now is not the time for that. The core needs to be internal and then you can make a couple additions at the right spot with FA signings or trades. Cubs didn't sign a Harper either but they had two big signings with Heyward and Lester and a couple more smaller ones with lackey, zobrist and others.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 16, 2017 -> 06:09 AM) The significance of high minor league k rates for BA Top 100 prospects over nearly twenty years https://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/4/22/2...-league-k-rates Perhaps one of the most interesting conclusions is that six years ago, 22-24% was the cutoff number, not 30%. Admittedly, there are not a ton of revolutionary conclusions here. Traditional prospecting wisdom is supported strongly, as it's abundantly clear that, ceteris paribus, high strikeout rates are not helpful in a prospect's development. It appears as though the success rates for prospect development drop sharply when strikeout rates hit about 22%. Furthermore, minor league strikeout rates are strongly negatively related with both major league at-bats and OPS. However, among successfully developed prospects, minor league strikeout rates are positively related with major league OPS, indicating that the prospects that become the best MLB hitters tend to be sluggers with moderately high strikeout rates. A second point to note is the abundance of defensive-minded players who don't strikeout much, but also don't produce much offensively. Lastly, it's clear that players tend to increase their strikeout rates in the minors upon graduation to the majors by about 1%. Again, the conclusions made here are by no means revolutionary. That being said, it's good to have the numbers to back up conventional wisdom, and I'm sure there are various extensions to this study that could increase its usefulness. For now, though, we can use the data to help make predictions about prospects going forward, and become a little more wary of high strikeout rates. . . .extremely excellent actually. I’m going to need some time to absorb this good info but, a couple points come to mind. Personally, as far as my own comments on this matter, I may have said that striking out is a good thing but, what I also said and really MEAN was that . . . just as many, if not more players fail because they dont make hard contact as players fail becasue they can’t make contact. I’m not certain If that was completely adressed here or not. Maybe you guys can tell me? The reason I found it hard to initialize a study was because its hard to “isolate” just the strikeouts . . . An example: If you have two prospects, both are 19, both played in full-season A ball and they hit like THIS Player A: 500 Pa’s , 35 2B, 25 Hrs, 125 Ks Player B: 500 Pa’s, 34 2B, 26 Hrs, 70 Ks I would obviously expect player B to have more future sucess. My point though us that player A types tend to have more power , not equal power, than players with less strikouts and if we match thier numbers, other than the Ks, you adding in a group of players with a better skillset. I still think that what Nick Franklin is doing has a more sucessful track record that say, what a Carlos Triunfel is doing, number wise. I feel like we tend to notice the guys who strike out and then fail more than the guys, who don’t strike out and fail perhaps? In either case, great work much appreciated! Mlb k rate is now 3% higher than 2011. 150 Ks is nothing huge anymore. Above 25% it probably still is a red flag though. You can still succeed but a lot needs to go right - you need to hit the ball hard - you need to keep it off the ground -you need to walk - you need to limit weak contact and pop ups If the Ks are high there is a lot of pressure on your other bat skills.of you have 80 game power and you walk 12+% it can work even with above 30% (gallo) but with 60 power and 10% walks it doesn't really work anymore.

I give the rebuild now a 9. The talent Hahn got is off the charts but it also is quite unusual that a rebuilding team has so many controllable assets in their prime, usually it is more like the Brewers or Phillies who have one or two solid assets to sell and a few more OK ones. Thus a high return was expected and I would have liked a few more "safe" hitters (low to medium high Ks with a high walk rate which limits the bust potential). But then again those safe mlb ready hitting prospects like benintendi probably just weren't available and hahn still get an off the charts haul of talent even though a few of them have big risk and some recent clouds of doubt around them. But maybe it was even good that hahn bought a little low on giolito and moncada after their early big league struggles rather than buying a safer prospect with a lower ceiling because it could mean that the value increases again. The guys are still risky but them again you want to win a WS and not just build an OK team so you probably need to take some gambles. Personally I'm more of a fan of building around safer hitters with good plate discipline but I can see why one would go with the upside and to his credit hahn did get some "safe" types of hitters in the draft (collins, burger) although they are more 1B types. Overall it is still a very good and especially fast effort by hahn and he can make it even better the next months.

QUOTE (SonofaRoache @ Jul 14, 2017 -> 11:59 PM) I get that scoreboard watching is fun, but in all honest picks 1-5 are a crapshoot anyway. From 2002-2014 there were four guys that lived up to the hype. I don't care where we draft, as long as we find the right player. Of course there are many years were the 4 or 5 pick is better than the one or two but statistically the one pick is by far the most productive. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-changin...of-draft-picks/ Also you get a lot more slot money to sign better second and third rounders. A high pick is no guarantee but the sox should at least make the top4 if not top3.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 15, 2017 -> 02:58 PM) So basically, they are getting Yrizarri for, uhh, free, I guess? They could have used the money but could not sign anyone above 300k or so. So they could sign a bunch of low profile guys but that doesn't really make sense as the the talent pool is not that large.

Why are you even discussing the panda thing? There is zero percent chance that that will happen.

QUOTE (Quin @ Jul 15, 2017 -> 09:29 AM) Definitely prefer Ockimey, Hernandez,and Lozada to Ball and Cosart and I think that would be the consensus. Ball does seem like a classic White Sox reclamation a la Humber. I don't really like the return. Longenhagen has neither of the 3 rated higher than 40 FV. For comparison low top 100 prospects are 50s (projected average regular) whole comp picks are usually like 45s. 45 means projected future utility and 40 basically replacement level bench guy. I would have preferred 1 45 prospect over 2 40s and a 35. That return is basically worse than a comp pick. Now of course frazier isn't a big chip anymore and he is a rental but the guys are not really prospects but more organizational depth guys. I would have preferred a comp pick but probably the risk of him taking it would have been to high so that return is better than nothing. But neither of the guys is a real prospect so I would not get too excited.

I say send Robertson and 10 m to Washington for carter kieboom. Not a top100 yet but he is a shortstop, was drafted in the first round 2 years ago and really raked so far. He will be a top100 soon and the Sox really need middle infield prospects as that is still a weak spot of the system.