Zack Burdi not coming to Chicago this season

[Balta1701]

They know he doesn't have the command to be a starter yet. He throws 102. That's pretty good. Was it wrong the Reds didn't try to make Chapman a starter? One problem with guys that have this gift of triple digit gas out of the bullpen, you make them a starter, and suddenly it's 94 or 95. If it doesn't work out, many times it doesn't come back. If this guy is Nate Jones or Bobby Jenks, or someone of that ilk, it was a good pick. If he becomes an elite closer, we will be very happy the Sox decided to spend the 26th pick on a reliever. I am of the belief they are not going to stretch him out.

 

 

I guess a good question for the people opposed is if your scouts think this guy's ceiling is an elite closer and he has 102 MPH gas, what is the highest position he should be drafted? Is the second round OK?

 

The White Sox just need as many guys possible to be successful. What round they ultimately were drafted in makes no difference after the signing bonuses are paid.

The last guy I remember a big deal being made about him being a highly drafted reliever was Huston Street, who was a reliever in college and took over that slot for the As pretty quick. He was the 40th overall pick.

 

Street has been clearly worth that draft slot, and in fact was worth that draft slot to the As alone as he put up 5.8 rWAR with them before being traded away, which is more value than you typically get from that slot.

 

But on the other side of it, outside the 2005 season he's bounced between being worth 0.8 rWAR and 1.5 rWAR per year, give or take. That's normal, solid, average closer type performance. So let's say you had a guy with a 100% chance of being a solid, average closer. The normal return on the 10th pick in the draft is ~6 WAR. A guy with a 100% chance of being a good closer would therefore be an average draft pick at #10 - half the guys drafted in that slot should be better than him.

 

The #30 pick is worth ~4 WAR. So if Burdi were to be a solid, better than Robertson closer for 5 years, he would be one of the best picks in that range. However, if he needed a couple years to adapt to the bigs or you did something stupid like blowing a year of his control with 1 month left in the season (AHEM), he's not far from becoming a below average pick for that slot. He would need to be a strong, average closer for ~3 years to be worth his slot.

 

Furthermore, once he hits arbitration you start paying him more close to fair for that performance - you could match that performance by spending the money on the FA market.

 

So basically, you need the guy to have something like a 50% chance of being a solid reliever to be worth it in the range he was drafted in, or you wait until after about pick 50 where every slot starts being worth ~2WAR and everything turns into a true crapshoot.

[Dick Allen]

The Reds did try to make Chapman a starter.

 

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/r-i-p-to...roldis-chapman/

You consider that trying to make him a starter? They brought him up as a reliever and never changed. He signed as a starter. Got 13 starts when he signed. All of his other "starts" were rehab assignements where he went 1 inning.

[Hatchetman]

Number of relievers with 95mph+ avg fastball

age 19-29: 36

age 30+: 7

[Quin]

Where was Drew Storen taken?

[southsider2k5]

Where was Drew Storen taken?

 

#10

[Kyyle23]

College and minors combined (3 years), Burdi has pitched a total of 97 innings. I don't know what that means, but I find it interesting.

 

I think it means his college coaches recognized that he is a really good reliever and they would rather use him in that capacity

[Quin]

#10

 

Wasn't this heralded as a good pick because it was paired with Strasburg?

 

Burdi isn't a vacuum, he's sandwiched between Collins and Hansen.

[Balta1701]

Wasn't this heralded as a good pick because it was paired with Strasburg?

 

Burdi isn't a vacuum, he's sandwiched between Collins and Hansen.

The Nats paid Storen $12 million while with them and he put up 4.7 fWAR. Overall, that's below average performance out of the 10th pick, but most of the guys taken right after him didn't do all that much, at least not yet. A little later in the draft guys like Shelby Miller, AJ Pollock show up who have been better players, and the less said about skipping that Trout dude the better.

[Thad Bosley]

Questioning it just because he is a reliever is a reach. And you don't even seem to know who you are arguing about.

Um, how about no one? I haven't argued about any one or anything in this thread. I haven't criticized the Burdi pick myself - I hope he becomes the next Goose Gossage. But I do think it's fair territory to have a discussion on the merits of selecting a reliever in the first round, and Soxtalk is just the place to have such a lively discussion like this.

 

Emphasis on the word "discussion", Dick. Not every exchange here has to be an argument.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Thad Bosley

[Feeky Magee]

You can say it's generally a good rule not to draft a reliever in the first rule. That doesn't mean it's always a bad idea. When it's at 26, comfortably the best reliever in the class, a guy at least some scouts think can be a starter and with the reliever market skyrocketing, it doesn't look like a bad idea to me.

[GreenSox]

Between the different CBAs and the different slotting and all the other stuff that factors into the draft, it's so dumb to evaluate the draft like, "Well historically this picks amounts to this." "The best player at #26 pick over the last ten years is player X!" "Well player Y went 32!" It's nowhere near pure in a meritocratic sense. It's a crap shoot.

 

The relief market is very high right now and the Sox haven't even decided what they're going to do with Burdi yet. At the very least, the Sox got the safest player in the draft at #26. Unless the guy blows out his shoulder in the first year after he was drafted he's going to contribute in the MLB and fast. Maybe a couple guys you can say that about each year.

 

The Phillies just got Vince Velasquez, Thomas Eshelman, Brett Oberholtzer and Derek Fisher for Ken Giles after he was great for 100 innings. That's #2-3 starter, a top 150ish prospect, a decent NL arm and a good starting LF on the cusp of the MLB. Burdi probably won't have the ridiculous SSS numbers Giles had, but the scouts will like him more than they did Giles. That deal is out there, but you don't have to do that well in a trade to get a great return on 1 late first round draft pick.

 

The Sox are flush with options on Burdi.

 

-Trade Robertson and Burdi becomes set up.

 

-Trade Jones and Burdi becomes set up.

 

-Trade Burdi in a package for a stud.

 

-Keep Burdi in the bullpen that has been woefully bad for years.

 

-Make Burdi a starter in the minors while they rebuild.

 

There's not many guys that can affect your immediate future at pick #26. The Sox got the bat that will appear in the MLB first in this class, they got the arm that arm that will appear in the MLB first from this class, and they turned around and diversified their risk with a crapshoot in Alec Hansen. He's excelling beyond their highest hopes. You can b**** about the Sox in almost any facet of the organization but when it comes to Burdi, this draft class and their track record on pitching, back off. The early returns and the track record are there. Let things fail before you come at the Sox with pitchforks.

This is a rosy scenario and I admit that with a capable, proactive front office, some of these things could happen. But if relievers have that value why don't other teams draft relievers high, or at least put some of their top pitching prospects in the pen and rush them up?

The best scenario is:

1)Burdi pitches like Giles, nails down a closer role, so trade him for a haul. That would be the move to make, but....when have you EVER seen this front office make a sell-high trade like that? That kind of move is simply not in the Hahn playbook. Plus it takes some luck on both teams willing to give up that much for a reliever and for Burdi to be that good.

As for replacing Jones and then trading Jones, Jones won't bring back the equivalent of a #26 pick, so that would suggest that Burdi does not have #26 value.

Re trading D Rob, the time to do that was July, and the front office refused to make a serious move. Oh sure, they can sell him low at some point (and probably will because that's what they do with veterans).

I admit that if the front office showed the least bit of competence in putting together a major league roster, I would just express my philosophical disagreement in using high picks for relief pitchers and move on. But these guys have been going for it and can't win more than 76 (not to mention 2 playoff teams in 16 years). Samardizja (instead of Donaldson), Frazier and Shields (with major red flags on the latter 2). Yikes!

Maybe the downstream org. has improved. If so, we should see it in the rankings that come out over the winter.

Edited August 18, 2016 by GreenSox

[winninguglyin83]

Louisville looked at Burdi as a starter during fall ball as well as early spring his freshman and sophomore seasons.

 

didn't think it was going to work -- and had a need at closer.

 

Turning him into a starter will be a crapshoot.

[Nokona]

This is a rosy scenario and I admit that with a capable, proactive front office, some of these things could happen. But if relievers have that value why don't other teams draft relievers high, or at least put some of their top pitching prospects in the pen and rush them up?

The best scenario is:

1)Burdi pitches like Giles, nails down a closer role, so trade him for a haul. That would be the move to make, but....when have you EVER seen this front office make a sell-high trade like that? That kind of move is simply not in the Hahn playbook. Plus it takes some luck on both teams willing to give up that much for a reliever and for Burdi to be that good.

 

Addison Reed and Sergio Santos were both young stud relievers who the Sox were willing to move...

[Balta1701]

You can b**** about the Sox in almost any facet of the organization but when it comes to Burdi, this draft class and their track record on pitching, back off. The early returns and the track record are there. Let things fail before you come at the Sox with pitchforks.

It's time to start going after the bolded, because I think there's now a strong case that this organization is resting on reputation alone in terms of developing pitchers.

 

Go back 5 years, and they developed 2 very good starting pitchers. They deserve all the credit for that in the world, those 2 guys are strong, but they're literally carrying this staff. They haven't developed a successful, mid to top of the rotation starter in 5 years. Had it not been for the contract Chris Sale signed he would be a free agent at the end of this year. They have a solid rotation because of one of a handful of positive things Rick Hahn did for this franchise - locking those 2 starters up early.

 

Overall though the picture at the big league level is bleak. The Sox have a slightly better team ERA than Detroit, but Detroit has a slightly higher team fWAR from their staff. Cleveland has a significantly better team ERA than the White Sox. The White Sox's supposed plan was to develop enough pitching to have that carry them, right? Well 3rd best staff in the division doesn't get you there.

 

And that's not without throwing substantial resources at the staff. They signed a big money closer. They took on payroll in adding a pitcher this year. And they have invested 2 top-10 picks in their rotation the last 3 years.

 

Look deeper and you'll get even more concerned. They clearly had no idea where Rodon or Fulmer were going to be this year and overestimated how ready both of them were. They could still turn things around, both are young, but so far these guys are mediocre starters with good fastballs that the White Sox haven't developed as fast as they insisted they could. They made decisions this year expecting both would be strong contributors and they were clearly wrong. Someone in this organization that is supposed to know pitching told Rick Hahn that James Shields was fixable or had something left. They spent big money on Robertson and he's underwhelmed.

 

They also have little to no depth in their starters. Take a look at the guy going last night. There isn't much in the pipeline right now that can step in when someone goes on the DL or someone struggles, other than a replacement-level/waiver wire acquisition. There is no one about ready to break in from AAA.

 

What else have they developed over the past 5 years? Maybe you give them credit for guys they traded away, Santiago Bassitt and Montas, but those guys have had a lot of work done by other organizations too. If pitching is supposed to be the thing they're trading away to build up the rest of their roster, they have a pretty weak roster and they still have pitching needs.

 

This could turn around next year. There's talent in Rodon and Fulmer, James Shields could find his previous self, and Hansen could darn well be the next Scherzer. The investment they've put into finding pitching could pay off. But as of right now, this is a team that hasn't developed a mid-rotation starter or back of the bullpen pitcher in 5 years. This is a team where we're not supposed to question their pitching development, but they have major needs of starting pitching and relief pitching. They're separated from having the worst rotation in their division not by what they've developed, but by contracts that guys signed. They're resting on reputation right now.

[Dick Allen]

It's time to start going after the bolded, because I think there's now a strong case that this organization is resting on reputation alone in terms of developing pitchers.

 

Go back 5 years, and they developed 2 very good starting pitchers. They deserve all the credit for that in the world, those 2 guys are strong, but they're literally carrying this staff. They haven't developed a successful, mid to top of the rotation starter in 5 years. Had it not been for the contract Chris Sale signed he would be a free agent at the end of this year. They have a solid rotation because of one of a handful of positive things Rick Hahn did for this franchise - locking those 2 starters up early.

 

Overall though the picture at the big league level is bleak. The Sox have a slightly better team ERA than Detroit, but Detroit has a slightly higher team fWAR from their staff. Cleveland has a significantly better team ERA than the White Sox. The White Sox's supposed plan was to develop enough pitching to have that carry them, right? Well 3rd best staff in the division doesn't get you there.

 

And that's not without throwing substantial resources at the staff. They signed a big money closer. They took on payroll in adding a pitcher this year. And they have invested 2 top-10 picks in their rotation the last 3 years.

 

Look deeper and you'll get even more concerned. They clearly had no idea where Rodon or Fulmer were going to be this year and overestimated how ready both of them were. They could still turn things around, both are young, but so far these guys are mediocre starters with good fastballs that the White Sox haven't developed as fast as they insisted they could. They made decisions this year expecting both would be strong contributors and they were clearly wrong. Someone in this organization that is supposed to know pitching told Rick Hahn that James Shields was fixable or had something left. They spent big money on Robertson and he's underwhelmed.

 

They also have little to no depth in their starters. Take a look at the guy going last night. There isn't much in the pipeline right now that can step in when someone goes on the DL or someone struggles, other than a replacement-level/waiver wire acquisition. There is no one about ready to break in from AAA.

 

What else have they developed over the past 5 years? Maybe you give them credit for guys they traded away, Santiago Bassitt and Montas, but those guys have had a lot of work done by other organizations too. If pitching is supposed to be the thing they're trading away to build up the rest of their roster, they have a pretty weak roster and they still have pitching needs.

 

This could turn around next year. There's talent in Rodon and Fulmer, James Shields could find his previous self, and Hansen could darn well be the next Scherzer. The investment they've put into finding pitching could pay off. But as of right now, this is a team that hasn't developed a mid-rotation starter or back of the bullpen pitcher in 5 years. This is a team where we're not supposed to question their pitching development, but they have major needs of starting pitching and relief pitching. They're separated from having the worst rotation in their division not by what they've developed, but by contracts that guys signed. They're resting on reputation right now.

Then you have no problem with the team trading prospects who obviously will never be any good, for established players.

[Balta1701]

Then you have no problem with the team trading prospects who obviously will never be any good, for established players.

That fits into the "no one in the pipeline right now" part. There's no depth in the organization either because of those trades. They haven't developed back of the rotation guys or middle relief that well either. Putnam and Petricka fit into that category so it isn't zero, but the lack of depth is another part of this season.

[Dick Allen]

That fits into the "no one in the pipeline right now" part. There's no depth in the organization either because of those trades. They haven't developed back of the rotation guys or middle relief that well either. Putnam and Petricka fit into that category so it isn't zero, but the lack of depth is another part of this season.

They established a guy like Rienzo enough to get Jennings. They established Santiago enough to get Eaton. Addsion Reed was developed decently, and traded, and most here were pretty happy with the return. I think you are selling them short a bit here. They haven't been a pitching developmental factory, but they have probably been above average. Compared to their position player developmental prowess, it looks huge.

[Balta1701]

They established a guy like Rienzo enough to get Jennings. They established Santiago enough to get Eaton. Addsion Reed was developed decently, and traded, and most here were pretty happy with the return. I think you are selling them short a bit here. They haven't been a pitching developmental factory, but they have probably been above average. Compared to their position player developmental prowess, it looks huge.

Look how far back you had to go though. Santiago arrived in 2012. Reed arrived in 2012. If those guys were still here they'd have 1 year before free agency. If they were still here, Cleveland would still have a better rotation than us. And when they traded those guys away, they had nothing in the pipeline that was able to replace them, so they went out and spent money on the Robertsons, Latoses, and Shieldses. That is a problem.

 

The pitching development isn't terrible, as you point out it's better than position player development, but it's not so incredible that everyone should stop questioning what they're doing with these guys. 5 years ago you could make that case, but 5 years in MLB is a long time.

[Dick Allen]

Look how far back you had to go though. Santiago arrived in 2012. Reed arrived in 2012. If those guys were still here they'd have 1 year before free agency. If they were still here, Cleveland would still have a better rotation than us.

 

The pitching development isn't terrible, as you point out it's better than position player development, but it's not so incredible that everyone should stop questioning what they're doing with these guys. 5 years ago you could make that case, but 5 years in MLB is a long time.

 

They developed Montas enough he went from a throw in to a part of a trade for an All Star 3B. They developed another throw in enough to acquire Lawrie. Nate Jones looks pretty good. It probably hasn't been as good as they want to make it, but it isn't as bad as you are suggesting. I always thought their starting pitching development was a bit overrated, but for years, they have had relievers all over baseball.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Dick Allen

[Balta1701]

They developed Montas enough he went from a throw in to a part of a trade for an All Star 3B. They developed another throw in enough to acquire Lawrie. Nate Jones looks pretty good. It probably hasn't been as good as they want to make it, but it isn't as bad as you are suggesting. I always thought their starting pitching development was a bit overrated, but for years, they have had relievers all over baseball.

My point in short form - their development is not "so good you should never question their decisions".

 

We have heard that in this thread with Burdi, we heard that with Fulmer being put in the bullpen, we heard that with Rodon being called up, we heard that with Shields being acquired.

 

They are not terrible at it. Their pitching development is not a wasteland. Next year it could look great again. But from 2014-2016 it is not doing what this franchise requires it to do, and as a consequence pitching remains a need at the big league level.

[Dick Allen]

My point in short form - their development is not "so good you should never question their decisions".

 

We have heard that in this thread with Burdi, we heard that with Fulmer being put in the bullpen, we heard that with Rodon being called up, we heard that with Shields being acquired.

 

They are not terrible at it. Their pitching development is not a wasteland. Next year it could look great again. But from 2014-2016 it is not doing what this franchise requires it to do, and as a consequence pitching remains a need at the big league level.

But you are asking for guys like Rodon and Fulmer to be really effective right away. Who from those drafts have done that to this point? Rodon actually leads his draft in WAR.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Dick Allen

[Hatchetman]

Sox had exactly average pitching performance the past three years per WAR.

[Balta1701]

But you are asking for guys like Rodon and Fulmer to be really effective right away. Who from those drafts have done that to this point? Rodon actually leads his draft in WAR.

No, I'm not. Rick Hahn is.

 

I would have no problem with Rodon having been in AAA last year and Fulmer being in AA this year. The White Sox are the ones insisting these guys are mid rotation and back of the bullpen contributors on a contending team right now.

[Dick Allen]

No, I'm not. Rick Hahn is.

 

I would have no problem with Rodon having been in AAA last year and Fulmer being in AA this year. The White Sox are the ones insisting these guys are mid rotation and back of the bullpen contributors on a contending team right now.

He's hoping.You're the one saying their developmental reputation needs to be questioned in part because guys drafted in 2014 and 2015 aren't dominating major league hitters. BTW, Rodon has been looking pretty good since his DL stint.

[Balta1701]

He's hoping.You're the one saying their developmental reputation needs to be questioned in part because guys drafted in 2014 and 2015 aren't dominating major league hitters. BTW, Rodon has been looking pretty good since his DL stint.

So you're saying that insisting guys who were drafted in 2014 and 2015 are ready to contribute to the middle part of a strong major league rotation is a decision that should be questioned?