5/22 - 6:07pm - White Sox ( suck ) vs Toronto Maple Leafs

[southsider2k5]

6 minutes ago, Quin said:

So your argument is that Getz and Shirley should be glad they won't pick until #10 this year because of Madrigal, indicating that they are indeed the same old White Sox as the old regime and are making lateral changes with Getz.

Got it.

Yo man he's dead cut it out!

[GreenSox]

6 hours ago, hi8is said:

Your logic still makes zero fucking sense.

Hopefully it makes no sense going forward. But they went “safe” with their top 10 pics, with the 1 winner being the universally acclaimed best player in the draft.  They haven’t gone safe out of the top 10, until last year.  
The reason may have been Hostetler who was in charge when the Sox were picking top 10.  He, like Hahn, seemed to lack creativity. 

[WestEddy]

59 minutes ago, Quin said:

So your argument is that Getz and Shirley should be glad they won't pick until #10 this year because of Madrigal, indicating that they are indeed the same old White Sox as the old regime and are making lateral changes with Getz.

Got it.

No, I haven't made an argument at all. Just pointing out that in the last 11 drafts, or so, outside of Rodon (3, 2014), we've done better with guys picked at 11 or later. Just an observation. You don't have to seethe and argue with that. 

[WestEddy]

1 hour ago, Snopek said:

I get that their current best prospects were all drafted outside the top ten, but I can’t follow the logic that removing ten of the best players available from their draft board is somehow good for them.

Maybe they're forced to get more creative when the pick isn't basically made for them by all the bloggers and mock draft guys. 

[WestEddy]

1 hour ago, GreenSox said:

Hopefully it makes no sense going forward. But they went “safe” with their top 10 pics, with the 1 winner being the universally acclaimed best player in the draft.  They haven’t gone safe out of the top 10, until last year.  
The reason may have been Hostetler who was in charge when the Sox were picking top 10.  He, like Hahn, seemed to lack creativity. 

I read your post after my previous. That's what I'm thinking. Shirley seems to be a lot better at this than Hostetler. From interviews I've heard of Hostetler, he hadn't impressed me as much more than a toadie. 

[hi8is]

17 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

You don't have to seethe and argue with that. 

I don’t find it seething or argumentative to simply state that your logic makes zero fucking sense. It’s factual.

There’s even a term for it. “Logical Fallacy” I do believe.

Anyhow, carry on.

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, hi8is said:

I don’t find it seething or argumentative to simply state that your logic makes zero fucking sense. It’s factual.

There’s even a term for it. “Logical Fallacy” I do believe.

Anyhow, carry on.

Even worse to make a statement and then pretend that you didn't say what you actually said.

[T R U]

8 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

No, I haven't made an argument at all. Just pointing out that in the last 11 drafts, or so, outside of Rodon (3, 2014), we've done better with guys picked at 11 or later. Just an observation. You don't have to seethe and argue with that. 

I think it has more to do with the profile of player that was drafted as opposed to the actual draft position. When I see them take low ceiling college players, yeah, not surprised they didn't work out. Now look at guys like Montgomery and Schultz who rapidly ascended the top 100 prospect lists.

We take a Jacob Gonzalez, probably to try and once again fast track a draftee to an MLB sore spot (2B). I see people clamoring for Colt Emerson in a Robert trade to Seattle. They could have just drafted him instead of Gonzalez.

I know this is hindsight, but if you aren't drafting high upside toolsy players, you're not going to get high upside toolsy players. Like an Andrew Vaughn/Nick Madrigal/Jacob Gonzalez will never turn into a 5 tool player. They may become decent to good MLB players, but they aren't going to just turn into some superstar.

[WestEddy]

Just now, hi8is said:

I don’t find it seething or argumentative to simply state that your logic makes zero fucking sense. It’s factual.

There’s even a term for it. “Logical Fallacy” I do believe.

Anyhow, carry on.

You've told me my logic makes zero fucking sense three times, now. I'm sorry that a simple observation makes you so angry. Perhaps it's because you're too dumb to understand English. That's where my money is.  

Now you can carry on fucking off. 

[WestEddy]

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Even worse to make a statement and then pretend that you didn't say what you actually said.

Here's what I said:

Quote

I actually think we do better out of the top ten. 

Here's some BS Quin blurted out, to cram a simple observation into his "Getz is really Hahn and KW in a long overcoat" narrative:

Quote

So your argument is that Getz and Shirley should be glad they won't pick until #10 this year because of Madrigal, indicating that they are indeed the same old White Sox as the old regime and are making lateral changes with Getz.

I'm sure you, Quin, and this Hi9is guy have it in you to make a point without being a boorish moron, or lying. 

Are we buddies, yet? I need someone to take me grocery shopping. 

 

 

[WestEddy]

8 minutes ago, T R U said:

I think it has more to do with the profile of player that was drafted as opposed to the actual draft position. When I see them take low ceiling college players, yeah, not surprised they didn't work out. Now look at guys like Montgomery and Schultz who rapidly ascended the top 100 prospect lists.

We take a Jacob Gonzalez, probably to try and once again fast track a draftee to an MLB sore spot (2B). I see people clamoring for Colt Emerson in a Robert trade to Seattle. They could have just drafted him instead of Gonzalez.

I know this is hindsight, but if you aren't drafting high upside toolsy players, you're not going to get high upside toolsy players. Like an Andrew Vaughn/Nick Madrigal/Jacob Gonzalez will never turn into a 5 tool player. They may become decent to good MLB players, but they aren't going to just turn into some superstar.

Hostetler had 3 drafts - 2017-2019. I think they got lucky/unlucky with Burger. Vaughn and Madrigal were both loved by all the draft day prognosticators as "best top pick available". 

Gonzalez only fits with those other two in that they were most probably products of KW/JR meddling. I'm not sure if he's 5 tool (not really fast), but yeah, a lot of bad picks on low ceiling, high floor college guys who could fill a hole in a year. 

Shirley's a lot more out of the box, and they seem to have a clearer plan with development on what they're going to do with the picks. 

[southsider2k5]

22 minutes ago, T R U said:

I think it has more to do with the profile of player that was drafted as opposed to the actual draft position. When I see them take low ceiling college players, yeah, not surprised they didn't work out. Now look at guys like Montgomery and Schultz who rapidly ascended the top 100 prospect lists.

We take a Jacob Gonzalez, probably to try and once again fast track a draftee to an MLB sore spot (2B). I see people clamoring for Colt Emerson in a Robert trade to Seattle. They could have just drafted him instead of Gonzalez.

I know this is hindsight, but if you aren't drafting high upside toolsy players, you're not going to get high upside toolsy players. Like an Andrew Vaughn/Nick Madrigal/Jacob Gonzalez will never turn into a 5 tool player. They may become decent to good MLB players, but they aren't going to just turn into some superstar.

I mean I get the  idea.  The trade off is finding an almost certain major leaguer worth more or less than a guy who has a very high chance of washing out with a smaller chance of making it, but even smaller at being a game changer.  The Sox thought they could get sure fire 10 year starters in Vaughn and Madrigal.  There is value in that.  The Sox were drafting guys they thought were somewhere between 45-55 type players.  Some of these other guys are 30-65 type players, but the odds put them on the low end.

The problem is the Sox also were absolutely terrible at turning these guys into those players.  But it isn't like the Sox were the only ones looking at Vaughn and Madrigal.  If the Sox don't take them, they get taken very quickly after that.  But what happened to them after that is what I think the problem is.  Does a Cleveland turn Madrigal into another Kwan?  Do the Rays turn Andrew Vaughn into the kind of .280/30hr/100 rbi guy that the draft world thought he would be?

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I mean I get the  idea.  The trade off is finding an almost certain major leaguer worth more or less than a guy who has a very high chance of washing out with a smaller chance of making it, but even smaller at being a game changer.  The Sox thought they could get sure fire 10 year starters in Vaughn and Madrigal.  There is value in that.  The Sox were drafting guys they thought were somewhere between 45-55 type players.  Some of these other guys are 30-65 type players, but the odds put them on the low end.

The problem is the Sox also were absolutely terrible at turning these guys into those players.  But it isn't like the Sox were the only ones looking at Vaughn and Madrigal.  If the Sox don't take them, they get taken very quickly after that.  But what happened to them after that is what I think the problem is.  Does a Cleveland turn Madrigal into another Kwan?  Do the Rays turn Andrew Vaughn into the kind of .280/30hr/100 rbi guy that the draft world thought he would be?

 One more thought far from the idea that draft position is the thing here, I think it also goes to the Sox being willing to show patience with guys who aren't the almost done type of products versus jamming the Fulmers/Crochet/Vaughn/Madrigals of the world who they thought could help them today.  Guys like Shultz and Montgomery have actually spent time at the various levels of the minors with the understanding that it was going to be a slow roll.  Does taking a bit longer of a time frame with some of these guys make a difference? Who knows.  All I know is I can't recall a team like Tampa, LA, or Cleveland rushing anyone to the majors this quickly, and guess who seems to turn out finished products better than the Sox?

[LittleHurtCG]

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I mean I get the  idea.  The trade off is finding an almost certain major leaguer worth more or less than a guy who has a very high chance of washing out with a smaller chance of making it, but even smaller at being a game changer.  The Sox thought they could get sure fire 10 year starters in Vaughn and Madrigal.  There is value in that.  The Sox were drafting guys they thought were somewhere between 45-55 type players.  Some of these other guys are 30-65 type players, but the odds put them on the low end.

The problem is the Sox also were absolutely terrible at turning these guys into those players.  But it isn't like the Sox were the only ones looking at Vaughn and Madrigal.  If the Sox don't take them, they get taken very quickly after that.  But what happened to them after that is what I think the problem is.  Does a Cleveland turn Madrigal into another Kwan?  Do the Rays turn Andrew Vaughn into the kind of .280/30hr/100 rbi guy that the draft world thought he would be?

Nope. Madrigal was a wasted pick the second it was announced. Tanked a whole year and used a top 5 pick on a guy who can barely clear the yard with a wooden bat during batting practice. 

[T R U]

22 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I mean I get the  idea.  The trade off is finding an almost certain major leaguer worth more or less than a guy who has a very high chance of washing out with a smaller chance of making it, but even smaller at being a game changer.  The Sox thought they could get sure fire 10 year starters in Vaughn and Madrigal.  There is value in that.  The Sox were drafting guys they thought were somewhere between 45-55 type players.  Some of these other guys are 30-65 type players, but the odds put them on the low end.

The problem is the Sox also were absolutely terrible at turning these guys into those players.  But it isn't like the Sox were the only ones looking at Vaughn and Madrigal.  If the Sox don't take them, they get taken very quickly after that.  But what happened to them after that is what I think the problem is.  Does a Cleveland turn Madrigal into another Kwan?  Do the Rays turn Andrew Vaughn into the kind of .280/30hr/100 rbi guy that the draft world thought he would be?

Yeah and im not trying to say that guys like Vaughn and Madrigal had no business being picked where they were, its no secret our player development hasnt been that great.

If im running a draft, im not interested in Andrew Vaughn or Nick Madrigal. I don't want to draft a 1B or 2B, ill spend money in free agency on that. I go balls to the wall on premium positions. SS, CF, SP. Every draft, every time.

[southsider2k5]

5 minutes ago, T R U said:

Yeah and im not trying to say that guys like Vaughn and Madrigal had no business being picked where they were, its no secret our player development hasnt been that great.

If im running a draft, im not interested in Andrew Vaughn or Nick Madrigal. I don't want to draft a 1B or 2B, ill spend money in free agency on that. I go balls to the wall on premium positions. SS, CF, SP. Every draft, every time.

Sure, and it just means you will get more absolute burn outs like Courtney Hawkins, versus low level major league players like we got out of the high floor picks.

[WestEddy]

4 hours ago, Snopek said:

I get that their current best prospects were all drafted outside the top ten, but I can’t follow the logic that removing ten of the best players available from their draft board is somehow good for them.

And rereading this, one doesn't necessarily have to think in terms of "removing the ten best players", just the ten players that have the most upper first round hype. 

In a particular draft, there's only a small handful of players who are conceivable as a #1, or top 5. My thought is that under the KW/Hahn/Hostetler (Laumann) regime, the pressure to select the best remaining consensus pick was too great. That's Madrigal or Vaughn. 

When they're picking #15, or so, there's a much greater pool to pick from in players who wouldn't be questioned at #15. 

KW was a low ceiling/high floor guy. Hahn was preoccupied by hype, either in draft choice, international signings, or trades for prospects. I believe Laumann goes back to the days the White Sox relied on the MLB scouting agency for their draft prep. Hostetler did draft Larry King's 2 sons. And a water volleyball player. 

[T R U]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

Sure, and it just means you will get more absolute burn outs like Courtney Hawkins, versus low level major league players like we got out of the high floor picks.

I can live with that. Vaughn has put up 0.1 bWAR in almost 3.5 seasons, hes pretty much as valuable as Courtney Hawkins anyways.

[Quin]

2 hours ago, WestEddy said:

No, I haven't made an argument at all. Just pointing out that in the last 11 drafts, or so, outside of Rodon (3, 2014), we've done better with guys picked at 11 or later. Just an observation. You don't have to seethe and argue with that. 

You don't have to make dumb statements, yet here we are.

[WestEddy]

Just now, Quin said:

You don't have to make dumb statements, yet here we are.

It was a very smart observation on my part. Again, if you have a point to make, make it. If you're just going to heckle me for saying something that is obviously above your ability to ponder, maybe your time would be better spent chewing peach pits.

[southsider2k5]

16 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

It was a very smart observation on my part. Again, if you have a point to make, make it. If you're just going to heckle me for saying something that is obviously above your ability to ponder, maybe your time would be better spent chewing peach pits.

It's a coincidence, and nothing more.  I am kind of impressed you can simultaneously pat yourself on the back for making the observation, and yet still disavow it all at the same time is an amazing level of cognitive dissidence you don't see in many people.

[WestEddy]

13 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

It's a coincidence, and nothing more.  I am kind of impressed you can simultaneously pat yourself on the back for making the observation, and yet still disavow it all at the same time is an amazing level of cognitive dissidence you don't see in many people.

I don't really see how I'm disavowing it. Here's the statement I made, again:

Quote

I actually think we do better out of the top ten. 

I then provided evidence of top 10 picks we seemed to have fumbled, and lower picks that are among our top prospects. 

If you're calling it coincidence, sure, I don't disagree. I think Getz might be a steadier influence on draft day than KW/Hahn were. We'll see. I also think Shirley's a better draft coordinator than Hostetler. 

It is pretty funny to see the way you, Quin, and that other guy just freak out over an 11 word sentence that really isn't saying much of anything. LOL. I'm actually impressed at how much of a threat you and Quin see me as in destroying your long crafted narratives. Every time I say something out of the box, you guys swarm like bees at the threat of somebody saying something provocative. 

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, WestEddy said:

I don't really see how I'm disavowing it. Here's the statement I made, again:

I then provided evidence of top 10 picks we seemed to have fumbled, and lower picks that are among our top prospects. 

If you're calling it coincidence, sure, I don't disagree. I think Getz might be a steadier influence on draft day than KW/Hahn were. We'll see. I also think Shirley's a better draft coordinator than Hostetler. 

It is pretty funny to see the way you, Quin, and that other guy just freak out over an 11 word sentence that really isn't saying much of anything. LOL. I'm actually impressed at how much of a threat you and Quin see me as in destroying your long crafted narratives. Every time I say something out of the box, you guys swarm like bees at the threat of somebody saying something provocative. 

Don't flatter yourself.  You attract an outsized level of attention for your propensity to make ridiculous statements and then run away from them when someone tries to get you to clarify, all while wrapping yourself in the martyr flag.  Your most common post is quite literally "I didn't say that."  If you don't like the attention that this brings, stand behind and defend your work like the rest of us.