Sox Top 10 Prospects

[winninguglyin83]

a great reminder for all that Borchard will take the elevator down from Number One to ???

 

And Reed was nowhere to be found on the list last season -- even though he was a second-round pick.

 

The problem?

 

No 'tools,' the favorite word of Baseball America.

 

In other words, buyer beware

[winninguglyin83]

one other thing:

 

It will be interesting to see how Webster and Rupe fare on the Rangers' list.

 

And Bittner with Anaheim. That one could really bite us in the ass because that kid pitched his ass off in High A ball for the Halos.

[Rex Hudler]

one other thing:

 

It will be interesting to see how Webster and Rupe fare on the Rangers' list.

 

And Bittner with Anaheim. That one could really bite us in the ass because that kid pitched his ass off in High A ball for the Halos.

My guess is Rupe comes in at #10 on the Rangers list. Webster will just miss. Bittner won't sniff Anaheim's top ten.

[whitesox61382]

Ask and ye shall receive......

 

BA 2003 Top Ten Prospects - Chicago White Sox

 

1. Borchard

2. Olivo

3. Webster

4. Honel

5. Rauch

6. Malone

7. Gonzalez

8. Diaz

9. Munoz

10. Ring

Wow, this really makes me rethink my list(for BA at least). It will be interesting to see if Reed jumps all the way to #1 even though I think he is clearly the Sox top prospect at this point. There will be a lot of new faces with Olivo in the majors, Webster and Ring traded away, and the struggles of Malone, Gonzalez, and Munoz. Here is my edited BA top 10 list:

 

1)Reed

2)Honel

3)Cotts

4)Borchard

5)Rauch

6)Diaz

7)Wing

8)Anderson

9)Sweeney

10)Munoz

 

Same players as my other list, but in a little different order.

[Rex Hudler]

If you would quit hanging onto Rauch and Diaz, you just might nail BA's list. LOL

[whitesox61382]

If you would quit hanging onto Rauch and Diaz, you just might nail BA's list.  LOL

The thing is that they were ranked last year and both pitched pretty well this past season. Almost half of last years list won't be on this years list, so I highly doubt that they will also drop Rauch and Diaz off the list as well. It wasn't like last year was a GREAT year for Sox prospects(except for a select few). Do you really think that BA won't have Rauch and Diaz on their list, especially considering the fact that the minor league system is pretty thin when it comes to pitching?

 

I think both Rupe and Webster will make the Texas list, although neither will be in the top 5.

 

I don't see Bittner making the Anaheim list with their strong minor league system, and the fact that Bittner is primarily a reliever.

 

Ring will easily make the Mets list. My guess is somewhere around 5th or 6th.

 

So we probably did a nice job of adding to other teams top 10 list this past season.

[Rex Hudler]

Diaz was 5-7 with a 3.97 ERA, gave up more hits than innings pitched and had an average BB:K ratio. I know Diaz has potential, but those aren't top prospect-like numbers. I believe BA will look for new blood rather than include Diaz and Rauch.

 

Texas and Anaheim's list haven't come out yet, but I do not expect both Rupe and Webster to make the Rangers list. The Mets list is already out and Ring is not in their Top Ten.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Diaz is 'iffy' as to whether or not he'll be on the list. But Rauch for sure will be on it. It takes time to come back from an injury like he had, then we further stunted his development by rushing him up. Last year, especially in the second half, he pitched quite well and gave hope that maybe he can come back and be a valuable part of this organization for many years to come. IMO, Rauch is pretty close to a 'shoe-in' for the list

[Rex Hudler]

Diaz is 'iffy' as to whether or not he'll be on the list. But Rauch for sure will be on it. It takes time to come back from an injury like he had, then we further stunted his development by rushing him up. Last year, especially in the second half, he pitched quite well and gave hope that maybe he can come back and be a valuable part of this organization for many years to come. IMO, Rauch is pretty close to a 'shoe-in' for the list

If only I were a betting man....... LOL

[ChiSox_Sonix]

If only I were a betting man.......  LOL

 

 

well we'll see

[winninguglyin83]

indeed Ring did NOT make the Mets' list -- and the Mets have a below average farm system.

[whitesox61382]

Diaz was 5-7 with a 3.97 ERA, gave up more hits than innings pitched and had an average BB:K ratio.  I know Diaz has potential, but those aren't top prospect-like numbers.  I believe BA will look for new blood rather than include Diaz and Rauch.

 

Texas and Anaheim's list haven't come out yet, but I do not expect both Rupe and Webster to make the Rangers list.  The Mets list is already out and Ring is not in their Top Ten.

I don't want to beat this topic to death, but Diaz put up some pretty solid numbers last year.

 

As I have stated many time, I hate when people point to pitchers records as an indicator of how good they are. Wins and loses are determined by the whole team and not solely the pitcher. Do you really think that Pettite wins 21 games if he pitched for the Tigers, or that Maroth loses 21 games if he pitched for the Yankees? Wins are even less important in the minors. While I hope that all the Sox minor league teams do well, I care more about the individual development of the players(especially the top prospects). This is why I throw wins and loses out the window when I am make a judgement on a minor leaguer.

 

His hits were a little higher then you would like, but 122 hits in 115.2 IP isn't terrible.

 

Like I mentioned in the thread the other week, the first two stats that I look at for both hitters and pitchers is BB and SO. Diaz displayed excelent control last year, walking only 2.57 batters per 9 innings. IMO good, in this case, great control is one of the most important things when moving from the minors to the majors, and it is usually a good indicator of how effective a pitcher will be in the majors(the key reason why Cotts struggled). His SO per 9 IP wasn't great at 6.46, but that isn't terrible either. His SO:BB ratio was very good at just over 2.5 SO per BB.

 

His ERA at 3.97 was decent, but when you factor into the equation that he pitched in a great hitters park it becomes pretty good.

 

Finally, one stat that I really like is that he only gave up 12 HR in 115.2 IP. That is pretty impressive and even more impressive when you consider that staduim that he pitches in.

 

Overall, Diaz put together a very good year statistically with the only negative being his Hits per IP. I certainly don't see any reason to drop Diaz based on these stats. Furthermore, I count as many as 6 spots being opened up(Olivo, Ring, Webster, Gonzalez, Malone, Munoz) for new faces, so I doubt they drop Diaz who is coming off a solid season. Rauch is in a similar situation, and I doubt they drop him off the board from the #5 spot after a solid season and a great second half.

 

How did Ring not make the Mets list? I realize that the Mets have improved their system over the past couple of years, but it is still middle of the pack at best. I guess that BA is not a big fan of relievers, because there is no other logical reasoning to leave him off the Mets list.

[Rex Hudler]

We'll agree to disagree with regards to Diaz' 2003. We can agree that he has potential, but his year was average, not great, won-loss record notwithstanding. He will not be in BA's Top 10. I can agree with you that he still has potential, just not that he deserves top prospect status.

 

Ditto on Rauch. Scouts have begun to sour on him and the fact the Sox didn't give him a September callup has to say something. Some kind of message was being sent.

 

Munoz will squeak back onto the list because he was very good in 2003, sans 3 early appearances. The fact he was overworked between 2002 and the winter will not cost him a spot.

 

My guess is that Ring didn't make the list because people stopped believing scouting reports that said he threw low-to-mid 90's when they saw him rarely ever reach 90. He consistently threw 86-88. That is not the way to get people to view you as a top notch closer prospect. His results were solid, so my guess it had to be the lack of velocity that hurt him.

[southsider2k5]

Actually I read something interesting about Rauch. One of the reasons he was called up was because that would be his last year he could have an option to the minors. Because he never got called up, it didn't count as a year, so if they put him on the ML roster this year, they can send him to the minors at anytime without haveing to expose him to waivers.

[whitesox61382]

We'll agree to disagree with regards to Diaz' 2003.  We can agree that he has potential, but his year was average, not great, won-loss record notwithstanding.  He will not be in BA's Top 10.  I can agree with you that he still has potential, just not that he deserves top prospect status.

 

Ditto on Rauch.  Scouts have begun to sour on him and the fact the Sox didn't give him a September callup has to say something.  Some kind of message was being sent.

 

Munoz will squeak back onto the list because he was very good in 2003, sans 3 early appearances.  The fact he was overworked between 2002 and the winter will not cost him a spot. 

 

My guess is that Ring didn't make the list because people stopped believing scouting reports that said he threw low-to-mid 90's when they saw him rarely ever reach 90.  He consistently threw 86-88.  That is not the way to get people to view you as a top notch closer prospect.  His results were solid, so my guess it had to be the lack of velocity that hurt him.

How can you say that Munoz put together a very good year that will keep him on the list, but Rauch and Diaz didn't? That doesn't make sense. I know that Munoz had a rough 1st couple of weeks and after that he pitched pretty solid, but even if you ignore his 1st couple of weeks his stats were very similar to Rauch and Diaz. Furthermore, as a reliever he should put up better numbers. If you are making a statistical arguement to support putting Munoz on the list, than you have to support Rauch and Diaz. Its that simple. When it comes to raw stuff, all 3 have above average but not great arms/stuff, so you really can't seperate them there. If Munoz is on the list(as a reliever with so-so numbers), than Diaz and Rauch HAVE to be on the list as starters with better numbers(and both were ranked higher in 2003 than Munoz). Its simple logic Rex. I am willing to bet that both Rauch and Diaz will be on the list this year.

 

I see Ring as a Guardado clone. Guardado almost never tops 92, but has relies on decent movement and good control to be very effective. I think Ring is in a similar mold and could easily put up numbers similar to Guardado. Most of the recent scouting reports I have read(mostly from fall ball) say that they have been impressed with Ring and that he has been in the hig 80's-low 90's with his fastball. I think it was a mistake not to put him on the Mets list.

[Rex Hudler]

How much do you want to bet?

[Chisoxfn]

one other thing:

 

It will be interesting to see how Webster and Rupe fare on the Rangers' list.

 

And Bittner with Anaheim. That one could really bite us in the ass because that kid pitched his ass off in High A ball for the Halos.

As I've said since day 1 of the trade, Rupe was the guy the Sox will regret giving up.

[Chisoxfn]

My big thing on Diaz, since I've never been able to see him pitch, other then one bullpen session is that for a guy with his "hyped" stuff, I haven't noticed the strikeout numbers and low opponent batting average to go with it.

 

I think his production in AAA has been impressive ERA wise, especially considering his age and all. But I always keep in mind how BA has over-rated a lot of prospects and think maybe all this hype about his stuff is just that.

 

I mean he looked solid in his bullpen session, but Its hard to really tell from the few pitches I caught, plus its even harder when he may of been working on one thing or another so he wasn't featuring his arsenal or wasn't going 100%, etc.

[winninguglyin83]

good stuff following the debate between you guys about Diaz and Rauch. It's what makes this board interesting. Sox are lucky to have fans as passionate as you two.

 

My take, having seen Rauch, but not Diaz, pitch is this:

 

Diaz appears to be a middle relief prospect at best. His hits per innings pitched are only average, his strikeouts about the same. Plus, the Sox moved him in and out of the rotation. He appeared in 27 games, starting 18. That indicates some uncertainty about whether he projects as a starting pitcher in the big leagues. At 23, he's still got time to make it, but I don't see him starting for the White Sox this season.

 

Rauch is harder to figure. It's impossible for him to be anything other than a disappointment considering all the hype he drew in 2000. When you are the Minor League Player of the Year there is nowhere to go but down, down, down. A minor league player of the year is supposed to be a Josh Beckett or Mark Prior, not a fourth or fifth starter. Tough for Rauch to live up to that now after his injury.

 

Then, when you don't get a call to the big leagues all season for a team that had garbage for a fifth starting pitcher, you have to wonder if the Sox have lost faith in him.

 

His hits/innings pitched ratio is better than Diaz, but his strikeout ratio is about the same. Anybody who has watched Rauch pitch understands that his strength is command, not stuff. He's not overpowering. But he does throw strikes. He's 25 and has spent TWO years at AAA. It's now or never for Rauch with the White Sox, in my opinion. I think he'll make the club, perhaps as the fifth starter.

[SoxAce]

Jon Rauch....:puke

[YASNY]

My comment is about Rauch. I feel that you can throw out the fact that he has been in AAA for two year, and not called up last year, right out the window. First of all, he was recovering from an injury, which a pitcher has to pitch through, but limits his effectiveness. Yoiu don't want a guy in that situation on the big club. Second, a very good point was made earlier about the club maintaining the ability to option him back down if the need arises. In fact, I think a smart club would do more of this kind of thing. It also limits his service time, and therefore pushes back arbitration and free agency eligibility.

 

Ring didn't make the Mets list. Hmmmm. That kinda gets the old wheels to grinding. Let's see, this guy was a first round draft choice. The Mets farm system is considered average or mediocre, at best, and Ring couldn't crack the top ten. What does that say about our scouting?

[winninguglyin83]

it sez Billy Beane was correct when he laughed at the Sox for leaving Joe Blanton on the board and taking Ring.

 

Blanton will be the next great young pitcher for Oakland -- and the Sox passed on him in 2002.

 

remember that name -- Joe Blanton.

[CWSOX45]

it sez Billy Beane was correct  when he laughed at the Sox for leaving Joe Blanton on the board and taking Ring.

 

Blanton will be the next great young pitcher for Oakland -- and the Sox passed on him in 2002.

 

remember that name -- Joe Blanton.

I actually worked at the Kane County Cougars (A's single-a affiliate) during the summer and I was fortunate enough to see Blanton pitch. Blanton has some good stuff, and incredible control. I really don't know what the hell Kenny Williams was thinking....

 

CWSOX45

[Guest JimH]

I actually worked at the Kane County Cougars (A's single-a affiliate) during the summer and I was fortunate enough to see Blanton pitch. Blanton has some good stuff, and incredible control. I really don't know what the hell Kenny Williams was thinking....

 

CWSOX45

Williams has little, if anything, to do with the draft. That would've been Doug Laumann.

 

Even still, the point is well taken. Blanton was considered by BA to be a good pick for the White Sox. They didn't take him and it looks like Blanton might be a good one.

[Rex Hudler]

Williams has little, if anything, to do with the draft.  That would've been Doug Laumann.

 

Even still, the point is well taken.  Blanton was considered by BA to be a good pick for the White Sox.  They didn't take him and it looks like Blanton might be a good one.

That's not true Jim. Every GM is very involved in the first few rounds of the draft as well as the planning of their draft strategy.

 

Laumann was very involved in that process, but to try and give KW a free pass because he "is not involved" is either not true or if true, then very indicative of KW's lack of skills as a GM.